Sitting date: 19 Aug 2025

Second Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I'm proud to stand in support of the second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. This bill represents a thoughtful and necessary evolution in how we manage land use under the emissions trading scheme (ETS), one that reflects our climate ambitions, our commitment to rural communities, and our vision for a balanced, resilient future for New Zealand.

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 that doesn't see some of our most versatile and productive soils lost to forestry. We have heard the concerns from the rural sector about the high levels of sustained tree planting that have been driven by the ETS at the expense of productive farmland. If the current rates of full farm conversions continue unaddressed, we risk unintended consequences for our food production, our economy, our rural communities, our agricultural supply chains, and our land use flexibility.

This bill follows through on a key election commitment and will protect our most productive land for food production whilst enabling sustainable growth of the forestry sector and continued progression towards our climate change targets. It does this by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to limit farm conversions to exotic forestry on Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1 to 6 from registering in the ETS, except where there is an exemption, limit, or allowance.

When we debated this bill at first reading, the House was united in recognising the need to address the rapid and often irreversible conversion of productive farmland into exotic forestry. We acknowledged the risk of perverse incentives and agreed it was time to make a change.

Since then, the Environment Committee has done excellent work under tight time frames, and I want to thank the committee members and the many submitters who engaged constructively with the bill. Their feedback has led to five key improvements that I believe make this legislation stronger, fairer, and more future-focused, but all of them continue with the direction that this House unanimously agreed during the first reading.

Firstly, we've clarified the definition of unfarmed land. Originally, the definition risked excluding land from ETS registration if any exotic species had been planted in the five years since farming ceased, even on marginal land. That wasn't the intent. The revised definition now focuses on forest land establishment on LUC class 1 to 6 land, allowing exotic planting on class 7 and 8, and allowing areas under one hectare, such as shelter belts, to be planted without disqualifying the title.

This change ensures that genuinely unfarmed land can still be used for exotic forestry while protecting our most productive soils. It is a practical fix and it reflects the reality on the ground where landowners often use shelter belts or plant small areas for erosion control. We're not punishing good land stewardship; we are encouraging it.

Secondly, we've improved how mapping standards are managed. Rather than prescribing mapping standards through regulation, the bill now empowers the Environmental Protection Authority to issue them directly. This would provide better consistency with the way that mapping standards are currently issued for the forestry Emissions Trading Scheme. It's a small administrative change, but it reflects a bigger principle that our land use management tools must be agile, responsive, and grounded in good science.

Thirdly, we've removed the exemption for offsetting land specifically for post-1989 forest. This was a potential loophole. Under the original bill, ETS participants could have used post-1989 offsetting applications to register exotic forestry on LUC class 1 to 6 land, sidestepping the new restrictions. That would have undermined the intent of the bill. The committee has rightly closed that gap. The exemption now applies only to pre-1990 offsetting where the risks are lower and the policy rationale is clearer. This change protects the integrity of the ETS and ensures that offsetting doesn't become a back door for large-scale conversions.

Fourthly, we've made the allocation system for LUC class 6 land more efficient. The bill reserves a portion of the annual allocation for small applications—a good idea that supports small land owners and community-led forestry. But as introduced, any unused portion couldn't be reallocated. That risked leaving hectares on the table. The committee has fixed this. Now, if the reserved portion isn't fully used, it can be redistributed. That means we can make full use of the available land while still prioritising equity and access.

Fifthly, we've strengthened the transition exemptions. We all agreed that land owners who had already begun investing in forestry conversions before the policy change should be treated fairly, but the original drafting was too loose. It allowed exemptions based on a single qualifying investment even if the applicant had no clear interest in the land. The revised bill now requires both a clear interest in the land and one or more qualifying forestry investments. Both must have occurred prior to the policy announcement date of 4 December 2024. A clear interest means ownership, a registered lease or forestry rights, a sale and purchase agreement, or a written offer to purchase the land that had either been accepted or there has been a written intention to negotiate further.

Qualifying investments include emissions rulings, activities under the Resource Management Act, and other forestry preparation activities such as seedling orders or land preparation. This means that neither a seedling order nor a land purchase agreement would, on their own, qualify for a transitional exemption. This is a fairer, more robust test and it strengthens the transitional exemptions so they focus on those who were genuinely acting in good faith.

Taken together, these changes reflect a bill that is more precise, more equitable, and more aligned with our long-term goals. They show that we've listened, we've learned, and we've improved. But more than that, they reflect an optimistic vision for land use in New Zealand—a vision where forestry plays a vital role in our climate response, but not at the expense of food production or rural vitality, a vision where the ETS supports economic development, and a vision where policy is shaped not just by carbon metrics but by community values and environmental stewardship.

This bill is not anti-forestry. It is pro-balance. It is pro - rural resilience. It's part of a broader shift towards a climate response that is grounded in integrity and shaped by the voices of those who live and work on the land. The bill is a necessary and timely response to the evolution in how we manage land use under the ETS, one that reflects our climate ambitions, our commitment to rural communities, and our vision for a balanced, resilient future for New Zealand, so I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its continued progress and I thank everyone who has helped shape it into a better, fairer, and more future-ready piece of legislation. I move, that the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Labour Party will continue to support this bill, but it's a margin call. It's a margin call because, although this bill is setting out to achieve some control over the rate at which rural land is converted to forestry, it does not necessarily achieve that goal itself—that conversion can still happen, it does not necessarily protect all of our soils in the way that they need to be protected, and it does not really solve some of the problems with the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme (ETS). We will support the bill, but it is a margin call.

