2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement that New Zealand “could aim to be carbon neutral”; if so, by what date does she think this could be achieved?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. But she is not prepared to put a date on our first achieving that goal. She is confident that consistent progress can be made towards that target.
Does the Prime Minister think it is consistent with her statement that New Zealand could be carbon neutral that this very month her Government is firing up the massive E3P gas turbine, the second-biggest greenhouse gas emitting power station ever built in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I remind the member that his colleagues only a year or two back were calling for the Government to accelerate progress on various thermal power stations around the country because of what they described as an electricity supply crisis around the country. This flip-flop, of course, is consistent with the member’s flip-flop on global warming itself.
Hon David ParkerHas the Prime Minister seen any evidence that others are committed to achieving the goal of carbon neutrality?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Certainly. I believe that many in the House are committed to that. Obviously, the Green Party, and, I believe, also United Future and New Zealand First, are committed to goals of this variety. From the National Party we have had a lot of empty rhetoric, but when asked by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues to engage in solutions the National Party refused to come to the table. National always prefers the problem we have to the solution we do not have.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does the Prime Minister agree that the electricity sector could be the first to be carbon neutral, without it even having to purchase any offsets, by moving over the next couple of decades to 100 percent renewables except for dry years and emergencies; if so, is that what Minister Parker will be telling Gerry Brownlee in response to question No. 10?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I do not know what Mr Parker will be telling Mr Brownlee in answer to question No. 10, but the member is certainly correct that the ambition is to move to reliance upon renewables for normal baseload activity, but, of course, thermal capacity will still be required for firming activity, and, given the nature of much of our renewables, that will mean a quite considerable amount of thermal generation capacity will still need to be maintained.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that E3P has a projected life of 40 years, that it is set to emit about half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, and that those emissions will far outweigh any of the announcements of policies she declared last week in her statement of intent?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
We should look at those kinds of questions in the light of the net impact. The commissioning of E3P, with the commissioning of additional renewables generation over the next 10 to 15 years—there is a considerable amount of that on the agenda at the present time—will enable less efficient thermal generation to be taken out of capacity, thereby reducing net emissions.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Has the Prime Minister received any letter from the Leader of the Opposition indicating National’s opposition to firing up E3P?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, not at all, but then, of course, the Leader of the Opposition at one stage said that climate change was a complete and utter hoax, and now he says that the results could be catastrophic.
Peter BrownWill the Prime Minister be specific and put the whole issue into perspective by saying whether, in terms of addressing climate change, the most effective approach would be to have the USA, China, and India achieving some modest reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions, or to have New Zealand becoming carbon neutral; if it is the former, can she tell us what pressure New Zealand is exerting upon the USA, China, and India to address the issues?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Government has consistently supported extending the Kyoto Protocol agreement to the widest possible group of nations. It believes very firmly that those who at present are not within Kyoto will need to be brought within some kind of post-Kyoto agreement—notably, of course, India and China, and, obviously, the United States, as the largest emitter in the world at the present time, needs to be brought in, too. But members should remember that many United States states are already taking quite significant action in this regard—particularly, California.
Nandor TanczosWith regard to New Zealand’s emissions, does the Prime Minister agree that the only way the agricultural sector, which is New Zealand’s single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, can approach carbon neutrality is to decrease animal numbers, in direct contradiction to what is happening now; and given the recent statement made by Frank Brenmuhl, the Chairman of Dairy Farmers of New Zealand, that farmers will grow bananas if they need to, instead of cows, what is the Government doing to encourage them?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I will try to be as gentle as I can: to grow bananas in New Zealand would require an awful lot of electricity in order to provide sufficient warmth, and that probably would increase the level of global warming, rather than reduce it.
Is it not the case that the problem with the Prime Minister’s statements is that she is running around trying to convince the country that she even seriously half-believes in New Zealand becoming carbon neutral when at the same time she is offsetting that by firing up E3P, which is something to do with security of supply; and that maybe the reason the National Party does not oppose E3P is that we firmly have our eye on the ball of both security of supply and a realistic long-term target for climate change?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The wonderful thing now is that Mr Key can manage a flip-flop between one supplementary question and the next supplementary question, even on E3P.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what the carbon footprint is of Treasury, the Inland Revenue Department, and the other four departments that the Prime Minister announced last week would be carbon neutral?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The carbon footprint of Treasury is, obviously, rather low, and that of the Inland Revenue Department is somewhat higher, but that does not mean to say the Government should not begin with its own organisations in that regard.
The Prime Minister having stated her welcome support for the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in Parliament last week, will she be encouraging her Cabinet to watch tonight’s premiere of TV3’s WA$TED!, which “takes your average household of eco-horrors and turns it into a clean green haven”, so that all ministries can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut waste?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the documentary was about how to turn each house into a clean Labour haven, then I am sure we would all be watching it with a great deal of interest.
Is it not the situation that the Prime Minister has not got a clue what the carbon footprint of the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the other Government departments is; that the reason she promoted it last week was that it was about all she could think up; and that if she had not claimed that New Zealand would be carbon neutral, she would not even have bothered to suggest those things, because the savings—compared with those of E3P—will be absolutely next to nothing?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the member is prepared to put down a specific question, I will give a specific answer. The Prime Minister is certainly aware the Government has a Fruit in Schools programme, and did not run around as the “Muesli Bar Kid” before finding out that that was the case.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does the Prime Minister accept the widely reported conclusions from international research that building new roads increases vehicle miles travelled, and tends to reduce the use of public transport and cycling; if so, why is her Deputy Prime Minister promising to boost carbon dioxide emissions with “the biggest ever road building programme this country has ever known”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister’s splendid deputy is proposing that for a number of reasons. Firstly, new roading is needed for safety reasons. Many of our roads lack hard shoulders, lack passing bays, and lack other mechanisms that would reduce our road toll, which, while it has come down dramatically in the last 20 years, is still higher than that of many other developed countries—that is, in human lives. Secondly, and specifically in the Auckland area, improvement in the roading network is likely to have benefits in terms of traffic moving more quickly, but in particular, of course, in many areas we also need better traffic mechanisms for buses. As I have said to the member many times—and I will keep repeating—whatever happens in terms of upgrading rail, buses will remain the main mode of public transport in Auckland. For very simple, geographical reasons, there are only two main railway lines in Auckland.
What is the precise carbon footprint today of the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the four other Government departments that the Prime Minister outlined last week; is the answer that the Prime Minister does not know—the same position she had last week—and would not have a clue what the impact on New Zealand is?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the member is capable of telling me what the carbon footprint of the National Party is, she might be able to tell him.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister in question No. 4 and question No. 6 what the precise carbon footprint is. The Deputy Prime Minister got up and said: “Well, if the member wants a precise answer”—
Madam SPEAKERHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I thought we were on question No. 2, not questions Nos 4 and 6. Obviously, the member’s supplementary questions are all numbered for him so that he does not get them mixed up along the way. If the member cares to put down a specific question, I will try to provide—[ Interruption] No, I ask him to put down a specific question, in writing, and in the morning. Bill English will write it for him—as he usually does—and we will try to provide an answer for him.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We asked a precise question. The Deputy Prime Minister told us that he would be happy to give the precise answer. Surely, if it was in the statement of intent last week, he would know what the exact answer is and he would not need me to put down a written question.