Estimates Debate — Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Today the latest energy data for New Zealand was released, and what we have discovered is that all the talk about carbon neutrality from the Prime Minister in the 8 years Labour has been in Government is an absolute farce. I want to challenge the Government about its record in this vital area of public policy. Firstly, I ask the Associate Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, how the goal of carbon neutrality matches the figures put out today. In the last year there was a 9.7 percent increase in the burning of coal. That is an extra 15 petajoules of coal going into the system. Does anybody believe that the fastest-growing area of energy is coal? And we are meant to believe that this Government is about carbon neutrality!

💬 Colin King: No!

I agree with the member. We are expected to believe in Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, and now the Prime Minister on carbon neutrality.

Then when we look at the electricity sector specifically, we see that in the period of this Labour Government the amount of electricity produced from burning coal has trebled. I remind Ms Soper that that is right. Since Labour has been in office we have seen a lower proportion of electricity produced from renewables than at any time in New Zealand’s history. We are now down to a level of just 59 percent. I ask the Associate Minister in the chair why it is that Labour came into office saying it was going to reduce emissions, when, in the sector that is dominantly owned by the State, the electricity sector, we have seen the proportion of renewables drop and the proportion of electricity produced from coal treble.

Let me bring this back to the attention of the Associate Minister. How does he justify that the Prime Minister does a photo opportunity every time a wind farm is opened, when the increase in the amount of electricity produced from coal is seven times the amount of that produced from wind? For every megawatt that is being produced from wind farms under this Government, 7 megawatts are produced from coal. Does the Associate Minister in the chair deny those statistics from his own ministry? No, he does not, because they are the facts. How can we possibly be running this line about carbon neutrality and about all the talk internationally of this Government taking climate change seriously, when the amount of power produced from coal is increasing at seven times the rate that it is from wind farms?

Then I have to ask this question: why is it that we have the Government objecting to every new hydro scheme that is proposed? Just last week we saw the Environment Court give a tick to the Wairau hydro scheme, in my part of the world. This is the biggest hydro scheme that has been proposed since the Clyde Dam. The part I cannot work out is that the Prime Minister talks carbon neutrality and the Department of Conservation appeals the Wairau hydro scheme. I would love the Associate Minister to explain that.

Then in the adjournment we had the Prime Minister talking about the opening up of the Great South Basin to new petroleum. I said to myself: “Well, I’ve still got a bit of a difficulty here, Harry. How can opening up new hydrocarbon resources in the Great South Basin match with carbon neutrality?”.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Easily.

Well, I am not a petroleum expert, but I would expect that if oil is taken out of the ground it is probably going to be burnt, and that does not sound too much like carbon neutrality. I say to the Associate Minister that if he wants to be honest with the public of New Zealand, then he should tell them that carbon neutrality is just a big fraud. It is just a con job. The Prime Minister does not believe it. None of the Ministers believe it. The Government is desperate. It has been in office for 8 years and has failed so badly on climate change that it would invent anything—anything at all—to try to justify its position.

I have a very simple question for the Associate Minister—

💬 Lesley Soper: The member has no credibility on climate matters.

Maybe Lesley Soper will answer this for me. When will this Government meet carbon neutrality?

💬 Lesley Soper: You have no credibility on climate matters. You haven’t got a brain in your head.

I say to Ms Soper, who has the cheek to interject and say there is no credibility on climate change, that she is dead right. This Government has absolutely no credibility on climate change. I ask her, or the Associate Minister, again. When will Labour achieve its goal of carbon neutrality? Oh, she is quiet now. It is a simple question. When?

💬 Lesley Soper: How many wind farms did you open?

What I can tell the member is that a National Government will reform the Resource Management Act so that wind farms like Project West Wind do not get tied up in bureaucratic red tape for 4 years, as has occurred in this very city of Wellington.

I can also say to the member opposite that a National Government will reform the Resource Management Act so that we can build hydro stations rather than trebling—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You passed it in 1991!

Lianne Dalziel is piping in. Would she like to explain—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who was in Government in 1991?

The National Party was in Government. Let me read the figures for her. I think that this Parliament would want to see an increasing proportion of our power being produced from renewable energy, and through the 1990s we saw the commissioning of the Clyde Dam and an increase in the amount of renewable energy. The Associate Minister in the chair looks sceptical. I ask him why it is that in every year that Labour has been in office there has been a reduction in the proportion of our power produced from renewables. How can we have the Prime Minister open Parliament at the beginning of this year and say the word “sustainability” not once, not twice, not three times, but 39 times? Yet we have the least sustainable Government in the history of New Zealand in respect of electricity, in that we have the lowest proportion ever of electricity that is produced from renewable resources.