I want to just talk a little bit about why we've landed on that position and, first of all, just to talk clearly about what happens in this bill. All our land in this country has Land Use Capability rating on it—Land Use Capability 1 through 8. Land Use Capability 1 is our very finest soils—the finest production soils around Pukekohe, for example. If we go to Land Use Capability 6, we're starting to talk about some of the more marginal hill country, the dissected hill country which can be farmed for sheep and beef, but it's possibly not the greatest. By the time we get to 7 and 8, some of it is unfarmable—so it has different capabilities. Under this bill, each year, a farmer who has land in Land Use Capability 1 through 6 can, over time, put up to 25 percent of that land into forestry that is used for the emissions trading scheme or for getting carbon credits. It's important to note that other forestry can still continue on other parts of that land.

If the land is in Land Use Capability 6, an additional 15,000 hectares a year can go into the emissions trading scheme, and whoever gets to do that on their farm is determined through a ballot. A ballot is an interesting mechanism. It was hard to understand what might be a fair mechanism. That's the ballot that the officials and the Minister have come up with. So be it. And, with Land Use Capability 7 and 8, there are no restrictions on how much land in there can go into forestry which is used for carbon credits in the emissions trading scheme. It's quite a complicated bill, and it is absolutely right for the Minister to say that rural communities have been calling for some measures to restrict the changeover of farms from farming—from sheep and beef farming particularly—into forestry. People have talked about how it has impacted rural communities—how, as farms are converted into forestry, rural families leave—and it has quite a big impact on communities. Madam Speaker, I'm sure you might know this from down your way as well, down in Westland.

On the surface, addressing this problem looks like a good thing, but I do see three areas in this bill where we actually just need to think a little bit carefully, and we have thought through carefully and have come down on this margin call. I want to talk about the effect on rural communities, I want to talk about the use of soils, but primarily I want to talk about the lack of attention to the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. In terms of the effect on rural communities, the assumption is that this change—this new legislation—will slow down the conversion of whole farms to forestry. Actually, it won't. Land Use Capability 7 and 8 can still go entirely into forestry for the emissions trading scheme. But, if we look at what has been said by Beef + Lamb New Zealand, they've said that even under these changes that are being put through, they're still too permissive. They still estimate that up to 26,000 hectares of whole farms on land classes 6 and 7 could still be converted each year. Their concern is that class 6 land, they say, is the most productive in the sheep and beef sector, and even class 7 land is economically viable, but if the conversions proceed, a further 650,000 hectares could be lost to forestry by 2050.

Now, it's not just the land lost to forestry; it's the fact that, with forestry, there are fewer people in each district. That's families moving out because the farm has gone to forestry, which doesn't need a whole family on it to farm it. That means that the local school loses enrolments. It means that it may no longer be viable to run a store out on the back blocks. There's a whole lot of services that are lost along with the loss of people, so I think there could still be an impact on local communities. I guess we will have to wait and see how this particular legislation works out. It might slow down the rate of forestry conversion. It's probably worth a go, a margin call for us. We will support it that far.

In terms of the use of soils, it does concern me that some of our very best soils can still end up being used for forestry—for exotic forestry—in the emissions trading scheme. It's amazing travelling through Pukekohe, through other immensely fertile areas, and seeing what can be grown there and how lush it is, how wonderfully fertile those soils are. It does seem a shame to leave open that space where those immensely productive soils could be converted into forestry. However, this does still permit this. I guess one of the reasons for that is we do want to ensure that landowners can make decisions about what they do with their land and not to interfere too much, but it's a very fine balance on that one, as we're seeing from this legislation in the first place.

In some ways, I think, if we're going to intervene with decisions that landowners make, why not just go the whole hog and say you can't put class category 1 in at all? It might be a good thing to do. If we're going to go down this interventionist path, why not go a whole lot further? But I think the real thing here that really worries me is that, although this bill is named as it is, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill—so it comes into the category of climate change—it doesn't do what we need to have done with forestry in the emissions trading scheme. The way our emissions trading scheme is set up, we are one of only two countries in the world that allow a one for one on forestry in the emissions trading scheme. One tonne of carbon emitted can be soaked up by one tonne of soaking up done by trees—in and out, and in and out.

There's a couple of difficulties with that. One is that, obviously, it then does create the incentive to turn land over to forestry instead of food production. It could be a good thing to do, but, more importantly, forests are not necessarily a very permanent carbon sink. That's the analysis from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who had a big report out recently on the use of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. Forests need maintenance, they need to be looked after, they need weeding, they need pest control, and so on. It's not always clear that that happens with carbon forests. We actually need to have a big think about the role of carbon forests in the emissions trading scheme. More to the point, if we continue using forestry in the emissions trading scheme, the analysis suggests that, if we continue to do that, we will reach using forestry credits net zero in the emissions trading scheme in about 10 years. What it will do is it will undermine the price of credits in the emissions trading scheme.

It's a complicated problem to solve, and it does need to be solved, in terms of how we use forestry in the emissions training scheme and, in fact, how the emissions training scheme works altogether. There was a long analysis from Radio New Zealand reporter Kirsty Johnston this morning talking about the various climate-related endeavours that have been delayed, defunded, or discontinued under this current Government and sitting amongst them was something that was happening under the previous Government but is no longer happening, and that was the role of forestry in the ETS. We actually need to have that review done, and it needs to be done soon. This bill is not it. I would like to see some priority given to thinking about the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. So there you have it, Madam Chair: support for this bill, but qualified support.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we had very in-depth conversations about this bill, as recently as at the Green Party caucus meeting this morning. It is a challenging bill, and we agreed to support it to select committee because we view that it's a genuine problem that we're trying to grapple with. But we have come to the determination that we will not be supporting this bill any further unless there are significant amendments made at the committee of the whole House.

