Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. Members, we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16A, “Restrictions on registration as participant (forestry conversions)”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to limit whole-farm conversions to exotic forestry registering in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme—otherwise known as the ETS. The bill follows through on a key election commitment and delivers on the action in the Government’s second emissions reduction plan. It takes a balanced, practical step towards protecting our most productive farmland, and will support our climate goals.

The primary sector is vital to the success of our economy. Our farmers feed New Zealand and the world. Forestry helps drive our economy, providing regional employment, sustainable wood products, and helping us meet our climate targets. However, the current seatings in the ETS mean that it can be more profitable to convert farms to exotic forests than using the land to produce food.

We’ve heard those concerns from the rural sector about whole farms being converted into exotic forests under the ETS. This Government’s position is that there is a place in New Zealand for both forestry and for agriculture to be growing our economy from the rural heartland, but doing so in a balanced way. This bill will protect our most productive land for food production while still allowing sustainable growth of the forestry sector.

The bill introduces four key changes to forestry in the ETS. The first is restrictions on exotic forestry ETS registrations on actively farmed Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 1 through to 6, which is our most productive land. Secondly, a 25 percent allowance providing farmers flexibility to plant up to a quarter of their land-use class 1 to 6 land in exotic forestry and register it in the ETS if they choose to do so. Thirdly, establish ballots to allocate up to an additional 15,000 hectares of exotic forestry on class 6 land to be registered in the ETS each year, providing for sustainable growth of the forestry sector while minimising full-farm conversions. Finally, temporary transitional exemptions for those who invested in good faith before December 2024.

Grounding these changes in the Land Use Capability classification system, which is a well-established tool that reflects the productivity of land, allows these restrictions to protect our most productive land. Importantly, the bill doesn’t limit ETS registrations on less productive land, on certain types of Māori land, on unfarmed land, or on native forests.

Following select committee, the House agreed to amend the bill to lift the bar to qualify for a transitional exemption. We agree that to be eligible for a transitional exemption, you must demonstrate both a clear interest in the specific land as well as evidence of a qualifying investment prior to 4 December 2024.

This House has also agreed to make minor amendments to the definition of “unfarmed land”, the way mapping standards will be issued, the exemption for offsetting land, and enable unused hectares in the portion of the ballot reserved for small-scale applications to be reallocated. These changes make this legislation stronger, fairer, and more future-focused while supporting the direction that this House has unanimously agreed to during the first reading.

Today, I have tabled Amendment Paper 363 proposing further changes to improve the ballot system in the bill. The ballot process is intended to support economic growth in the forestry sector by enabling additional afforestation in the ETS on Land Use Capability class 6 up to an annual limit. However, the forestry sector has raised concerns that the ballot system, as currently designed, may reduce investment in afforestation on LUC class 6 land because of increased uncertainty.

The Amendment Paper proposes to improve access to permits by running two ballots each calendar year rather than one. It will support the annual hectare limit to be fully allocated each year by allowing unallocated hectares to be reallocated between ballots and rolled over between years, and that’s capped at a proportion of the annual hectare limit prescribed by regulations. It will simplify the ballot’s design so that there is only one live permit for any title, and enable permit holders to cancel their permits if their intentions change. Finally, it will enable earlier refinement of the annual hectare limit by bringing forward the first review to 2028 rather than 2029.

Together, these changes simplify the ballot allocation system and enable greater opportunity for landowners and forestry investors to plan afforestation with confidence. This bill is a necessary and timely response to changing land use in New Zealand, driven by the ETS, one that reflects our climate ambitions, our commitment to rural communities, and our vision for a balanced, resilient future for New Zealand.

I do want to start working clause by clause through this bill in just a moment. There is something to be asked about many of the clauses in it. However, I first of all want to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture about this Amendment Paper that was dropped just today, and dropped with no notice to the Opposition. It just arrived on the Table. No one bothered to contact us to say that there was an Amendment Paper coming. There was no attempt to consult with us over the nature of the changes. It’s just arrived now at this very late stage of debate.

We find out from the Minister in the chair that, in actual fact, the Amendment Paper has arrived, following consultation with the forestry sector. That’s fine, but if there was time to consult with the forestry sector, there was time to pick up the phone and inform the Opposition that, in fact, an Amendment Paper was coming on this bill. I am, quite frankly, appalled by the process there, and I’d like the Minister to explain why no one bothered to tell us that this Amendment Paper was coming, because it does contain some quite important changes to this bill.

They’re changes that haven’t been examined through select committee, but they’re now going to have to be examined under urgency at the last minute in a debate where who knows where it will go. I think that’s a disgraceful process and I think that we at the very least deserve the courtesy of an answer as to why we weren’t at least given some notification of the substantial nature of this Amendment Paper. Minor amendments, sure, that happens; this is a little bit more substantial than that. I think the Minister owes us the courtesy of that explanation. I note that the Minister in the chair is not the Minister whose name is on this Amendment Paper; however, I appreciate that the Minister in the chair is acting as that Minister for the time being, so I really do want that answer and I will keep on asking for it until I get it.

Moving on to the bill itself, I do want to start working, as I said, clause by clause. I want to draw the Minister’s attention first to—now, it’s going to take a while now because we’ve got to flip back and forth between the two sets of stuff—clause 4. Now, clause 4—and I’ve just got to now check that that hasn’t somehow changed between the Amendment Paper and the bill as it came back from select committee. No, we’re all good on that. It amends section 3A of the original Act. It’s around the regulations for changing the annual hectare limit.

Now, the original Act requires the Minister to consult with iwi before making secondary legislation. There’s a set of regulations that have to be consulted on. Under the Treaty of Waitangi clause in this legislation—the one where we try to ensure that we govern appropriately in partnership with iwi, with Māori, as promised by the Treaty—it has said that if we’re going to change the annual hectare limit that then there has to be consultation with iwi. I want to know from the Minister whether New Zealand First and ACT were consulted on this clause in the process of drafting this bill and whether they are happy with it, given their known stances against the Treaty of Waitangi. That would be the first substantive question to the Minister: were New Zealand First and ACT aware of this new Treaty provision—well, not the whole provision but the need to consult when new regulations for changing hectare limits come into place?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, it’s quite exciting to get all these new Amendment Papers with no notice. It’s a pity, because this is a bill that we had some substantive conversations on at the committee, and certainly the Green Party deliberated at length in determining whether we would support or oppose the bill because it addresses a very serious problem, a very real problem of conversion of arable land to forestry, and it attempts to make a step in the correct direction on that. There were some serious challenges with how to try and create a piece of legislation that meaningfully addressed that problem. It would have been great to understand the logic behind the amendments and to have been included in that process—but, sadly, that is not the case.