I ask the Government when we will have a policy on climate change. It has been in Government—

💬 Lesley Soper: You don’t have a policy.

Let me tell the member what our policy is. National has a policy of a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. National has a policy of a comprehensive emissions trading system to deliver that outcome. National has a policy of reforming the Resource Management Act so that we can have wind farms and hydro stations. National has a policy of smart investing in energy efficiency. I could go on and on, but now we are to debate what Labour’s policy is.

I ask Lesley Soper why it is that, 8 years after Labour came to office, the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says that the climate change policies in New Zealand are a disgrace and a vacuum, and that we are going nowhere. Does Lesley Soper disagree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

💬 Lesley Soper: You have no credibility.

Well, let us talk about what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says. She says that there is a vacuum in climate change policy, 8 years into a Government that promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. In fact, emissions went up by 12 percent. And Government members want to talk about credibility! The Government has no credibility on this issue.

I want Harry Duynhoven to answer a few simple questions. When will we have an emissions trading system? When will we have some idea as to how the Government will meet its Kyoto Protocol requirements? Will we have to send a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money to foreign Governments for the botch-up that this Government has made in this critical area of climate change? I also want to know from the Minister when we will actually see a change in the trend around renewable energy. I want to know from the Minister when we will achieve this bizarre goal—which nobody believes—of carbon neutrality. I want to know from the Minister his response to the statistics out today showing that this New Zealand Labour Government has the worst record of any country in terms of climate change, with three times the growth in emissions of Australia and four times the growth in emissions of the United States. I say to the Minister that it is disgraceful. When will we finally see some policy?

Well, it is a pleasure to follow the former deputy leader of the National Party, a member who very briefly held that role. Can I just say a few things to the member and correct a few of the myths he has been portraying here for us tonight.

First of all, the member must remember that New Zealand has the third-highest level of renewables in the world, and we are going to build on that. The country with the highest level of renewable energy in the world is Norway, with 110 percent. Why 110 percent? Because it exports electricity from its hydro systems. The country with the second-highest level of renewable energy is Iceland. Why Iceland? Because it has a huge geothermal resource it widely uses. And we—I say to Dr Smith for his information—are third in the world.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: And we’re going down!

No, no. The member, of course, counts all sorts of interesting things in his calculation. He very conveniently forgets that the vast majority of the coal mined in New Zealand is exported, and that other countries use it. Is mining and exporting coal a good activity? Well, if one is a steel maker in Korea, one might get—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The figures I have quoted are of New Zealand’s use of coal and not of exported coal, so I seek leave to table today’s energy statistics that list New Zealand’s burning of coal and not that which is exported.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We will take that tabling, but you should not interrupt the speaker for that purpose.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister was making claims that were quite false. The Minister was making a claim that the figures I had quoted included coal that was exported. That is incorrect. The New Zealand energy figures today refer to consumption, and they are the figures I seek leave to table.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

The level of coal use in New Zealand—just for the benefit of the member—is actually down. The level of coal use in New Zealand to generate electricity is down.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it’s not!

Well, that is what the officials tell me. Dr Smith can seek leave to table what he likes. Can I suggest that as I did not interrupt Dr Smith from close range during his speech, he does me the same courtesy . I say to the member that carbon neutrality has always been a long-term goal. I find it very interesting that he keeps asking when Labour will tell everyone the time we will reach carbon neutrality.

Well, I have a question for the member and for every National member here. Would National, if elected, pull out of the Kyoto Protocol agreement? That is the critical question, because National makes lots of noise about the protocol. Members should remember that the Hon Simon Upton, a former very distinguished National Minister, signed the Kyoto Protocol agreement on behalf of New Zealand. But Dr Smith talks about how energy use is going up and how New Zealand is being less efficient in terms of the percentage of renewables, etc.