The reason for that is that the bill's primary purpose is not actually dealing with climate change. The bill has sought to find some balance between impacting foresters in an unfair way and addressing the loss of particularly sheep and beef land to pine plantations. And while you might take the view—as I remember, Pete Hodgson took so many years ago around climate policy—that if all sides are unhappy, you've probably struck the right balance, I think in this instance, all sides being unhappy—and I mean foresters and I mean Beef + Lamb New Zealand—is an indication that the balance has not been struck right, and, in fact, the bill is something of a dog's breakfast. It is not solving the problem.

We looked really hard at this—to the colleague opposite—and we seriously considered supporting it. But we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't go far enough in actually addressing the problem, and I'll speak a little to what my colleague Deborah Russell just alluded to. One of the impacts of putting restrictions of 25 percent on land class 1 to 6 is that you actually push a whole lot of forestry into classes 6, 7, and 8—and 7 and 8, particularly, is a problem. Now, for forestry to be effective, it should be planted in harvestable areas. We potentially create a problem when we put a whole lot of forestry into very difficult-to-get-to places. We've just seen in Tasman, with the terrible weather events they've had there, whole hillsides of trees bowled over by the weather. Putting more pine plantations in those high, inaccessible land class areas is not a good place to do forestry.

It's conceivable that many of those forests will never be harvested. They will blow over, they will become the fuel for future wildfires as we get worsening droughts, which is one of the consequences of the problem we're trying to solve: climate change. Beef + Lamb New Zealand were very clear that 89 percent of the farms that have been purchased for conversion into forestry in the last eight years have been in land classes 6, 7, and 8, with most of it in those land classes, and only a fraction of it in the lower land classes—I think a total of around 12 percent in land classes 1 through 5. So the restrictions in those land classes is nearly meaningless.

This is something of wallpaper on a political problem. It is not actually going to the root of the problem in solving it. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and it's interesting, he's been quoted by Beef + Lamb New Zealand, as well—made the point that my colleague just made: that it was never the intention that the purchasing of forestry units was going to be the primary mechanism for us dealing with our emissions. The effect of the constant offsetting to pine trees is that the emissions trading credit price stays low.

One of the submitters who didn't like this bill, amongst others, was the oil and gas lobby. They didn't like it because they would lose their ability to offset to pine trees. That was their fear, and the price of carbon credits might go up. We have a distortion created by the fact that we have forestry as part of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) mechanism to offset fossil fuel emissions, but the rest of agriculture is not in the emissions trading scheme. So we're losing one of our least-polluting livestock sectors, sheep and beef—which emits about a quarter of the emissions per hectare of a dairy farm—to offsetting for fossil fuels.

We're losing agricultural productivity to buy—to save the bacon of oil, gas, and coal burning. That's a very problematic distortion, which is why the real solution to this problem is to take forestry out of the emissions trading scheme. That's what the Green Party's position is. We did consider that this bill would serve to set some sort of precedent about intervention into this space—and, therefore, that was useful to move us towards a principle of recognising that offsetting to forestry was not a substantive long-term solution to the problem of climate change. In fact, it's not a solution at all, in reality. But we don't believe that is correct, on deeper analysis. In fact, we just need to bite the bullet and solve the problem at its core—at its root.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment pointed out what my colleague also mentioned, which is that we are the only country in the world to permit the unlimited inclusion of forestry offsets in the ETS. This bill "does not deal with the fundamental issues of the use of unlimited forestry offsets"; it "addresses a symptom rather than the root cause"; it will not enhance the credibility of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, "which needs much deeper reform"; "It is a complex bureaucratic solution that will have high administrative costs". And this is the message we got from farmers and foresters: that it actually creates a whole lot of complexity in this space. It's the exact opposite of the message we get from farmers all the time, which is they don't want more complexity. "Its regulation is based on very poor information and a land use classification tool that is not fit-for-purpose", and "It could lead to perverse consequences."

I was reading from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's submission, there. The land-use class classification system: one of the clear bits of feedback we got through the hearings was that it's out of date. We know this. We have to address that problem in a broader sense. I want to be clear: we need to find real solutions to this problem. We did deeply consider supporting it. We will bring amendments to the committee of the whole House stage to see if we can get the legislation better. But one of the major barriers to that is the ridiculously fast process around this bill.

Had there been more time—had there been a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to look at ways to make this bill more effective and set up a piece of legislation that could last the test of time, which is what we need in this space—then I think we might have been able to get somewhere. But there was exceedingly little willingness to respond to the substantive and very thoughtful submissions that we received from all sides of the argument, from the forestry sector, from the livestock sector, from an environmental perspective.

The Government just pushed it through, as they have done time and time again in this term of Government. On the matter of climate change, on the matter of the emissions trading scheme, we must find a way to work across the House to find lasting solutions in the legislative framework. That will give certainty to farmers; that will give certainty to foresters; and that will address this existential challenge of our time that we are all responsible for finding meaningful legislative and regulative solutions for.

My appeal to sheep and beef farmers who continue to lament the problem they face with the loss of high country farms to pines is to keep the pressure on; keep the pressure on this Government to do what is necessary to address that problem. My message to the foresters: we hear you when you speak of the value that your forestry brings. No one is the bad guy in the room here, and foresters made very compelling cases that, when done correctly, forestry can be a benefit. We certainly have to, in this country, move away from clear felling of plantation forests. The slash problems, the problems of steep country and erosion, is a massive problem for us as a nation. We're a hilly country and we're a shaky isle. We need to move to coup felling of forestry so that we don't get those negative environmental effects. These are part of a suite of challenges we face in our rural land use and our primary production sector.

There are solutions. We need to find solutions across the House that seriously grapple with these issues. Unfortunately, this bill does not seize the nettle.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a wonderful moment that I have to share in this second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

I'm struck by the degree of common sense that has been conveyed by some of the speeches coming from the other side of the House. But an observation, if I may: this is the legacy of the left, for goodness' sake. Six years, Mr Abel, this has been a problem, and beyond that. If I can—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No—it's your coalition partner: Jonesy.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, he's starting to yell already. That's right, Damien O'Connor, you can do that, but this is my time to share some thoughts. I'm sure you, Sir, will have your opportunity to do so. Six years we've had a forestry problem in rural New Zealand. I am struck by the man who said he's a farmer, and I'd love to know his farming experience, in this moment, when I'm trying to give anecdotes to rural New Zealand and share thoughts, Mr Damien O'Connor, of what forestry actually looks like.

