Estimates Debate —  
Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7244] 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill from 22 July. 
Vote Education ( 
continued) 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In the estimates report on education there is a small paragraph on student loans and student debt. In that teeny-weeny paragraph the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) admits that student debt in this country “will continue to grow”. This Government has been consistently changing its approach to tertiary education policy since it was elected. Students supported the Labour Government after Labour ran a heavy campaign in 1999 to sort out the student loan scheme. Four years later the student loan burden is not getting any lighter and the Government’s policies are not making it any better. The silky-smooth public relations machine even had the cheek to manipulate the line of the Government. It managed to change the pledge from “making” tertiary education affordable to “keeping” tertiary education affordable without it having to make any considerable structural change to the system. 
The Government’s knowledge economy policies are premised on the idea that a well-educated society is a public good yet the tertiary education system still reflects the ideology that education is a private good still reflects the myth that education is a commodity. Members need to be aware that the majority of the now $6 billion debt owed to the country by students was borrowed to pay for living costs—that is their rent their power and their food. Those same students are trying desperately hard to train to become doctors nurses and teachers—professions that this country desperately needs. To so burden those people and to continue to burden them is not only wrong but immoral and unethical. 
The current student debt burden is now $1 billion more than this year’s Budget surplus. We should not be surprised when students and graduates ask whether their student loan debt is actually a convenient way for the Government to make the books look good. It would cost the Government approximately $400 million to provide a universal student allowance for every tertiary student in this country. That is a comparatively small sum to provide all students with the living support that they need to obtain a quality tertiary education without racking up a huge debt that will hinder them during the most productive part of their lives as they work hard to secure themselves a future in a very uncertain economic climate. 
Likewise it would cost about $400 million to reduce the fees for tertiary education to a maximum of $1500 per year. But instead of actually using the money that is available to the Government to better enable students to access tertiary education the Government has set up the fee maxima system which simply means that students will be required to pay only an excessively high prohibitive level of fees rather than an exorbitantly high prohibitive level of fees. Labour’s record on student debt and student loans is a total and utter disgrace. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 In these estimates the Minister of Education has managed to secure $8200 million to spend on education. One has to feel sorry for education Ministers in this Government because they are captured by the teacher unions and those in the debate who believe that increased spending on education brings improved education. New Zealand actually spends more on education as a percentage of gross domestic product than any other OECD country. In the last 50 years spending per pupil has quadrupled but has that translated into education standards going up? No it has not. Education standards have gone down parents have remained shut out of the picture and we have a situation now where only middle-income and high-income families have a choice about where their children go to school. We allow parents to choose which doctor they send their children to but we do not allow poor parents in particular to choose which school their children go to. 
Unlike my colleague from the Green Party I am more concerned about those children who will never ever get to the gates of a university and who will never even have the chance to take out a student loan because in this vote the Government has ignored the issue of truancy once more. Nowhere in this estimate is the public more badly served than in the area of truancy. We are not investing any more resources in dealing with the growing problem of truancy. I note that the Education and Science Committee made the point that there is still no national database and that it has now been put off till about 2005. The Non-enrolment Truancy Service has repeatedly called on this Government for help in trying to get children back to school. 
I acknowledge that a database is not the silver bullet. There are a number of reasons that children do not go to school. Teachers rely on parents to get children to school parents blame teachers and we all end up blaming the Government. Well I am not going to blame the Minister of Education. I ask him to take some advice to think outside the square and to put some more money into the Non-enrolment Truancy Service so that it can explore some of the reasons that children in the crucial age group that is hit by truancy—that is ages 14 to 16—are school-resistant. They might not necessarily be education-resistant; they might just be resistant to the one-size-fits-all system whereby they are put in a class with all their peers and come under peer pressure to be naughty and not go to school. Not all of them have parents who are educationally irresponsible. They might be bullied or they might not fit the system. We have the classic situation where Auckland Metropolitan College has closed down and a number of the children who went there are now probably figuring in truancy statistics. They are not necessarily bad children; they just do not fit the rigid structures of other schools. 
