Have Your Say On The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill
Currently, the Emissions Trading Scheme creates an incentive to convert land used for pastoral agriculture to production and permanent forestry. The bill would limit whole-farm conversions to exotic forestry with the aim of protecting productive land for agricultural purposes.
Tell the Environment Committee what you think
Make a submission on the bill by 9.00am on Monday, 07 July 2025
For more details about the bill:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Former minister hits out at carbon farming of pines
A tree industry expert and former minister of forestry has condemned "lock and leave" carbon farming, but says you still can not tell farmers what to do with their land. Former Labour minister Stuart Nash said in his time with the portfolio he had a dream for how the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would benefit the country. "With the ETS, for the first time ever there's been an economic incentive to plant up land that should have never been cleared in the first place," he said. But forestry conversions, since the incentive was introduced, where dense pines were planted with no plan to harvest the mature trees, were not good, he said. "You will end up with an ecological disaster in between 80 and 100 years," he said. He understood that some legislation was developing to help restrict the planting of pines, but said you still can not tell farmers what to do with their land and their money. "I don't know if that's the right route," he said. "Farmers get pretty p..... off ... because what it does mean is, their farm which may be worth, $10 million to a forester is now only worth $7m." The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme-Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in June. It proposed restrictions to the quality and proportion of arable land that could be planted in trees. Mr Nash had a masters degree in forestry science and previously worked for construction, paper and forestry giants Carter Holt Harvey and Fletcher Challenge. His ideal for carbon farming was that pines would be planted low density, for no longer than 50 years, while at the same time seeding natives. Then after 50 years, the ministry would allow the grower to collect carbon credits of the native forest as the pines died off. In this ideal situation, carbon farmers would not be allowed to collect credits or money on pines past that 50-year cut-off. He said research by the sustainability charitable trust Pure Advantage showed that Mānuka could be a just as fast growing and carbon-absorbing alternative to pines. While he was the minister, he said the research needed more time to cook and the good thing about pines were that they were the most hardy. "It's the over-boiled Brussels sprouts of the trees," he said. "Not many people like it, not many [bugs and diseases] like it [either]." Coming from Napier, he had seen the devastation Cylone Gabrielle and Cyclone Hale had on the east coast of the North Island in 2023. This was where trees on farms would have come in handy, he said as roots made the ground more hardy, and would have prevented slips and other soft ground corrosion after the floods. A lot of New Zealand land should never had been cleared for farming and he said it was expensive to plant hilly, non-productive land, without incentive. He said despite seeing the benefit of forests and the ETS for the land, he by no means wanted to see highly productive farms and soil turned into carbon farms. "I'm really loathe to tell farmers what they should and shouldn't do," he said. "But I'm very happy to tell carbon farmers what they should do."
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Moves To Strip Protections For Water Quality
The Environmental Law Initiative says last-minute Government amendments would gut core protections for New Zealand's rivers, lakes, and streams. Minister Chris Bishop today released an amendment to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, consisting of changes that were never scrutinised by a Select Committee. "They include sweeping changes to section 70 of the Resource Management Act that will make it easier for polluters to continue damaging our most degraded waterways — and to start degrading clean ones," says ELI's Senior Researcher, Anna Sintenie. For decades, New Zealand law has set clear bottom lines for water quality — limits on oil slicks, foams, scums, suspended materials, colour changes, odour, farm animal drinking safety, and harm to aquatic life. The new amendments would: Allow regional councils to permit ongoing pollution where rivers are already degraded, including where there, conspicuous colour changes, or rendering of water that unsafe for livestock drinking. Completely remove the prohibition on discharges that create floatable or suspended materials, enabling councils to allow new pollution even in pristine waters. 'These are not minor tweaks — they are the removal of safeguards that have been in place for decades, and developed over generations,' says Sintenie. 'Where pollution has gone too far, the answer is to fix the pollution, not change the law so it becomes legal.' Industry lobby groups, including DairyNZ and Federated Farmers, previously asked for these changes during the Select Committee process, and were turned down. The Government is now handing them back these concessions at the eleventh hour, without public scrutiny. 'It is a conspicuous example of how far vested interests are controlling this Government. 'This is not democracy, and it is certainly not law making for the public good.' says Sintenie. The amendments to section 70 apply to proposed plans notified before, on, or after amendment comes into effect, including plans that are subject of an appeal and or ongoing court proceedings. ELI has taken a series of legal proceedings tackling what is says is unlawful allowances of nitrogen pollution to freshwater. 'The Government has introduced an amendment that will lock in pollution in some of our dirtiest rivers and open the door to new degradation elsewhere. "New Zealanders expect their government to protect freshwater, not weaken the rules to appease polluters,' says Sintenie.