Now, let's be clear: we are not attacking the forestry sector, as has been shared by the members of that side of the House. But I am aghast that for six years you had opportunity to arrest this rather pernicious issue that was affecting rural New Zealand. Now let's square this up to the people of Taumarunui, say, Awarua, Pahīatua; anywhere provincially in New Zealand that has dealt with this issue. I am struck, all of a sudden, there's a degree of common sense, and we're all on the same page. You guys had six years to arrest this. This is a real bugbear for us in rural New Zealand, who actually live there.

Glen Bennett: Talk about your own selves.

MARK CAMERON: You can heckle and do all of that; I care not. The reality is that this is a real problem. I'd argue this point—

Hon Damien O'Connor: This is Jonesy's issue.

MARK CAMERON: I would argue this point—and sure, James Shaw was complicit in this, too. Damien O'Connor, I'm sure, had much to share on the issue and did not.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Stick to the truth.

MARK CAMERON: Here we go. How do we deal with the broom? Steve Abel, you, Sir, have spoken of the acidification of monocultural forestry all the time. You guys had six years to fix this. We've got real problems with pests, pigs—you name it—possums. This is our backyard, and it is growing massively. How do we square this up? Now, Mr Abel raised a very salient point—

Hon Damien O'Connor: What did New Zealand First do?

MARK CAMERON: Thank you, Mr O'Connor, but I wasn't talking to you. We are dancing on the head of a pin; you are right. Because the previous lot had six years to arrest it and more, and did not. So how do we square up property rights? That is a real issue. I think this side of the House has, arguably, got the balance right. We cannot erode property rights, but we have to square up the contestable. What does it look like when we're protecting private property rights but equally addressing an issue that has languished for a long, long time? This side of the House is taking that issue very seriously—very, very seriously.

We've got an acidification problem; we've got a clear issue in and around woodfall, deadfall, slash. This is not going to be amended. Carbon foresters just plant and leave; we know this. So tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hectares in our near future are going into trees. No umbrage with the loggers; they're doing a fantastic job, creating an export reality for rural New Zealand. But carbon farming has a price to pay, and we know what it is.

Now, Mr Abel rightly pointed out—after I've shared my anecdotes—some of the egregious nature of the settings inside the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). I think that member has got it squarely on the button. We have to have a genuine conversation of the drivers of afforestation and carbon farming in New Zealand, separate from this bill. If we square that up, we have listened to rural New Zealand, we have finally made good—no longer languishing on the left or the right, actually attesting that this is a genuine problem and squaring it up for the rural people that grow our food and our fibre and all the wonderful jobs that they create.

Obviously classes 1 to 6, and the percentages that they can plant, is a happy compromise, in a very difficult political situation, for every side of the House, for every avenue that we pursue. I think when we square up where we land with this, there will be more to do, but given that this bill puts certain prescriptions on certain land classes and the percentages that land owners can plant, it is finding a way forward where we have a happy compromise, in what is arguably a very difficult situation.

I am saddened it languished for so long. Every rural paper you open, you can see this. Every rural public meeting anyone of us here has. It says that the bloody pine trees are marching across my community, and I sympathise with those people, because some of us live in those communities. We see our schools shut down; we see the funding and the local roads and the postie, they all go; and we come to trying to square that up. I know Madam Speaker herself would have seen this reality. This is a good bill. It's trying to strike a happy compromise—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Lots of trees on the West Coast.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, the heckling continues over the other side. I just wish that member had something substantive to share. Anyway, I will square-up my contribution by saying this: thank you for those that see the sense in this bill. I think Deborah Russell succinctly laid it out, and good it on her—I don't believe she's a rural person—but it is—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I was born in Whangamomona, for goodness' sake!

MARK CAMERON: Well, it doesn't mean you still live there—oh, look, she's got defensive. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on what is, arguably, a happy compromise in a very difficult situation.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, or the "do something about the bloody trees" bill, as the rural communities have been calling for. There is no doubt, with the advent of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the rapid rise in afforestation, particularly in later years, is causing genuine tension in rural communities. It is threatening the viability, and as I said in my first reading speech, I think this is probably right at the very top amongst a variety of significant issues impacting rural New Zealand.

After the initial investment in this afforestation, it is essentially a "set and forget" for a number of years, whereas land remaining in traditional sheep and beef farming, you've got consistent work for your shearers, for your stock agents, for your fencing contractors, for your sheep pregnancy scanners, your vets, your truckies, and everyone that makes such a great contribution to our rural communities. The risk is that they were being hollowed out with depopulation, skills—and then of course you lose your skills and the likes. So this is a significant bill as Mr Cameron pointed out in his previous contribution.

We've gone from the billion-tree strategy, which I'd note Damien O'Connor has referenced in his heckling—actually this is taking us back to the original intent of the billion-tree strategy that did have quite a lot of restrictions about where you could plant in terms of getting funding. So the intent of that was right tree, right place. What we'd ended up with was any tree, any place without any guardrails. Today we take another step in putting those guardrails in place. Of course, there has been significant flow-on effects with the pests—very big issues now with possums, deer, pigs, and you know, bovine tuberculosis (TB. In places in Otago where I am where there's been quite a bit of afforestation, we're now seeing an increase in TB, after having got our arms around that particular problem pretty well. So there's far-reaching consequences for the decisions that we have made in this House over time.