I am, like my colleague Deborah Russell, going to be scrambling through this Amendment Paper to understand what the actual changes are. In the meantime, I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to Part 1, clause 6. In section 4 (1)—this is the section which basically designates that there will be a 25 percent allowance in relation to an individual farm for areas where forest plantations will be restricted up to 25 percent of all the areas of land use classification, classes 1 to 6, within the farm boundary.

I have, for simplicity’s sake, an amendment to that clause which would extend that 25 percent restriction into land-use classification class 7 and 8 also, and let me express why I think that’s an important thing to do. Land-use class 8, for a start; if you read the definition of “land-use classification 8”, it is “Very severe to extreme limitations to all productive land uses, arable, pastoral or commercial forestry. Suitable for erosion control, water management and conservation.” My question for the Minister would be: why would it be a good idea to have any percentage of carbon forestry permitted on Land Use Capability (LUC) 8? And just to repeat, the classification is “Very severe to extreme limitations to all productive land uses, arable, pastoral or commercial forestry.” This is exactly the LUC which is likely to be unharvestable, and understanding the practical reality of having plantation forestry on these higher classes of land 7 and 8, particularly in far-flung places, these are the forests that will become abandoned, that will not be commercial to harvest, that will become the future fuel for forest fires when we get worse drought conditions.

I’ve got more on this, but I’ll start by asking: why should there be any allocation in LUC 8? Similarly, why was the restriction on allocations to 25 percent, which has its problems in and of itself, stopped at LUC 6? Why not also restrict LUC 7 and LUC 8? Also, in a later question, I’ll invite the Minister to express their response to the very clear concerns of the sheep and beef industry, that the engine room of that farming sector is LUC 6 and LUC 7. So my proposed amendment is that if you’re going to choose this figure of 25 percent, apply it to all our LUC classes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just respond to the Green Party member’s questions. I think, as I made clear at the outset, this bill is about striking a balance between two very important sectors to the national economy, one being the forestry sector, the other being agriculture. We think this is striking a balance between protecting and preserving our most productive food-growing land, as well as allowing for our forestry industry to be successful, as well.

To answer the member’s question, the bill very clearly does not distinguish between production and carbon forestry. It does not restrict emissions trading scheme registration on Land Use Capability classes 7 and 8, because of the very principle that it is aiming to protect our most productive land for that food production that I’ve explained, but also allowing for sustainable growth in the forestry sector. It is not an anti-forestry bill. It is not an anti-farming bill. It is actually pro both industries.

To respond, also, to the Labour Party member’s questions—and I can sense her outrage about the consultation—but, you know, this bill has been widely canvassed. It has been through the proper parliamentary process. It has had a thorough hearing at the select committee process. In fact, the amendments made in the Amendment Paper that we’ve put forward today—there’s been plenty of hours since it was put forward—are as a direct result of industry feedback that the select committee heard. I can confirm that all parties have been consulted on the changes in the bill during that parliamentary process, and I would have thought that those parties who are making grand statements of outrage at the moment would have had something to say about that during the select committee process.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I’m not sure how the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicola Grigg, thinks that hours of notice for an Amendment Paper that is reasonably significant and that we got no heads-up about is proper process in Parliament, because it’s not. While she says that this has gone through the select committee—yes, it went through the Environment Committee; many of us are on that select committee—the Amendment Paper obviously hasn’t. That was the point that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell was making in her contribution.

I want to also point to a couple of points that the Labour Party members have raised a few times through the select committee process and subsequently in this House during the second reading, as well. One of those is the fact that it has been pointed out during submissions to select committee and also by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that really what we should be doing here is looking at a full review of the role that forestry plays within these years. That has not been done and this has been raised by a number of people.

I do want to ask the Minister in the chair why, given that there’s a fair bit of sentiment expressed by many that this piece of legislation could have gone further and that would have been that review of the role of forestry—the Climate Change Commission, for example, has suggested that if we allow these farm conversions to forestry, there is potential further down the track that New Zealand’s 2050 emissions target under the Paris Agreement will be put at risk. Of course, there is that report by the Parliamentary Commissioner as well. I do want to ask the Minister why that wasn’t done, why the Government made the choice not to go the whole hog and to review the role of forestry within the emissions trading scheme (ETS) but instead to come up with this option.

I also want to point to some of the concerns that have been raised. Many of us met with Federated Farmers just today, as well. I know that they’ve put out a press release. They have expressed some concern and, I guess, a little bit of anxiety around the fact that this doesn’t go as far as it should. They have said that as it stands, the bill allows a lottery system for Land Use Capability class 6 land with up to 15,000 hectares. I understand that with the Minister’s Amendment Paper, the amount of land—the quantum, the 15,000 hectares that is mentioned—doesn’t change. I would like some clarification or confirmation from the Minister on that. I understand that instead of an annual ballot, the change is for two ballots per year, but that the 15,000 in total remains the same. That is still the amount that is eligible for full conversion. They have said that, meanwhile, classes 7 and 8 remain unrestricted. They have expressed the view that it is then open slather for conversion there, and they have said that 88 percent of previous conversions were on classes 6 and above. For those carbon farming, that means it’s likely to be business as usual.

I would like a little bit of explanation from the Minister with regard to the specific land-use classes that are being restricted here. I know that Beef and Lamb New Zealand has also mentioned that up to 26,000 hectares of whole farm on land classes 6 and 7 could be converted each year. They feel that it’s too high and are keen to get a sense of where the 15,000 came from as well.

Beef + Lamb New Zealand has also said that class 6 is often the most productive land when it comes to sheep and beef farming. So there are questions around why the restrictions there are the way that they are in the bill. They’ve also mentioned that class 7 land is also economically viable.

Also, I do want to just quickly point to some of the flow-on effects that my colleagues have mentioned at various points in this House, but also in our differing view to the select committee, some of those flow-on effects for schools and for communities where these changes are being proposed, as well. Thank you.

I would just point out that two of my questions are still outstanding. One is on whether or not New Zealand First and ACT were aware of adding the regulations around changing the annual hectare limit to the requirement for consultation with iwi. For the first one, on why we weren’t informed about the introduction of this Amendment Paper, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicola Grigg, tried to say that it was because there was a select committee process. The absolute truth was this Amendment Paper arrived yesterday—well after the select committee process—and there are these three provisions in it, which are actually quite a bit different from the bill as it came out of the Environment Committee.

