Ardern Shane: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18614] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is an honour to follow my colleague Bill English in this debate and to oppose the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. I do so on a number of grounds. First of all I have all of the Supplementary Order Papers—that I know of—that have been tabled in the House. When we look at those Supplementary Order Papers we have to ask serious questions about the process of this legislation. Given the long select committee process and the arguments put forward by National throughout that whole process that this legislation needed time—and we certainly had not got it right at that stage—when we look at the 785 amendments and listen to all of the answers from the Government that National is just buying time to try to put off the inevitable and to protest against it again we see that the only conclusion anyone can come to is that the process has been a mess and it has been shonky. It would be great if any Minister would take a call to explain to us why at this stage we have had over 1000 amendments to this legislation since it came out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
I also have some photographs with me that I am sure the Minister would be interested in. In this photograph we have the beautiful Punehu Stream and Mount Taranaki in the background and we also have a riparian margin of pine trees and native plantation. That is not a carbon sink under this legislation. Those pine trees are not a carbon sink; they do not take carbon out of the atmosphere according to this legislation. I have another photograph of the same farm with similar trees— 
Pinus radiata 
 well known to New Zealand—planted at the same time in the same year post-1990 and they are carbon sinks. The trees in one photograph are carbon sinks and the ones in the other are not—same trees same farm. 
By using the Global Positioning System (GPS) we are able to measure down to the nearest 20 centimetres the area of each of these plantations. Most territorial authorities are using that technology for building and other resource consent applications so this is not something the Government had to invent; it is already available. We know exactly how many trees there are and where they are but the trees in one photograph are carbon sinks and the trees in the other one are not. That is a bizarre and ill-conceived policy. 
I would love the Minister to take a call to tell us what analysis was done in terms of the cost of establishing an area. An arbitrary figure of 1 hectare has somehow come out of the process. Arguably I guess it is easier to measure 1 hectare if we are measuring it with a tape measure or perhaps we are back in the days of having surveyors out there with their chains—the 22-yard length chains—measuring the area. Instead as I say we could measure it by using GPS or satellite measurement so we know the exact measurement using modern technology. Unfortunately that is not able to be done in this legislation. 
We also know that during the whole period from 1951 through to 2006 1.9 million hectares of trees were built up—a massive asset a massive forest in this country. Trees are the issue that is argued about most and certainly there are special clauses relating to trees in this legislation. I note that last year 13600 hectares of trees were cut down with no intention of replanting them. Quite aside from the environmental debate the economic argument that could be mounted around that issue is something that this Government should at least take a call on. The Government should explain to those who may be listening to this debate why it has come to the conclusion that the policies it has had up until now have brought about this absolute devastation to the forestry sector but that the policies under this legislation are somehow going to turn that around and we are going to see reforestation again going forward as a result of this wad of paper.