SpeechANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Well thank you Madam Speaker. I suppose the pressure is all on me now that unfortunately Nathan Guy could not finish his contribution. I unfortunately didn't sit on the select committee that considered the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill but I have enjoyed listening to the debate this afternoon and indeed I enjoyed a lot of the committee stage as well. I just want to echo my colleague Nathan Guy's comments in relation to James Shaw throughout that process. He sat through I think all of it and answered a lot of questions that we had on this side of the House and I'd like to commend him for that. But I just want to run through a couple of the contributions that we've heard from the other side this afternoon and the first one of those that I heard was from Duncan Webb. Duncan Webb I thought made an interesting contribution when he said Forests are not the way to a carbon-free future."—forests are not the way to a carbon-free future. I thought to myself: well tell that to Shane Jones. Tell that to Shane Jones who as Minister of Forestry has led an overseas investment on a scale that's unprecedented in terms of forestry investment to specifically invest solely in forests for more forests in New Zealand. And I'd like to ask that member and perhaps we can catch up afterwards about it about what it is or why is it that he thinks that if forestry should not be the future for a carbon-free future then why is it that we're seeing so much new forest go into places like the Wairarapa? Why are we seeing new forests go into places like Marlborough where there has just been a sale recently for more forests to go into Marlborough?He also touched on an interesting point I thought where he said in his argument against delay that we shouldn't delay because technology is happening. Well I actually agree with him on that. Technology is happening but it's not here yet a lot of it. There is a lot of fantastic stuff happening and some of those things have been touched on in the House this afternoon. One of those is around a higher-fat ryegrass. Another one of those is around an algae or seaweed which has the potential to reduce methane emissions amongst cattle. Those things are really really positive. But the problem is that those things haven't happened yet. They're not out there on our farms happening now reducing those emissions. So the problem that we have on this side of the House with this bill is that you're leaving farmers in a position that they cannot escape the additional cost. They can either decrease their herd sizes. They can decrease productivity. They can I suppose do less and that will mean that more people around the world will go hungry or it'll mean that other nations around the world increase their productivity and I'll come back to that in a minute. Now the problem with that is that if you're not giving farmers a pathway all they're doing is putting a higher cost or lower production. And the problem with lower production if all we're doing is exporting that food production around the world is that's actually going to cause higher global emissions because if members opposite hadn't realised although we have relatively high per capita emissions in the world we actually have very efficient farming processes in this country. So it means that if we produce less food—at the moment we produce enough food to feed about 40 million people around the world—and that food production is exported around the world less efficient farmers will be producing it and that means that global emissions will go up. The other problem we have with it is that it'll make New Zealand poorer. So if we're producing less if we're exporting that production around the world it'll mean that we here in New Zealand are earning less from what we produce and that's being talked about in the context this afternoon of potentially 140000 or 160000 job losses. That was a point that Duncan Webb touched on when he talked about: why delay—why delay? Well the argument actually Duncan Webb is because we are in unprecedented economic circumstances—unprecedented economic circumstances—where Treasury project that we'll lose between 140000 and 160000 jobs around the world. So I ask members opposite: where will those jobs come from? Where will those jobs be created—those between 140000 and 160000 jobs projected to be lost by the end of the year—Hon Nathan Guy: That's here in New Zealand.ANDREW FALLOON: —where will those jobs—exactly that's here in New Zealand. Where will those additional jobs be created? Hon Nathan Guy: Wilding pines.ANDREW FALLOON: Because it's not actually all—well wilding pines. Potentially wilding pines are an option. Wallabies of course and I was a bit disappointed about Chlöe Swarbrick's views on wallabies actually because I thought they were these you know cuddly animal welfare advocates and of course these wonderful creatures down in Waimate—I'm sure my colleague Jacqui Dean won't agree with me of course because they are unfortunately a massive pest in the area. But here's the Greens putting up these green jobs these wonderful green jobs to go out and destroy wallabies which I found a bit disappointing from Chlöe Swarbrick.James Shaw in an earlier debate—I think it was in the committee stage—was quite disparaging of National's position which was of course to delay the provisions in this bill by 12 months. He said that the position of delay could be made at any point in our recent economic history. That was essentially his point. I think I've summarised that accurately. That says to me actually that he doesn't quite understand or fathom the unprecedented economic circumstances that we currently find ourselves in because of course maybe 10 years ago maybe 20 years ago if people had called for delay then that might have been unreasonable but now it's not. Now it's absolutely not. We are losing—Hon David Parker: And it's not and it was the same party.ANDREW FALLOON: We are losing Mr Parker between 140000 and 160000 jobs out of the New Zealand economy before the end of this year and you are talking—Hon David Parker: No we won't.ANDREW FALLOON: You are talking Mr Parker about—Hon David Parker: What a doomsayer.ANDREW FALLOON: —about—well I'm sorry. They're the Government's own projections from Treasury that 160000 jobs will be lost before the end of this year. They're the Government's own projections.Hon David Parker: No. The member missed question time.ANDREW FALLOON: If you want Mr Parker to contradict those if you want to come up and say that they're wrong if you want to say that Treasury are wrong you're welcome to do so but they are the Government's own numbers.Now Chlöe Swarbrick called out earlier in the debate that we are opposing this bill. She said that it's opposition for opposition's sake. Nothing could be further from the truth Ms Swarbrick. We stand for jobs we stand beside farmers and we stand in support of the economic contribution that they make. And the reason I make that point is because I was talking to a friend of mine recently who's about to lose his job unfortunately. He said "I was looking in the paper and every job that was available was on a farm." Every job that was available was on farms. And he's the sort of guy—he's a pretty practical guy—who'll probably go out and get a job on a farm. Good on him for doing that but there's a lot of people out there in the position that won't be able to do that. For a long time to come probably for at least the next 12 months we're going to be in a position where tens of thousands of New Zealanders are losing their jobs. Unfortunately the Government's not creating the jobs doesn't have a plan to create jobs and a lot of the jobs that exist are on farms. And the Government's response to that—or at least the Green Party's response to that—has been "Oh but what about green jobs? What about green jobs?" Well I'll just ask the Government this. They've been in Government for nearly three years. Where are those green jobs? Where are those green jobs that they said they would create? Where are those green jobs that will employ between 140000 and 160000 New Zealanders before the end of the year? I'll tell the Government members opposite: they don't exist. The jobs that exist right now are on farms. They're on dairy farms they're on crop farms and they're on pig farms. They're on farms all across this country and it's that industry that can take up the slack. It's that industry that can get out there and employ people. This bill has the potential to cause great harm. This bill all it does to farmers is it sticks them with more cost—sticks them with more cost—and if you talk to any business owner any farmer about where they will pull that cost back from it tends to be staff because a lot of our farmers are price takers. Mr Parker knows this. A lot of our farmers are price takers. They can't just stick another dollar stick another $2 on the cost of what they produce. For a lot of them if they have to pay out another $100000 a year another $150000 a year what it means for them is fewer people on their farm employed—fewer people in their business employed. That's what this bill has the potential to do: to lose those jobs to lose those jobs that we're going to need over the next 12 months. For that reason we oppose it."