I would like to have some understanding as to why there was no consultation with us on the Opposition. It would have been simple to do, to just do a quick sense check with the Opposition to ensure that we were on board or could understand what these changes are and perhaps come up with any changes that might be necessary or give the Minister of Forestry some assurance that we didn’t see a problem with them. That’s part of what happened through the select committee process. I would like to still have answers on those, please.

I want to go to clause 5 of the bill, and that is consultation about certain regulations, orders, and so on. In particular, it’s in the same space as the previous one where I was asking about why iwi weren’t consulted. The original Act, when it comes to the matters that the Minister must consult—not with iwi, but, actually, more broadly with people in the industry, with the community, with stakeholders.

Section 3B of the original Act has a list of matters that the Minister must consult on, and to that is added—so that’s with respect to forestry generally or climate change generally—the regulations for changing hectare limits as something that the Minister must consult on.

But as well, in this bill, there is a process of setting up new mapping standards. Now, that’s done through Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)—I think, is where it’s going to be done through—but there are some new mapping standards to be developed for application to farms or to pieces of property where people are considering conversion to forestry. Why are those new mapping standards not being included in the consultation as well? It does seem to be something that ought reasonably to be consulted on. I appreciate it’s quite a technical matter, but that is also something that could possibly have been consulted on. Why was that possible consultation not included in the list of things that the Minister must consult on? Maybe it’s somewhere else—maybe it’s sitting somewhere else where LINZ routinely carries out consultation anyway. It would just be interesting to know exactly what that is. That would be a bit of help. Maybe it might even be the New Zealand Institute for Bioeconomy Science that does that. Who knows? But it would just be good to know why that isn’t included in the list of consultation.

In the few moments I’ve just got left on this particular call, I do want to move on to the definition section of this bill. The bill, in clause 6, amends section 4 of the original Act, and to that it adds a considerable number of definitions.

My colleague Steve Abel has talked about the 25 percent allowance. My question around the 25 percent allowance is just how that figure of 25 percent was arrived at. Why not a third? Why not 10 percent? What was the work done behind it to show that that would be an appropriate amount? Was that sort of the amount that typically goes into forestry if a farmer is converting only part of their land? So exactly where that 25 percent came from?

This next definition I’d like to ask about is the definition of “actively farmed”. It’s actively farmed: it says in the bill that the definition of it is that “all or part of the land described in a record of title is in use for farming purposes”. So “all or part”—how much “part”? Is 10 percent enough? Is 5 percent enough? What is enough for a part there? Is it 50 percent? It is left rather ill-defined. What does it mean to be actively farmed? Does that mean farmed as a business activity; or is it, maybe, farmed as a hobby activity? These are both possible. Now, I’m not much for hobby farming. I feel as though people who engage in hobby farming should perhaps, you know—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Get another hobby.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Get another hobby. Even so, does it include that?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just in response to the questions asked by members. First and foremost, the question asked was: why didn’t the Government do a full review of forestry of the emissions trading scheme (ETS)? Well, if we go back to the cold, old, dark days of 658 days ago when we came into Government, we inherited a scenario where the ETS market was in a state of massive volatility. Why? Because the prior Government had initiated a review of forestry in the ETS and it completely shocked the market. The first thing we did was stop that review. To say, “Well, why don’t you start that again?”, well, the reason is we want a credible ETS market, so we’re not into that.

Questions in regards to the Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 6, 7, and 8 and the concerns noted, particularly around land-use class 7 and 8—in terms of proportion of forestry going into those areas, approximately one-third of forestry goes into land-use class 7 and 8; around about 60 percent, circa, goes into land-use class 6—6 is the bread and butter area, obviously, and hence which is included within the broader cap that we have placed. Classes 7 and 8 are what you would refer to as traditional forestry areas and it is not subject to the cap. That’s the rationale in regards to that.

There are questions in regards to consultation and feedback on the Amendment Paper 363. I think, in fairness to the members, in the context of the changes that have been tabled by amendment, they are primarily remedial in nature, they are improvements to the bill, they are improvements in response to feedback that was received from the Environment Committee, and they enhance the bill. There’s nothing in there that actually makes the bill weaker or worse, in that context, from what was tabled. It strengthens and they are improvements and, in that context, the amendments are in good faith.

In the context of the questions around mapping standards for the ETS, obviously, the mapping standards are actually issued by the Environmental Protection Authority, and those definitions and requirements are concluded under that entity.

I just want to go to, again, another issue in the definitions, and I’m looking at some of the definitions around land-use class. Now, if I can direct the Minister—Minister, may I just ask which version of the bill you’re working off? Is it Amendment Paper 363, or off the paper as submitted by the—it’s just that we’ve had this issue once before, Minister, and so I want to make sure we’re on the right—

Hon Simon Watts: The Amendment Paper.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The Amendment Paper—thank you. I’ll make sure I work to the same thing then, as that kind of helps, doesn’t it? I’m looking at the definitions of Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1 to 6 land, and then land-use class 6 land—this is on page 7 of the Amendment Paper. We’ve got “LUC class 1-6 land”, which means “land identified as land use capability class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6”, and then we’ve got a separate definition of “LUC class 6 land”, which means “land identified as land use capability class 6”. So there’s kind of two separate definitions for the same thing.

The land underlying it is Land Use Capability 6, but we’ve got two definitions for the same thing. I wonder if the Minister could just talk about why we need two definitions for the same thing. I guess that my concern would be that something is going to get confused later on and someone will get confused somewhere along the way by that and there’ll be court cases for wahoo, and so the lawyers will have a good time with that.

Minister, while I’m talking definitions, I also wanted to say that I was taken by the definition of “mapped land”, which means land that is included on a map, but, in particular, it’s “on the NZLRI map”, and so it’s a particular map. But I don’t know, Minister. I just cast my mind back to the days when President Trump was drawing the trajectory of a hurricane to make sure it went in the direction that he wanted, and I sort of had that image running through my mind. I just wanted to know if you could draw on the map for yourself—and does that change around what’s going on there?

This mapped land is “land that is included on the NZLRI map”. I appreciate that it’s a common phrase—“mapped land”—but, obviously, it’s serving a particular purpose in this bill, and so if the Minister could just speak to the particular purpose in this bill. Oh, and just for the benefit of those who are watching at home, all three of you—and I’m sorry about my croaky voice; it sounds worse than it is—the NZLRI map is just the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory map, which is published by the New Zealand Bioeconomy Science Institute Ltd.