Why not spend a bit more than the measly $4.1 million that we give to the Non-enrolment Truancy Service? Truancy officers do an amazing job acting as social workers—better social workers than those from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in a number of cases—and working full-time by necessity but being paid for only part-time hours. I ask the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey and Trevor Mallard to take some of the $30 million that has been tagged for the America’s Cup and invest it in the area of truancy. 
Let us look at how bad the problem is becoming. In case people do not think we have a problem with truancy I shall share with them the figures I got yesterday from the Parliamentary Library. In 1997 there were 3172 referrals to the Non-enrolment Truancy Service and last year that figure went up to 4345. In 1 day in Manukau City 1200 children were identified as not being at school—and those are only the ones the service could pick up. Because we do not even have a database we do not know about the others we are not picking up. 
This Government is wasting money on film makers musicians and the arts in order to shore up its voting public at the next election; what about the wasted resource of these children? The Government is not investing in getting these children back to school but is instead wasting resources on potential artists film makers musicians and those sorts of people. We should look at what truancy costs the country further down the track. In most cases children who are truants end up in the criminal courts and move on to become repeat offenders unless something is done to look at why they do not want to go to school. Does this Minister want us to end up in the situation in Britain where there are police in schools and where mothers are being sent to jail? 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Vote Education. I am pleased to see that extra money is going into early childhood education under this Government. I believe that early childhood education is the absolute foundation and the most important part of our education system. If one puts in place a good foundation it is built on; children have success and that continues right throughout their education. We will be investing an extra $55 million in early childhood education over the next 4 years to ensure that more children can access early childhood education. A first-rate start is absolutely what we want for all young people. Research shows the significance of that boost at the start of their education; the good effects continue right through to the tertiary level. 
The additional funding from the Budget 2003 is specifically targeted to increase participation and to raise the quality of early childhood education. Those are the things that are really important. We need to have increased participation rates so that every young New Zealander has the opportunity to take part in early childhood education. The other thing is to raise the quality of early childhood education. This Government knows that the most important issue with education is the quality of the teaching that is put in place. That is particularly important at the early childhood level because those young children are so vulnerable and deserve absolutely the best. This Government is committed to raising the professionalism and the quality of teachers in the early childhood sector. 
We continue to build on the important foundations that have been set by the Government and the early childhood education sector working together. We set those foundations in  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 which is a 2-year strategic plan for early childhood education. It was launched last year we are continuing that strategic plan and we will see the benefits of that over time. There are three goals at the core of the action plan: increasing participation in quality early childhood education services improving the quality of those early childhood education services and promoting collaborative relationships. This Budget gives us all—that is the Government the workers in the education sector and parents—the opportunity to continue working together to achieve those goals. 
 The additional funding brings total early childhood education spending to $421 million in 2003-04. The extra funding that is being put in place includes an extra $1.6 million in capital grants to provide property for licensed early childhood education services in areas where there are not enough services to meet the current demand. Over the next 4 years nearly $1 million is being provided to the Developing Centres Fund so that more children are able to attend playgroups in areas where they currently cannot access appropriate licensed and chartered early childhood education services. It is known as the Promoting Participation Project. An additional $1.4 million is being provided over the next 4 years for the Maori-Pasifika early childhood education teacher scholarship programmes which are aimed at increasing the number of qualified Maori and Pasifika early childhood education teachers. We know that is an area where there have been profound shortages and this Government is dedicated to making a difference in that area and to making sure that those children have qualified teachers. There is $39 million to ensure that early childhood education services are compensated for cost increases in both staffing and operational areas. There is $4.5 million in capital funding over the next 2 years to implement a new funding framework for the sector. The number of early childhood education incentive grants is extended by 70 a year to continue the Government’s commitment to assist early childhood education services to have their staff upgrade their qualifications. This is what is at the heart of improving the early childhood education sector. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 If there is a magic bullet in public policy this Government believes that it is education. That is why 31 percent of the Budget has gone to education—the equivalent of what has gone to health. In other words there is no greater commitment that we in this Government make than the one we make to education. That is why we are spending over $8 billion on education as was pointed out by Deborah Coddington. But when I sit here and listen to debates like this I know why we are on 52 percent support in the polls and other parties are struggling to get over the threshold. The debate about education is fundamentally the debate that Labour along with its progressive coalition partner is having with the country. 
