Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes, the Minister of Corrections and I have received the report, and I thank the Auditor-General for his office’s thorough work. The report states that the delivery of mental health care to prisoners is a complex and challenging area. Although the report notes that there is room for improvement, overall it states that “The needs of prisoners with severe mental health issues are generally well catered for”. Both the Minister and I are working towards addressing the issues raised in the report, and are committing resources to improving services overall.

💬 Barbara Stewart: When does the Minister expect his ministry and the Department of Corrections to finalise their policy for managing prisoners with personality disorders?

The Ministers have signalled to both departments that work on personality disorders is, although a very complex area, a matter of major concern and a priority for both departments.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister understand that with two unexpected deaths in the last 48 hours at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch, following on from another unexpected death there 2 months ago, public confidence in the hospital is now zero, and does he realise that an inquiry that has no report-back date is a completely inadequate response from a pretty inadequate Minister?

I am well aware of the very tragic events at Hillmorton Hospital, and I am also well aware that the Canterbury District Health Board has commissioned an independent investigation. I suggest that the member, like his colleague, his senior spokesperson on health, wait for the results of an independent process before displaying further personality disorders.

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What specific action will the Minister be taking to ensure that prisoners with mental health needs receive the same level of mental health care as they would in the community, and how will those services be targeted and responsive to the needs of Māori inmates?

I and my colleague the Minister of Corrections are looking at increasing the number of forensic beds across the country, the number of specialist drug and alcohol treatment units has doubled to 500 places per year, a new programme called First Steps has been developed to provide treatment for drug or alcohol-affected offenders, a better screening system is being developed to assess prisoners’ mental health, and, finally, we are increasing resources to train corrections officers to help manage prisoners with mental health issues—Pākehā or Māori.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware of the Auditor-General’s recommendation that the Ministry of Health should set up regular progress reviews within its forensic planning cycle to ensure they are meeting prisoners’ mental health needs; if so, will he act upon this recommendation?

Yes, we have the greatest respect for the work of the Auditor-General and we will be giving it very serious consideration.

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree that the limited provision of mental health services for 50 percent of the prison population who are Māori constitutes a national crisis of care for all related agencies, and what steps is he taking to recruit staff to deliver kaupapa Māori services in this area?

I believe that the member raises a very important issue. Nobody could doubt that Māori people are overrepresented in our prison statistics, and that therefore the issue of mental health services for prisoners has a very significant bicultural dimension. I assure the member that workforce planning and capacity building in Māori health, including forensic mental health, is a very important priority for the Government.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister satisfied that the interface between regional forensic psychiatric services and general mental health services is satisfactory; if not, what is being done to improve it?

The member also touches on an important issue, which is that although in general we are well served by the local nature of our district health board system, there are occasions where there is excessive variation from region to region, and it is my intention as Minister to see enhanced collaboration on both a regional and national level to reduce that level of variability.

Biofuels—Sustainability

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: How can he be confident that the biofuels requirement to come into effect on 1 July 2008 will be met from sustainable sources?

The Biofuel Bill includes a regulation-making power to set environmental standards. That was initially requested by the Greens, and is supported by the Government. Some submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee have suggested that the bill should go further and set out sustainability criteria, and I expect that the select committee will consider that issue further.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can we have any faith in that provision, given that officials have advised us that the earliest that it could come into effect legally would be 2009, and that they are programming not to be able to introduce regulations until 2011; and is it not the truth that from 1 July any old biofuel will qualify, including biofuel produced from corn, which takes 50 percent more energy to be produced, and produces more carbon emissions, than normal mineral fuel does, and biofuel from other parts of the world where people are bowling over forests to produce it?

I have asked officials to explore the possibility of including more criteria in the bill itself, and I have also asked them to consider whether there should be mandatory reporting provisions for the providers of biofuel, so as to have them report on their source of biofuels.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: What is the current European Union biofuels target, and are the Europeans also introducing sustainability criteria?

I am advised that the European Union target is for 10 percent of land transport fuels to be biofuels by 2020, and, yes, Europe too is now in the process of adding sustainability criteria.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by the advice of his officials that it is not legally possible to introduce a standard by 1 July this year, and that a reasonable timetable to produce the sustainability regulations would go through to 2011; and does that scenario have New Zealand in a position of forcing biofuels when there is good evidence to show that they will be produced by methods that make the whole environmental problem worse, not better?

It is true that some biofuels are produced in unsustainable ways. I think that issue has been more and more acknowledged around the world in the last year. The way to address it is through having sustainability criteria, and we are in that transition just as fast as the rest of the world is.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How will the environment benefit from the biofuel sales obligation, when Shell, BP, and Caltex have all told the select committee that they will be sourcing ethanol from South America, and when that biofuel is produced as a consequence of the clearing of over 2 million hectares of Amazon forest per year; and can he explain why New Zealanders should pay more for their gas in order to subsidise the clearance of forests in another part of the world?