Just on that point, Minister, of course, the New Zealand Bioeconomy Science Institute Ltd is one of the new science institutes. It’s one of the four new public research organisations created from the merger of some of the previous Crown research institutes. To be honest, I just can’t recall the legislation for that coming through the House, or whether it had to come through the House in the first place, and so I just wanted to check that that entity actually legally exists.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In regards to questions on clause 6, definitions around where did the 25 percent number come from, I acknowledge that the member may not have read the National Party manifesto for the last election, in regards to this specific policy, but it was very clearly outlined that 25 percent was the number, and that was based on a range of feedback that was received in regards to what would be the appropriate number for this point. That’s where that number comes from.

Questions raised in regards to definitions on page 7 of the tabled amendment, as to why there looks to be two definitions of Land Use Capability class 6—in simple terms, that is to avoid confusion. One of them is in the context of the generic definition; the other is specifically for the context around the 25 percent. Through Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting, it is to ensure that there is not confusion around those two points. The point is, though, when you do look, they are very similar.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā rawa atu tātou katoa i tēnei, Te Wiki o te Reo Māori.

Nā te mea ko tēnei Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, ka whakahua i aku kōrero me aku pātai i roto i te reo Māori i tēnei pō. Reo Māori: tuatahi ka mihi atu au ki te Minita tuatahi i noho i roto i te tūru me āna kōrero ki a mātou i tēnei pō. I kī mai ia kāre rātou o tērā taha e pīrangi ki te takatakahi i tēnei mahi, te mahi ngahere, ā, kei te pērā tonu te whakaaro o tēnei taha o te Whare. Kei te pīrangi mātou kia whai oranga ngā kaipāmu me ngā kaimahi ngahere katoa, otirā Aotearoa whānui. Heoi anō rā, e te—kei te pai?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed true greetings to all of us this week, Māori Language Week.

Because this is Māori Language Week, I will express my statements and questions in the Māori language tonight. Māori language: first I would like to thank the first Minister to sit in the chair and his comments to us tonight. He said that they on that side do not want to denigrate this endeavour, forestry, and we have a similar opinion on this side of the House. We want all farmers and forestry workers, indeed wider New Zealand, to achieve wellbeing. However, to the—is everything OK?]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could you just hold on for one second while we catch up with the technology, please.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Ka pai. Ka tīmata anō. I kī mai te Minita tuatahi i noho i roto i te tūru, ehara tēnei i te kaupapa i te pire takatakahi i ngā mahi ngahere. Kei te pērā tonu ngā whakaaro o tēnei taha o te Whare. Kei te pīrangi mātou kia whai oranga ngā kaipāmu, ngā kaimahi ngahere hoki.

Heoi anō rā hei tāpiri atu ki te pātai a tētahi o aku hoa i tēnei taha ki ngā karaehe whenua, tēnā koe e te Minita, mō tō whakahoki i tana pātai e pā ana ki te karaehe tuawhitu me te karaehe tuawaru. Heoi anō rā ko taku pātai hei tāpiri atu ki tāna, me pēhea rā koutou e aukati i taua āhuatanga? Nā te mea kei te tino māharahara ētahi ka huri katoa ngā whenua karaehe tuawhitu, tuawaru hoki ki te ngahere.

Nā reira me pēhea rā koutou e aukati i taua āhuatanga?

Ko tētahi atu pātai, kua kōrero koe mō te kōrero tahi mō ngā iwi Māori e mahi ana i te mahi ngahere. Heoi anō rā ki te tiro mātou ki ngā whakamārama o te whenua, arā Māori freehold, Māori customary, me te general land nō te tangata Māori, ka ōrite tō kōrero tahi ki a ratou katoa, ka aha rānei?

Ki tua atu, ka kōrero anake koe ki ngā iwi? Ka kōrero rānei koe ki ngā hapū, ki ngā whānau, ki te tangata tonu hoki?

Koirā hoki aku pātai mō tēnei wā.

[I’ll start again. The first Minister to take the chair said that this programme is not a bill to denigrate the forestry industry. The opinions on this side of the House are the same. We want farmers and forestry workers to achieve wellbeing.

However to add to the question of one of my colleagues on this side regarding whenua classifications, thank you, Minister, for your response to his question regarding class 7 and class 8. However, my question, supplementary to his, is how are you going to prevent such an eventuation? Because some people are very worried that class 7 lands, and class 8 also, will be converted into forest, and so how will you prevent that from eventuating?

A further question: you have spoken about consultation for iwi Māori that are involved in the forestry industry. However, if we look at the descriptions of the land—Māori freehold, Māori customary, and general land owned by Māori individuals—will your consultation be the same with all of them, or what will it be?

Furthermore, will you consult with iwi only? Or will you speak with hapū, with families, and with individuals?]

Yeah, thank you very much to the member for the questions. Two aspects in particular were raised there around, in effect—well, I guess the question was being asked around the concerns around planting on land-use classification 7 and 8 and, in effect, what the mechanisms are around restricting that. As I noted before, the significant proportion of forestry that is going on to land that is captured by this legislation is particularly in land-use class 6, in the context of around 60 percent, and it is the assessment that in the context of when we’re looking at productive farmland in particular, that is the area and below that are the areas that are most heavily affected. The context around 7 and 8 is not an area that has been at issue.

I think it’s important to recognise that the legislation on the Table today is providing for the first time a cap on the amount of forestry going on to productive farmland in this country. At the moment, as it stands before this, there is no restriction. That has been highlighted as an area that we are looking to. As the context is set in terms of the classifications and the cap, obviously that will be reviewed as this programme rolls out over the years to come. But at this point, we’re comfortable with where the settings have been made.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to ask questions to the Minister regarding erosion-prone land. It’s now page 5—I think it was page 5 before—clause 6. I have an amendment in this regard. Minister, given the acknowledgment of the challenges in planting in Land Use Capability (LUC) 6 and LUC 7 and LUC 8 particularly, erosion susceptibility is a major challenge, and one of the things that was very well canvassed in the submission process was the fact that the LUC class system is not designed for the purpose it’s being used for, for this legislation, but the argument was that it’s the best we’ve got.

Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment pointed out the very useful work that Manaaki Whenua has been doing on more granular Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) - based mapping of erosion-prone land in the Hawke’s Bay. You can jump on the website and see the erosion mapping. It is far more granular than the LUC system. The Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne have already done this mapping—the regional council has paid for it. It is publicly available data. My amendment simply suggests that in those areas and regions where this more granular and accurate mapping of erosion-prone land has been done, that should be the default basis of the erosion classification. Now, that is not a difficult thing to do.

