3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence that her Ministers of Transport, Agriculture, and Energy will be able to develop adequate plans for their sectors to implement the goal she stated yesterday in the House “not to put more carbon into the atmosphere than [New Zealand] is able to offset by other means.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
As has been said, the goal is aspirational. I have full confidence in those Ministers to develop plans to work towards that goal.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Will the Government commit to ensuring that next year’s transport emissions—15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—will be offset, for example, by converting almost 800,000 hectares of land, which is all of the land from Parliament up to Masterton and Levin, into permanent forest; if not by next year, then when?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I do not anticipate all of that particular area of land ever being converted to permanent forest.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How does the Government reconcile the damning rhetoric of Labour Ministers and MPs with George W Bush’s record on climate change and the accusations that he is the pocket of oil barons, when the United Nations figures tabled in Nairobi this week show that New Zealand’s emissions have grown since Labour has been in office by 6.8 percent, as compared with 1.3 percent for the US in the same period—that is, emissions in New Zealand have been growing at five times the rate of those of the United States?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Over the short term there have indeed been some differences, but US emissions of carbon dioxide are the seventh-highest in the world at 24.3 tonnes per person, whereas New Zealand’s emissions are 18.5 tonnes per person.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that next year’s agricultural emissions—37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—are offset, for example, by converting almost 2 million hectares of land, which is 80 percent of the Waikato region, into permanent forest; if not by next year, then when?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I doubt whether that will ever occur. To remove New Zealand’s dairy industry substantially, and a large part of its horticulture industry, would make it much more difficult in the long term to meet not merely climate change emissions targets but any other targets the Government sets in any other policy area.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How does the Prime Minister explain the Government’s record of forest plantings dropping in every single year that the Government has been in office, to the point where the last 2 years have seen more trees logged than planted—for the first time since 1953—whereas neighbouring Australia has increased afforestation in every year since 1999 and has planted an additional 450,000 hectares of forest?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the member would care to project his figures slightly backwards, he would find that in almost every year during the 1990s forest planting also dropped. It halved between 1996 and 1999. The primary reason for that was the large-scale conversion of land to dairying, plus low timber prices. If the National Party continues to propose policies whereby there is to be no negative impact on any part of any primary sector industry, it will find it quite impossible, in fact, to achieve any targets in that respect.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I know that it is normal to table documents at the end of a question, but given the assertions made by the Acting Prime Minister I seek leave to table the record of forest plantings, which shows that plantings grew—every single year—from 16,000 hectares in 1990 to 98,000 hectares in 1998.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I seek leave to table a document showing the planting rates over the last 30 years, which indeed grew somewhat in the early 1990s, peaked in 1994, and then continued to drop almost every year thereafter.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Given the Acting Prime Minister’s response to my last two questions, does the Government then agree with the Green Party that a dramatic reduction of emissions will have to play a major role in the Government’s excellent goal of achieving carbon neutrality, and that the goal cannot all be achieved by offsets?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think that is absolutely clear. We do need to achieve much greater energy efficiency. We need to achieve a much greater reduction in emissions in terms of our transport usage. Clearly, also, those need to be long-term measures, because dramatic short-term adjustments would have serious impacts upon the economy, leading to massive unemployment and social dislocation.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why has the Prime Minister stated that energy efficiency is the Government’s priority, when the Government’s own review of its energy efficiency strategy in March this year showed that despite spending $110 million on its much-vaunted strategy, energy efficiency improvements have declined in the 5 years of this Government as compared with the 5 years of the previous National Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There is no question that the strong economic growth over the last few years has had an impact in that respect. It is now time to ensure that we get greater energy efficiency over the longer term.
Hon Bill EnglishHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Of course, if the member who is now interjecting is prepared to close down the aluminium smelter, he will probably contribute in that regard.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I think you should have ruled that question out of order, because there never were 5 years of the previous National Government. [ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I am making my point of order because it is historically a fact, and it is not to be dismissed or stood by in the way that I think you are tempted to do, Madam Speaker. I am making a serious point here. There were not 5 years of the previous National Government. Everybody knows that. The member should have been ruled out of order straight away and asked to ask a question with some historical accuracy. Between 1996 and 1998 there was a coalition Government—and, of course, that was the only time the country was run properly.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Madam Speaker, I encourage you to accept Mr Peters’ point of order. If he is willing to take responsibility for the rise in emissions during the period when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, I think we should allow him to do so.
I thank the members for their contributions. Members are, of course, as they know, responsible for the facts of their supplementary questions. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether the questions are factual.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the formal review done by the Government of its energy efficiency strategy, which shows that after spending $110 million, things are a lot worse than they were before.