9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Is he concerned that while the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide, a highly toxic and ozone-depleting gas, New Zealand’s use has increased by 500 percent since 2000, despite our commitment under the Montreal Protocol to reduce our use of the gas?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
Methyl bromide is a cause of some concern, but, as is so often the case with the member from the Greens, she is incorrect and misleading in her claims. New Zealand is meeting its phase-out obligations under the Montreal Protocol, which exempts quarantine use. Other uses, principally sterilising strawberry beds, have dropped from 150 tonnes a year in 1990 to 0 tonnes in 2009. The member’s numbers are also double the official reported figures. Methyl bromide is used for fumigation purposes for exports of logs and timber products, due to the quarantine requirements of Australia, China, and India. Alternative approaches are being trialled. The Environmental Risk Management Authority is currently reassessing the use of methyl bromide, there is an opportunity for public input, and I have full confidence in that process.
Does the Minister accept our obligation under the Montreal Protocol to refrain from the use of methyl bromide, to use non - ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible, and, where we do use methyl bromide, to minimise our emissions of methyl bromide through containment and recovery?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member seems to overlook the fact that the Montreal Protocol specifically excludes the area of quarantine activity. Furthermore, the Government and the industry—for instance, at Port Nelson—are trialling the recapture of methyl bromide, and alternatives are being used and trialled. However, the quarantine requirements of countries such as China, India, and Australia, to which New Zealand has substantially increased its log and timber exports, currently require the use of methyl bromide.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very straightforward: does he accept our obligations under the Montreal Protocol—and I read them out—yes or no? The Minister did not answer the question. Does he accept the obligations under the Montreal Protocol?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
As I explained in my answer, the member’s assertion is incorrect, because the—
Mr SPEAKERI have heard enough already. The member made no assertion—that was what was actually quite good about her question. She simply asked whether the Minister accepts New Zealand’s responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol. There is no assertion in that, whatsoever. I think that although the Minister’s explanation was certainly not in any way political or critical, it would have been helpful had he answered the question before giving that further explanation. I ask the Minister to answer the question.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Government is committed to meeting New Zealand’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol, but the member in her primary question does not seem to realise that the principal area of increased use of methyl bromide is for quarantine purposes, which are not covered by the requirement under the Montreal Protocol to reduce its use.
Given that the Government has committed to minimising our emissions through containment and recovery—which the Minister just confirmed in this House—why is the Government allowing 300 tonnes of the gas to be released directly into the atmosphere each year, when perfectly effective alternatives are available that do not destroy the ozone layer or put workers at risk, such as heat treatment for imported food and cars, and recapture technologies?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
As I pointed out to the member, recapture technologies for methyl bromide are being trialled at my own port in Nelson. But if the use of methyl bromide was suddenly stopped, there would be a huge problem for New Zealand in terms of its exports of logs and timber products to key markets like Australia, China, and India, which require its use. I invite the member, if she has a concern about safety, to make submissions in the very credible, open, and transparent process that is provided by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its review of methyl bromide.
Is it acceptable that this highly toxic gas is being released directly into the atmosphere at ports all around New Zealand, where people work on a daily basis, and near office blocks, apartments, people’s homes, stadiums, and railway stations?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Responsibility for setting the conditions of use for methyl bromide lies, appropriately, with the Environmental Risk Management Authority. As I have said, the authority is taking the initiative to review those conditions of use to see whether they are adequate. I rely on the authority’s very high levels of technical expertise to make sure that those conditions of use are appropriate.