There is a very good reason for that, and more than any other member I am aware of it, because I come from the energy province of New Zealand, Taranaki. In Taranaki we know that in the entire period of the National Government extremely little exploration—it is going down every year—was done in the oil and gas industry. Why is that important? That is important because the massive Māui gasfield, we all knew, had a finite life. We have actually extended its life a little in my time as the responsible Minister. But leaving that to one side, I tell members that the problem is that if we run out of gas, we have to keep our electricity system going. We are using gas at Huntly, the largest thermal power station in New Zealand—the only coal-fired power station in New Zealand. So why has coal use gone up in the term of this Government? It has gone up because there was insufficient gas to continue running the Huntly power station on gas, and therefore that station has reverted to using coal. Thank God there was the ability for it to be dual-fuelled.

What else have we done? The Government-owned company Genesis has built E3P on the site of the Huntly gas-fired power station—which is now largely coal-fired—and that particular project has increased the efficiency of the Huntly power station and reduced the need for the burning of gas, coal, and other fossil fuels. Why has electricity consumption gone up in the period of this Government? The answer is very simple. We have a massive increase in the economy, a massive increase in productivity, and a massive increase in the use of energy. So I want to tell Dr Smith that if he cannot answer the question of whether National will stay in the Kyoto Protocol—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.

National will stay in the Kyoto Protocol? That is the first time we have heard that. I will tell members what Mr Key, the current leader of the National Party, has said about the Kyoto Protocol. First of all, in regard to climate change he said: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so.” I am quoting John Key. He asked next what would happen down the track on emissions. He then said that the Kyoto Protocol was not a good idea for the people of New Zealand. Those are all quotes from Mr John Key, the current leader of the National Party.

Dr Smith has made a lot of noise about the Resource Management Act. I tell the member that Project Aqua, which he claims was scuttled because of the Resource Management Act, actually had nothing to do with that Act. Project Aqua, that proposed hydro project, was actually scrapped—

💬 Colin King: I think it did have something to do with it, Minister.

No, I am sorry. It was actually scrapped for a very good financial reason. The cost of building it grew greatly because of the fact that it was suddenly discovered that miles and miles of concrete culverts had to be built, and the loss of water that would have escaped from the project when diversion canals were built, and then used to make the project work, would have been so high that the loss was unacceptable. It was discovered that all the channels of those canals actually had to be concreted. I am reasonably familiar with this sort of engineering; I have a Dutch background and I know just how expensive that engineering is.

I also say that there are only so many places in which one can build major hydro dams. If the Government is using its thermal resources in New Zealand to generate electricity, it makes real sense to try to establish as much alternative production of energy as we can. That is why, in the time of this Government, I have personally opened one wind farm in the Tararuas. As well, three more projects are under way—three large wind projects are in train—Mākara, Māhinerangi, and Project Hayes. They are all on the way and are all going to produce energy for this country.

We have repeatedly said that New Zealand, like every other country that has a fossil fuel base for its energy, will be reliant on fossil fuels for some time yet. Those who import our fossil fuel resources—our oil, our gas, if they are importing gas; they are not yet, but maybe in the future they will be, and that is one of the purposes of the Great South Basin—are responsible for the thermal resource. But if people are burning New Zealand coal in Korea, is that a good thing or a bad thing? It is a good thing if the other coal they might use is vastly less good for the production of steel, because our coal is the best steel-making coal in the world. How good is our coal? The largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it carbon neutral?

If the little member would be quiet for a while he might learn something.

The largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world is Newcastle in Australia. Our coal, our high-quality thermal steel-making coal, is so good that we export coal from the West Coast of New Zealand to—where? It goes to Newcastle in Australia, the largest steel-producing area in our part of the world and the largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world. Why would Australians import New Zealand coal if they have the largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world? They import it because it is such good coal for the basic steel-making process that it reduces the need to burn inferior-quality coal.

I tell Dr Smith that that is why it is important that we keep these things in perspective. Dr Smith is an engineer, a professional engineer, and I would expect logic from a professional engineer. I would expect a professional engineer such as Dr Smith, who is professionally trained, to use his brain for the good of this country and not to slag the things that have to be done.

I do not like the fact that we have to burn more coal in Huntly, and that we do not have the gas to do it. I would have liked the National Government to be a bit more responsible and get some oil and gas exploration under way so that we could have discovered some more gas resource in order that we did not have to burn coal in the Huntly power station. But I tell Dr Smith that we have done that. We have been doing the things that make sense in terms of climate change.

We have been doing those things anyway. We have been putting in place insulation in houses. We have been putting in place solar water heating. The National Party members are baying at me because they know the truth. They know they did nothing. They know they sat on their hands, not only in the time of the last National Government but, even worse, in the Muldoon era, and there are probably still a few refugees such as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith from that era.