On one side of us we have a group of people who regularly travel the country and say that despite 31 percent of the Budget going to education—over $8 billion—it is OK to spend $400 million more on allowances to spend $500 million to abolish tertiary fees and to spend $X million on what it would take to deal with the loan scheme. They say that all of that is affordable that all of that is OK that we should pile well over a billion and a half dollars more into just tertiary education and that then no doubt we should turn our attention to the compulsory system the early childhood system the transport system the health system and so on and start writing out cheques for them. It is a kind of logic that hardly anybody actually believes in enough to vote for it. Only a few people do. People might go to meetings and say that they wished the costs would go down but they know that the only people who are serious about that are the people who are in Government now. That is why we are staying in Government. People understand that not only are we running the debate but also are the only people putting forward a genuine solution. We do not spend all our time with our heart on our sleeve. We try to think robustly about what we are doing. We are doing a good job. So when people on that side say that spending another $400 million would be OK that another $500 million would be OK and that we should just carry on racking up the amount and should just spend money I take that to be interesting but not important. 
On the other side of the debate we have people who say that we are spending far too much that we should charge students more and that the private gain to students during their lifetime from going to university is so great that they should pay for everything they have to face as university polytechnic wananga or college of education students. 
An Opposition Member 
: What about private training establishments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: And students at those private training establishments—whoever. I can say to Georgina te Heuheu that we pay them too the taxpayer pays them they are publicly funded—[ 
Interruption 
] Well Carich Computer Training has to face the same things that all other private training establishments do. National never treated the private training establishments as part of the tertiary education system; they were some kind of limb hanging off the side of it. Under this Government they know that they are in legislation as being part of the tertiary education system and thereby are secure. 
But that side of the debate says that we should not be paying so much and that we should let students pay for their education as they get a private gain from it. People take one look at that and ask whether that argument means that students should pay the whole cost of training to be an engineer a teacher or a social worker. Once again we think those arguments are interesting but not very important. 
So we end up with a debate in here about people who on the whole attract a little bit of attention because they are saying extreme things. But in the centre of politics straddling the whole of the centre of politics—the big tent of politics—is the Labour Government which is taken seriously because its analysis is the only one in town that results in good concrete workable policies. 
This Budget carries on that tradition. It carries on that sensible tradition of investment and it says there are issues beyond students. It invests in the system. I wonder what the people who say we should spend another $400 million on allowances tell students about the quality investment in research teaching and so on that this Government is doing. I never hear people talk about that. The talk is always about one part of the equation. People have to be paid and institutions have to be kept running in a quality fashion. This Budget does that. It puts money into research innovation e-learning and the tuition costs of students. It is a good balanced education Budget that reflects the fact that we think that if there is a magic bullet it is called education. That is why this Budget so clearly emphasises education and that is why I believe that people around the country will carry on supporting exactly what this Government is doing. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am very pleased to join in this debate on Vote Education. As the Minister Steve Maharey has just outlined to the House education is very much what the Labour Government and the Labour Party historically has been about. Many of us in this Government have an education background in a variety of service. I was not a teacher but certainly have worked in the education sector before coming into Parliament. It was in many respects my passionate belief in education for all that drove me towards coming into politics in a more formal sense. 
