Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2268] 
4.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What proposals does the Government have to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture given that they account for 49 percent of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Cost-effective technologies to reduce agricultural emissions are currently limited. The Government’s strategy is to find new technologies and prove their effectiveness. This requires of course research. This research has been under way for some time under an industry-Government partnership known as the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium that currently has a budget of $3.6 million a year. There are a number of promising options many of which both reduce greenhouse gases and increase productivity. As the member will be aware the Government is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of climate change policy including agricultural emissions. Decisions will be made this year on the future direction of climate policy. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is he not concerned that all his good proposals and ideas are being undermined by the conversion of 1200 hectares of forestry land to pasture each year for the next 20 years by the State-owned enterprise Landcorp when the annual carbon cost of this conversion is about 1 million additional tonnes of carbon per year? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Landcorp of course is a State-owned enterprise operating commercially within the same environment as other private landowners. The Government is concerned that investment decisions around land use in New Zealand do not currently take into account the effect on New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. That goes for both State-owned and private enterprises. This issue is one that is being actively reviewed and considered with the climate change policy review. However it is important that we develop policy that helps people to make the right choices for the social environmental and economic well-being of New Zealand. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen a report from the leader of the National Party which stated: “I am one who thinks the science of climate change is debatable.” This view is contrary of course to the view of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who stated recently: “Apart from a diminishing handful of sceptics there is a virtual worldwide scientific consensus on the scope of the problem.” This seems to demonstrate to me that the leader of the National Party is completely out of step with scientific thinking around the world on this issue and if he is so unsure about an issue of such significance to humanity how on earth can he aspire to run this country as the Prime Minister of it? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The last bit of the Minister’s answer was out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You just heard that response to the Minister’s answer which was a barracking from the National Party—again—and I ask you to contrast that with the cross benches of the House here where in the main people behave themselves and listen to the answers. I do not see why one section of this House can carry on like this day in and day out. One would not mind if it were one or two interjections but there are about seven or eight interjections at a time. Now that is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But the Minister was out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There he goes again—“Young Nick”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I was speaking to a point of order—sit down! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please sit down. The member is speaking to the point of order. I would also put members on their last warning about interjecting at times when people are asking questions or making points of order. I ask that member for the last time to respect the rules of this House. Would the member now please come to the conclusion of his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But that is my point. The fact of the matter is there is a barrage going on over there and we can barely hear the answers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The very ruling you gave today Madam Speaker which I have in front of me makes it absolutely plain that the Minister’s response was out of order. It was not out of order for just one sentence but it was for three or four sentences and you chose to do nothing. So the Opposition had no choice other than to barrack at that sort of response. Equally every single day we have Winston Peters making irrelevant points of order—they are just cheap political pot-shots—and again we are given no choice but to respond. All it requires Madam Speaker is for you to enforce the very ruling that you have given today. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Even if there was any virtue in that point of order if members feel that a Minister is in breach then of course they raise a point of order. They do not all start yelling together and that is the point made by Mr Peters. It is that the National Party continually just barracks and barracks and barracks. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did agree but the point was that the barracking was such that it is very difficult to hear. When I did hear that the answer was not consistent with the question asked I intervened. The member probably did not hear the answer because of the barracking. The rules are that if members do not agree they should raise a point of order. Then there will be silence and we can hear the answers. I ask members to please keep the level of noise down. We will now proceed with question time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister believe that the paltry sum of $3.6 million a year spent on agricultural animal emissions is sufficient given the scale of the climate change problem the fact that 49 percent of emissions come from agriculture the fact that New Zealand has significant research expertise in the area of animal husbandry and the fact that the Government has had to decline a significant number of research projects because of the inadequate budget? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It almost certainly is not enough and the Government is looking at that this year. But I have to say that it is a lot more than would probably come from a party led by somebody who denies that climate change is a problem at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was that in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was in order Dr Smith. The Minister addressed the question. He said there was not enough. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The first part of the Minister’s answer in which he responded to my question was perfectly in order. But can you please explain to the House how the cheap shot at the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash in any way complied with your ruling. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It used to be the case that this was a robust Chamber in terms of debate and exchanges and people were not quite so precious about certain matters. I have listened to question after question today which are questions about certain matters around integrity and various other aspects of various Ministers. That is the nature of Parliament. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition has tried to deny that climate change exists and that is a robust response from the Minister in terms of the question asked by the member. The Minister said that the problem was such a serious one that we should spend a lot more money on it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are you going to give your ruling? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. The answer was perfectly in order. That was my ruling. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for there being another point of order but I am increasingly concerned about the behaviour of the member opposite which is something I would like you to consider. He raises points of order but then directly challenges you in the Chair not by way of a point of order but by yelling at you from his seat and trying to intimidate the Chair. It is absolutely inappropriate behaviour and I ask you to give some consideration to it because challenging the authority of the Chair is not a practice we would want a whole lot of members to engage in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. I just ask the House to settle so we can proceed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that the cost of buying credits to cover just the current agricultural emissions is about $400 million a year and does he not think it would be much more cost effective both for the farmers and for the country if farmers are incentivised to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now—for example through the production of biogas from farm wastes planting of forests better fertiliser management and the development of alternative seeds as set out in the Greens’ paper  
Turn Down the Heat 
? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think the member makes a number of fair points. I have looked at the policy paper of the Greens and congratulate them on being one of the parties outside of the Government parties that have put forward constructive ideas. The Government is considering these matters as it reviews its climate change policy. 
Metiria Turei 
: What proposals does the Minister have to ensure that farmers are developing land and particularly water-use systems that are ecologically and economically sustainable given the report of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research predicting that due to climate change eastern New Zealand will become markedly drier and when 58 percent of New Zealand’s farm area is on the east coast? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These and a number of other issues like nitrification and the difficulties of quality and access to and supply of water are all on the Government’s programme in terms of the review of the climate change problem and policy initiatives will be announced as the year goes on. I am expecting this review to be completed by the middle of the year. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree with the Green Party’s  
Turn Down the Heat 
 proposal to cap agricultural greenhouse emissions and moreover does he not think that New Zealanders would be very shocked that New Zealand will have to buy credits from countries overseas because we simply failed to properly invest in Kiwi solutions today? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I said I have looked carefully at the Green Party’s proposals and there are a number of them. I do not agree with them all but a number are worthwhile. Can I just say that it would be entirely unattractive to the Government and to the Minister of Finance in particular not to take initiatives inside New Zealand and invest in our own development in terms of climate change rather than handing money to anyone offshore.