Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18627] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to talk about an issue that goes to the heart of New Zealand’s economic success over the last 160-odd years of our nation’s history—that is efficient land use. The reality is that the very core strength of our economy has been the capacity for land owners to be able to put their particular land to the use that will generate the most wealth possible. I recall the days of my grandad in Canterbury; he used to talk about all the dairy farms disappearing. And 80 years later we are seeing them reappear. In the Nelson region which I represent we have seen that areas that previously had been put into forests are now being converted back into pasture and other horticultural-type uses. So one of the key parts in the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that National has concern about is the way in which the legislation will stop flexible land use into the future. 
The real nonsense in this bill is that even if people do things that are absolutely proper for the environment there will be a restriction on the use of those things. I will explain. This bill says that if people own pre-1990 forests that cover over a million hectares of land and those owners want to change the land use to dairying horticulture or some other use then they need to pay for the carbon that is absorbed in those trees. But sensible people have asked “Well why don’t I go and plants some trees in an area of highly eroding hill country where the trees will not only absorb carbon out of the atmosphere but have the added advantage of addressing the huge problem of erosion we have?”. So I ask Mr Duynhoven in the chair and members of the Government why they do not allow that flexible land use. Why is the Government saying that if I harvest some of those trees and replant trees elsewhere that is not to be allowed under this bill? I attempted to move an amendment to address this very point and the Government voted against it. I ask how many Government speakers have addressed the point. Not a single member of the Government has addressed the issue. Is it important? Well of course it is important. 
As I have said flexible land use has been at the heart of New Zealand’s economic success story. The very reason that we are an OECD country with a good standard of living is that landowners have had that flexibility. I cannot understand why the Government will not allow that perfectly simple straightforward amendment. I remind members that there is absolutely no cost to the environment. The environment does not know whether a thousand hectares of trees have been planted on that block or another block. All it cares is that carbon dioxide is reabsorbed by those trees. National says that this is one of hundreds of issues—hundreds of issues—that have not been properly debated. The Government has just said: “Stuff you lot out there! We don’t give a heck about landowners who are screaming about this provision. It is just a minor detail.” Well it is a minor detail that will cost New Zealand tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a minor detail that will cost an organisation like the Anglican Church Pension Board—hardly the Business Roundtable—over $20 million. We say to the Government that the forestry provisions of this bill will not work and if there is any area of the climate change debate in which we need to get the detail right it is the area in respect of forestry. 
In concluding I remind Parliament of this Government’s record around forestry. Australia is on target to meet its Kyoto obligations; New Zealand is not and the key reason for that is the deforestation that has occurred here over the last 3 years at a huge pace. The provisions of this bill will not work for forestry which means that this bill will not work for New Zealand and that is a tragedy. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The question is— 
Hon Members 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry; I began to put the question. The members did not call—either of them. The question is that clause 1 stand part— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry but I began to put the question— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I saw the Minister in the chair rise to his feet—I know that you were facing this way—and I think that it would be quite out of order for the Minister wanting to take a call on this critical debate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I can inform the member that the Minister is about to move the Supplementary Order Paper splitting up the bill and he would have been out of order. I am sorry Minister for saying that.