Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4738] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I speak in favour of the bill because there absolutely needs to be some certainty in the forestry sector. This industry requires 30 years of certainty in order to get anything done. Without that certainty we will have no investment. That is what this bill provides. 
I heard the Minister stand up and say this amendment to the principal Act needed to happen because the forestry industry was not ready for the emissions trading scheme to come into place when it was scheduled to this year. I do not agree with that. I think the Minister undervalues and underestimates the professionalism of the industry and the people who are involved in it. Those people have been ready for a long time. The Minister heard them speak about that at their annual conference which I attended. The theme of the annual conference of the New Zealand Institute of Forestry which is the premium professional body for foresters was forestry in a climate of change. It dealt with the issues and questions that are salient to this very issue. For example the institute had a 1-day workshop on the emissions trading scheme and it included things like “Procedures for Applying and Registering for the ETS”; “Applying for an NZEUR Holding Account”; “ETS Mapping Standard and Mapping Guide”; and “Use of Carbon Look-up Tables and Filing Emissions Returns.” 
There was a very large attendance at the conference. The Minister was there and he spoke to the attendees. The people at the conference were the consultants the investors and the people who know the forestry industry. They were industry leaders and they were students—a whole range of people. The institute is the professional body that represents foresters right across New Zealand. Its members are ready for the emissions trading scheme. When the Minister announced that the scheme was going to be delayed for another year there were howls and cries of “Oh my God! Here we are again.” I personally think the industry was well ready for it. I think the Minister and the ministry were not ready for it because they had not done the work. The forestry industry wanted the scheme and all the people in the industry understood it. The questions and the discussion at the 1-day workshop were informed. It was an intelligent debate and intelligent questions were asked. The people whom I spoke to all walked away saying “We want the emissions trading scheme. Thank goodness for this scheme because it will allow the forestry industry to refocus and revalue its value proposition for the whole of the country.” 
Now as a consequence of the delay and as my colleague Mr Chauvel noted 8 million seedlings are rotting in the ground at the moment—8 million seedlings that have had to be ploughed in. The nurseries are in huge trouble. It will be interesting to see what Mr Key and Mr English will do for those companies because they will be very very important going forward. This delay is a huge disservice to the forestry industry. This bill may be technical in terms of the legislative change that it makes but its impact on the industry is significant. 
We all know that Labour developed a programme of global leadership on climate change and we did that for a number of reasons. First and foremost as Nikki Kaye mentioned climate change is vitally important to the people of New Zealand. But the reason Labour developed the emissions trading scheme and the reason Labour took a global overview of and a leadership role on climate change is that we were aspirational. Instead of just talking about the issue we decided to do something about it I say to Nikki. We decided to go out there lead the world and promote our clean green image. We went out there and told people what we wanted to do. The Labour Party tells New Zealanders what it wants to do and it does it—it goes and does it. We were in the process of doing that when we were in Government. Labour was acknowledged as a global leader on this issue I say to Nikki—and she knows that. 
I completely agree with Nikki Kaye when she says there has to be a plan. That is why I am standing here with a sense of disappointment because there was a plan in place. The forestry industry had a plan in place. It was ready to go. Come June 2009 the industry was ready to be off: its marketing plans were in place and New Zealand was going to become the carbon-farming nation of the world. The plan was there and it was ready to go. All it required was sign-off. But the Government has delayed the emissions trading scheme for a year. The industry is saying “Oh my God! Why didn’t we vote for Labour? We need Labour back to implement a very strong forestry sector.” Finally the industry has realised that Labour is the party of the agricultural sector. It has taken a while but finally people have opened their eyes and are saying “We need Labour back. Labour had a plan and the Nats haven’t got a plan. There is no plan.” 
Nick Smith was asked a question at the institute’s conference about why he had cut the East Coast reforestation scheme. He said it was because it was undersubscribed. About 50 people jumped up and said it was oversubscribed. Labour knows about forestry the foresters know about the forest industry and the foresters were ready for the emissions trading scheme. I can say that is true without a question of doubt. 
