Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4746] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly I thank both sides of the House for their contributions to and consideration of the bill. I will quickly respond to the fair question raised by the Labour spokesperson on climate change Charles Chauvel in respect of clauses 4 and 5 and on whether there are any potential scenarios where we might bring forward dates prior to the deadline that has been set at 1 July 2010. I acknowledge the initiative Mr Chauvel has taken in putting that firm date of 1 July 2010 into clauses 4 and 5 to require the two actions to be taken by then. I think that is a reasonable time frame I think the debate is moving on and I think a mood is developing across Parliament that for New Zealand’s sake we need to resolve the key features of the emissions trading scheme in a practical way that can move forward. 
I think the key question here is firstly in respect of the allocation plan and whether there is a process by which the date for that could conceivably be brought forward. One of the factors we would want to take into account is the fact that these units are expected to be traded but as a number of speakers have noted we cannot have a market unless we have buyers and sellers. At the moment we have only sellers and there is not much of a market. In relation to the point of obligation for those sectors that have liabilities I note in passing—and I am sure previous Ministers found this—that there is a great deal of enthusiasm from those people who are to receive credits to get a market up and going but there is not quite the same level of enthusiasm from those people who are paying. Even in the forestry sector where there are both payers and sellers I know that that view applies. I think it would be helpful—and I particularly note this in respect of the central North Island forestry settlement in which there is a very substantive allocation for the allocation plan—there may be merits in bringing that date forward to provide some liquidity to the market. So yes I do see a scenario where that would be conceivable. 
In respect of the exemption provision I want to be quite upfront with Parliament in saying that there is a huge number of small forest owners in New Zealand and that the exemption provision is really in my view aimed at those thousands of forest owners who own small blocks. I think—and it was in the Budget—that substantial funds were provided for the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. To bring forward that date prior to 1 July 2010 in my view we would have to run quite a substantive information and advertising campaign to inform people out there to do that. There will be left just the pragmatic question for me as to what is a good timetable to do that. 
Given the fact that we will be dealing with a substantial emissions trading scheme amendment bill my hope would be that we can have that completed prior to the Copenhagen negotiations. That would in my view be a credit for this Parliament and for New Zealand. But it would keep the systems of Government pretty busy and I do not see any advantage in running an advertising campaign around the exemptions or that campaign resolving that long-term issue. Perhaps 1 March next year might be a possibility and I think that having the flexibility of the special select committee that considered the bill was a worthwhile provision. 
So yes there are scenarios where those dates could be brought forward; there are issues of liquidity and issues of getting an advertising campaign up and running. I will want to work with officials and I will be happy to consult with the Opposition around what is the shortest conceivable but practical time frame in which we can get on with that important work.