Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10615] 
9. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: How many hectares have been planted in trees in New Zealand since the emissions trading scheme came into effect in 2008 and what is the estimated present-day value of the credits of those plantings? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I can tell the member that 70200 hectares of trees were planted in New Zealand in 2008-09 but the bulk of this planting was replanting not new plantings and they are not eligible for carbon credits. The forests eligible for credits under the emissions trading scheme and the Kyoto Protocol are those planted since 1990 amounting to 566000 hectares. The value of the 80 million tonnes of carbon credits due to those forests is approximately $2 billion. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that if we postponed the emissions trading scheme the very most that the Government would have to compensate post-2008 forest owners for would be less than $20 million which would be a small price to pay for the horrific cost of the emissions trading scheme on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am aware of that pretty extraordinary proposition from the ACT Party. When the post-1990 forest owners have carbon credits worth $2 billion the party of property rights says that we should give them $20 million. I am not sure whether that really stacks up. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has the Minister received indicating a shift in forest-planting trends resulting from the Government’s climate change policies? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports annually on forest owners’ planting intentions. Despite the trend of significant deforestation from 2004-08 there was a small gain of 500 hectares last year. The survey indicates new plantings—that is not replantings—of 4700 hectares this year 5700 hectares next year and 7700 hectares in 2012. This reversal shows that the Government’s balanced policies on climate change are restoring confidence in the important forestry sector. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that if it chose to the Government with ACT’s support could do exactly what it did yesterday—that is put this House into extraordinary urgency—and postpone the emissions trading scheme until 2013 thereby aligning our position with that of Australia? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government campaigned on a policy of moderating the emissions trading scheme and proceeding with it in 2010. We will not go back on our word on that. I would also point out that the Australian scheme is not due to come into effect for a least a year. I think we will need to watch the results of the Australian election later this year before it is clear what the Australian climate change policy will be. I note that the Liberal Party’s policy is for A$9 billion of spending on climate change initiatives. My view is that that is a less efficient way for New Zealand to respond to climate change than the more efficient tool of an emissions trading scheme. 
John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the Government could do procedurally what it did yesterday which was to put this House into extraordinary urgency and amend the emissions trading scheme. I did not ask what the National Party campaigned on and I did not ask him how many trees were planted. I asked a procedural question. I asked whether it was possible to put this House into extraordinary urgency in order to pass amendments to the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In answering the question I wanted to set out why the Government would not do that. I think that when a member asks questions of that sort it is perfectly proper for Ministers to say: “Actually we are not going to do that and here’s why.” 
John Boscawen 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think the House needs to take further time on this. The member knows of course that a Government can seek leave to put the House into extraordinary urgency and I do not think that there is much to be gained by having the Minister specifically repeat that. The Minister made very clear the Government’s position and that was probably quite helpful to the House and to those listening. I do not think I should criticise the Minister for the way in which he answered the question because I think those listening to Parliament gained useful information from that slightly longer—and it was only slightly longer—answer. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on what you have just said with the greatest respect. You said that everyone knows the answer and that therefore the Minister does not have to answer the question. Then you said that the Minister gave some useful information in his answer. Well the fact that everyone knows something does not mean that a Minister does not have to answer a question. When an MP asks a question it is not for you to judge that everyone knows the answer to say the Minister therefore does not need to answer and then to say the answer is OK as the Minister gave some useful information. The requirement I think is that a Minister answers the question that is asked by a member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the smack over the knuckles. Again the member makes a perfectly fair point. I am just being reasonable though as Speaker. If I were to rule that the Minister had failed to answer the question etc. I think I would be being just a wee bit too pedantic on this occasion. Had the Minister included in his answer language that was critical of the ACT Party then I would have come down on him absolutely. But the information was not unreasonable and it was helpful information and I cannot insist that Ministers answer a question in a particular way. I can insist that they answer a question but I feel that was a reasonable answer to the question asked. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I have to disagree Mr Speaker. The question had one limb to it. It asked a question and your point was that it did not need to be answered because basically you knew the answer. There are a whole lot of people who do not know the answer so why are we are not entitled to get an answer to a straight question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that the House should be wasting further time on this. If the Minister had said: “Yes but” then it would have been fine. I think that most people when listening to his answer would understand that that was exactly what he was saying. He was acknowledging the point that the questioner was making and he went on to explain why the Government was not doing that. I have to be careful not to be unreasonable. I have been pretty hard on Ministers in requiring them to answer questions but I have to be careful not to be too pedantic and unreasonable about it. I apologise to the member if he feels that I have let his colleague down because technically I acknowledge that the member has a fair point. If in my judgment I have let the member down then I apologise for that. But I have to be a little bit reasonable.