5. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does his confidence and supply agreement with the ACT Party imply that he is suspicious of climate change and not even sure it is a problem, or that he is a firm believer in climate change and always has been?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The member can rest assured that I believe that human-induced climate change is occurring, and that my Government will take a balanced approach to reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. I guess that what we have learnt post-election is that I believe in human-induced climate change a lot more than that member believes in the Electoral Finance Act.
Which of the four contradictory positions that the New Zealand Herald says the Government has held on emissions trading over the last 6 weeks, or, indeed, which of the two contradictory positions that the Prime Minister has stated—which were quoted in the original question—is the Government’s actual position?
The Government’s position is that we will have a high-level select committee, chaired by the Hon Peter Dunne, review the climate change legislation that is in place. It is the Government’s view that legislation should be passed by 30 September 2009.
What confidence can the country have in the Prime Minister’s claim that he is committed to combating climate change and that he is committed to the Kyoto Protocol, when every action that he has taken since the election has moved New Zealand in the opposite direction—suspending the emissions trading scheme, repealing biofuel obligations, opening up the expansion of thermal generation, and scrapping energy conservation measures such as insulating older homes?
The member can rest assured that the Government will be taking a balanced approach when it comes to climate change—balancing our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities. I might point out to the member that for all of the rhetoric of the last 9 years, it will not be lost on the member that when his Government was in office emissions rose faster in New Zealand than they did in America under George W Bush.
Why has the Government pulled the rug out from under the $10 million investment of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in research and development, which has the impact of slowing New Zealand’s achievement of self-sufficiency in transport fuel and increasing Kyoto Protocol costs; is it, as a former National Party president, Sue Wood, has suggested, because of pressure on the Government from vested interests in the oil industry?
The Government is committed to ensuring that biofuels play a part in our future, but I should point out—and the member will be aware, just as others are aware—that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment herself indicated that biofuels, unless one can be sure that they are from a sustainable source, should not be included. Rather than mandating that we take on biofuels from a source that we cannot be sure is sustainable, we are going to build up a proper supply, and it will be used in the future.
Craig FossCan the Prime Minister confirm what the level of deforestation under the previous Government was, and what New Zealand’s emissions profile for the last 9 years was?
I can confirm that New Zealand lost 37,000 hectares of forest in the last 5 years while New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by 12 percent—faster than those of the United States and Australia. That suggests that the record of the previous Labour Government, which liked to talk a lot about climate change, was far from anything to be proud of.
To what extent did New Zealand’s changing position on emissions trading and climate change affect the Prime Minister’s credibility and undermine his ability to persuade Gordon Brown to remove the sustainability tax on long-distance travel; or was the real problem the strength of his advocacy, about which the Dominion Post said: “Hopefully he was a more compelling advocate of New Zealand’s interests behind closed doors.”?
The Minister—sorry, the member; he was a Minister once, in the good old days, I guess, for him—will be aware, if he has done his homework, that the departure tax being proposed by the United Kingdom is unfounded, that it is does not have a good basis, that it is larger than any carbon tax that could be reasonably justified, and that, in fact, it is deeply hypocritical, because it was announced in a mini-Budget in the United Kingdom at a time when financial reforms there lowered the costs imposed on larger carbon emitting cars. I can tell the member that the Government is continuing to work on the issue, and is looking to get a successful resolution.
I seek leave of the House to table the editorial from the Dominion Post stating that it hopes Mr Key was more compelling behind closed doors than he was in public.
Mr SPEAKERI seek leave to table a letter from a former President of the National Party, Sue Wood, outlining the case of Tom McNicholl, who, of course, has lost $10 million because of the reversal of the—
Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection to that document being tabled.