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
End of the road for fuel tax
The road is running out for using petrol taxes as the primary way to fund New Zealand's roads. Fuel tax may be simple to administer and penalise gas guzzlers more than granny cars, but change is inevitable. Last year, the government introduced road user charges (RUCs) for the growing fleet of electric vehicles. According to Transport and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, fuel-efficient petrol hybrid vehicles have accelerated from 12,000 in 2015 to more than 350,000 today. Modern petrol cars are also more fuel-efficient than older vehicles. As Mr Bishop said: "It isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and who can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often." In his announcement on Wednesday, Mr Bishop wisely avoided setting firm dates for this "once-in-a-generation change". While legislation could be passed next year, implementing nationwide technology changes will be much more challenging. Nevertheless, the government has signalled 2027 as the target for the system to be "open for business", with third-party providers offering payment services through a consistent approval process. Given the repeated delays in launching a national bus ticketing system and other costly tech failures and setbacks, the 2027 timeline is ambitious. Naturally, concerns have been raised about the administration costs, already a problem with the "clunky" current paper-based RUC system. The government will have to ensure private providers do not embed excessive profits for years to come. Present road user charges for light vehicles are $76 per 1000km, plus a $12 or $13 administration fee. Petrol taxes a litre are about 70c for the National Land Transport Fund (the roads), 6c for ACC, 14c for the Emissions Trading Scheme levy and GST on top. The envisioned system would allow motorists to pay online, like any other bill. Time-of-day or toll-based charges could also be included. Many new vehicles already have the necessary onboard technology. Older cars would likely require added sensors to measure distance and possibly weight. About half of heavy trucks already use electronic devices to calculate location, mileage and RUCs. If the present RUC rates were applied uniformly, they would unfairly penalise small car owners. The "light vehicle" category includes anything under 3500kg, from the top-selling Ford Ranger to the popular compact Suzuki Swift. A Toyota Corolla weighs about 1820kg. Yet, the Ranger takes up more space and causes significantly more road wear. At present, it pays more per kilometre because of higher fuel consumption. Introducing weight-based tiers within the "light vehicle" category would create complexity and anomalies at the margins. Still, the current definition is far too broad. Overhauling any system creates winners and losers, fuelling opposition. Expect robust debate as the details are worked through. Urban drivers stuck in congestion and with low-speed, stop-start driving would benefit, as they travel shorter distances for similar fuel use. Those in hilly areas could also come out ahead. Owners of older, less efficient vehicles may see their overall bills drop. Potential digital surveillance and tracking raise legitimate privacy concerns. It is easy to say that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. However, the brick-by-brick erosion of civil liberties and democracy in the United States is a cautionary tale about what could happen anywhere. Enforcement will be another challenge. At present, odometer readings at warrants of fitness help ensure a reasonable level of compliance, but some will likely find ways to cheat the new system. Avoiding petrol tax is harder by comparison. The announcement is no surprise. RUCs were floated before the election and included in the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement. The AA supports the change in principle, acknowledging both its logic and its challenges. These issues must be tackled fairly and effectively along New Zealand's bumpy road to a new way of funding its roads.