If we look to the select committee report, and I commend the Environment Committee for what was a pretty thorough investigation, but from my reading of the some of the submissions and from the submitters that I've engaged with personally or New Zealand First has engaged with personally, there was essentially two sides. There was the foresters and there was the farmers, and we were getting eviscerated from both sides during that process, which probably means we landed this probably in about the right place for what we've got at the moment. There was some contention around the extra 15,000 hectares, I think, in the Class 6 category, over and above the 25 percent. We have some sympathy with that, but this is what we agreed on with the National Party in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, and we're good for our word. So we think that we have landed this about right.

Class 6, Class 7, and 8, we note the foresters and actually the farmers—probably the one thing that they did agree on was the potential for some unintended consequences there, O f course, for farming it's not unproductive land as is commonly referred to in these debates, it's less productive land, but it's where all the breeding stock are that start the process off that end up as nice prime stock going to the meat works and into our export markets.

Grant McCallum: It's the engine room.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It is the engine room of our systems. So there was some commentary around that, but we've got a review process in place. I think we're going to see how this plays out a little bit. I think we've heard enough around the House today to know that while there is broad support in terms of exactly where we've got these settings right, we're all open to some review and for some reflection because the significance of getting this wrong is important. It is important to our rural communities, important to our export earnings.

This is not to vilify forestry. As has been said, it's a $6 billion industry. There is a lot more potential to add value to our forestry sector. I think there's too many logs going off unprocessed. There's great potential to do more here. That's a wider discussion. The settings in the ETS that have been referred to, and I note in the minority report, the Labour Party have called on the select committee to have a look at that. I think we'd be supportive of that. We're certainly having those discussions as well. That is a wider issue.

In terms of what was in front of us at the moment, I think this is a really good start. There was nothing in place, essentially, before this. We're making quite a big intervention here and I think this is where the submitters were still raising the alarm bells over not having gone tight enough; they actually haven't factored in that this is a major intervention. We're a property rights Government. So to take this step is quite a big jump for us, but it shows how necessary it was. So I might point out that no one's stopping anyone planting trees anywhere; it's the ability to enter into the ETS that is being limited, which is a Government contract. So if you want to plant your whole farm in trees, that's up to you, but you'll only be able to enter 25 percent into the ETS in that Class 1 to 6.

In terms of the amendments made, I commend the Minister on the changes that he's allowed to come through from the select committee process and have been endorsed here this afternoon. The clarifications particularly around the transitionary arrangements, this had been causing great angst out in rural New Zealand. There was gaming going on where landowners or people that didn't have land but had trees or had some seedlings ordered but didn't quite have the land booked up, were actually buying extra or they're buying extra blocks of land. Then because they had seedlings and extra seedlings and trying to get after that 4 December deadline and trying to spread out their seedlings over various blocks of land and trying to game the system against the very clear intent of that 4 December announcement by the Minister. So those that have been trying to game the system, you will be disappointed. You will not be able to enter into the ETS. The amendments made here have clarified that, and I think that did need clarification and I'm pleased that the select committee and the Minister have done that. So that's the most substantive.

I know there's some tweaks in the other four changes that have come through that select committee process, but that clause 17 and 11A is the is the key one for me because the clear intent of the Government was being flouted. We are serious about this. We have undertaken to act, and we are acting and today is another step along that process, and I cannot wait till the gavel goes down on the third reading on this because this is a very big weight sitting over rural New Zealand. We are acting and New Zealand First are very keen to continue supporting this bill.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki tonight, and members will have heard already our worry and concerns in relation to this legislation. With a tirohanga Māori, I'd like to bring the voice of tangata whenua into this debate, and the contributions—particularly from my iwi Waikato—and the submission offered by Te Whakakitenga o Waikato, representing 33 hapū, 68 marae, and nearly 100,000 registered beneficiaries.

Waikato was very clear in their submissions in terms of the way that this bill has proceeded and the time frames not being sufficient for tangata whenua to engage in the process. "Why the rush?" was some of what came through very strongly. There was significant complexity in the legislation and it's of national significance—so, again, why the rush—and it had limited participation from tangata whenua in this space. There was argument within the policy direction and that was well-signalled in late 2024, but Waikato challenges that that does not substantiate the argument for this truncated process.

Now, we heard from our Minister for rural affairs in terms of his saying that "Everyone is unhappy about it, so we must be getting it right." That is, of course, really interesting in saying that when people aren't happy and somehow we're placing ourselves in the middle ground, then maybe we're landing somewhere that's workable, and yet tangata whenua are of course split on this issue as well, because it is complex and we didn't have enough engagement with tangata whenua throughout the process informing where we've landed thus far.

I want to talk about the ballot and how the ballot has come through as a theme where the ballot is bad. Going back to the people of Waikato-Tainui, when they talked about the randomised ballot and the permit system for allocating the right to register for land use compatibility (LUC) class 6 land in the emissions trading scheme, it was like a lottery-style allocation, and that lottery-style allocation undermines the Crown's obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it overlooks the distinct status of iwi through being partners of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The mechanism of the ballot kind of treats us all the same, as if somehow iwi, small landowners, and corporate entities are all the same, without consideration for the structural barriers and those things which have impacted historically and contemporaneously on Māori as tangata whenua, have been impacting for land use for generations.

In land use, for generations, Māori have been impacted, and Waikato-Tainui laboured on this point in terms of the way with which we, as Waikato-Tainui, want to engage with the Crown. They want to engage with the Crown and find workable solutions, and that's been a theme echoed for the last 18 months, which is that Māori want to come to the tēpu and work with the Government on workable solutions across legislation.

