Turia Tariana: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turia Tariana: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4732] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. In December last year the Government told the United Nations climate change conference in Poznań that far from stepping back from the Kyoto Protocol the emissions trading review was “a means to find a more politically durable way of moving forward by building a wider policy consensus.” This bill then is the first stage of building that wider policy consensus. 
Consensus was never a given. For Maori there are two key issues at hand. The first is related to the emissions trading scheme. We know that many iwi wanted a Treaty provision to be included in order to protect the value of their settlements and that they were happy for the introduction of the scheme to be delayed in order to achieve that. The second issue is related to the forestry sector. Settlement of the “Treelords” claim has meant that the iwi involved have settled on a price value for their carbon trading units. Delay through the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill will mean there will be a delay in those credits being transferred to them which means they cannot commence trading and that by the time they do the market value of those units may well have decreased. This bill therefore potentially penalises them but there has been agreement given to it because there has been an assurance from the Crown that they will be no worse off. 
We always supported the need to review the emissions trading scheme while at the same time supporting the need to address climate change. But we are also mindful of the views of iwi who from all accounts supported this decision to delay the implementation date. Although the emissions trading scheme was passed into legislation in September 2008 its application was effectively backdated to 1 January 2008. The forestry sector which is already a significant store of carbon was the first sector to enter the scheme effective as of 1 January 2008. So for iwi with forestry interests it became a complex picture as they faced the challenge of emissions trading scheme compliance. For some iwi the bottom line was to achieve an undertaking that whatever the reason for the delay they would not be worse off. So in the context of uncertainty for those directly and immediately affected by the emissions trading scheme we held on to that commitment. 
This bill in its most basic form delays the reporting requirements and the publication of an allocation plan while the review process in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is still under way. As the current law stands foresters would have been required to report any deforestation during 2008 by 31 January 2009 and to apply for exemptions for small forest blocks by today 30 June 2009. During the process of the select committee hearings the iwi leaders group told the committee that the bulk of Maori forest land is pre-1990 forest and is subject to significant deforestation liabilities. To give an idea of the scale of those they suggested that Kai Tahu could face deforestation liabilities of between $40 million to $120 million while Morikaunui Incorporation in my electorate would be faced with a liability of $16 million for 11000 hectares. The major milestone in this bill therefore is that it delays the timing of the Government’s obligation to transfer carbon trading units to pre-1990 forest owners who include iwi. Although we are aware that many iwi are comfortable with the delay because it comes so late in the piece groups such as Ngai Tahu have already invested considerably in preparing for the 30 June compliance date. 
I return to the focus from iwi: that nothing should be included in this bill that would make them worse off in relation to setting the eventual date of the first emissions returns. Morikaunui Incorporation established over 50 years ago near Ranana on the Whanganui River road spoke on behalf of its 5500 shareholders about the impact of the emissions trading scheme on their holding which includes 2000 hectares of native bush and two small blocks of exotic forest. Morikaunui Incorporation submitted that Maori land should be excluded from the bill and that a timetable should be set to consult with Maori in order to develop a robust framework within which Maori land can fit without transgressing the basic principles set out in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The incorporation stated that whatever was proposed in the bill should require no greater contribution or sacrifices from the owners of Maori land than from the owners of privately owned non-Maori land. That would after all represent justice being seen to be done in legislation that will have significant impacts for Maori. 
The Wairongomai Incorporation from Ruatoria took the “no worse off” concept to its natural conclusion and suggested that there needs to be a clause included in the bill that confirms that nothing in the legislation is to be inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. That recommendation was endorsed by the full support of the Federation of Maori Authorities. 
Te Runanga o Ngati Awa devoted considerable thought to how the expression of due justice would be demonstrated for those iwi who have already signed Treaty settlements without the impacts of the emissions trading scheme being taken into account. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa acknowledges that there was no consideration of any impacts of an emissions trading scheme during its settlement negotiations because the scheme did not exist then nor was it contemplated. The runanga’s submission advised the select committee that back in 2001 the worst assumption one could have made would be based on general knowledge at that time which was that forests absorb carbon dioxide and therefore any impact would be positive. Based on those instructions Ngati Awa therefore paid full market value in the expectation of an unfettered property right. 
If the bill is passed in its current form restrictions will be placed on the choices that Ngati Awa can currently make thereby resulting in significant devaluation in that iwi’s asset value. It was Ngati Awa’s guidance that those iwi that are in the same position as Ngati Awa should be eligible for a one-off adjustment to choose how they wish to use their land in the future without reference to the emissions trading scheme. Such an option would mean that they can make the choice that they originally envisaged they would have when they purchased the forest and thereafter they would be required to comply with the emissions trading scheme. 
The process of guaranteeing stability and allaying the concerns of iwi will be critical in assuring iwi that they will be no worse off as a result of this delay. We were pleased to see the range of iwi that made submissions and representations to the select committee and to see the advice put forward by both the iwi leaders group and the Central North Island Iwi Collective. We continue to believe that the liability for emissions should be shared fairly across all contributing sectors at each stage with all starting at the same time and with free carbon credits being allocated to sectors on the basis of need. We will continue to support these important dual goals: to advocate for a Treaty clause to be included in the bill and to protect the integrity and the durability of settlements for iwi affected by the emissions trading scheme. It is never too late for change to occur and it is on that basis that we will continue to support this bill.