Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7751] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: Following the Prime Minister’s statement to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that there was never “any promise to industry that the credits would be devolved” has the Government in any way ever indicated that farmers and foresters would own any carbon credits attached to their trees; if so when? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please stop chipping at each other. If they want to have a private conversation would they please leave the Chamber. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 This Government has never promised carbon credits to anyone except for the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative which has the unanimous support of this House. However the Government is presently consulting on a range of options to encourage afforestation. One option proposes to devolve credits to those who plant new forests from 1 January next year. That would be a world first and if it proceeds it is hoped it will incentivise the planting of new forests. 
Rodney Hide 
: What then is the status of senior policy analyst Kevin Steel who wrote to farmers in the  
MAF Rural Bulletin 
 in June 2000: “Cast your mind forward … NZ’s farmers are well placed as sellers in this market. The carbon credits they own (like trees) have just become more valuable and the return from their sales provides a welcome respite from continuing difficult market conditions for primary products.”; why would farmers not conclude from that statement that they were being promised the credits for the carbon sink of their own trees? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that if we take the words of a very fine official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry who has served successive Governments very well in terms of forestry and the issues that surround that we would think through to the period of 2008 when the Government is actually proposing to do exactly that. Kevin Steel was right to forecast that. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the question of devolving carbon credits? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As usual I have. I have seen the ACT party’s environment and conservation policy which does not propose devolving credits to foresters. I have also seen the National Party’s Bluegreen discussion document which although still a draft document is the closest thing that the National Party has to a policy—and it does not propose devolving carbon credits to anyone. So although the Opposition tries in this House to paint itself as a short-term benefactor of the few it is offering nothing but hollow gestures of support. Meanwhile this Government is consulting on an allocation of carbon credits for all new forests planted from next year onwards which is a world first. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can we believe anything this Government says when we are told not to believe the word of the most senior forestry official in Jim Anderton’s office when he writes in an official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry publication and when yesterday we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister saying that we cannot even take the word of Winston Peters as a Minister; who speaks for this Government if it is not a senior Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think every single member of this House except perhaps Dr Nick Smith understands how officials in Government ministries give advice and write papers for discussion and consultation. I would refer him to the commitment or the promise—whichever way he likes to describe it—made in 1999 prior to the Labour-led Government’s coming into office when the then Minister for the Environment Simon Upton was telling people that it was his preference that the carbon credits would be devolved to forest owners. But it was never Government policy. He made that statement but it was never Government policy. I do not hold the National Party any more accountable for that than I do for the silly suggestion that we should hold reputable Government servants responsible for a non-Government policy when it was just a newsletter from a Government ministry discussing issues for the future. If we try to discourage that we will not have any decent advice given to us at all. It is ridiculous! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement from Mr Anderton’s senior adviser so that the House may be able to read exactly what taxpayers’ money was being spent on—distributed from the ministry’s revenue—and what the Government’s policy was. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet or they will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement from Mr Anderton that any suggestion that carbon credits belonged to foresters was not worth a cup of cold water. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it then the case with this Government that when senior civil servants write in a Government publication that: “NZ’s farmers are well placed as sellers in this market” that because an elected politician has not said it the statement itself is meaningless and in fact the word of civil servants and their publications are of no value unless an elected representative actually says the same thing; what does that then say about Kevin Steel—is what he was saying in that document a lie? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We are looking at the period between 1998 and 2001 when officials were working under the direction of both the former National-led Government and the Labour-led Government on issues of climate change policy forestry policy and so on. Those documents were sent out for discussion and consultation as they should have been. But at no stage did that work promise or commit that there would be ownership of credits although it is probably reasonable that some expectation of credits was developed. But at the time even this Government understood that there was a huge credit in terms of emissions under the Kyoto regime. Subsequently scientific evidence suggested that that was not true. If Governments remain with policies when the evidence that comes before them shows that the basis on which some of the assumptions were made and discussions were held was erroneous then it would be the consistency of fools for the Government not to let the facts get in the way of prejudice. This Government has no record of letting that happen. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table a news release from the forest industry calling for this Minister to resign or be sacked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.