Grant McCallum: Have you done the sums?

STEVE ABEL: There are no sums to be done in that instance, sir, because the mapping has been done and it has been paid for by the—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Who’s going to pay for the implementation?

STEVE ABEL: OK. You’ve already got restriction on erosion-prone land. Perhaps the Minister could elucidate to his member what the requirements are around erosion-prone land. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The members might like to take a call if they’re—

STEVE ABEL: Take a call. I think that’s a great idea, Mr Chair. All I’m saying is that if erosion-prone land is an issue, here we have an opportunity to inform land users with a more granular and effective way of understanding that erosion-prone land.

I note that the current wording says “land that is spatially identified as a high or severe erosion risk layer in a regional plan or district plan.” It may be as simple as requiring or requesting that the likes of the Hawke’s Bay include their erosion mapping in their regional plan. But if it is not already done, then my proposal is an amendment that does exactly that.

To finish that question—and I’ll leave it there and, hopefully, the Minister will respond straight away—let’s understand that the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne are two areas where the question of erosion, the impact of that in terms of forestry, has been absolutely devastating. Getting this right is very important. That erosion-prone land is not land that it is appropriate to have plantation, commercial forestry on that will be harvested and cause more erosion. I appreciate your response. Thank you, Minister.

I thank the member for the question. In regards to the way in which erosion-prone land is assessed, currently that is the task of the relevant local government entity to undertake that classification. In many cases, such as the one in which the member has noted, there is no restriction on the mechanisms which they use in order to determine what erosion-prone land is. I would expect, potentially, that they may consider using such technology if that’s of better quality than other sources available.

At the point at which the local governments deem that the land is erosion prone, at that point—under the legislation on the Table—that would be exempted as part of this mechanism. In effect, the bill on the Table does not restrict the use of such tech availability; it is for the role of local government to determine and do so. But as and when it is zoned erosion-prone land, then it is exempt from the bill and that’s, in our view, the most appropriate way to deal with it.

The Minister in the chair said that one of the reasons that we didn’t get any notification of these amendments that were coming through is that they were minor and remedial in nature. I just disagree, Minister. I mean, in the original bill as it went through select committee—as it was presented to the House and then went through the select committee process—there was going to be one ballot a year, and now we have two ballots a year. That’s a difference. It makes a difference as to the way it is allocated.

More importantly, in the original bill, as it went through the Environment Committee, if the annual hectare limit was not reached, if it was not all allocated, then those hectares just kind of disappeared, as it were, and now they are included in rollover relief. In effect, what this bill is now saying is that 15,000 hectares a year of farmland is going to be available, and if it’s not used up one year, if only 10,000 is used up, well, then there’ll be 20,000 available the following year, and so on and so on and so on.

I do want to focus on—sorry, there was one other thing that was changed in there: it was the timing of the annual reviews. In the bill as presented, the annual reviews were going to be, first of all, in 2029 and then every five years thereafter. In this bill, as now coming before us, a change—it’s an interesting one. The first review of a hectare limit is now going to be—sorry 2028, then 2034, then every five years thereafter. That’s a wee bit of a change. Now, bringing that first review forward to 2028 is interesting because it makes it happen in three years. Is that enough time? I do want to have a look at that when we get to it. I’ll be asking the Minister that question.

In the meantime, I want to focus on rollover. Sitting in the definition section—it’s clause 6 of the bill, which amends section 4 of the original Act; I’m looking at page 8 of the Amendment Paper—there is now a definition of rollover limit. The rollover limit is the prescribed proportion of the annual hectare limit for a calendar year. There’s the maximum that can be reallocated in the second ballot of that year to the next calendar year. What I want to hear from the Minister is: what is the prescribed proportion? Is that anywhere set in this bill or is that going to be set in regulations? If it’s going to be set in regulations, that’s fine. It’ll be subject to consultation and review, but it would be helpful to know from the Minister just around about what that prescribed proportion might be—are we talking 50 percent; are we talking 10 percent? There needs to be something in there that just says what that prescribed proportion is going to be.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I’m jumping to new section 167B—added by clause 11—page 11: “Regulations relating to LUC class 6 land permits”. This is the ballot requirement. Now, the ballot is probably the most complex and difficult part of this legislation. It’s suggesting that 15,000 hectares be designated annually through a ballot process in land-use class (LUC) 6 land. This is one of the things that has been widely criticised by certain in the pastoral sector, sheep and beef, among others, have pointed out that over the course of a decade, that’s 150,000 hectares of land, which is a significant amount of land to still be going into forestry.

The ballot requirements are complex. The means by which the ballot will be accessed is complex. My question for the Minister of Climate Change is: how did you strike upon the determination of 15,000? Why not 10,000? Why not 5,000? Why not 30,000?

Secondly, given how concerned the sheep and beef sector are, describing LUC 6 as the engine room of their production, and how opposed they are to this ballot system, I have an amendment which proposes to remove the ballot system entirely. That would vastly simplify this legislation and get away the uncertainty for land users—and for foresters, for that matter—that the ballot system represents.

My first question is: what is the logic behind the choice of hectarage that has been put into that ballot system? Oh, I have one other question in that regard: there is due to be a designation of small land holders, a guaranteed minimum percentage that will be balloted. That has not been designated. It’s strange because my memory, from the Environment Committee, was we did have a discussion about it being a minimum of a third of the 15,000—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Some of these members—inside voices, please. I can hardly hear. Thank you. Carry on, Mr Abel.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. We did have a conversation about whether it should be a guaranteed minimum third of that 15,000 designation, and there is no number given to that. I have proposed another amendment which does in fact require that that designation to small landowners be a third, at minimum, that is 5,000 hectares annually. That’s another question, so I’d appreciate the response.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister in the chair around the changes that are outlined in the Amendment Paper 363 that was recently tabled as well, and they also relate to the ballot system. I want to know the reason or the rationale behind the amendment here, which is to allow for two ballots instead of the one annual ballot. The Minister hasn’t explained the rationale for this amendment, as far as I’m aware. While I’m a permanent member of the Environment Committee, I made way for colleagues who heard the submissions to the select committee. I don’t recall this particular change being one that was submitted on but if it was—and there’s a reason for this—then I invite the Minister to clarify that and to share what that rationale is for the two ballots within the period, given that the 15,000 hectares remains the same. Why two ballots instead of the one?