But when we take a truncated approach to the development of policy and legislation, and cut out the voice of tangata whenua, leaving us to be a marginal forming of a group that might be an advisory that comes through that, then tangata whenua, hapū, iwi, and whenua Māori are pushed to the side as an average stakeholder, which of course undermines the fundamentals of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that important relationship of Māori with the Crown. Now, of course this policy recognises the centrality of Māori within forestry and in land use, but the way that we, as whenua Māori, are overrepresented in the LUC classes that we're discussing really shows that Māori need to be at the centre of the conversation in developing legislation like this, because, ultimately, we're going to be the ones impacted and we're going to be the ones with the restrictions.

I do look forward to where we can discuss the exemptions proposed, I do look forward to examining this further as we get to the committee of the whole House, and I'm really looking for the workable solutions that Māori put forward in some of the submissions. But I also continue to hear in community and in whenua Māori that "It shouldn't be over now." If there is going to be a review, what does that look like, and how will you place tangata whenua at the centre of that conversation?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member's time has expired. Members, time has come for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House has resumed. Before we broke, it was the second reading on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, and we are on call No. 7.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker—appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the second reading of this very important bill. I must say it's been great listening to the contributions around the House and the fact that other parties have recognised that we have got a challenge in this space around the carbon farming and the use on good grazing land. It was noticeable that in the last Government and then during the campaign, there was little actual solutions put on the table. The National Party campaigned on some solutions, and that is what we're delivering here today. The important part of that is—because we understand the sensitivities around it, and as someone from rural New Zealand, in Northland, where the carbon forestry has gone on to land it should never have been on. So we're limiting the areas on class 6, which is great, but the important thing that was highlighted by the previous speaker: is there a review in this process so we can monitor how things progress? It's important for the long-term future of rural New Zealand and our sheep and beef country that we put a stop to unnecessary carbon farming on good land. With that, I commend the bill.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

While man eventually disappears from this realm, the land remains. In my short time as forestry spokesperson for the Labour Party, I've come to truly appreciate the fight to preserve both. Tā Āpirana Ngata famously said, "Ko tō ringa ki ngā rākau a te Pākehā hei oranga mō tō tinana"—with your hand, master the arts of the Pākehā, for your physical wellbeing. In other words, to earn a living. In his time, he advocated farming—these days, it's artificial intelligence (AI)—and throughout my time, the forestry industry has provided pride and proficiency of skill and financial security for so many whānau.

Successive weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle have seen mass devastation of our whenua. "Slash" has become a part of our everyday vocabulary. We all want to do better by our whenua and our people. This bill, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, intends a balancing act between the urgent need to address climate change and, of course, protecting productive farmland, rural communities, and, importantly, honouring rights and aspirations of Māori landowners—also relevant to my portfolio of the Māori economy.

Colleagues before me have laid out the intended purposes of this bill—i.e., it prohibits exotic emissions trading scheme (ETS) forestry on Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 1 through 5. I'll summarise: on Land Use Capability class 6, moderately versatile land, a cap of 15,000 hectares per year will apply, allocated via a national ballot system, including reserved quotas for small block-owners. Farmers remain permitted to forest up to 25 percent of their LUC 1-6 land, ensuring flexibility to diversify operations. Exemptions are provided for indigenous forestry, unmapped or unfarmed land, erosion-prone land, Crown land partnerships, and, critically for Māori, specific categories of Māori-owned land, including Treaty settlement land and land held under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. The bill includes transitional provisions for those who made forestry investments between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024, allowing those to proceed as planned. These changes are expected to take effect October 2025, with, as the member opposite has referred to, ongoing review.

These are all noble intentions, but even in the limited time I had hearing submissions on this bill, there were differing views on land use and a lot of debates—and even confusion—about the quota system. That said, I'd like to acknowledge all the members of the Environment Committee for allowing me to attend their select committee and hear many of the submissions.

Then there are the considerations for Māori interests. They are laid out in the departmental report, but it's probably just easier for me to summarise based on the conversations I've had. It's sort of been referred to, or acknowledged, that this is quite an emotional topic: not only forestry but preservation of whenua, preservation of economy. And that is something that's certainly a consideration for Māori landowners and landowners with Māori forest interests. Some of their land is so marginal, that's all it's good for: as the use of carbon forest. So the fact that these are being well considered is something that I absolutely support.

One of the main messages I got from people in various conversations I had, in kōrero, in particular with Māori land interests, is we were heavily incentivised to get into forestry and we need to be incentivised to get out. So any kōrero, any kaupapa that's going to support that in a sustainable way—support whānau, support whenua Māori interests, support whānau Māori economical interests as well as whānau throughout Aotearoa—is something that we support. That is why, though supporting this bill, Labour's position is that significant work remains to be done. We all know that. I've acknowledged that this is an emotive issue, but one that we all know is critical not only to the preservation of our whenua but for the growth of our economy as well.

The forestry is on the brink of collapse in Tairāwhiti. I was quite shocked before: when I used to plan my trip from Rangitukia to the airport, you used to plan it around the logging trucks so you didn't have to overtake 11 logging trucks on our immaculate road. On my trip two weeks ago, I think I saw one logging truck. Whānau are leaving. We do need to find ways to maintain sustainable incomes, so that the East Coast can flourish—not just the East Coast but communities impacted by this industry can flourish. It is about balance. We know our land is suffering and we know our people are suffering. This is, for a lot of people and a lot of our whenua, about survival. So we have to get this right.

I started with a whakataukī: whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. Well, as you know, Mr Speaker,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

When our land thrives, people will thrive. So kia kaha tātou. Labour do support this bill, but there is much, much more work to be done on it. Tēnā tātou.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to speak on this, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. It's always great when we've got some level of bipartisanship throughout the House. I think this is a very pragmatic bill. It may not be perfect, but it's a start. It puts a line in the sand. It tries to strike a balance. I acknowledge the Minister, Todd McClay, for his leadership in this regard. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Currently, there are no restrictions on how much land you can register in the emissions trading scheme (ETS). I do want to emphasise, I think, the point that a couple of my colleagues have made in their contributions that New Zealand is just one of two countries—the other being Kazakhstan—that allows fossil fuel emitters to offset 100 percent of their emissions with forestry, without any actual obligation to cut emissions through proven technologies like the electrification of transport and industry. So that is the problem definition.

