Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7744] 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on 14 February 2007 “that the rate of deforestation under the previous National Government was higher than any deforestation rate that is going on now.” with his statement of 26 February 2007: “Deforestation is increasing and new planting and replanting is steadily declining.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 I would like to say “carefully and skilfully”. As I told the House and Mr Smith on 15 February the total area of afforestation or new planting from 1994 to 1999 under a National-led Government fell by a larger amount than it has under the current Government. The member has been asserting that forest planting levels have been falling due to the current Government’s policy. What I am endeavouring to illustrate is that the area of forest planting fell very significantly before this current Government even came into office. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister’s Government accept some responsibility for what the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry described yesterday as “rapidly increasing deforestation” and the  
Independent  
newspaper described as a “chainsaw massacre” in that the sharp reversal from positive planting to deforestation followed the Government’s announcement that landowners would not receive any credits for carbon stored and may be lumped with liabilities for harvesting; and how can he be so naïve as to assume that there is no link between that Government announcement and the sharp deforestation that has occurred since? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Whatever political point the member thinks he is making does not detract from the fact that the area of forest planting has been falling steadily since 1994 under both National- and Labour-led Governments. The fall in planting has everything to do with the relative economics of forestry compared with pastoral farming and very little to do with Government policy. In fact I have in front of me a graph that shows that since planting subsidies were removed in 1994 forest planting has closely mirrored the expected rate of return from planting new forests. I will seek leave to table that graph at the end of this question. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about deforestation policy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact I have. It is called  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 and I understand that it was released by the National Party. Last Thursday the National Party’s climate change spokesperson said to this House: “that halting the massive deforestation going on in New Zealand right now should be the No. 1 climate change priority …”. Although I welcome Dr Nick Smith’s sudden concern about deforestation it is somewhat at odds with the National Party’s blue-green discussion document which makes only one mention of deforestation—to abandon any cap or controls on it. That would be at a cost of $650 million. I would like to know when the hollow rhetoric the member is giving here is going to be backed up with some substance. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his quote that the argument that foresters have a right to carbon credits for forests planted after 1990 is “not worth a cup of cold water”; if so is he saying that the word of his senior ministerial adviser on forestry Mr Kevin Steel is not worth a cup of cold water given that as a spokesperson for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Mr Steel wrote in June 2000 in a rural bulletin sent to all farmers a piece entitled “Forestry ‘Carbon Credits’ …” which said: “Farmers and foresters are poised to benefit from any future system of carbon trading.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Kevin Steel to whom the member refers is an adviser in my office from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. He has a long and proud history of giving advice to successive Governments including National-led Governments. His piece at the time speculated as to how carbon emissions might be traded in the international marketplace and credits might be distributed. This Government has proposed in a consultative document that tradable permits be distributed and that there be access for those who are planting trees from 2008 onwards. That is exactly what Kevin Steel had in mind when he produced those reports. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for the Minister of Forestry and the Prime Minister to say that there is absolutely no evidence that this Government has ever suggested that foresters might get a credit when the adviser of whom the Minister has just spoken wrote to all farmers: “Beginning in 2008 NZ farmers could own a major share of carbon credits worth many hundreds of millions. The ability to sell those credits either within NZ or on the international market would introduce a new cash flow to sit alongside those from lamb beef and wool.”; is it not absolutely true that the senior Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry adviser was telling cockies that they could get credits and that now his Government has decided to take them away? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a great surprise to Dr Smith that officials like Mr Steel are not elected representatives. They do not promise forward for Governments; they write in discussion documents for discussion and consultation all of the options that are on the table. This Government has put on the table an option for tradable permits under the Kyoto Protocol regime for forests planted from 2008 onwards. I thought the National Party supported that but perhaps it does not. This is another one of those flip-flops that we get almost every second day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Talking of flip-flops does the Government stand by its statement in the  
MAF Policy Rural Bulletin 
 dated June 2000 in an article entitled “Forestry ‘Carbon Credits’ …”: “Cast your mind forward … it is March 2010 and the prices of the carbon credits … have just skyrocketed … NZ’s farmers are well placed as sellers in this market. The carbon credits they own … have just become more valuable and the return from their sales provides a welcome respite from continuing difficult market conditions for primary products. Is this a realistic scenario for the new century? Probably.”; and how was it credible for that to be put out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2000 and for the Minister to say today that the argument of foresters that they deserve some credits for those forests is not worth a cup of cold water? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If Dr Smith does not know the difference between the words “scenario” and “possible options” in a discussion document I cannot be of any help to him whatever. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it— 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: What did Upton promise? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well he would have at least kept his promises Helen which is something you do not know about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be seated. It leads to disorder when such exchanges go across the House. Would the Hon Dr Nick Smith please ask his question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not the truth in this whole sorry saga that the Government led landowners down the garden path by saying they would get carbon credits if they planted trees on the assumption that New Zealand had heaps of credits then stuffed up its numbers found that it had a huge debit and reversed its policy and grabbed the credits off the foresters in a policy that would be best described as: “We erred you pay.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I did not really want to go down this path but the only elected representative I know of who made what could ever be considered—by drawing a long bow—a promise to foresters and farmers was the Hon Simon Upton. Simon Upton made that promise. This Government was not compelled to honour it; he was and he did not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the written statement by senior policy adviser Mr Kevin Steel who has gone around the country speaking on behalf of the Government—now the Government says the only people who can be believed are the elected representatives—and has made it quite plain that it was the Government’s intention to allocate the forestry credits. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister able to confirm two points: firstly do the Government’s proposals include an option of full devolution of carbon credits for new forests; and secondly can he confirm in respect of previously planted forests that that is not only the policy of this Government but also the policy of the National Party? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I can confirm the first point and I have already said that in the House a number of times. What the policy of the National Party is I have not the faintest idea and I would not like to confirm it from one moment to the next.