It is clear that part of the solution to climate change and, indeed, oil security issues is biofuels. It is only part of the solution, but it is part of the solution. It is clear that in order to start to incorporate biofuels we actually have to have in place the infrastructure to do so. The amounts of biofuels that will be included in New Zealand’s fuel under the mandatory obligation in the early years are, admittedly, very small, so the consequences, should there be a proportion of unsustainable biofuels at the starting point, would not be dire. In terms of the suggestion that all the biofuels are likely to come from South Africa, I am advised—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: South America.

South America. I am sorry; I thought Dr Smith said South Africa at one stage.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I think the Amazon is in South America.

No, I thought the member said South Africa; I misheard him. I was going to make the point that most biofuels are likely to come from South America, from sugar cane production. Not many countries in the world—in fact, I am not aware of any—are proposing to outlaw ethanol from sugar cane, because it has a good energy balance and much of it is actually produced quite sustainably.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister give an absolute assurance to this House that he will not introduce a biofuel sales obligation until such time as he has a standard to ensure that those fuels are produced by sustainable means?

I do not think the proportion of liquid fuels to come from biofuels reaches 3.5 percent until 2013 or thereabouts. In the early years it is a very small amount. I am confident that, as we go through the transition towards biofuels, the issues relating to sustainability will be sorted out. In actual fact, doing that will also advantage New Zealand, because our sources of future biofuel production will be sustainable.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is not this biofuels policy, which comes into effect on 1 July this year although we will not have any standards till some years down the track, turning into the sort of policy flop we have seen with the billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto numbers; with the animal emissions levy—[Interruption]—that was a big success, I say to Ruth Dyson; I am sure she was behind that one—with the negotiated greenhouse gas agreements, which the Government has abandoned; with the carbon tax, which the Government introduced, then abandoned; and with the solar water heating subsidy, which has resulted in the first drop ever in the number of solar water heating installations? Is not this policy just another policy botch-up by this Government on climate change?

I am absolutely clear that the answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions does not lie in “sexy coal”, which is promoted by the National Party spokesman on energy; nor does it lie in increasing rates of deforestation, which the National Party seems to be favouring; nor will we make progress on reducing agricultural emissions by reversing the investment in research and development to reduce emissions. This Government has the country on the way to 90 percent renewables in electricity, the sensible introduction of biofuels, and many other sensible initiatives.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table photographs of the 2 million hectares of deforestation per year in the Amazon.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Economic Development saying that—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The last time I interjected on a point of order, I was biffed out. Both Annette King and Winston Peters interrupted my point of order.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes. That was after a warning, so this is the last warning. I do find sometimes, though, that if members pause for quite a long time, there is an irresistible urge to fill in the gaps. So could the member please move on.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Economic Development that it will not be able to introduce a standard for biofuels until 2011.

Document not tabled.

💬 Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that there is an increasing degree of concern among members of the general public when it comes to biofuels, largely around their future cost and the ability of the public’s vehicles to use them; can he advise where he thinks the cost is going and to what degree, and the current percentage of the vehicle fleet that would be able to use biofuels?

I do know that Gull has been selling 10 percent ethanol blends in Auckland to very happy customers this year. Presumably, those customers’ cars are running pretty well on them. I think some of the fleet disadvantages are overstated by people who do not want biofuels to proceed. In respect of cost, it is expected that second-generation biofuels will be more cost-effective and more environmentally sustainable than some first-generation biofuels. I think that answers the question.

💬 Moana Mackey: Is the Minister aware that although Dr Smith has chosen to focus on the submissions from the oil companies, the select committee also heard from a number of other groups, including biofuel producers who thought the bill was both reasonable and achievable?

Indeed I am. I understand that Gull has been quoted in the newspapers as saying it thinks that some of the costs have been exaggerated by the oil companies. I am also aware that some proponents of biofuels—notably, New Zealand producers who want to produce biofuels from tallow—think the bill is a very good advance for the New Zealand economy and the environment.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table submissions from both Biodiesel and Ecodiesel companies that say they thought the lack of a standard until 2011 was a—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Breastfeeding—Promotion

8. LOUISA WALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to encourage more mothers to breastfeed?

Lots. Yesterday my colleague Damien O’Connor helped launch the draft National Strategic Plan of Action for Breastfeeding, which is out for public comment. This plan aims to improve breastfeeding rates by ensuring that the Government, the district health boards, health providers, and communities are all working together to improve breastfeeding rates.

