Carter David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13808] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As has been stated earlier by my colleagues Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee National supports the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to the select committee but we do so with caution. We will use that select committee process very very carefully to analyse or attempt to analyse the effect that this legislation will have on New Zealand’s economy. Under no circumstance can I accept legislation that will significantly impact on our New Zealand economy at a rate far greater than any similar economy in the world. That will not achieve anything for New Zealand. 
I want to pick up on two or three comments that have been made by earlier speakers. Firstly in relation to the contribution made by the ACT member Rodney Hide I say to him that it is not an option to do nothing. New Zealand ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. There was significant debate around that decision of Helen Clark to ratify at that time. I remember National arguing very strongly that we did not need to be ahead of our major trading partners. But that debate is a past debate. New Zealand has ratified Kyoto. We have significant international commitments to meet; therefore we have to get on with it. 
The current Government has an appalling history of rushing to ratify and then spending 5 years to get to the current position. The Government had the “fart tax” as its first proposal. Well that cost the member who promoted it—the Hon Jim Sutton—his job. He is no longer in Parliament. Then Labour pronounced a carbon tax and we have had a number of people talk about that today. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: That bit the dust. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That bit the dust as Doug Woolerton said. So there is an urgency about this matter and I say to Mr Hide that the option of doing nothing is not a runner. 
The second comment I picked up was from the Minister who introduced the legislation Trevor Mallard. He said that this is landmark legislation and that is very very true. This is the most complicated piece of legislation I have ever had to grapple with. A lot of tax legislation goes through here—terribly complex stuff—but because there is a benchmark preceding it it is easier for me as a member of Parliament to get my head around it. This is ground-breaking legislation. As mentioned by a number of speakers this is about an emissions trading scheme that is far wider than attempts made by any other country in the world. No other country in the world has attempted to put agriculture into an emissions trading scheme and I will talk about that later. I am not arguing for 1 minute that agriculture be exempted; I am just saying that we must get this right for the future of our economy. 
The important point about this legislation as it goes to the select committee is that our emissions trading scheme will be one that will work. There are thousands of variations to an emissions trading scheme but for one to work properly it must introduce behavioural and management changes to those who emit. If it does not work properly we are simply back to where Labour was and in effect we are putting a de facto tax on emitters. If it does not change behaviour then we are not actually achieving anything to address global warming. That is what I will watch in the select committee process—that we truly have an emissions trading scheme that is about emitters and those in a credit position being able to negotiate between themselves and more important that gives signals back to emitters that they need to do something responsible about reducing their emissions. 
One of the things that I fear as I understand the legislation introduced in regard to agriculture is the proposal to signal the collection of any liability to agriculture at the point of the processors—the meat companies the Fonterras and others. If that happens we are missing a very valuable opportunity to get that signal back to the farmer who ultimately will pay the cost. For example if I send lambs from my farm to the works and there is an associated cost levied by the Government on the freezing company then I will cop the cost. But if I am a guy who wants to do something about it on my particular property—as opposed to my neighbour who says “I couldn’t care less and I’m not going to take any action at all.”—that is the sort of emissions trading scheme that has to get back with the correct signals to those who can change behaviour to do something about it. 
The legislation will be examined very very closely at the select committee. One of the questions I will ask is one I have already asked of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials when they were before the Primary Production Committee a couple of weeks ago: “What work have you done Mr Murray Sherwin as the Director-General of Agriculture as to the impacts of this proposed legislation on farmers?”. His answer was in my mind close to irresponsible. He said to the select committee: “We have done no real work because the matter is too complex.” Now this country is so reliant on agriculture that we cannot make decisions without knowing what the financial impact will be and that is certainly an issue that I will be teasing out at the select committee. 
The third comment that was made in this House earlier today that I want to pick up on was from the current Minister of Forestry and Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton. He said something that is probably typical of Mr Anderton. It reflected his absolute ignorance and I found it offensive. He suggested that anybody who questions this legislation is in effect a sceptic about climate change. I am totally fed up with people who call me a sceptic simply because I question the economics of this and the effect it will have on New Zealand agriculture. Mr Anderton is the Minister of Forestry who has overseen 15 million trees coming out and he is the person who has seen our forestry situation in New Zealand go to a net deforestation figure for the first time in 50 years. 
The more alarming statement made by Mr Anderton was that agriculture had to pay its share of the burden because agricultural emissions have increased substantially since 1990. I say to Mr Anderton that he should go and do some research. If he bothered to contact the Parliamentary Library it would tell him that agricultural emissions from 1990 until 2005 have gone up 15.2 percent—effectively 1 percent a year. By comparison energy industries emissions have gone up 53.7 percent and transport emissions have gone up 61.9 percent. So again I say to Mr Anderton—who is meant to represent the farmers of this country—that he should know the facts. The growth in emissions from 1990 until today has been in small part agriculture—and significantly around dairy conversions—but in no way should agriculture be hung out by that Minister as the industry that is to blame. 
My final point is that I accept that the need to do something is urgent but we cannot do anything that makes this economy suffer. If we get this wrong—and do not get an emissions trading system that sends the correct signal to our New Zealand farming industry—we will do two things. Firstly at the end of each commitment period we will transfer a bundle of money to the Russians. That will not help global warming. Secondly and more important we will put New Zealand agriculture at a competitive disadvantage compared with other people who produce similar products in countries such as Australia or South America. 
Parliament needs to realise that the New Zealand economy is based on primary production and what we produce is not unique in its quantum—it is unique in its quality; I will accept that—and what we produce here can be produced elsewhere. At the end of the day if we impose a huge cost on New Zealand farmers and no other country does that means that our product suddenly becomes difficult to sell. Again what have we achieved for global warming? 
The one thing that Mr Anderton was right about when he made his contribution is that this does present opportunities for us. The initial reports from the likes of Lincoln University show that in a carbon efficiency sense New Zealand’s farming systems are very very efficient. The world needs to note that there is no point in making it difficult for New Zealand to carry on an efficient farming system and then make it easier for the European producers who are huge emitters themselves in an agricultural sense. There is no sense in transferring the wealth from this country to make us poorer and to make the Russians wealthier.