This bill will prevent exotic forests from entering the ETS on the land-use capability (LUC) 1 to 5 lands. It will limit ETS registrations on LUC 6 land to 15 hectares—and that's the ballot system that my colleague Cushla has referred to as well. And then it protects eligible Māori-owned land and provides time-limited exemptions for pre-announced investments as well. So that's what the bill that we're debating does.

Now, we're here at the second reading. We've had a number of different submissions at select committee stage. Some have said that the bill doesn't go far enough; some have said that it goes too far, which is kind of par for the course when we hear submissions on various issues at select committee. The Federated Farmers, basically, said that this doesn't go far enough to stop the march of pines across New Zealand's productive farmland. It says that it's disappointing, that it sends a clear message to rural New Zealand that the march of permanent carbon farms across productive farmland won't be stopping anytime soon. Basically, they say—and this is to the point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell made at the start of our contribution on this bill—that if you're going to go this far, why don't the Government just go the whole hog? They've said that, in reality, only 12 percent of farm conversions were happening on that land—that is the land classed as 1 to 5 land anyway. Our productive hill country—the engine room of the agricultural industry—is still at risk of becoming a giant, pollution-driven carbon farm.

PCE—the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—was before the Environment Committee recently, talking about some of the work that he's done, particularly a report examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand. He made some really good points in terms of wanting us to reflect on the types of forest that we want in the long run. Often, pine is used as a carbon sink. He raised questions around that as a permanent solution. It can act as a carbon sink in the short term, but it's not ideal in the long term because of its relatively short lifespan and fire risk. He made the point that native species support much greater biodiversity, and that's something that I would support as well. Although it is slower growing, it does support better diversity and so is better when it comes to environmental benefits. As conservation spokesperson, that sounds good to me.

With the time that I have left, I just want to point to an RNZ report that came out today when we are talking about forestry and the ETS more broadly. Part of the reason that Labour is cautiously supporting this bill is because, while it does go some way, what we really want to see is a review of significant further work that needs to be done with respect to the role of carbon forestry in the ETS. And, basically, there needs to be a full review—a thorough review—of the ETS that needs to be done, with an emphasis on the role of carbon forestry.

I also want to point to the fact that when it comes to climate change and the urgency with which we should be addressing climate change, I have made the point that here in the ETS, one of the issues is that there's no real obligation to cut emissions. I want to point to a number of things that this Government has cut when it comes to CERF—the Climate Emergency Response Fund—the Clean Car Discount, a number of transport initiatives, energy-efficiency rebates, and so much more that would have actually addressed the issue, that also increased the cost of living and takes us backwards as a nation. So while we cautiously support this, we're not thrilled about it.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to stand and speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. I think this strikes a pragmatic balance between what private landowners can do on their land, and what communities are concerned about when it comes to the afforestation of good land.

So what we've got is land that will be land-use capability classes 1 to 5—having only 25 percent of that land eligible for carbon credits; 15,000 hectares a year of class 6 land to go into a ballot; and, within reason, classes 7 and 8 will be exempted. I think this is quite a good balance. I'm looking forward to the review that will happen, because it's only with the benefit of hindsight we'll be able to tweak the bill. So with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I am a permanent member of the Environment Committee—

Arena Williams: Great committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great committee; a busy committee it definitely is, and we have some good conversations on the Environment Committee. But I made way for my colleagues who have spoken earlier on this bill for most of the bill, so I didn't hear all the submissions that everybody else did, but I appreciate that a lot of people did put some very thoughtful work into their submissions, and I'll reference one of them later. So I thank those people for doing that and note that this bill has gone through a shortened time frame with the select committee, and that is a shame.

Like my colleagues have said, Labour is supporting this bill, but we don't think it's going to fix all the things that people want it to fix, and those things we've heard from the other side of the House tonight. The Minister for the Environment, when reading her speech, talked about how it was a response to local rural communities, I think, were her words. I know from when I and my colleagues have spoken with rural communities that this is a real issue, that it's one of the first things that will come up. People will say, "We are really worried about our community schools going. We are really worried then that there won't be the buses to take kids to school. We're worried that there can be no community halls, those sorts of things, because there are more and more forests, and in those forests there's lots of pests."—we hear about that as well, the deer and the pigs that come out of a lot of these forests.

The forests that they are often talking about—and it's important that we distinguish between different types of forests here—are carbon forests. So those are forests where the incentive to plant those trees has not been for a shelter belt and it's not been for timber; it's been to get some emissions trading scheme (ETS) credits, and that is what this bill is trying to deal with.

There is also other forestry. There are people who plant native trees to improve biodiversity, people who plant native trees for riparian strips and the like, and we know that there's some work going on for some voluntary biodiversity credits as well. Then, of course, we have plantation forestry so that trees are grown to be chopped down and made into something, not just for any carbon units. Of course, if we're thinking about climate change in general, having that forestry is important for New Zealand because wood is a lower-emissions product than, say, concrete. So we know if we want a low-carbon economy, then wood is definitely part of that, and forestry in New Zealand is part of it as well.

But this bill is only addressing that carbon forestry part of forestry, and it's trying to change that incentive whereby the ETS incentivises planting of these exotic trees to remove some of that incentive from some farmland. There are a lot of "some"s in that sentence, because, of course, we've heard that it doesn't apply to all land classes. It does apply to 1 to 5, but even within those 1 to 5s you can still plant some of your land in carbon forestry—so land that's in the ETS. So that's 25 percent of beautiful, most productive land that can still be in carbon forestry, and then land use class 6: 25 percent of that can be in carbon forestry as well.

