Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8111] 
6.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Is the Government reconsidering its decision to impose an $8.4 million greenhouse gas levy on dairy sheep beef and deer farmers in the light of widespread protests across the country; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Government climate change policy exempts farmers from emissions charges on agricultural greenhouse gases that would cost them almost $1 billion per year if they were charged in the same way as other industries. This exemption is on the condition that farmers fund more research into reducing their industry’s emissions and the Government is not reconsidering that decision. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister categorically deny that he or other Ministers have instructed or indicated to officials that the Government wants a solution to the “flatulence tax” debacle or indeed to reconsider it—yes or no? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have been working with the industry to avoid a levy for around 2 years. So far we have been unsuccessful. The whole idea of the Government’s policy was that farmers would make the investment and that the levy that is now forthcoming would be there as a backstop. 
Mark Peck 
: Under what circumstances would the Government reconsider the need for the agricultural emissions research levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s first preference has always been for voluntary industry funding for research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. If the agricultural sector makes its own arrangements to provide the funding needed for a serious research programme the levy will be unnecessary. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did the Minister say on 16 November 2001: “I can offer you a personal viewpoint which is that to tax cattle and sheep in that way is a remarkably stupid thing to do.”; what level of protest from New Zealand farmers and what level of absolute ridicule from around the world will it take for the Government to back down on the “flatulence tax”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can remind the member that that is precisely what I and many other Ministers did which is why the Government exempted this sector—unlike any other—from a methane tax in return for which we had anticipated a research programme to be funded by farmers with a levy mechanism to collect the money if necessary. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Government need to pass legislation to enable it to collect the greenhouse gas levy; if so given United Future’s clear opposition to the imposition of the levy does he have any idea which party in this House will give support for that legislation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government will need to pass legislation if it is to collect a compulsory levy and will search for like-minded parties as it approaches that decision. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister at least be reasonable and give farmers the choice of whether to start paying the research levy now or instead to pay a full methane tax from 2007 as all the other emitters are being asked to do? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those who request choice do not always request all types of choice and that is one the farmers would reject straight away. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement made to a public meeting of over 300 farmers in the Hawke’s Bay on 14 August this year when explaining the science of global warming that “I am making this up as I go along.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those who choose to take 9 seconds from a 90-minute meeting and to fail to give that any context as to whether I said—[ 
Interruption 
] I do think the position of the ACT party is however interesting acknowledging that it has got the bus the petition and the commitment from Mr Gerrard Eckhoff. That same gentleman told a group of farmers that ACT would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and give the sink credits back to the farmers. Members should try to work that one out. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the Minister’s reply is it not clear that he has now changed his position from one of having made an effectively non-negotiable decision to one where he is trying to find a compromise in the face of massive rural protest—in other words a complete U-turn—and why will the Minister not recover some of his credibility by coming clean admitting that to the House right now and apologising to rural New Zealand for the deep offence this Government has caused? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can do no better than to quote from my own press statement at the time that the Government announced its policy. Let me do so. There are only two sentences: “The Government will exempt the agricultural sector from any emissions charge or trading regime in the first commitment period provided this sector invests in research to identify options for reducing agricultural emissions. Secondly the Government retains the option of imposing a research levy if the research effort falls below what is required.” It has. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the Minister’s comments about the danger of taking things out of context I seek leave for him to read the whole press statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member cannot ask for leave on behalf of another member. I think he knows that but it was a very good try.