I am proud of what our Government has done historically and currently is doing for education. One of the reasons we have been successful in that particular policy area is our acknowledgment and practice of the interconnectedness of the compulsory education sector with what happens to people when they go out into the working world. Today Minister Maharey responded to a question about industry training and the fantastic results that are being achieved in this country because this Government works with industry in providing education and training that is responsive to the needs of the modern world. 
Our most recent industry training publication reports a 12 percent increase in trainees to a wonderful figure of nearly 107000. That is commendable and will show tremendous results in the workforce in New Zealand as New Zealand’s productivity and modern workplace delivery continues to occur. That stands in stark contrast to the practices of those parties opposite that will I suspect be on the Opposition benches for many years to come. They certainly do not show any signs of getting their act together with regard to education which is the core a fundamental part of governing any country responsibly and looking towards the future. 
A most alarming comment was recently made by a National Party spokesperson on a range of issues but nothing defined Don Brash with regard to his approach to the treatment of employees when he said that every 2 to 3 years they can get a bit stale and can be replaced. 
Hon Member 
: That’s true. 
JILL PETTIS 
: That is true in respect of some of the members of the main Opposition party—or what was the main Opposition party but does not hold that position any longer at 22 percent and falling. Opposition members’ approach to people is really summed up in that line of Don Brash’s that people in the workplace get a bit stale and can just be replaced. This Labour Party historically and currently does not see people as superfluous or expendable and who can be discarded at the whim of those who may be more powerful. 
Our philosophy has always been to value people to give them the skills to give them the opportunity to be the best they possibly can and by supporting people through to realising their full potential. One of the ways we have seen that evidenced so obviously in our communities particularly our regional communities is the expansion of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme which we continue to receive very positive comments about as we talk to employers in our electorates. That has had tremendous results. A great deal of work has gone into that and the partnership between the Government and industry has produced some superb results. It is wonderful to see young people out there in the workforce delighted about what they are able to achieve to contribute to their own local economy; and the boost to their morale is just tremendous. This is a Government that is serious about education and puts its money where its mouth is. 
A party vote 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to. 
was called for on the question  
That  
Vote Education be agreed to. 
Vote Education Review Office agreed to.  
Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.  
Vote State Services agreed to.  
Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on this vote. I wish to deal with the issue of the moment that has preoccupied a number of members in this House and I am sure that Mr Eckhoff will preoccupy us with it even further in his speech—that is the agricultural emissions research levy. From the outset I want to say that as a member of Parliament who comes from a seat that is half rural and contains many highly skilled farmers I have great respect for those farming communities even though I do not come from farming stock myself. 
A few weeks ago the Associate Minister of Agriculture was in my electorate of Waimakariri and contrary to a lot of the bluster and hot air coming out of the National Party with threats of “Will members of Parliament turn up to meetings?” I know that members of Parliament from this side of the House will show up anywhere at any time to front up to their constituents. I attended a meeting with about 50 farmers in a place called Fernside in my electorate with the Associate Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor. We had a free and frank exchange of views with farmers. We were with the farming communities for 2 hours and they were not preoccupied with this issue. They wanted to talk about a broad range of issues of concern to them and they said a large number of positive things about this Government and the direction of agriculture policy. 
However to get back to climate change we addressed the issue of the agricultural emissions research levy. I want to put a couple of facts and figures to the House. This Government recognises the value of our farming communities and our agricultural sector the value to our economy and the backbone of our economy. That is why this Government exempted the agricultural industry from the carbon charge. Every other industry—manufacturers in my electorate—will have to pay a carbon tax. Patience and Nicholson a tool manufacturer in my electorate will have to pay a carbon tax. Shoe manufacturers will have to pay a carbon tax and on it goes. 
The Government took the step in recognising the importance of our farming communities by exempting them from that carbon tax. However the Government said that the quid pro quo for that was that we would ask our farming communities to pay this levy of 9c a sheep and I believe that it is around 54c per beef animal and up to about 72c per dairy cow per year. That equates to around $300 per farm per year. 