We want our children to have a world that is in as good a state as, or in a better state than, the one we inherited. I have small children. I want them to inherit a better world than we have now. But National members argue that we should scrap the Resource Management Act. What will that do for the environment? The National Government—which passed the Resource Management Act, by the way, in 1991—had 9 years in Government and did not change the Act, at all, but its members ever since have bayed that the Resource Management Act is a problem.

We have a whole bunch of initiatives going on right now. I could spend a lot of time reading them, but I want to say that we have a responsibility to keep New Zealand functioning, and to be aspirational and lead to the future in terms of going to a carbon-neutral future sometime in the future.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: When?

I tell Dr Smith that no one can tell, because nobody knows how big the wind farms will be able to be, how big our energy efficiency programmes can be, and all those things. All I am telling Dr Smith is that it is really simple. If he stops heckling and stops being rude for a while, we might get somewhere.

I want to say to members that I take my responsibility—[Interruption] I am sorry, but Sandra Goudie is a very rude woman and she should be quiet. I tell members that I want to see a world for my children where they inherit things in better shape than the things we had. Part of that, temporarily, is that we are burning more fossil fuel. I tell Dr Smith that that is correct, because we have no other hook to hang our hat on. But I tell members that as time goes on we will get more efficient, we will get more energy efficiency in place—

💬 Sandra Goudie: But we aren’t—that’s the point.

—I tell Sandra Goudie that we are, I am sorry—and we will get more insulated homes in place. We are hearing a whole lot of noise from National members, and it is like static on a short-wave radio. They are talking about scrapping the Resource Management Act. They keep throwing up these issues as red herrings. The very simple fact is that we have an economy that is producing and using more electricity. There was no forward planning. There was no oil and gas exploration for the longer term. We are now seeing a considerable advance on that. We are seeing oil and gas exploration producing resources for this country. It means we will need less coal to be burnt in electricity generation, and the end goal, is to have an economy that is viable and dynamic—as we have—but that uses less energy to be so. That is a huge challenge, particularly when we have not done the background work—and National left us exactly in that spot. It mucked up the electricity system. It mucked up, comprehensively, in terms of oil and gas exploration.

What we will see as time goes on is a country that gets more efficient as we put these solutions in place. We will see a country that takes its responsibilities seriously in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. We will not hear the double-talk from the Labour Party that we have heard from the National Party over these issues, and we are still hearing it. The emperor has clothes, according to the National Party; it has not learnt the lessons.

We have to continue down a path that will see for New Zealand an energy-secure future, a dynamic economy, and jobs for our people. We have achieved on most of these things and, as well, we have to ensure that our responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol—which I remind members was signed up by a National Minister—are going forward to a day where we can make the best use of our resources, and ensure that our children have a future that is more sound, more environmentally sustainable, and in better shape than that we unfortunately had to inherit.

I want to be part of that. I want to ensure that this Government is doing the right things—and so far we have done pretty well when we consider the mess we inherited. I know that my time is almost up on this particular call. I will wait and see what National members have to say, and I just might come back for another call. Thank you.

Members can see why this Government’s climate change and energy conservation policy is in such trouble. The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, packages up a whole pile of fairy tale, fictional rubbish, and presents it as if it were fact. He says that we are to be a sustainable nation because the Prime Minister says so. In the meantime we will burn more coal than anyone has ever seen before. We will burn it here, we will burn it in Newcastle, we will burn it in China, and we will burn it anywhere. In the meantime we will go around tilting at every windmill we can see in the hope that it might make some difference to our children’s lives in the future because we want this country to be a nice clean, green country, etc.

The Minister’s view is totally divorced from the reality of what his Government is doing. Here it is, in black and white. The Government’s own agency is reporting, not last year, not last month, not last week, but today, that coal production, and the use of coal for energy in this country, has seen a 10 percent rise in the last 12 months.

Why will Helen Clark not accept the invitation to go up and open the E3P plant in Huntly? It is because of—in a word—embarrassment. The word “sustainability” was mentioned 39 times in her speech at the beginning of the year, but, my goodness, at the very time when she was saying that, we had a record use of coal for energy production in New Zealand last year, and the only reason the lights are staying on this year is that a gas-fired plant, a three-stage turbine, is fired up at Huntly.

