10. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
From what date will conventional incandescent light bulbs be unable to be imported into New Zealand?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
It is intended that from October 2009 the sale of inefficient light bulbs will be phased out where we have cost-effective alternatives. This move is supported by the industry, it will save consumers money, and it will help the environment. Yet National opposes it.
Why has the Government opted for a legislative sledgehammer by banning the importation of conventional light bulbs when the evidence shows that around half of all New Zealanders have started to use energy-efficient light bulbs because they choose to, and why can the Government not let people make that choice rather than making a blanket ban and treating us all like children who must obey nanny State?
This has been done under the minimum efficiency performance criteria, which we apply to fridges and washing machines. We are doing it with Australia; they are doing the same thing. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because, as members can see here, we have efficient down-light light bulbs, we have efficient ordinary light bulbs, we have screw-in light bulbs, we have bayonet-fitting light bulbs—we even have light bulbs for chandelier fittings, which are efficient for members of the National Party—we have small ones, we have big ones, we have dimmable ones, and still the National Party opposes it. The National Party cannot even change a light bulb.
Is this not just another crackdown on consumer choice from a busybody Government that loves telling New Zealanders what to do, when to do it, and how to do it; and can he confirm that the next items on the Government’s banned list will be petrol-powered lawnmowers, hedge trimmers, and garden vacuums?
Does the Government consider it somewhat ironic that while it presses ahead with a ban on conventional light bulbs, the mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs makes it uneconomic to recycle them, meaning that the disposal of them will ultimately add to New Zealand’s toxic-waste stream?
This one here is actually a fluorescent bulb. It saves 80 percent power. These ones here are not—they have no mercury in them but they still save 35 percent. So these savings are in the range of 35 to 80 percent. Some of them have a little amount of mercury, but it is far less than the old fluorescent light bulbs we used to have. Yes, we need to do better in the future in terms of recycling these things, but I am confident that we will. It is just another excuse for delay on the part of the National Party
Is the Minister aware that broken compact fluorescent light bulbs emit mercury vapour at a rate of 100,000 nanograms per square metre and if so—[ Interruption] I see, it is all funny, it is just a joke; putting a bit of boot into the choice of New Zealanders is a joke—can he assure the House that a broken compact fluorescent light bulb does not pose a health threat to New Zealand households, particularly those with young children in them?
I would point out that if I stuck this light bulb in my mouth, there would be less mercury than if I stuck a thermometer in it. The member’s press release yesterday said his objection to these things is because they are not dimmable. He might be dim, but the reality is we have dimmable versions of these light bulbs and National still opposes them.
Madam SPEAKER