Every other industry in New Zealand is paying a carbon tax. I am prepared to front up to any of my farmers to listen to them to talk to them and to debate the issue because it is worth having that debate. The agricultural sector will pay about $300 per farm per year even though livestock emissions equate to around 54 percent of total emissions in our economy. I would not have thought that that was such a bad deal. Nobody whatever business he or she is in—and farmers are business people like everybody else—likes to pay additional charges or levies. However one would have to argue that one of our biggest industries—that is agriculture the backbone of our economy—is at the greatest risk from the negative impacts of climate change. 
Members should look at what happens in drought conditions in my patch in North Canterbury and see the deterioration of the quality of livestock and pasture in a dry season. I would have thought that the industry whilst not embracing this levy would look upon it in a positive way. I am told by the scientific community that it is a proven fact that if we can decrease emissions from livestock that can translate into efficiency and productivity with the animal increasing body mass and the quality of meat or dairy or associated by-products. I would have thought that that would have been a good thing that our farming communities would embrace. 
We have exempted our farming communities from the carbon tax until 2012. A lot of bluster and a lot of hot air have emanated from the National Party and ACT which seized on anything negative to try to drum up some support in the farming communities. Members of National and ACT did not give a rat’s about the farming communities for over a decade. They sold out the farming communities completely. We now have a climate change issue that has created some controversy I will admit. Any time we want to put a levy or a charge on any sector nobody particularly likes it; I accept that. But as outlined in these estimates the money that is raised will go into research to try to alleviate some of the problems created by 54 percent of emissions. 
 In doing that I think it will translate—if the scientists are good enough and I am sure they are—into some productivity. Some have tried to fan the flames appearing on picket lines and encouraging certain folk to send excrement through the mail—although judging by some of the speeches we have had today from some of the political parties the excrement could go both ways; one could wrap up some of the speeches on this issue and mail them back and they would be equal in quality to some of the excrement coming into Parliament. Rather than indulging in those naive childish and stupid tactics I encourage all members of Parliament to go to the meetings debate the issues and actually deal with some of the facts. 
I enjoyed the meeting in Waimakariri with our farmers. The great thing about rural communities is that when we talk about these issues the farmers give it to us between the eyes. They give it straight and we can have a good-quality debate—unlike some of the stuff we hear around this place. These estimates are a chance to get out some facts about this issue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well get some facts out. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would like to challenge Dr Smith and others to stand up and make a comparison between the $300 a year he will be required to pay per farm—I do not know whether he has one six or 10 farms he being one of the landed gentry over there. That charge should be compared with manufacturers possibly in his electorate and in others who will be paying the full carbon tax. As I said before 54 percent of our total emissions—and Dr Smith is knowledgeable in this area—is from livestock. We are asking for $300 a year not to spend on ourselves but to go into research to try to find ways to cut down on those emissions in order to increase the quality of livestock and thus productivity. 
I conclude by saying that everybody on this side of the Chamber—and I am sure on all sides of the Chamber—has respect for our farming communities although the proof of the pudding is in the eating of course. Right across the board in agriculture and trade we can stand on our record of support to our farming communities right through regional development— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You sure can’t stand on your record of understanding science. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—unlike Dr Smith when he was in Government with his crew. They sold out on our farming communities and regions. They raised the flag of surrender on our rural communities. Evidence of that can be seen in the result of the last election and in the rural booths in many electorates—electorates in which farmers voted with their feet for a sound Minister of Agriculture and a sound Government. I do not say that in an arrogant way— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Be responsible and face the facts. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member should pipe down and breathe through his nose as one of his former colleagues used to say. Farmers voted for this Government because they could see a set of agriculture policies and regional development policies that would reinforce and assist them. It is acknowledged throughout our agricultural communities that we have a superb Minister of Agriculture who is a true farmer—not a Queen Street or a Colombo Street farmer; a real one—and an Associate Minister of Agriculture who up until recently was also a farmer. They go around the country engaging with our farming communities and fronting up. They take a bit of borax but that is part of the job. 