The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, is telling an absolute porky when he says there is not enough gas to fire up Huntly. Rubbish! There is plenty of gas and the Minister knows that. He knows that the predictions for the Māui gasfield have been extended and extended and extended. He knows that there is lots of gas in Pohokura. He knows that suddenly the Māui field, which for years was considered to be a pretty low-level, low-flow field, is now in full-on production and is entirely backing E3P. What he does not tell us is that it is convenient to burn coal, it is cheap to burn coal, and it works to burn coal. If that coal was not being burnt and that 1,000 megawatts was taken out, then the lights in the country would go out.

So here we have a Government saying that it will do something for the environment; that we are to have a sustainable New Zealand. It is not a target. At least the National Party has said that we will try to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2050. But from this Government there has been absolute silence on any target.

Everywhere anyone looks, the picture is bleak. The Minister said: “We have a range of wind farms.”, and I think he said they are about to come on to production. Every one of those projects is held up in the Environment Court. Every one of those projects will end up with a greatly compromised consent. Everyone knows that that is how it works because the deck is stacked against renewable projects. But it is interesting that E3P and Whirinaki never went near that process, because those sorts of projects are easy to get consents for.

National members ask a simple question. If the Prime Minister is out there saying that we want a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy, then why does her Government not make the changes that are necessary?

The Minister also said that Project Aqua was scrapped because water would have spilled all over the place. That is rubbish. Keith Turner, the chief executive, has told anybody who wants to listen that the prospect of going for more than 360 individual consents on that project made it economically unviable. There was far too much time and far too much capital tied up for far too long.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Talk to the engineers.

Well, the interesting thing is that the irrigation projects that were a consequence of that are actually going ahead. There was no problem with those. It might surprise the Minister if he looked at where the water was coming from, at where the water will now go, and at what is missing in the middle, which is the generating capacity from a renewable source like that. It is what this country so sorely needs.

The Minister also challenged the National Party as to whether it would pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. In my view that is a somewhat stupid question. Clearly, we will not pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, and we have said that over and over. But the Kyoto Protocol will not survive beyond 2012. I think the question is what the Government will do when we get to 2012. There is silence.

David Parker came to the Commerce Committee a couple of weeks ago and, for a start, he told us that the expected emissions first stated by the Ministry for the Environment, which showed us in credit, were wrong. But now the Minister also tells us that the figures showing we are in some sort of deficit are equally wrong, and that rather than a $1.8 billion deficit, he thinks it might be somewhere around $600 million.

Does that mean that the Government will simply pay it and not do the things it should do to try to lessen the effects of carbon dioxide emissions in our own country? Does that mean that we listen to what Minister Duynhoven had to say today—that burning coal is not such a bad thing after all and, because we have such good, high-quality coal, why should we not burn it here and simply pay our way out somewhere else in the world? A question arose as to where the payment goes to in 2012. Where does the Government write the cheque to?

I would like the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, who is a different Minister, to confirm this statement from Minister Parker, because different Ministers have different views, which is the only consistent thing with this Government in any portfolio. Minister Parker told the committee members that New Zealand emitters could either spend that money reducing emissions in this country or—and this is straight out of a transcript—they may choose to invest in carbon reduction programmes offshore, and if they can gain a greater amount of credits, then so be it. The question though that sits in behind all of this is whether it is now the Government’s intention simply to give up on the prospect of having a greater level of renewable energy, to do away with some of the energy efficiency options we have in this country, and to create some sort of domestic trading market that is largely predicated on purchasing our way out of the particular mess we are in.

One of the things we can be certain of is that beyond 2012 the whole world will get into this—the recent G8 conference makes that extremely clear. Our opportunity is to get ahead of it, but it is alarming to hear people like David Parker giving trite explanations such as those he gave to a select committee just a few weeks ago. I wish his officials, who appear to be in the Chamber tonight, had been at that select committee meeting, because then they would know what he had said, and this evening they would be giving accurate advice to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who, as we have already discussed, has very little idea of what these particular issues are all about.

But we are talking about climate change in these estimates, and I wonder whether the Minister might be prepared to tell us when we are likely to see some papers indicating the Government’s thinking on a trading market, when we would expect that trading market to be up and running, and just where the Government thinks it will get some of the credits it needs in order to start that particular market. These questions should not go unanswered; they are questions that the current Minister should get up and explain.

