Hobbs Marian: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6397] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 With delight I rise to support the third reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill for several reasons. The first is to reply immediately to the speaker before me the Hon Dr Nick Smith and reiterate to all who are listening that this bill is not the sole movement the sole way forward towards achieving carbon neutrality. To advocate that or even to pretend that would be foolish. I have not heard anyone on the Government benches ever advocate that this Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is the sole way forward. 
We will reach our goals and there are several reasons why I support this bill. The first is that amending the Act so that individuals as well as the Crown can hold emission units will allow for possible developments as policy comes out in the future. I say that as clearly as I possibly can for those who are well aware of what is actually happening in respect of the questions of reforestation or forestation. At the moment the holding of emission units is very limited. The bill says that someone not connected with the Government can now own carbon credits. We have actually made a shift and that shift in this particular bill opens up some possibilities that I understand are the subject of policy development. 
The second reason why I particularly support this bill is that the whole notion of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative does allow landowners to establish forest sinks and earn carbon credits. Particularly though it allows them to do this and at the same time kill about two or three birds with one stone—or with one planting. 
Eric Roy 
: We’re not going to kill birds! 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No we are not; we are going to provide habitat for birds and that is about the fifth reason why we should do this. 
This initiative is particularly about planting forest on isolated or erosion-prone land and that is something that will help land subject to the floods that have come about largely through climate change and deforestation. Some say this can be done by planting indigenous trees and plants thereby enhancing the habitat. Those of us who were in the Local Government and Environment Committee meeting this morning listening to officials of the Department of Conservation know that this initiative is another tool for that department. 
The bill is also about improving water quality. At this stage I draw the attention of members opposite to water quality and Lake Taupo and I will repeat a small story for people here who claim there has been a loss of the amount of acreage in forest. When I was the Minister for the Environment the ministry was negotiating funding of $81 million and the methodology to change land use around Lake Taupo. The ministry talked to Tuwharetoa the Taupo District Council and Environment Waikato. We were trying to do this aside from regulation—to provide incentive. Suddenly we had forest owners coming to us saying that they wanted to bill the Government for billions of dollars. The reason they gave was that they knew there was no money in forestry there was money only in dairying and that if the Government said they could not put in dairy farms around Lake Taupo because it wanted the lake’s water quality to improve then they wanted compensation. That has meant that every time I hear forestry companies say that the Government does not really care about the Kyoto Protocol or about water quality I know that all they care about is the bottom dollar. Some of those people do not have an environmental bone in their bodies. I find those sorts of arguments which have been repeated by our colleagues across the floor so many times slightly difficult to take. 
I remind those members of the House that the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt by the international community to find a mechanism by which it could solve the planetary problem of global warming and that mechanism was a trading mechanism. It is the same sort of mechanism that is actually being used in respect of nitrates around Lake Taupo and maybe around Lake Rotorua. It is the same kind of thing. An incentive is given to people in order to change their ways of earning their ways of farming or their ways of industry. The mechanism involved is a trading mechanism and it involves the valuing of carbon credits. As we say in this bill if people can grow more trees to absorb carbon then they can earn credits and balance that against greenhouse gas emissions. 
That—for those who are not listening—is what is meant by carbon neutrality. It is a balance between emissions and credits earned and it can be done in market forms and by activity. So some industries private cars bus fleets whatever will be exuding carbon dioxide—and animals will be giving out methane and greenhouse gas emissions—and those emissions will be neutralised by what those industries plant and grow that absorbs the carbon out there. That is carbon neutrality. It is a really important aim to achieve. 
 I must admit that I feel I have been at the receiving end of the speech given before me by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at least five times in 5 days and I am getting rather bored by that particular speech. I also find it ironic because the same member gets up and says all the time: “I want consensus. I want to work with the Government.” Well the Government feels particularly attacked and unloved by that particular member and for all sorts of reasons cannot really understand why we should get into bed with him. Well there are all sorts of reasons! 
Eric Roy 
: Hang on just stay with killing the birds! 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I will stay with killing the birds. Is it consensus when that particular member gets up and breaks select committee convention by quoting from documents that were given to the select committee? I would think that is not an endearing attribute of working with the Government. Is it consensus when the National Party uses every opportunity to attack rather than to build trust and rather than to build consensus? It is all about attack. Its members ask why we do not take them with us on overseas delegations. Why would we when all we get is attack and we do not get a way of moving forward? Is it consensus to talk about percentages of growth rather than actual emissions or total per person as in the statistics that were given out then? When one talks about Australia and percentages of growth in emissions as distinct from emissions per person that gives a totally different picture; that is playing around with statistics and we have seen too much of that. That is not about building consensus. 
Is it consensus to talk about Australia’s reforestation when we know that the Australians do not have a dairy industry out there trying to take up every piece of acreage available as happens particularly in Southland where that member Eric Roy comes from? The Australians do not have that because they have an irrigation problem with a lack of water so their reforestation is for very good environmental reasons—to conserve water and have a different land use. That is not comparing apples with apples. It is not an example of people from the other side talking with people from this side. It is an example of exchanging attack knives rather than working with. When we have an example of that working with I think the Government will be interested. 
But unlike National members I will remind listeners what this bill is about. This bill is about the principles behind establishing a Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol an opportunity has been opened up for landowners—particularly of largely marginal land—to establish permanent forests and gain individual emission units. To enter that initiative the land must be eligible. Forest is defined under the protocol but there may be areas of mixed scrub and pasture; the boundaries may not be clear and we will work our way through that. What will the forest owners receive? They will receive tradable Kyoto Protocol - compliant emission units that they will be free to sell to whomever they wish. Can trees be harvested? Yes trees will be able to be removed on a continuous canopy basis; people will not be able to clear-fell. Are we talking about exotic and indigenous species? We certainly are. 
So there are opportunities out here to be taken. We are dealing with the environment; the benefits are not just about carbon credits and making money but about providing increased indigenous habitat and ecosystems clean water flood protection and cleaner air in mitigation against dairying for example. Those are therefore reasons to support this bill. 
Finally I would like to say that I am grateful the National Party for all its harrumphing and attacking is—I understand—going to vote in favour of this legislation having changed its mind halfway through and suddenly had a road to Damascus experience.