I support these estimates. I think they are sound and I hope as the debate goes on that we will have a chance to test some of the arguments in respect of the emissions levy without there being a lot of rhetoric and hot air. Let us have a debate on facts as I have outlined—on scientific and statistical facts—not rhetoric. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am sure the Minister in the chair Mr Hodgson will not be surprised when he knows that I wish to focus my comments on the climate change appropriation which is about $27.5 million. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton stood in this Chamber and said that climate change is the biggest issue facing this world of ours. Well I suspect that back in 1970 after listening to advice from some of the science community parliamentarians throughout the world stood in their various Parliaments and said that global cooling was the greatest environmental threat facing the world and that there was a need for carbon dioxide. Here we are 30 years later saying that global warming is the problem not global cooling. 
New Zealand’s contribution to the problem comes from our livestock which emit methane through belching. Of course those in the science community will tell us that methane breaks down in a relatively short space of time into carbon dioxide which is what the plants on our farms and the trees etc. throughout New Zealand ingest and they emit oxygen. It is actually quite a simple and almost closed cycle. But in answer to a question of mine during question time today the Minister in the chair said that only the livestock in this country are to be taxed because it is human-induced waste or methane that is the real problem. 
Yes one could say that sheep cattle and goats on our farms do emit methane but according to this Minister landfills which we have from one end of this country to the other are not human induced. Pardon? Landfills are a natural phenomenon? Surely a landfill is human induced; it is human produced; indeed it is never reduced. A landfill is a direct result of human habitation. That is why the farmers of this country—almost to a man or indeed to a woman—are united in their attitude that this tax is discriminatory. We are going to whack the farmers but leave urban New Zealand alone. Thirty-five percent of the land in this country is locked up in the conservation estate—land on which methane is being emitted from rotting vegetation on a regular basis. 
If the Government were totally committed to this concept—if it does in fact see this problem as one of the greatest facing the world then I would have thought that a total appropriation of $27.5 million was peanuts. When we break down this amount we see that only $5.4 million is being spent on tangible outcomes and the rest—about $22.1 million—is being spent on monitoring advice and departmental outputs. That is the true response this Government has to climate change. 
However as a practising farmer I would still like to draw this issue to the Minister’s attention. We are told that this tax is not a tax that it is a levy on ruminant research to reduce methane emissions. I respect this Minister. He is a man of science a former vet and he understands these things. I asked the Minister what is this commercial product called BioStart? What is a product called Biolab? There are other products called Ruminant Enzyme ProDairy; Nutrimol and there is even good old Apple Cider. All of those products are designed to help microbes in the rumen break down more rapidly the grass clover and other crops that animals ingest. The impact of that is to enable the lamb sheep cow or goat to convert grass into protein much more quickly. Those animals are not sitting down chewing their cud like the front bench of this Labour Government does on a regular basis; they are converting that protein more rapidly into their wool milk or meat. 
Those products have been on the market for many years. I personally have drenched hundreds of thousands of sheep over the years with a product called Apple Cider and I have used Biolab and BioStart pretty regularly as well. All of which in a roundabout way—not directly I admit—is reducing methane emissions from my livestock. Every other farmer who uses those products—and they are doing so in an increasing way—is reducing methane because the metabolism of the animal is helped remarkably by those products and the end result is less methane. So to turn to the farming community and say that there is no research in that area and no products to reduce methane is simply wrong. 
