Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4742] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 The title of the bill is the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I suggest that it should perhaps be the “Climate Change Lack of Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill”. The one thing about this bill and I alluded to this in my speech on the second reading is that the forestry industry was ready for this bill. The only party that was not ready for this was the National Government. If I look through the bill I see that the major changes have been made as we all know to the dates. The thing about this bill is the Labour Party had sat down and consulted the industry. There were changes that the forestry industry wanted; there were changes that the previous Labour Government wanted. They sat around a table which was made of wood to talk about the changes. The table was probably native wood it could have been radiata pine but it does not really matter. It was New Zealand - grown wood that had not been farmed for carbon because it had been cut down. There were many of these meetings because one of the things the previous Labour Government did the whole time was consult back and forth with the industry. It came up with a bill that was perfect. It fitted the expectations and the aspirations of the forest industry and it fitted the expectations and the aspirations of the previous Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme. It was going brilliantly. It was ready. The forest industry was ready to get out there and start marketing this. The forest industry had all these seedlings ready to plant. We had international investors. 
But let us get back to the bill. If we look at Part 1 clause 4 we see that it says that we are changing the date to 1 July 2010—2010! That is a delay of 365 days. For those who do not know much about forestry I say that 365 days is a growing year. There are four seasons in a growing year and that constitutes one growth ring. In fact when we are talking about a cycle of 30 years every year is important because one does not know what is going to happen in the industry. But the most important thing that this bill does is delay the potential investment in this industry. 
As I have said I support this bill. The reason I support it is that it provides certainty. I support the recommendations based on the fact that it provides certainty. Let us look at some of the other clauses. Clause 5 is called “Applications for exemption of land holdings of less than 50 hectares of pre-1990 forest land”. Where does “50 hectares” come from? I mean it is an arbitrary amount. It is a good amount but it takes it out to July 2010 again. What is it with 2010? Why could we not just go ahead with it straight away? This is the really disappointing thing for me as a past forester for the forest industry for the investment community—in fact for everyone who is passionate about emissions trading. 
Nikki Kaye I heard you wax on in Ethiopia where you gave a very impassioned speech about the importance of climate change. It was a wonderful speech and we all sat up and applauded. I come back and stand in this Chamber which is an amazing wood-lined hall—members should look at this fantastic wood—and I hear you speak about delaying this bill. It says here it will be delayed until 2010. You are delaying it! 
Nikki Kaye 
: You support it! 
STUART NASH 
: Of course you support it; of course I support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Chair is not delaying it; the Chair is not supporting it. 
STUART NASH 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. I did not mean you were delaying it. In fact I know you would not delay it—you have a lot more sense than that. What I mean is that when I look at all these clauses I see that all the amendments are about dates. We have such an important industry here that cannot afford to wait another week let alone another year. 
Let us look at Part 2 “Miscellaneous technical amendments”. Goodness me! I am astounded. Nick Smith is a Minister who coming from Nelson I would have thought knew a lot about emissions trading and a lot about forestry and about the importance of the forest industry. He must have known what this was going to do to the forest industry. What it has actually done is not provide certainty; it has taken away certainty. When we look at new section 183(3)(a)(ii) in clause 5(2) there is again another date: 1 July 2010. It is another delay and another potential delay of $700 million for this industry. So although this bill provides a level of certainty it is not the sort of certainty the forest industry was after. 
There is a misconception out there that in fact the emissions trading scheme had been put on hold. It had not been put on hold at all; there was just no certainty. The industry was out there it was waiting for certainty and it knew it was going to get that certainty on 1 July 2009 until this amendment bill. We talk about this as a technical bill. I hear members on the other side of the Chamber say it is a technical bill. It is not technical; it is very very important.