💬 Louisa Wall: Why is the Government launching a national breastfeeding promotion campaign?

Breastfeeding gives babies the best possible start in life, and we all agree with that. Evidence also tells us that there are health benefits for both the infant and the mother. Breastfeeding is important for bonding and infant growth, provides optimum nutrition, assists infants’ physical and emotional development, protects against infectious disease, and may also reduce the incidence of chronic conditions such as obesity. That is why our message to mothers is “breast is best”.

💬 Judy Turner: Is the Minister concerned that the district health boards, which are currently trying to ascertain how many maternity beds they may need to provide, are receiving expert advice that includes strategies that they themselves admit will have a possible effect of reducing breastfeeding rates in that district health board district?

I think the issue the member raises does not have an influence on the support that mothers require to breastfeed, and also their ongoing support. It comes from their relationship with their lead maternity carer. The issue is not where the mother is breastfeeding, but whether she gets the information and the support she needs, both at hospital and at home, to ensure good breastfeeding rates.

💬 Louisa Wall: What response has she received to the launch of the plan?

The World Health Organization nutrition specialist Randa Saadeh yesterday endorsed the plan, saying that it would ensure that mothers get good support when they need it. However, although professionals are backing it, we are yet to hear anything from the National Party on breastfeeding. Maybe National members think it is just another pointless strategy; if so, would they abolish it? I think mothers deserve to know.

Debt, Beneficiary—Increases

9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Can she confirm that total current and non-current beneficiary debt is now $763.8 million, and in dollar terms how much has total beneficiary debt increased since 1999?

Yes; in total, debt, which covers fraud, overpayment, and recoverable assistance, has increased by $313 million. That is why, in the last 12 months, we have had more than 346 data-matching programmes comparing more than 12 million records; visited more than 15,000 clients to check their entitlement; completed 39,000 individual investigations and reviews; and prosecuted 905 fraud cases, with a 95 percent success rate. There is a bill before the House that will enable us to continue this good work. I thank the member and her party for supporting it.

💬 Judith Collins: Does she stand by her predecessor’s answer to an oral question on 16 May 2007 that confirmed that beneficiary debt had increased by more than $300 million under Labour, and can she confirm that the current debt owed by current beneficiaries is actually increasing by $1.25 million every month under her stewardship?

I can confirm the accuracy of the answer given by my predecessor to the member’s question. I cannot confirm the accuracy of her interpretation of the percentage of that figure because, tragically, she put the wrong denominator against the answer to that question. I am not surprised that she got it wrong when she said that 70 percent of beneficiaries are now in debt. That is not correct at all. I am not surprised, because it would have been accurate under the previous National Government, when total beneficiary numbers were more like 400,000, as compared with the current numbers.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Why does the Government provide recoverable assistance to beneficiaries?

Although people can live off a benefit it can be difficult for them to meet unexpected costs or to pay for expensive, but necessary, items. In those circumstances they can, and should be able to, apply for a loan from Work and Income. They might need to replace their fridge, or they might need petrol money to go to their mother’s funeral or maybe even to pay for the tow truck company that towed the grandmother’s car while she was visiting her sick grandchild at Starship Children’s Health. Is it the policy of the National Party that those families should have to go to loan sharks instead? I hope not.

💬 Sue Bradford: Does the Government recognise that one of the main reasons for ever-rising beneficiary debt is that benefits are fundamentally too low for people to live on, particularly at this time of rising food and fuel costs; if so, what is the Government going to do about it?

We have maintained and delivered on our commitment to ensure that the CPI adjustment is delivered to beneficiaries every year.

💬 Judith Collins: Why did Labour promise in 1999 to provide budgeting advice to all beneficiaries, but instead it has abolished the compulsory budgeting advice referral system that the previous National Government had set up in 1995, and now, in 2008, the Ministry of Social Development cannot even advise how many, if any, beneficiaries have received any kind of budgetary advice?

The member confuses the provision of services with an obligation imposed in order to receive a benefit. That is not our policy, at all. In fact, I can demonstrate that that policy was not successful. In the 3 years from 1996 to 1999 the size of debt for Work and Income was growing at over 10 percent per year; last year it was growing at 2.5 percent—a big difference.

💬 Judith Collins: Is she worried that her Government’s decision to abolish the compulsory budgeting advice referral system, depriving beneficiaries of good budgeting advice, has resulted in many of them turning to loan sharks, and that in an environment of increasing demand by food banks, sky-high living costs, and soaring interest rates, many of these beneficiaries are under immense financial pressure?

No.

💬 Judith Collins: Does she stand by her answers to written questions that confirm that the debt owed by women on the domestic purposes benefit has increased from $67 million in 1995 to almost $120 million today, and what responsibility does she accept for the dire financial situation of these women?