The second question is also around the rollover provision that is outlined in this Amendment Paper; the rollover of unallocated hectares. It does state here that hectares of the annual hectare limit that aren’t fully allocated within a specific class—Land Use Capability (LUC) class 6 land permits—in a year could be rolled over for use in the next year but then cannot be rolled over further. I’m keen to hear the rationale for the eligibility for it to roll over into the next year but not the second year.

Also, if the intent of this legislation is to restrict the amount of farmland that can be converted into forestry, then why the rollover provision at all? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that change that has been recently introduced, as well. That relates specifically to new sections 190KHB and 190KHC, that relate to the two ballots: the first and the second ballots.

The third area of questioning that I have is around the third change that is outlined in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. I’m still, to be fair, trying to get my head around it, but it’s around—the heading for that section of the amendment is: “Permits not for same records of title”. It says here that this particular Amendment Paper that has been introduced by the Minister quite recently provides a new section 190KLA for the “application not to be eligible for entry into the ballot if it contains a record of title that is already included in an LUC class 6 land permit.” The new section 190KLB then “provides that if an application is drawn that contains a record of title that is included in other applications, those other applications are then cancelled.” I’m just keen for some clarity around that from the Minister as to why that’s been introduced through this Amendment Paper. What is the rationale for that? What is the intent behind this particular change?

Subsequent to that and related to those changes, there is also a new section 190KY, which then allows a permit holder to cancel their permit by informing the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA then notifies the landowner using their last known contact details, as supplied to the EPA. It just seems really clunky to me and I’m trying to get my head around the rationale for this entire section. I’m just keen to get some clarity from the Minister around all of these changes that have been introduced through the Amendment Paper.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll go through the questions that have been asked. There was a question earlier asking what the basis was for the 15,000 limit and the context and background in addition to it being something that was considered as part of the manifesto commitment. The historical plantings was also a factor in our considerations in terms of ensuring that that limit was set slightly below what was seen as the historical pipeline of planting. Also, a factor was input from the sector, also acknowledging that we have implemented a number of review steps, going forward—the first being in 2028, that will consider the appropriateness of that limit.

In the context of the question around the small applications pool—in effect, the exact number that is going to be allocated to that grouping through the ballot is something that will be set in regulations. It has not been set yet but it needs to be set at a level that will support flexibility and certainty. I welcome any input on that between now and when those regulations are considered.

In regards to the question around the unallocated hectares in the ballot process—and there are two ballots and I’ll come back to why there are two—in effect the two ballots are in place primarily to improve the access opportunity to ensure foresters have multiple opportunities to participate in the ballot. Having two instead of one gives more opportunities to participate, and that’s it. The volume is split between two so that doesn’t have any material impact in terms of that; it just gives more optionality.

In regards to the unallocated portion, again that will be set in regulations, and while it has not been set yet, consideration around what that is will be thought-out. I guess the context is you don’t want a significant rollover consideration happening year on year, which would, in effect, have a dilution effect similar, I guess, in terms of the emissions trading scheme unit settings but in a different conceptual model. Again, I’m signalling that that is something we will consider and take feedback on as well.

Mr Chair, sorry, I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be able to speak for, which I guess some of my colleagues might find a blessed relief. But I do want to—

Hon Member: You’re not losing your voice?

Dana Kirkpatrick: Keep going, Deborah!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, yeah, ka pai.

I do want to focus on some issues around the ballot, as we’re talking about the ballot now, because it is an interesting piece of legislation. I just want to focus, first of all, on—let me see if I can find it. It is new section 190KN, inserted by clause 16. I just feel as though there’s a missed opportunity here, Minister. It says that “The EPA must conduct a ballot by random selection—(a) in accordance with the Act … and (b) by using electro-mechanical drawing equipment or any other equipment that the EPA may determine.” I just feel as though there’s a missed opportunity, here, to tell them that they should use a biscuit tin, which might have done the job just as well. I invite—if anyone wants to, you know, they could have done a biscuit tin.

But there’s a couple of things where I think it may be a little bit difficult. If we go to new section 190KL, inserted by clause 16—that I have a serious questions around—there’s some conditions of eligibility. Of the things, to be eligible to put in the application, is you might have to pay a prescribed fee, if any. Given that this is a ballot, it does seem a little hard that a person might have to put together a whole application and have it ready to go into the ballot and then pay the prescribed fee, and then they might not get drawn out of the ballot. I think that does seem a little harsh. It does seem to me that, rather than that being a condition of going into the ballot in the first place, maybe it might need to be a condition of being successful in the ballot. That might be a better place to charge a fee. Now, I appreciate it does say “if any;”. I just invite the Minister of Forestry to take that thought on board with respect to drawing up the regulations, when it comes to working out the regulations around the ballot.

The other section I want to look at is new section 190KO, inserted by clause 16, and that’s “Review and appeal are not available for decisions about entering the application into ballot”. Now, going through the bill, as drafted, there are a series of criteria that people must meet in order to put an application into the ballot, or bits of information they must give; that all seems perfectly reasonable. But then it says the Environmental Protection Authority can decide whether or not to enter an application into the ballot and, in fact, there’s no review or appeal of that. Now, it says, “under any of sections 144 to 146” of the original Act. Now, section 144 is just asking for a review—as far as I can call it, the EPA itself. To be fair, sections 145 and 146 go on to the District Court and, I think, the High Court, and that does seem a little bit far down the track.

However, it does seem to be reasonable to me that if someone’s application is rejected from the ballot, there should at least be some capacity to ask for a review of that. Or is the Minister intending to ask the EPA to set up a system whereby they review applications in the first place so that a person can correct an application if necessary or add information to it as needed so that it can go into the ballot? Otherwise, having no right of appeal does seem to be at least a little unfair—and something that could easily be corrected.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a follow-up question on the ballot after my colleague Deborah Russell, who is persevering bravely through the winter challenges—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Brave, courageous, and not afraid of anything.

STEVE ABEL: —courageously. In terms of the entry into the ballot, does it function the same as our entry into the biscuit tin here—you enter once and you remain there for every subsequent draw—and there’s two annually? Or does one have to enter each time there’s to be a draw, like buying a Lotto ticket? That would indicate the challenges, potentially, for the cost of entry to the ballot, if one has to enter the ballot twice a year, or does one enter the ballot once and remain there until such time as they withdraw themselves from the ballot?