I think it would also be nice if the Minister was prepared to apologise to the officials who sit behind him for denying the information they have put out today in the New Zealand Energy Data File dated 18 July 2007, which makes it absolutely clear that electricity generation from renewable sources accounts for 66 percent inside a growing market. That means that a greater percentage of our electrical energy consumed now comes from thermal sources than was the case just a few short years ago.

I further want to ask the Minister how many gasfields have come on in the last 8 years that were explored, consented, and developed entirely in the time of the Labour Government. The answer is very, very few and at a very, very low level. But let us think about the volume of them. The reality is that Pohokura was started and developed under a National Government, and it was finally approved during this Minister’s term, and that the extensions on Māui and on the small field Kupe have all come about as a result of work commissioned by the previous National Government.

I just want to clear up a few of the myths that are being promoted around here, but let me begin by asking Mr Brownlee a question. He talked about a need for the Government to get away from the use of fossil fuels. The only way I can think of travelling in this country without using fossil fuels is by either bicycle or horse. I ask Mr Brownlee to tell us when he last rode a bicycle or a horse. It has all gone quiet. I tell Mr Brownlee to sit down; he will get his chance to come back to me with an answer.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I rise to answer the question asked of me by the Minister, and seek leave to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member seeks leave to answer that question. Is there any objection? There is.

I will deal now with some of the myths that Mr Brownlee talked about. First of all, in the December quarter of last year 74 percent of New Zealand’s electricity use was from renewables. On average, it is around 70 percent. We are ranked third-highest country in the world in terms of electricity generation from renewables.

Let us talk about targets for Kyoto. National’s target for climate change initiatives to get to a sustainable, carbon-neutral point is 50 percent by 2050. That is 43 years away. That is a 43-year kick for touch. This is the promise one makes when one knows one is going to be dead before the promise has to be honoured. That is what National is doing. Labour is actually dealing with the issues here and now in New Zealand.

The important thing about burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or gas is that one takes responsibility for its emissions, as we do in New Zealand and as we expect other countries under the Kyoto agreement to do. When we export coal, we expect countries that are buying it to do that. Coal use for generating electricity is down in New Zealand. As a result—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not!

I say to Mr Brownlee that I have not interrupted him. He should do me the courtesy of being quiet and listening instead of being rude. Coal use is down in New Zealand—[Interruption] I say to Dr Smith that he should be quiet and listen. Coal use—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Three times!

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated. The member knows that—[Interruption] I am on my feet, members. There will be silence. [Interruption] We will just have some order, please. There is to be silence when I am ruling. The point is, Dr Smith, that you were just barracking too much and I would ask that you have reasonable interjections.

Coal use is actually down since the E3P project came on, because it uses the energy of that power station much more efficiently and generates more electricity for the same amount of coal use. Coal use in New Zealand has actually gone down since E3P was commissioned. But according to Mr Brownlee, E3P was a massive mistake because it uses more fossil fuels. I just do not understand where he is coming from at all. Genesis—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I never said that. I think that E3P is a marvellous machine, and we most certainly need it. The lights would be out right now if we did not have it. It is the only thing that is saving the Government from extreme embarrassment—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated.

Gerry Brownlee:—and it is a great thing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, I give you a warning. You know very well that that is not a point of order, and to interrupt a member’s speech like that is just not on.

When there is little one can argue about, I suppose that is the only tactic Opposition members have left. When they were in Government, they did not take the initiatives or make the moves needed to ensure we had a secure energy future, and now they oppose things like transmission line upgrades in order to ensure we can keep, as Mr Brownlee says, the lights on in our key cities. Genesis Energy says that the introduction of E3P—that massive, three-stage gas turbine at Huntly—will actually reduce New Zealand’s carbon footprint in the energy sector by around 10 percent. That is substantial, but it also ensures security of supply, which is a major, major objective.

In 2012 this Government will be involved in whatever agreement the world is involved in at that time, because climate change is a global issue. We cannot do it on our own, but, together with other countries that have a progressive and like mind, we will make a difference, and, as is so often said, New Zealand regularly punches above its weight in the world environment. Will the National Party still be following the lead of Kazakhstan by 2012, or—if it happens to be the Government at some stage in the future—will it be at the table negotiating in New Zealand’s interests?

We were challenged a few minutes ago about climate change initiatives. I just wave a small document of 12 pages of Labour’s climate change initiatives. Now, I could go through them one by one and tell the National Party and others in the Chamber precisely what the Government is doing.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Table it!