But then, in addition, there's this special ballot process. I did sit on some of the select committee—not all of it, as I referred to earlier—and I never got to the bottom of why it was that Ministers have chosen to have a ballot. I cannot understand the policy rationale for it, and I haven't heard it from the other side this evening either. Maybe that's something that will come out in the committee of the whole House stage of the debate, because it seems to be (1) very complicated and (2) undermining the general policy direction of the bill. However, as my colleagues have said, this is a step in the right direction, and it is better than nothing.

What I think is particularly interesting about this bill from a policy perspective is that it's saying to those landowners, to the farmers, even though we have these market solutions for reducing our net carbon—not gross carbon but net carbon—you can't use them on most of your land. We heard, I think, Mark Patterson acknowledge that this is a Government that says that it's very much into private property rights, but, of course, this bill is the opposite of being protective of private property rights. It's telling farmers that they must limit what they do on their land in terms of carbon forestry, and I think that that is particularly interesting when we also have many policy conversations going on at the moment about this Government's replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Of course, the previous Government repealed the Resource Management Act and brought in the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. Those were repealed by this Government, and this Government now says that they're going to overhaul and replace the RMA with some new legislation. Whenever they talk about this new legislation, there is always the phrase that it will be based on the enjoyment of private property rights, which seems to be in totally the opposite direction from where this bill is going.

Then there are conversations, again—all public conversations—about whether or not, to be able to have that enjoyment of property rights, there needs to be compensation for regulatory taking. So that is where, at one moment in time, you can do something on your land and then, at a later moment in time, you can't do it—so maybe that's chopping down indigenous biodiversity or removing some heritage item or something like that—then you should be compensated. Presumably, that compensation would come from ratepayers or taxpayers.

So there's a lot of big talk, particularly from the ACT Party, about regulatory takings, yet all three Government parties are in support of this bill, this bill that is limiting what farmers can do with their land. I'm interested to understand the rationale for those two very separate positions, and I haven't heard it from any of the Government members.

It's also another disappointment of this bill—and it's reflected in the submission from the Environmental Defence Society—that the regulatory impact statement didn't consider the environmental impacts associated with exotic forests. It could have done this, but it didn't, and there doesn't seem to have been much consideration of whether the combination of this bill and the existing ETS settings will mean that more people are incentivised to plant carbon forests on that land class 7 and 8. What are the consequences of more pine trees, more exotic trees, being planted on that type of land? These are things that have not been explored very well in the debate so far.

Of course, going back to the start of the problem definition, as my colleague talked about before, it is fundamentally that this Government is relying on the ETS as their main way to achieve net zero, something that the National Party signed up to in 2019 with that zero carbon legislation. So we have the removal of all these other policies, and some of them were named before. There's no Clean Car Discount, there's no CERF, there's no GIDI—that's a whole lot of acronyms—there's no mention of circular economy now, anything like that. There's a good article today on Radio New Zealand that lists all of those programmes that are gone. So the entire focus of this Government is trying to offset carbon emissions rather than trying to reduce them, and that is a great shame. It would be wonderful if instead of sitting over there and giggling, this Government actually did something to cut emissions.

Hon Matt Doocey: Oh, nothing wrong with giggling.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Nothing wrong with giggling? Well, I encourage that party to stop the giggling and actually take some serious action.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. What a great piece of work from our Minister. I just want to say it is very important to us on the coast, this bill—on the East Coast, in my electorate. Whilst I don't always agree with everything Cushla says, I do tonight.

It is a great piece of work for us. We are banning large-scale farm to forestry conversion on high-quality farmland. We are putting the rural economy back where it needs to be and our Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure the emissions trading scheme doesn't come at the cost of the New Zealand rural economy. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five-minute call, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

conversions, so limiting the volume of hectares available for conversions per year, setting out provisions for farmland planting to ensure flexibility and choice, and setting out protections for Māori-owned land in line with Treaty obligations. There are exemptions on certain Māori land blocks. This bill provides for exemptions on certain Māori lands from emissions trading scheme (ETS) restrictions in this bill, principally, Māori land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, land which was changed to general land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, and land under a Treaty settlement.

The consultation process within this bill: Te Tari Whakatau and a small number of Māori stakeholders were consulted on identifying the types of Māori land that fall within these categories. Officials concluded that the exemptions provide certainty for Māori land owners, an opportunity for Māori to exercise rangatiratanga.

Māori and iwi stakeholders were also consulted alongside the public on this policy as a part of the second emissions reduction plan. The Māori entities spoken to were in favour of an exemption and were in agreement with specified exemptions included in this bill. Te Pāti Māori's position on this bill is that protections for Māori land do not outweigh the negative impact on taiao and the reduction of broader environment protections, because Māori land only accounts for a small number of land-use activities in Aotearoa.

This bill also undermines the integrity of the ETS and it weakens it further by removing methane, which only limits the scheme further. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill because it lacks intergenerational integrity through failure to include methane.

We support the assertion of kai sovereignty, and I'm not totally convinced that the current proposal is effective enough in providing and ensuring that all whānau in Aotearoa have access to kai. The submission made by Waikato-Tainui about the process is "Waikato-Tainui urges the Crown to work with iwi to co-design the regulatory framework and consider allocation approaches that reflect the Treaty partnership. We recommend the Government adopts a more reasonable timeline that ensures the public, especially those most impacted, can participate meaningfully in the legislative process." This could include a separate category or allocation stream for iwi applicants, or weighted criteria that recognise the distinct context of Māori land.

Te Pāti Māori does not support this bill. We cannot support a legislative process that undermines fair engagement, proper scrutiny, and Treaty responsibilities. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

© Scoop Media