Let me look at some of the initiatives Labour put in place such as carbon neutrality. What a fantastic programme that was. I heard the head of a Kiwi wine company a really innovative company say it had gone carbon neutral. The company’s products were sold overseas in Marks and Spencer and were gaining a huge competitive advantage because the European market loved the fact that the wine was carbon neutral. This is an example of New Zealand leading the world. Why do we lead the world? We need to understand where our competitive advantages lie in the 21st century. I will tell members where one of them lies. 
Nikki Kaye 
: 13 percent increase in emissions. Is that leading the world? 
STUART NASH 
: It is in international tourism. Every time that member opens her mouth the emissions go way up because a lot of hot air comes out. Let me tell members about international tourism. I know that Kelvin Davis is the Opposition spokesperson on tourism; I know that and the whole of the tourism industry knows that. I keep forgetting who the Minister of Tourism is. Do any of my colleagues know? I ask Pete Hodgson whether he knows who it is. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Jonathan Coleman? 
STUART NASH 
: Is it Jonathan Coleman? Jonathan Coleman the Minister of Tourism—[ 
Interruption 
] It is John Key is it not? I cannot remember who it is. I would have thought that the Ministry of Tourism and the Minister of Tourism with this amazing portfolio had a real opportunity to bank on the great work that the previous Labour Government did on promoting our “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign and growing tourism to become our highest export earner. Do members know that tourism makes up 20 percent of the economy? Do members know that one in 10 New Zealanders have jobs related to tourism? This is where our competitive advantage lies. It lies in tourism. 
I will tell members the basis of the tourism industry. It is our wonderful clean green image and the whole emissions trading thing was building on that. We were on our way. The flow-down effects of this scheme were just fantastic yet here we are delaying it again and again. The delay not only erodes the confidence that the forestry sector has in the National Government but it erodes the international perspective—the way that people overseas view our country. The flow-down effects are dreadful; I find this delay difficult to believe in. I ask Nick Smith whether it is a joke. Is he really doing this? Is he going to pull something out of the hat and say “No I made a mistake. The forestry industry is ready for this. Let’s go with it now.”? I suspect not. 
The other point is that in this time of recession we need to do everything we possibly can to promote New Zealand overseas. Carbon neutrality is fantastic. The emissions trading scheme is fantastic. Getting the forestry sector on board is fantastic. Growing an industry for carbon farming—how 21st century is that? That is the way forward for this country; it is one of our amazing competitive advantages. But one of the paradoxes of New Zealand’s competitive advantage is agriculture. As we all know agriculture is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. We have agriculture emitting gases and we have forestry soaking them up. It is a fantastic way to best use our land. It is about sustainable land use. It is about the best use of land and we had it all there. The forestry industry was ready and set. It has been told to wait—to hold it a second. It has been told to take 12 months delay the investment delay the marketing and maybe the scheme will be ready to go next year. Who knows I say to Nick Smith maybe it will be. 
Let me tell members a little about the forestry industry. Foresters grow trees—funny that; they grow trees. In the past the forestry industry has cut down those trees. Fantastic! The industry grows them then cuts them down and turns them into timber pulp or whatever else the product may be. But here is something new: we can grow trees for carbon. Fantastic! We do not have to cut them down because of course every time we cut down a tree it releases carbon into the atmosphere. If we have carbon credits then every time we cut down the trees and do not replant them we have to pay back the money we have earned on those carbon credits. But now there is a fantastic opportunity to grow trees for carbon. The forestry industry is worth $3.2 billion and in 10 years’ time it will be worth $6.4 billion if not more than that. It employs 32000 people. Carbon farming is now an option for forestry. It now provides an option for the industry to plant trees in areas where in the past forestry would not have been considered. This is a new way forward for New Zealand. It is a new way forward for the forestry industry and the Government has set that back for a year. 
I do support this bill; I really do. The forestry industry does need to have certainty—it is a good thing—but that needed to happen a year earlier than this. Investment in forestry—goodness me! How do I know about this? Because I have a master’s degree in forestry science around investment in forestry. When I read about this—planting trees and farming them for carbon credits—I know it is to New Zealand’s competitive advantage.