I have also spoken to—and I invite the Minister to speak to—the mercantile and crop research companies that are found from one end of this country to the other. They tell me that they are spending in round figures in an accumulative way around $25 million on better grasses better clovers and of course better fodder crops to enable a lamb for example to go in round figures from an average weight of about 13 kilograms when it was killed a decade ago to about 17 kilograms today. That is a direct result of the research that has gone on in this country enabling the animal to convert grass to protein so much more rapidly. An indirect contribution I would suspect is to ensure that that conversion is made more rapidly reducing the methane emissions that cows produce when they chew their cud. That is one of the things that the farming community is so upset about because there is no other industry that thirsts more for knowledge or opportunity than the farming industry. One has only to look at places like Mystery Creek where farmers in droves go looking for new technology. If there was one product or one way that would increase our production and therefore our bottom lines it would be grasped and welcomed by the entire farming community. 
But that community knows that it is being put upon by this so-called research levy. It is unjustified and it was not imposed as a result of consultation. Every farmer in this country would be outraged if the Government told him or her to turn up in the middle of winter at a quarter to 10 in the morning and it would consult them. If most farmers could possibly have done that they would have attended but they have a duty to feed their livestock at that time of the morning. To say that the Government consulted by making itself available at 10 o’clock in the morning at Invermay or wherever is insulting to say the very least. All those things together make this industry of mine—the agricultural industry the livestock farmers in this country—absolutely outraged that the Minister or this Government would say that we are not doing anything. We are pulling our weight. 
The Minister in his wisdom decided to put a moratorium on aquaculture marine areas. He would wait and see what happened as a result of the outcome of the foreshore and seabed situation. After the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification put forward its view that we should proceed cautiously the Government rightly or wrongly decided that it would wait and see what happened. It would put on a moratorium and then wait for a period and see whether things worked out the way it wanted them to. So I put this question to the Government: why do we not do that with Kyoto? Why do we not wait and see? Increasing evidence is being put forward by internationally renowned scientists—and I have articles flooding in constantly on that very subject—that says no to the global warming concept. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The issue of climate change is one that has been driven by science more than any other international public policy issue in human history and I shall tell members about that. The first decision of the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to proceed with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was informed by science that was released the previous year—1991. It was the result of 3500 scientists around the world putting together their various learnings and trying to sort out in their minds what might be going on with our climate. They said that they thought there was a problem. The following year in Rio de Janeiro at the largest gathering of world leaders in human history the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was born. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not remember chipping the Hon Ken Shirley when his colleague was speaking. The member asked me to explain why we could not put Kyoto on hold and I am doing that. 
Five years later in 1996 those 3500 scientists reported that they were now a little more certain that the climate change effects were coming and that they were going to be of a certain size and description. On that occasion the people including the Hon Simon Upton were to meet in Japan the following year in a town called Kyoto which gave us the Kyoto Protocol. Then in 2001 the scientists reported again. The 2001 report stated that they were more certain that there would be an effect and that they could tell us a bit more about it than they used to be able to. They now knew that the world’s temperature had risen in the past 100 years on average by 0.6 degrees Celsius and they predicted that the world’s temperature would rise in the next 100 years by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius. 
Already two important pieces of information had emerged. The first was that global warming was accelerating. The second was that the range by which it was accelerating was still quite large and still relatively uncertain. However there was no suggestion of global cooling no suggestion of plateauing and no suggestion that there was no problem. The response to that was called the Marrakesh rules and the following year the Marrakesh rules settled and determined the Kyoto Protocol. All of the rules are now in place although the protocol might not come into force. Frankly that depends on Russia. Russia will I am sure ratify but it is not clear when it will. 
The member also made some remarkably good points about the history of New Zealand’s increased farm production. He pointed out that lambs are now larger at slaughter and he is right. He pointed out that the wool clip has gone up—or at least if he did not he might have. It has not gone up a lot but it has gone up a little. He might have pointed out that lambing percentages are up hugely over the past 20 years. He might have pointed out that the carrying capacity of our pastures has improved. Roughly speaking over the last 20 years our lamb production has more or less doubled—that is the number of animals has halved but production has stayed the same if one wants to look at it that way. There have been a remarkable set of increases and there is no indication that they will not continue into the future. Moreover they are driven by research. 
