Formal Opposition to

Summary of Position

I oppose the Climate Change Response (ETS—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill (174–1) in its current form. While the bill claims to protect “productive land,” it in fact entrenches emissions-heavy agriculture, restricts carbon forestry innovation, interferes with ETS market mechanisms, and imposes disproportionate burdens on small landowners and Māori landholders.

This bill represents a regressive shift away from climate logic and Treaty consistency. It prioritises land-use control and agribusiness lobbying over genuine climate resilience and equitable land opportunity.

1. Prioritises Emissions Over Sequestration

The bill limits whole-farm conversions to exotic forestry on land classified as LUC 1–6 — often more fertile or accessible — capping such use at 25% per farm and requiring permits for any expansion. Yet it does not place equivalent limits on methane-heavy agriculture, despite its overwhelming contribution to national emissions.

Protecting the right to pollute while capping carbon sinks is not climate leadership — it’s climate sabotage.

2. Introduces an Arbitrary Ballot System for Permit Access

The bill establishes an annual 15,000-hectare cap (subject to regulatory change) for LUC class 6 land permits. Access is determined via randomised ballot, with no right of review or appeal, and includes complex eligibility rules and non-transferable, expiring permits. This punishes smaller, climate-conscious landowners and entrenches administrative gatekeeping.

3. Interferes with ETS Market Principles

The ETS was designed to allow carbon pricing to guide decisions. This bill overrides that mechanism through top-down restrictions — limiting entry, use, and location — while leaving high-emissions industries untouched.

This is not climate regulation — it is land-use rationing for political ends.

4. Disrespects Māori Land Aspirations and Treaty Intent

While some categories of Māori land are exempted, many are not — especially general land owned by Māori. The bill imposes mapping burdens, data retention, and compliance costs that disproportionately affect Māori and Treaty-aligned enterprises. It narrows carbon forestry opportunities and upholds colonial land norms under a green veneer.

5. Treats Exotic Forestry as Monolithic

The bill fails to distinguish between short-rotation pine plantations and permanent carbon forests. It wrongly conflates ecological risk with climate risk, ignoring the critical role that permanent exotic afforestation can play in climate mitigation on marginal or erosion-prone land.

6. Expands State Oversight, Shrinks Landowner Agency

Landowners are required to conduct or pay for detailed assessments, retain records for 20 years, and accept mapping restrictions. Permits become invalid if land is subdivided, and applications cannot be appealed. This framework burdens smallholders, suppresses flexibility, and creates top-heavy land control structures.

Conclusion & Recommendations

This bill does not serve climate integrity, public interest, or Treaty partnership. I therefore recommend that the Committee:

• Withdraw the ballot and permit system, restoring ETS access on a carbon merit basis.
• Retain exotic forestry eligibility for permanent sinks with appropriate quality controls.
• Ensure Treaty-aligned access for Māori landowners, including general and collective land.
• Avoid arbitrary hectare caps — use climate science, not political lobbying, as the metric.
• Guarantee appeal rights and restore procedural fairness in permit allocation.

We need a climate strategy that rewards sequestration, respects land rights, and restores public trust — not a system that protects pollution and licenses control.

Respectfully submitted,

Ukes Baha

Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst

ukesbaha.com