10. DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Tourism
What advice, if any, has he sought regarding the impact on New Zealand’s tourism industry of last week’s UK Guardian article, which says that our “green image increasingly defies reality”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism) Link to this
I have not asked for specific advice, because I already understand the impact that such articles can have, as I pointed out to Federated Farmers in my speech to them this morning. However, that does not mean that I accept all the points made in the particular article the member is referring to.
Did he seek advice earlier this year when the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report ranked New Zealand 92nd on climate change performance; if so, what advice did he receive?
No, but I did lament that we had 9 years of a Labour Government that did absolutely nothing in that area.
What is he doing in response to New Zealand coming last, according to the same report, at protecting threatened species, and does he think this delivers on our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand?
I absolutely accept the Minister of Tourism’s point. I ask David Clendon to repeat his question, and I ask the House to show some courtesy to a new member.
What is the Minister doing in response to New Zealand coming last, according to that same report, at protecting threatened species, and does he think this delivers on our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand?
We are working to improve that area. We have made it clear in areas like conservation that we are keen to engage with the private sector to deal with areas like that. When it comes to climate change, we are working hard to have policies that actually work, as opposed to rhetoric from the previous Government.
Is the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand still the focus of tourism policy in New Zealand; if so, how is it compatible with opening up the Department of Conservation estate to further mining, with Gerry Brownlee’s petroleum action plan, announced earlier today, with a $110 billion subsidy to polluters, and with an emissions trading scheme that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says will actually see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes, “100% Pure New Zealand” is still the brand campaign that we are running. Secondly, I remind the member that there are 82 concessions currently on the conservation estate, many of which were issued by the previous Labour Government—
That is a good one, actually! That is a little bit like the carbon neutral statement that the previous Government wheeled out—unfortunately it then allowed our emissions to go through the roof. But that is OK; this Government will fix up that problem.
I call David Clendon. [ Interruption] I have called David Clendon. I ask members to show some courtesy to the new member at the back of the House. I want to hear him.
Does he agree with the United Nations World Tourism Organization that New Zealand has managed to capture the world’s imagination with its consistent branding, and does he also agree that it is crucially important that the reality is in turn consistent with that branding?
Will the Minister then accept the very kind offer made by Greenpeace to pay for his fare to the climate change conference in Copenhagen, in order to demonstrate to the many potential international tourists that New Zealand does take its environmental responsibility seriously?
No, I will not be accepting the cheque from Greenpeace to go to Copenhagen. It is very unlikely that I will be going there. I will be well represented by Tim Groser and Nick Smith. Anyway, I will be far too busy reading the comments from the co-leader of the Green Party about why she thinks that Phil Goff is a racist.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment. What I said on the radio this morning is absolutely accurate, and I stand by those words. But the description of them by the Prime Minister of this country was derogatory and disgusting. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.
I do not need further help on this. I do not know who made that interjection, but it was not helpful, either. It is fortunate that I did not pick up who it was. I say to the Prime Minister that his comment was totally unnecessary; I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.
I called that I would hear a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition’s own colleague, and he made an interjection that is totally unparliamentary, and he knows that. I now ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that.
A point of order is being heard, and the senior members—[ Interruption] The Prime Minister will also be quiet. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, and all senior members that we have had a fair bit of fun today, but I think we should show a little decorum. There have been a lot of visitors in the gallery who would not have been too impressed.
I seek leave to table a copy of a cheque raised by Greenpeace members, via cake stalls and sausage sizzles, for $4,781 to enable the Prime Minister to attend the Copenhagen climate change conference.
I recently made a ruling in which I made it clear to members that I would not be seeking the leave of the House for members to table articles that have nothing to do with providing information to members of the House. When a request to table an item is purely political grandstanding, it is demeaning of this Parliament. I ask members not to do it, or I will take serious steps in the future.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect on that. The Prime Minister in his answer referred to the cheque from Greenpeace. He introduced that material into the House in his answer. My colleague is simply tabling the information that the Prime Minister referred to in his answer.
I seek leave to table New Zealand’s country profile in the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index, which ranks New Zealand near the bottom of the world—