Hutchison Paul: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4763] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I was not able to partake in the first or second reading— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Partake? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I detect chicken-like eructations coming from Clayton Cosgrove. Has he got something wrong with him? Or was it from Chris Hipkins? 
Hon Member 
: Call a doctor! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Perhaps we should. He undoubtedly needs help. As I was saying I was not able to partake in the first and second readings of this bill but it is excellent to notice the history of this legislation. The bill was introduced on 18 June. It had its first reading on 23 June then on 25 June it had its select committee deliberations. Today on 30 June we have had the second reading the Committee of the whole House and we are now speaking on the third reading debate. This shows two things: firstly it shows that there has been collaboration between the parties which is obviously good and augurs well for the future of the emissions trading scheme legislation; and secondly it shows the excellent efficiency of the new National Government in getting on with the job. 
I want to refer to one of the points that Dr Nick Smith Minister for the Environment made in his first reading speech. It was that the particular issue around the forestry allocation plan is that it would be nonsensical for the Government to continue to develop and consult on the detail of an allocation plan when such key issues as offsets and other provisions around forestry participation in the emissions trading scheme are being openly debated. It would just create confusion and that is why the Government has gone down this path. It is highly unlikely that the thousands if not tens of thousands of small-lot forest landowners are aware of their obligation to apply for an exemption by the end of this month so it would be unfair on foresters for this oversight to result in their being adversely affected. This is why the bill sensibly provides for that date to be pushed out. 
I also draw the attention of members to some of the comments the Hon David Parker made in the first reading. In my view the previous Labour Government was overdramatic both in 2002 and later in 2008. I recall that in 2002 the Hon Pete Hodgson in the first reading of the Climate Change Response Bill introduced the now infamous carbon police that were described by Professor Joseph of Canterbury University as State-sanctioned trespass. That is just how over the top the members of the previous Labour Government were. They were almost like Templar knights charging out into the semi-darkness trying to save the world. 
Again in 2008 a bill fraught with problems which we all know had many thousands of amendments to it was introduced. They just did not get the balance right. But I note with regard to this bill that Jeanette Fitzsimons in her first reading contribution openly declared that “calculating deforestation carbon losses is a fiendishly difficult … thing to do.” There is no doubt in my mind that from both a scientific and an economic point of view the National Government has done the right thing in reviewing Labour’s emissions trading scheme. The forestry sector is absolutely no exception in that respect. 
Earlier today I gave the opening address at the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science forum on behalf of the Hon Wayne Mapp. I mentioned National’s commitment to a centre of excellence on greenhouse gas mitigation research and the development of technology to reduce emissions and improve on-farm efficiency and productivity. If ever there is an area of the climate change issue that New Zealand should lead in it is in on-farm reduction of greenhouse gases. Our potential to both contribute and benefit is enormous in that respect. 
To end I say that this is a technical bill. There has been inter-party collaboration over this bill. Hopefully this collaboration will augur well for agreement on the fuller emissions trading scheme legislation when it is ready for debate later this year. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.