Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6469] 
4.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: How can he justify placing a levy on sheep cattle goats and deer to fund research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Agricultural greenhouse gases make up more than half of New Zealand’s total emissions. To meet our international obligations on climate change we need to find a way to reduce these emissions and research is the way to do that. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Minister also recommend that the Government levy the Department of Conservation for the deer goats chamois thar and vegetarians that live on the conservation estate; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The way in which the country reports its emissions is done pretty much by proxy. We have to estimate total animal numbers. No doubt we will make an estimate for feral animals as well. 
David Parker 
: What benefits can farmers expect if this research is successful? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Research in this area has good potential for increasing farm productivity or reducing production costs which would be to the direct financial benefit of farmers. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why has the Government put out a discussion document when it is clearly not interested in discussing this tax and will simply “require” farmers to pay for research as admitted by the Minister during question time last Thursday? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preferred policy position in this matter was released in April last year and confirmed several months later. This discussion document asks for stakeholder involvement in decisions about what the holding company structure might look like what happens to the intellectual property how the levy might best be collected and matters of that ilk. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given that on 21 May 2001 the Minister said that the Government “has ruled out introducing a flatulence tax on every sheep and cow” is not his recent announcement of an $8.4 million tax just a marvellous example of this Government “keeping our word”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is indeed a marvellous example. Let me explain. Should the Government impose a tax on primary production methane and nitrous oxide—even at a marginal level even if it were just on the increase and even if it were $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide—that would cost $50 million. If we were to do that on all the emissions of the primary sector that would cost $370 million. In fact we are asking the primary production community to invest with the Government about $8 million of its money in order that we can improve further the productivity of our primary production industry. 
Dail Jones 
: How can the Minister say that New Zealand has an international obligation to the Kyoto Protocol if it does not come into effect internationally until 55 percent of the parties that are party to the protocol have signed and accepted it and if we take into account that the United States which has a 36.1 percent share still has not signed and nor has the Russian Federation which has a 17.4 percent share—together they make over 53 percent—and therefore the Kyoto Protocol is not in effect today and there is no international obligation; and will the Minister refund the money that this Government is illegally claiming from farmers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that the Kyoto Protocol has not come into force and therefore has not come into effect. Indeed it will not come into effect until 1 January 2008. However what the research does is improve farm productivity. If the member could think of methane as waste and ask whether reducing waste is a good idea that improves farm productivity and that productivity goes straight to a farmer’s bottom line. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that if agricultural emissions are not reduced then carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector will have to bear more than their fair share of meeting the Kyoto Protocol and that that will be a difficult transition for the energy sector to make that fast? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes that is one of the options. Another option is that the country pays. A third option is that we plant more trees. But none of those are quite the point; the point is that we can improve our primary production industries with this research and reduce methane. It is called win-win. 
Larry Baldock 
: Why is an agricultural research levy necessary when the new biotechnology that could emerge from this research effort would be easy to commercialise and therefore would fall within the existing purview of Crown research institutes and the multitude of Government research science and technology grants currently available? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government already invests just a little short of $5 million in the area and the private sector invests about $0.8 million. In the last several months we have scoped what the research needs are and that is where the figure of an additional $8 million has arisen. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Given that the Minister stated just moments ago in this House—and indeed he has stated it in the past—that research is the way to go why is he not aware that at least $30 million a year is being spent by private sector research companies on research into better pasture and fodder-crop conversion rates thereby reducing methane emissions; why is he not aware that those companies are doing that right now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Our assessment of the amount of money that is going directly into methane mitigation is nowhere near that high. We put the private sector investment at $0.8 million. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Government’s proposed agricultural emissions research levy is already seen by many as being inherently unfair and contradictory and is this not just the beginning of the difficulties the Government will face as it attempts to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat for the member that agricultural emissions in this country account for more than half our total emissions. The Government is saying that it will meet all those emissions in return for which we invite the primary production sector to pay up $8 million to reduce those emissions by way of research. We cannot see what is unfair about that.