Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18152] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to talk about the nonsense provisions in the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill as they relate to a couple of very specific issues. My office has been inundated with faxes and messages from specific industries that have expressed very real concerns about detailed provisions of this bill but given the way that this bill is being rammed through Parliament I just want to mention two of those concerns. 
The first concern is in respect of the million hectares of pre-1990 forests. This bill says that if people want to change an area of land use they can chop down the trees at their full maturity—28 years—grow little seedlings and take those up to 7 years of age then bulldoze them over. That is what this bill incentivises. I just plead with members and I ask why on earth we would want to pass a bill that does that. I ask Harry Duynhoven—there is quite a significant amount of forestry up there in his area—why he would want to vote for a bill that does something as stupid as that. 
The reality is that there is a fault in the Kyoto Protocol. It states we can harvest the big trees at 28 years plant little seedlings get rid of those seedlings 6 months later and have to pay the carbon tax only on the tiny seedlings. The Government has said that is a bit of a problem but I say to Harry Duynhoven it is his Government that is religiously following Kyoto Protocol terms and putting them into New Zealand law without putting its brain into gear. Members on this side of the Chamber say no the provisions should make sense; they should make economic sense and environmental sense. But that provision does not make sense and I am just appalled that members would want to pass provisions with such an obvious fault which will result in waste and the inefficient use of land. 
But I bring another provision to the attention of the Committee. Today I received a fax from Fonterra which is our biggest export company. We should be concerned that we are doing things right for it. The very important issue for Fonterra is that the provisions are grandparented and are able to become the point of obligation. Every one of us would know that the dairy sector is a big energy user and Fonterra was assured by the Government that it would be able to opt in with regard to the use of gas and electricity in terms of managing its obligations under the emissions trading scheme. Fonterra has set out very effectively that under clause 57 it will not get that option. Let me explain why that is the case. The bill allows those who use coal or natural gas to be able to take on the point of obligation only if they are directly acquiring the gas or the coal from the producer. The reality in both the gas and coal markets is that there are significant wholesalers and other players in both markets. The details of clause 57 as it stands mean that those people will not be able to do that. 
The Government will say that is a minor detail and will ask why one would bother about it but according to its own estimates that minor detail has a cost associated with it of over $150 million a year. Are members so cavalier about the economic well-being of our country that they would ignore a little clause 57 with that sort of impact? That just shows the arrogance recklessness and irresponsibility of a Government that will oversee not just that issue but another 20 issues of that sort that I could roll out where key industries have raised serious concerns. 
I would like to hear from the next Government speaker first why it makes sense for New Zealand to allow people to replant trees for 7 years then put a bulldozer through them. How is that common sense? How does it possibly serve either the environmental or economic interests of New Zealand for us to pass a law that provides that sort of incentive? Secondly I want the next Government speaker to deal with the very serious concern around clause 57 and the dairy industry.