Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7381] 
9.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday: “in respect of Australia there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests.”; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: In a general sense yes. In Australia each state requires by law that the deforestation of pre-1990 forests be notified and there are heavy penalties for failing to do so. In addition pre-1990 forests in Australia are in the main State-owned. A combination of both of these factors was sufficient for the Federal Government to exclude pre-1990 forests from its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 
David Garrett 
: Why should New Zealand include our pre-1990 forests in our emissions trading scheme when no other countries are doing so and especially when the Prime Minister promised the country we would be fast followers rather than world leaders on climate change? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I pointed out one of the significant differences between New Zealand and Australia is that in Australia most of the pre-1990 forests are State-owned. That is no longer the case here. The member should consult Sir Roger Douglas who sold them all off. We have to make a different set of rules. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does it make sense for his Government’s emissions trading scheme to cap deforestation emissions but not to cap industrial and agricultural emissions? Why will he not accept the obvious: a “cap and trade” scheme without a cap on agriculture and industry shifts billions of dollars of costs to the environment to taxpayers and to future generations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made a series of decisions to moderate the comprehensive scheme that the Labour Government had put in place and we have decided to moderate it in order to ensure that the costs are spread more fairly and people can retain their jobs and not have them exported to other countries. 
David Garrett 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The ACT Party as I have recorded matters today has had its two questions. The Hon Rodney Hide asked a supplementary question earlier. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Often when smaller parties have used up their allocation of supplementary questions their partner party—that is the bigger party—might give them one. Labour often does that for the Greens and maybe National could give a supplementary question to the ACT Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a nice try but it is not a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave for the number of supplementary questions to be extended by one on the basis that no one from this side of the House will take that supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess leave can be sought for any manner of matters. Leave is sought to extend the number of supplementary questions today by one. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
David Garrett 
: What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the climate change response legislation now before the select committee receives an adequate regulatory impact statement or does he not care? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Probably no legislation before the House has had more years of scrutiny more submissions and more hours of select committee consideration and I think it is now important that we get the legislation through so that people know what the rules are going to be.