Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4565] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I too rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I do so for several reasons but the main reason is that the country needs to be given a level of certainty around climate change and the Government’s response to the major global issue around greenhouse gas emissions. We all know that under Helen Clark’s leadership this country used to lead the world in terms of climate change policy. However the rhetoric of Key and English at the last election tried to divide economic sustainability and success from prudent environmental management. In a country like New Zealand that need not be so. First and foremost we absolutely need to understand where New Zealand’s competitive advantage lies and that is especially so in this day and age of globalisation where increasingly countries market themselves and develop a series of brand attributes that companies can then go out and leverage themselves off when marketing themselves in the international market. 
What is our competitive advantage? It is our clean green image based partially on the perception that we live in a country that cares about the environment and cares about a future when carbon neutrality is a reality and in a country where achieving zero emissions is a policy that is aspirational and something that all New Zealanders should buy into. That image will provide us with a competitive advantage given that brands are vital not only to success but also I would argue to the survival of small economies like ours. Actually that is more so in a country like ours than elsewhere. We face the tyranny of distance and we must be great at creating markets that are built upon a perception of real excellence in the areas where we wish to differentiate ourselves. 
What is the clean green image worth? Let me quote from a report that the Ministry for the Environment wrote on this very point: “New Zealand’s clean green image does have a value. Environmental image is a substantial driver to the value New Zealand can derive from goods and services in the international market place. The study suggests this image is worth at least hundreds of millions possibly billions of dollars—aggregating value elements from dairy tourism”—Kelvin Davis spoke about that earlier—“and organic produce and extrapolating to other sectors such as meat. New Zealand is relatively clean and green. This is mainly attributable to our low population density resulting in relatively benign environmental pressures.” 
The emissions trading scheme put forward by the previous Government a Labour Government was a real positive step in the right direction. The National Government’s dilly-dallying on this very important legislation I contend shows a lack of leadership. Also it potentially inflicts serious harm on the country’s ability to successfully show global leadership. As those members who are in the House will know many countries around the world have used this recession to start the transition for the citizens of their country from a fossil fuel - dependent economy to one known as a green economy. But since taking office last November the National Government has walked away from a strategy for long-term low-pollution economic growth. Instead of the plan that we had hoped to see in the Budget National has simply caused uncertainty. Uncertainty causes a loss of jobs loss of credibility and loss of investment in key New Zealand industries. 
As for forestry I ask whether the Minister understands anything about the forest industry and its underlying dynamics. It does not sound as though he does at all. This industry is one of the largest earners of export dollars yet again it is being treated very poorly due to a lack of decisive leadership vision economic development and an understanding of the key employer of New Zealanders. Forestry demands a rotation of between 24 and 30 years. With a crop that takes that length of time to reach an economically viable age legislative certainty is a must policy certainty is imperative and sound direction is vital. This was Labour legislation that we had consulted the forestry industry on widely. We listened to the industry’s requirements and changed the bill accordingly in response to the industry’s input. We were pretty far down the path towards creating an environment that would allow the forestry industry to completely rebrand itself and refocus its attention towards the best land-use options. 
When I lived in Taranaki I used to write forestry plans for farmers in the belief that optimising land use was the best way to be a responsible steward of the land. The plans I would write now would differ significantly from the plans I used to write 10 years ago because there are forestry programmes in place that allow forests to be farmed for carbon. Forestry has the ability to act as a very important carbon sink; we all know that. The economic possibilities are endless. The time is now right for forestry to move to the next level of economic development and market itself to a whole new sector of non-traditional forest owners. There are possibilities where for example Maori landowners who demand an economic rent from their land but who do not wish to own the assets resident upon their own land can manage a forestry resource on behalf of an owner who is searching for carbon credits. That is the way forward for this industry as it allows land to be used in a truly optimal way. That is the way forward for New Zealand because it allows us to make the most of our competitive advantage. 
Forestry and the associated industries employ around 32000 people. Export earnings from the forestry sector bring in about $3.4 billion annually. This is a serious industry that contributes significantly to the country’s economic well-being. The sector not only requires but demands certainty in order to be able to invest grow and market itself internationally. I say to Dr Smith that this bill and its proposal to delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme delays the establishment of certainty once again. He heard the guys from the Institute of Forestry talk about this saying they are dismayed about the delay again. The benefits of the forestry sector are not only economic. We all know that planting trees sustains marginal land purifies water and helps water tables. Trees rejuvenate degraded land and promote the regeneration of native wildlife. There are numerous non-economic benefits of forestry. We all know that the cultural significance of trees goes back well over 1000 years. The image of New Zealand as a forested landscape is iconic. 
But forestry is in a state of flux yet again due to the uncertainty created by the Government’s inaction and due to the Minister’s inaction. The forestry industry is ready and willing to embrace the current emissions trading scheme—it is ready. Nearly every consultant forestry executive and regional or local council person understands the opportunity created by the possibility of carbon farming. Those people want it to be introduced now and Nick Smith is not able to deliver it now. Goodness me! The opportunity is there; we should just get on with doing it. Here we are again with National annoying the hell out of one of our major industry and business groups. National has no idea what makes the forestry industry tick or what it needs in order to realign itself. Although I do support this bill I ask members to believe me when I say the delay is no friend of the forestry industry of those who must make the emissions trading scheme happen or of the New Zealand economy.