My other question is—I think it’s page 21 of Amendment Paper 363 also—on section 190KZ, inserted by clause 16: “The EPA may report publicly on processes under this subpart, including information regarding receiving and approving applications and allocating the annual hectare limit.” Now, why is it that it’s “may”; surely, “the EPA must” would be better because from a point of view of transparency about the ballot allocation, “must” must be better wording. So that’s an amendment that I’ve proposed, also.

Further down, in section 190KZA, “Review of annual hectare limit”, subsection (1) states, “The Minister of Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with the Minister of Forestry, may initiate a review of the annual hectare limit.” Again, I propose that it should be “they must initiate a review of the annual hectare limit.” I’ll jump down and come back with another one in a minute.

Tēnā koe, te Heamana. Ka pātai anō awau i roto i te reo Māori. Tēnā anō tātou; tēnā koe e te Minita. I a au e tipu ana, he rārangi paina kei tērā taha o tō mātou taiapa. E toru tekau mita pea te tawhiti mai i tō mātou whare. E hoa mā, ngā ngārara paina, arā pine beetle, i tau mai ki roto i tō mātou whare!

[Thank you, Mr Chair. I will again pose my questions in the Māori language. Greetings to all of us. Greetings, Minister. When I was growing up, there was a line of pine on the other side of our fence. It was maybe 30 metres from our house. My friends, the pine beetles that landed in our house!]

Arena Williams: Ngārara paina. [Pine beetle].

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Kupu hou: “ngārara paina”.

Ehara tērā i te kōrero noa iho, e te Minita, he pātai anō kei roto. Kei te kōrero au mō te wāhanga tuatahi, rārangi tuaono, me kī, Part 1, clause 6, e pā ana ki ngā taha whenua, me kī, arā farm boundaries. Ki te kōrero mātou mō ngā taha whenua, kei te whakaaro au ki ngā ripa a ngā tāngata noho tata, arā neighbours. Kua whakaritea he ture e kīa nei, he aha te tawhiti o te ngahere o tētahi kaipāmu ki te whare, ki te taha whenua, ki te pātiki rānei o ngā tāngata noho tata?

[New vocabulary: “pine beetle”.

This is not just a story, Minister, but there is in fact a question in there. I am speaking about Part 1, clause 6, regarding farm boundaries, I should say. If we speak about farm boundaries, I am considering the boundaries of the neighbours. Has legislation been prepared that says: what is the distance from a farmer’s forest to the house, the farm boundary or paddock of the neighbours?]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry, I was busy listening to my colleague, so I wasn’t quite up on my feet as soon as I needed to be.

Hon Member: Oh, excuses, excuses!

Hon Member: Were you listening?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, you’re not listening.

I want to go to new section 190KT, added by clause 16. It’s on the bottom of page 21 of the Amendment Paper, and it’s about whether or not permits can be transferred between people. A person can win a permit in the ballot; can that person then transfer that permit on? It says no because, actually, the permit is in respect of a certain set of land, so that’s where it has to go—it has to go with the land. It does mean that the permit, in effect, does attach to the land rather than the person, or maybe both.

But it can be transferred by way of inheritance—that seems fair enough—but then the other one is in terms of unincorporated bodies. An unincorporated body, of course, could acquire a permit, and, then, members could move in and out of the unincorporated body. We have to sort of work out—it’s the standard bridge of Theseus problem from philosophy: at what point does taking one member out, one at a time, actually change the nature of the person? The Minister of Forestry has, quite sensibly, stipulated the limits and said we’ve got to have 60 percent of the original members of the unincorporated body still there. Minister, why 60 percent? Again, is it drawn from another piece of legislation? I would have thought the obvious place to go to would be the income tax legislation, but if you could just clarify exactly why it was going to be 60 percent of people continuing in place was enough for an unincorporated body.

There was another one: if we just go on to new section 190KU, added by clause 16—that’s on page 22 of the Amendment Paper—it says, well, you can’t use a land-use permit other than in respect of the land specified in the permit. That’s kind of a bit of a belt and braces section, because you would have thought that would be a no-brainer. But if the land is subdivided, then the permit is no longer valid. Now, I couldn’t quite see why that had to be the case. Surely, if the land is subdivided, the permit could be determined to go where the bulk of the forestry was. It could go across the subdivision if the land was subdivided in such a way that—say it was a 20-hectare permit, and 5 hectares of it was on one side of the subdivision and 15 on the other; surely that could be a way.

I guess there is some mischief that this particular rule is trying to prevent. If the Minister in the chair could just give us an indication of what mischief that particular rule is trying to prevent. It does seem to be reasonable to be able to subdivide land, and why shouldn’t the permit go with it? But, clearly, there could be some trouble there.

Just a response to those two questions: the 60 percent number is actually—the proxy for that is within the Climate Change Response Act. There is a precedent around that percentage being used there. Around the mandatory aspect of not being able to, in effect, transact beyond or outside the scheme: we don’t want to create a secondary market mechanism in this context, for these units, so hence why that was done.

There was a point raised around cost recovery, before, in the context of whether there will be a fee. Regulations haven’t been set in terms of what that fee will be, but the precedent will be to ensure that the costs are covered for the Environmental Protection Authority to, in effect, administer the ballot.

There was also a question in regard to, in effect, if you make an application into the ballot, does that remain even if you are unsuccessful, and in effect carry forward. The answer is no. You will need to reapply each ballot if you are unsuccessful, and a precedent for that is to ensure that at each ballot, then, everyone has a consistent starting point in terms of ability to get an allocation of hectare limit.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to be able to ask questions on this bill and particularly on the amendment, which, as we’re aware, has not gone through a select committee process. So I’m very keen to hear some answers about this.

The area I’m interested in hearing about from the Minister in the chair is about the rollover of unallocated hectares. Now, this is in Amendment Paper 363, which we got earlier today, and it refers to new sections 190KHB and 190KHC, which are on page 18 of the Amendment Paper. This is about, as I understand it, the hectares that are under that annual hectare limit, which, I believe, is 15,000 hectares per year and that if they’re not fully allocated for that land-use class—class 6 land—they can now be rolled over for use in the next year, up to a prescribed rollover limit.

