As the Minister for Climate Change Issues has said, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill seeks to do five things. First, it will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to delay certain requirements applicable to the forestry sector under the existing emissions trading scheme. Secondly, it will amend section 168 of the Climate Change Response Act concerning the making of regulations so as to allow for dates for applications for exemption for landholdings of less than 50 hectares of pre-1990 forest land to be made by Order in Council. Thirdly, it will amend section 183(3) of the principal Act to remove the requirement for applications for exemption for landholdings of less than 50 hectares of pre-1990 forests to be made before 30 June 2009, and replace it with a requirement for such applications to be lodged by a date to be made by Order in Council. Fourthly, it will amend section 196 to defer the date by which 2008 deforestation must be notified, and alter the timing of the obligation to surrender the relevant New Zealand units. Finally, it will amend section 196 by inserting new section 196A, which will give the Minister the power to withdraw or suspend certain draft allocation plans.

As the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Nick Smith, advised the House, he approached Opposition parties to consult over this amendment. Labour’s reaction was that it would be less than desirable to allow the second and third changes that I referred to just now—that is, the exemption for land holdings of less than 50 hectares of pre-1990 forest, and the requirement for lodgment to be dealt with by Order in Council. Our position is that it would be far better to have those matters dealt with by substantive legislation, with the amendment itself specifying dates by which these events must occur. If there has to be a delay, our preference is for a short delay, and we have suggested that it would be sensible for the date to be the end of June 2010.

The Minister also advised me that it would be entirely feasible for the Government, relying on its support party and coalition arrangements, to simply pass the amendment bill through all stages in the House, but he was amenable to a request that there be a brief referral to a select committee. As a result, the bill will be the subject of some advice from officials before the select committee, at lunchtime on Thursday, I believe, prior to its coming back to the House for passage through its final stages next Tuesday, in time for the 30 June deadline up against which the Government has run. I will suggest the amendments I have outlined—omitting the references to an Order in Council and replacing them with fixed dates—at the select committee meeting. I have advised other parties, including the Greens, of this intention, and I understand that there is general support for following that approach. So that will be the Labour Party’s approach to the amendment legislation.

Just as the Minister took an opportunity to say a few words on the wider question of emissions trading, I will take a brief opportunity to do that as well. Labour members have said that we will support this legislation because the forestry sector has probably been one of the worst affected by the delays in the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. The House will know that the sector was effectively brought into the emissions trading scheme retrospectively when it came into force last year.

Obviously, with the staged bringing into force of the emissions trading scheme to all sectors and all gases—which is the uniquely New Zealand approach to emissions trading—the forestry sector was looking to be able to trade with other sectors as soon as they were brought into the scheme, notably the stationary energy sector on 1 January of next year. Unfortunately, Government policy has caused delay and doubt in the emissions trading and climate policy area. The decision to set up the Emissions Trading Review Committee and the conflicting statements made by Ministers about the future of climate change policy have cast that area into doubt and caused real difficulties, both internally and externally.

The forestry sector has probably suffered more than any other from this doubt. There has been deforestation. We hear reports of 8 million seedlings rotting in the ground. It is unfortunate to have to subject the forestry sector to yet more delay, but if there has to be a delay—and clearly there does, given the uncertainty around emissions trading and climate policy, and given that the select committee process will, as the Minister noted, possibly drag on into August, as far as a report-back date is concerned—we might as well try to achieve some certainty for the sector as to date.

We urgently need, in my view, to have agreement as to emissions trading policy. It is a shame that we could not have had that agreement under the previous administration, but, as is a matter of public record, the Labour Party has offered to have talks with the Government about whether we can achieve bipartisan certainty on the wider questions concerned.

As I said to the Minister, Labour will approach that task in good faith, and I hope he acknowledges that so far we have done so. We do so with a desire to achieve a system that will be durable and in the best interests of not only New Zealand industry but also the New Zealand environment. We do not see the interests of industry and the environment as competing with each other. We see the future for New Zealand as one that really lives the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. We see a future where we have an environment that not only has integrity but uses integrity in a meaningful way concerning the products we sell overseas, particularly in terms of food products and the tourism destinations we market overseas.

When we talk about the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, it should be something that people overseas can have some real reassurance about. Those people will know that we really mean it, rather than just paying lip service to it. If we are to do that, then we need to put a price on carbon at the margin. That is the only way, as everybody recognises, we will get meaningful behaviour change. It is the only way, for example, we will avoid continued conversions of marginal land to dairying as opposed to forestry or other uses that are much more in the national interest, and it is the only way we will be able to restore our international credibility as a country that takes these matters seriously.

Although we are a small emitter by global standards, our per capita emissions are high, and growing, and we are seen as a country that ought not to follow other countries but should show a bit of a lead on this issue. In fact, even if we act now internationally, it would not be as if we were taking a huge lead, given the positions of Europe, the positions that are developing in Australia, and the positions that are developing in the United States. By the time we get to Copenhagen at the end of the year, we will, hopefully, have armed our delegation with meaningful legislation, and, hopefully, an emissions trading scheme will be in force, with some good complementary measures and with a good target for emissions reductions, not only by 2050 but also by 2020.

The world will then be able to see that the last few months in New Zealand were just a hiccup, an unfortunate little pause for a cup of tea, and we will be able to really get on and give some certainty not only to business but also to other stakeholders. We will be able to tell them that we really mean what we say when it comes to climate change policy. Certainly, that is the aim of the Opposition in offering the opportunity for talks to the National Government. We regret the need to do it. We regret that it could not have been done 12 months ago, but we hope that we can reach a durable settlement and have an emissions trading scheme that has credibility. That will be our aim. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.