Speech: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill
Tuesday 30 June 2009; 4pm
Hon Tariana Turia, Co-leader of the Maori Party

In December last year, the Government told the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, that far from stepping back from the Kyoto Protocol; the Emissions Trading Review was, and I quote:

"a means to find a politically durable way of moving forward by building a wider policy consensus."

This Bill then is the first stage of building this wider policy consensus.

Consensus was never a given.

For Maori, there were two key issues at hand.

The first is related to the ETS scheme. We know that many iwi wanted a Treaty provision included in order to protect the value of their settlements, and were happy for introduction of the scheme to be delayed in order to achieve this.

The second issue is related to the Forestry sector. Settlement of the 'Treelords' claim has meant that the iwi involved have settled on a price/value for their carbon trading units.

Delay through this Bill has meant that there will be a delay in these credits being transferred to them, which means that they cannot commence trading and that by the time they do, the market value of the units may well have decreased.
This bill, therefore, potentially penalises them but there has been agreement given that there has been the assurance from the Crown that they will be no worse off.

We always supported the need to review the Emissions Trading Scheme – while at the same time supporting the need to address climate change.

But we are also mindful of the views of iwi – who from all accounts supported the decision to delay.

Although the Emissions Trading Scheme was passed into legislation in September 2008, its application was effectively backdated to 1 January 2008.

The forestry sector, which is already a significant store of carbon, was the first sector to enter the scheme, effective as of 1 January 2008. So for iwi with forestry interests, it became a complex picture as they faced the challenge of ETS compliance.

For some iwi, the bottom line was to achieve an undertaking that whatever the reason for the delay, they will be no worse off.

And so in a context of uncertainty for those directly and immediately affected by the Emissions Trading Scheme, we held on to that commitment that iwi would be no worse off.

At its most basic form, the bill delays reporting requirements and the publication of an allocation plan while the select committee review process is still underway.

As the current law reads, foresters would have been required to have reported any deforestration during 2008 by 31 January 2009, and to apply for exemptions for small forest blocks by today, 30 June 2009.

During the process of the select committee hearings, the Iwi Leaders Group told the committee that the bulk of Maori forest land is pre-1990 and subject to significant deforestation liabilities.

For an idea of scale, they suggest that Kai Tahu could face deforestration liabilities of between $40-$120m, while Morikaunui Incorporation in my electorate, would be faced with liabilities of $16m for 11,000 hectares.

The major milestone of this Bill therefore, is that it delays the timing of the Government’s obligation to transfer carbon trading units to pre-1990 forest owners which includes iwi forest owners.

While we are aware, that many iwi are comfortable with the delay, because the delay comes so late in the piece, groups such as Ngai Tahu, have already invested considerably on preparing for the June 30 compliance date.

I want to return to the focus from iwi that nothing that is included in this Bill would make them worse off in relation to setting the eventual date of the first emissions returns.

Morikaunui Incorporated, established over fifty years ago, near Ranana on the Whanganui River Road, spoke on behalf of its 5500 shareholders about the impact of ETS on their holding – including 2000 hectares of native bush and two small blocks of exotic forest.

Morikaunui submitted that Maori land should be excluded from the Bill with a time-table set to consult with Maori to develop a robust framework within which Maori land can fit without transgressing the basic principles set out in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

They stated that whatever was proposed in the Bill should require no greater contribution or sacrifices from the owners of Maori land than the owners of privately owned non-Maori land.

This would, after all, represent justice being seen to be done in a piece of legislation which would have significant impacts for Maori.

The Wairongomai Incorporation from Ruatoria took the ‘no worse off’ concept to its natural conclusion, and suggested there needs to be a section included in the Bill which confirms that ‘Nothing in this Act shall be inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi’.

This recommendation was endorsed with the full support of the Federation of Maori Authorities.

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa devoted considerable thought to how the expression of due justice would be demonstrated for those iwi who have already signed Treaty settlements, without the impacts of the Emission Trading Scheme being taken into account.

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa acknowledged that there was no consideration of the impacts of an ETS during their settlement negotiations because it neither existed nor was contemplated. The Runanga submission advised the committee, that back in 2001, the worst assumption one could have made would have been based on general knowledge at the time which was that forests absorb carbon dioxide and therefore any impact would be positive.

Based on these Instructions, Ngati Awa therefore paid full market value in the expectation of an unfettered property right. If the Bill is passed in its current form, restrictions will be placed on the choices Ngati Awa can currently make, thereby resulting in significant devaluation in their asset value.

It was Ngati Awa’s guidance that those iwi in the same position as Ngati Awa should be eligible for a “one off adjustment” to chose how they wish to use their lands in the future without reference to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Such an option would mean that they can make the choice they originally envisaged they would have when they purchased the forest, and thereafter be required to comply with the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Mr Speaker, the process of guaranteeing stability and allaying the concerns of iwi will be critical in assuring iwi that they will be no worse off as a result of the delay.

We were pleased to see the range of iwi making submissions and presentations to the Select Committee, and advice put forward by both the iwi Leaders Group and the Central North Island Iwi Collective.

We continue to believe that liability for emissions should be shared fairly across all contributing sectors, at each stage; with all starting at the same time with free carbon credits allocated to sectors on the basis of need.

And we will continue to support the important dual goals – to advocate for a Treaty clause to be included in the Bill; and to protect the integrity and the durability of settlements for iwi affected by the Emissions Trading Scheme.

It is never too late for change to occur, and it is on that basis that we will continue to support this Bill.