What I’m interested in with this rollover is that the rationale for that 15,000 was to provide some flexibility for landowners who want to register their hectares in the emissions trading scheme. Is this rollover, essentially, deeming the 15,000 more of a target than offering flexibility, and is that something that was discussed with the forestry industry and then resulted in these changes that we’re not aware of? I’d be really interested in hearing the rationale, because, presumably, it takes it from being something that did provide flexibility and could be up to the 15,000 to then, essentially, saying, “Well, to provide more flexibility we’re, essentially, aiming for that 15,000 and allowing a greater time period, now two years, to achieve that.” I’d really be interested to hear from the Minister what the rationale was with that and how it’s actually going to apply in practice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d first like to speak to a quite specific issue in clause 16, inserting new section 190KZA. I have an amendment there. There currently is a requirement, “Review of annual hectare limit”. I see this new amendment proposed for reviews to take place in 2028, 2034, and at intervals of five years after 2034. That is an improvement, because the original date was 2029, so it makes it a bit sooner.

I’m proposing, Minister, that a third point be put, which is that the review must also be done in consultation with the forestry and farming sectors, and the Ministers should have regard to the outcomes of any consultation. They are the two most impacted sectors. If we’re going to do these reviews only at five-yearly intervals by 2034, then let’s make sure we include the opinions of those farming and forestry sectors, who are most impacted. It’s a pretty basic amendment.

A much broader question, Minister, is—and you raised this at the start of your commentary—what is your advice, or what advice have you received, on the impact of this legislation on the carbon price? You spoke about the challenges with the carbon price. A collapsed carbon price, as we have in the regularly failing market, means that the market is basically not functioning as an incentive for people to invest into carbon-reducing technologies or practices.

What advice did you get on the effect of this legislation on the carbon price? There seems to be very little analysis provided in the regulatory impact statement, which was only released last week, and there hasn’t been any substantive independent analysis of the detail of that.

What would be the impact also, Minister, on production forestry in a more general sense? Last year’s Ministry for Primary Industries Afforestation and Deforestation Intentions Survey shows that there was a dramatic slowdown in planting, which was linked to uncertainty around this very bill. Now, we already know we have real challenges with the impact on the supply of timber; we have huge challenges with the closure of mills. What analysis or what advice have you received on the impact on forestry production? If forestry investment continues to decline, we are potentially sandwiching that industry to the point of closure.

I’d love the Minister of Climate Change to give us some clarity on that—on the concerns that the forestry sector have around how this impacts them.

Thanks very much, I’ll answer those questions quickly. In the context of the question around the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), obviously I can’t comment as climate Minister in that capacity on the specific price of the ETS, but what is clear is that, versus the status quo, a cap on the amount of forestry being able to go into the ETS versus the status quo of a non-cap does provide, in effect, a limit on the amount of units going into that market. By virtue of that, in the context of supply and demand, it has some impact in the context versus the status quo.

In regard to production forestry, obviously that’s a long-term investment area. The consideration and the most important aspect that they note is around having enduring certainty and confidence in that market, not only in terms of the broader ETS price but also around Government policy. That’s why the concerns around the review of the role of forestry in the ETS, as noted previously, created such significant volatility because of the long-term horizon of forestry as a business area. We took on board that consideration and feedback as part of the drafting of this.

There are other policy areas outside of this bill that the Government are pursuing around afforestation on Crown land that also provides opportunities as well. Just to cover off the member’s points, I won’t be accepting the amendment because, by virtue of any review, we will be taking feedback from related, impacted, and consulted parties that do have an interest in that, and that would be normal practice.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll be looking for new material now.

Oh, well, Mr Chair, I want to draw the committee’s attention to new section 190KV, inserted by clause 16, which has not been discussed at all yet, and that is about the duration of a class 6 land permit: three years. Once a person gets a permit through the ballot system, they’ve got three years from the date that it is drawn until really, basically, 31 December—three years thereafter. That’s a pretty good length of time. That seems to be a reasonable length of time. However, the interesting bit is new section 190KW, when a person actually can get an extension of time. Instead of just three years, it’s out to six full years. It says, in the case of when there’s, say, a “temporary adverse weather event”—that makes sense. You imagine getting ready to plant and, as we’ve had happen, a cyclone comes storming through. It does make sense to allow extra time. But then it says “or similar circumstances materially disrupted the occupant’s ability to register forest land”. I’m interested in the similar circumstances. Does it have to be a natural event that occurred? Is, say, for example, a drought sufficient? Probably not. It’s hard to know. But what’s, say, a typical one: a relationship breakdown where something goes wrong and things have to change? What’s going to count as being sufficiently similar to extend to six years?

Just if we could answer those questions but, Minister, in addition to that, I do want to draw your attention to new section 190KY. You assured us that the amendments in this proposed Amendment Paper were minor and technical and remedial in nature. I have to say that this doesn’t look minor and technical and remedial in nature to me. So 190KY, there’s a bit of gobbledygook and I was going to ask about it, but seeing as it’s now disappeared, that’s quite good.

But it says, “If, in the same ballot year, a LUC class 6 land permit is issued to more than 1 person, and those permits have a record of title in common, all other permits with that title in common expire in their entirety when one of those persons registers as a participant or adds a carbon accounting area on the basis of their permit.” It sounds like it’s to do with lots of people being involved in something. That clause is entirely deleted. Here comes the “minor and technical” amendment. It’s actually an entirely new clause with the same number or the same “190KY”. It goes on to how “The holder of a LUC class 6 land permit may cancel the permit by notifying the EPA in the prescribed form.” Basically, you’ve won your land class permit, you’ve decided not to use it, you cancel out. The question here is does that then go back into, say, the next ballot? Let’s say you’ve got it in ballot one, does it then go into ballot two, or is that unused permit then eligible for the rollover provisions? There’s just a little technicality there that would be good to clear up, and if the Minister in the chair could clear that up, that would be very helpful. I think that’s almost my last question on the ballot, actually, so I’ll leave it at that.

The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

I’m just going to give the Minister in the chair a little chance to answer those questions because they are good questions, Minister.

Well, the reason why I didn’t answer was because I’ve already answered that question in regards to the rollover questions that were answered before. I said that the amount of rollover is going to be set in regulations. We haven’t set it at this point. There is a balance of making sure that we don’t create a big bow wave of rollover that dilutes and increases the number of units. We’ll take feedback on that, but, again, I’m repeating myself.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 363 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 6(1) amending the definition of “25 percent allowance” be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 6(1) amending the definition of “erosion-prone land” be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clauses 11 and 16 to delete new section 167B and new Subpart 4B are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 16, new section 190KK to insert “of 5,000 hectares” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 16, new section 190KZ to replace “may” with “must” be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 16, new section 190KZA to replace subsection (2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 16, new section 190KZA(1) to replace “may” with “must” be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 16, new section 190KZA to insert new subsection (3) be agreed to.