The member pointed out a number of products that he is using on the farm. He talked about the product he got from a mercantile outfit and the one he got from a vet club or wherever it was. The point about those products is that they are gaining popularity. They probably do reduce methane emissions and increase productivity but we do not understand why. This economy is based on—at least awkwardly—ruminant physiology which is a difficult thing to explain to people. If we do not understand ruminant physiology very well now—and we do not—we ought to improve that understanding. We need to understand why some grasses produce less methane. Why has AgResearch carried out research with grasses that produce a 16 percent reduction in methane lower levels of parasite burden higher food conversion efficiency and they think general improvement in animal health? Why is it that deer as opposed to sheep or cattle produce proportionately less methane? What is different? We think they do but we are not sure. Why are there differences between animals? So the Government has said it wants to discover why. 
But before it said it wanted to discover why it took another decision. It looked at our agricultural emissions. It found that they were 54 percent of our total emissions—more than half of all our emissions coming from sheep and cattle—and said to farmers: “There will be no emissions tax. We will completely cover it using taxpayer funds.” And we will; in return for which farmers will pay for a research levy. Then we decided that we had better work out the size of that levy; and the way to do that was to work out how much science we wanted and in what areas. We got together with the farming fraternity. We got together with the leaders of the agricultural community. We got together with Federated Farmers—for goodness’ sake! We got the best scientists from around the world and we had a 2-day workshop. We preceded that with a search of the world literature and on it went. We costed what were likely to be cost-effective avenues of inquiry. The cost is $8.4 million and the reason that farmers are paying for it is that it will go to their bottom line. I repeat it will go to their bottom line. The other reason they are paying for it is that it is a fair-suck-of-the-sav argument because had an emissions tax been put on all agricultural emissions it would not be $8.4 million but about $1 billion. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: That would ruin this country. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Would the member please sort out some of the facts? He has a lot of interest in the issue; I admire him for his interest but he has got a lot wrong. Let us deal with the issue of methane emissions from other sources. He raises questions about methane from waste. He is right: methane from a landfill is human induced and that issue is covered by the Kyoto Protocol. To give an idea of the size agriculture emissions are 54 percent emissions from landfill waste are 4 percent. As opposed to methane emissions—which are rising—methane emissions from our waste are falling rapidly. The reason is that this Government has a very good Minister for the Environment and she has developed a thing called a waste strategy. She has worked hard quietly and well with the local governments of this country and improvements in the way we manage our waste stream are causing that reduction. What is more these days a number of people who own landfills are taking the methane off them and burning it for electricity. Therefore it is not emitted into the atmosphere. 
On the other hand because he has an allergy to the Department of Conservation the member decides that it should be vulnerable too because it has trees. Not all of those trees are alive—some of them are dead some of them are rotting and some of them produce methane. That is not human induced; that is part of the natural methane cycle and I invite the member to draw a distinction between the two. So those I hope are some of the points that he has raised that are now satisfactorily answered. 
The member says we did not consult. Was he not around during 2002? We held 49 consultation meetings 11 of which were farmer-owner meetings. He did not show up; he was not aware that they were going on yet he comes back to the House a year later and asks why did we not consult. We consulted on a preferred policy outline which said that this is what we wanted to do and we took it around the country endlessly. We made a few tweaks and in October 2002 we announced our final policy. One of its final ingredients is that no farmer in this country will be charged for agricultural emissions by way of an emissions tax. There will be none. The 54 percent of emissions will be covered in their totality right through the first commitment period. It was a core part of our policy in return for which research will be done to see if we can reduce those emissions. The benefits of that research flow to both the Government and the farmer. The Government is putting up $4.8 million and the farmers $8.4 million—not a bad price compared with $1 billion! That seems to me where the matter rests and where the  
Straight Furrow 
 editor of today thinks the matter should rest too. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Vote agreed to. 
Progress reported.