I am very happy to table it, if the member would like me to. But what we have is a lot of crocodile tears and a lot of nonsense from the National Party, which is actually jealous that it did not have the foresight when it was previously in Government to do much about security of supply for New Zealand, or to do much about looking ahead for energy use. Mr Brownlee talked about—and he was, I think, energy spokesperson or deputy energy spokesperson for a while—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, that is an oxymoron, Gerry and energy.

Well, he will maybe answer the question about when he was last on a bicycle or a horse. But he must know, having been in this place a while, that one cannot simply bandy figures about on things like Maui. The Maui project was a huge project, and with the technology of the day it was estimated that it had a finite field life that would end in about 2007, 2008, or 2009. It was estimated at about that. What we have done in the period since, by renegotiation of the Maui gas contract, is make it possible for the operators of the field to extend the life of the field. This is very common in the oil and gas industry.

Another marvellous example is the Kapuni field, which was originally scheduled to be long closed. I remember at the age of 4 years old, as a little tacker, being taken by my dad to see the first flare at the Kapuni gas production site. Kapuni has—

💬 Simon Power: In a horse and cart.

No, not quite in a horse and cart, but it was close. It was a 1934 Morris Ten.

The issue is that Kapuni, with massive changes in technology, extensions, and horizontal drilling of wells, has had its life extended dramatically. It has produced vastly longer and vastly more than was ever proposed when it was discovered. That is what happens with oil and gas technology. One of the reasons the Great South Basin is now being developed—we have begun the exploration phase—is that we now know that it is possible, if oil and gas is discovered there, to bring that to market.

That is what changed. The technology has changed dramatically. That is why Maui has been extended. As recently as 2 or 3 years ago there was no appreciation of quite how much longer we might get out of Maui. We think now it might be 2014. It may even be a little longer, as extension technology and new techniques are developed. But that is what the oil and gas industry is all about. It is a highly technical industry with very competent, marvellous people who are prepared to go out on a limb to test theories, and they make a difference.

As a country, we have had to be responsible for our future. In terms of energy use, we are a highly intensive energy-use country, largely because of the fact that we are long and thin without too much in the way of, but now greatly increasing, public transport. Without a huge public transport network, most of us depend on private cars for transport. As a result, we are quite energy intensive. I have not heard anything yet from the National Party on what it proposes to do about oil and gas for those fleets of cars around the country, for the trucks that our commerce depends upon, for our railway system, and for our agriculture.

All of those things depend on diesel, petrol, and, to some degree, liquefied petroleum gas fuel. As a result, we have been responsible and said that this country needs to find more oil and gas resources to keep our economy going. I am proud of that. I am proud of the climate change initiatives the Government has done. I am very happy, at the end of my speech in about 30 or 40 seconds’ time, to table all the initiatives.

I can say to National members that it is about time they thought about the interests of New Zealand and of our children and grandchildren. I am 52 years old, I have children who are 15, 13, and nearly 12 years of age, and I want to see that they have a great future in a country that has a dynamic economy, that has a sustainable future that looks ahead, that is part of international agreements on climate change, and that actually does something to ensure a sustainable, viable future for this generation of people coming. National members can carp on all they like; they do not actually do the job.

I seek leave to table a document dated 22 May of this year that is the Government’s initiative on climate change. It is 12 pages of tiny typed A4.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry, I inadvertently misled the House. The document is 15 pages.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There was objection. Please, members, there will be silence during points of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave, given that the Minister has told the House that the dependence on coal has reduced, to table today’s Ministry for Economic Development figures—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

—so the House knows what they are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has clearly said what it is. There is objection. Leave is not granted.

I seek leave to table a document showing that when the wellhead price for gas was $1.80, Māui was empty, but when it was at $6.50 it suddenly had another 10 years of life.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Point of order?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: New call, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member has had his calls. The question is that Vote Climate Change—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair, I seek leave for a further call on this important issue of climate change.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is seeking leave of the House for a further call. Members have two calls on this. He is seeking leave for a further call. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Do I take it then that Ministers have unlimited calls on any particular vote?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, please be seated. This is the estimates debate, and on each vote members can have two speeches of 5 minutes each; the Minister in charge can have multiple speeches of 5 minutes each.

💬 Hon Member: How many?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister can have unlimited calls.