Yes, I can confirm the answers to the written questions to which the member refers. I just want to compare percentages, because the member consistently puts in the wrong denominator and, therefore, gets the wrong percentage. Of total current clients’ debts—

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is quite irresponsible of the Minister to mislead the House and talk about percentages and to say that I am referring to percentages, when she knows that I am not. She should just stick to the truth.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I think we will hear the Minister’s answer. As members well know they cannot require a particular answer to their question.

The current percentage owed by clients to Work and Income is 19.8 percent, and in 2000 it was 18.8 percent. So I would not get too upset about the accurate figures as opposed to the ones that that member makes up.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 11509, 2007.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 01531, 2008.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 257, 2008.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 18715, 2007.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answers to questions for written answer Nos 17688, 17689, 17690, 17691, 17692, 17693, and 17699.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

💬 Judith Collins: I seek leave to table the answers to questions for written answer Nos 12111, 12112, and 12113.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Tibet—Independent Observers

10. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he, today in the House, support Amnesty International’s call and demand that independent observers be allowed into Tibet to assess the situation and protect Tibet from further violence; if not, why not?

The appropriate channel for dialogue about developments in Tibet is the Chinese Government. We are engaged with that Government and have made our views clearly known, as have many other Governments. We continue to follow developments closely.

💬 Keith Locke: How can the Minister refuse to add our voice to calls for international observers when all around the world people are protesting the brutal Chinese crackdown, and outside our Parliament yesterday Karma Tenzin, a Tibetan now living in Christchurch, told us that some of his family members had been imprisoned and killed, and that he had seen pictures of bodies with gunshot wounds; if the Minister will not support the call for international observers, why not?

The United Nations has not made such a call—that would represent an international response. I say to that member over here that he is asking for the precise things that would do the very least for the people of Tibet or for anybody else around the world. He wants boycotts of all sporting, economic, and cultural ties with China in order to address human rights issues. That would do the very reverse to what the rest of the Western World—and New Zealand—has sought to do in these last 30 years. We intend to go on with the proven method of change to a stance of a country rather than take this knee-jerk reactive response that the Greens so irresponsibly take, which was best epitomised by their spokesman himself when he supported Pol Pot back in 1975.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that the last statement was inappropriate. Would he please withdraw it.

I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If he can get up and talk about other members in this House as not having a good conscience, as though he has a mortgage on conscience, as the Greens regularly do on so many issues, like they care more than the rest of us—us not having seen one evidence of proof of that—why can I not raise the issue about his good conscience?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, he cannot, because a personal statement has been made and the member’s word has been accepted.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that in the member’s personal statement he indicated that he welcomed the change of regime but not later events. I think to say that he welcomed Pol Pot in 1975 is not, in fact, going against the personal explanation that the member gave. In fact, I think it was confirmed by the member.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I will have to check the record for that.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to correct the Minister. I do not call for a sporting boycott of China. In fact, the Green Party supports the New Zealand team going to the Olympics.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is a debatable matter.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with the editor of the Dominion Post, who this morning wrote: “For New Zealand, there may be short-term benefits to turning a blind eye to events in Tibet but in the long run this country’s interests will be better served by a stable, open, transparent China that respects human rights and the rule of law than a repressive regime.”; if not, why not?

It will come as no surprise to members that I do not agree with the editor of the Dominion Post, and the reason is that he does not have a very good grasp of history. The reality is that economic freedom has usually been the beginning of political freedom and the growth of human rights. That has been the record of history, and that is what we and other nations, including the United Nations, seek to persuade to be the course of China, rather than this short-term, knee-jerk, populist reaction that the Green Party is famous for. Mr Locke, in particular, is famous for having no coherence to his policy, and no past, promised, historical record of it ever working, but it makes him feel good.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Supplementary question.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: There are no further supplementary questions for United Future.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I seek leave to be able to ask a reasoned supplementary question of the Minister on this matter.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Keith Locke: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the leader of New Zealand First, who recently told an audience of elderly people: “Let me be clear. Our policy position has not changed; we do not favour FTAs with low-wage economies.”?

To an audience best described as legend, the New Zealand First leader did get up and say that our policy in respect of low-wage economies—for many, many decades, not just, conveniently, lately—remains the same. However, we were prepared to await the detail—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Yes, Gerry Brownlee; I think I know what you are going to say. Please proceed.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: You are anticipating it, Madam Speaker. It is to do with the way in which the Minister is answering. He was asked a question as a Minister of the Government, and is now answering as the leader of New Zealand First. We have been told many, many times that the Prime Minister answers as Prime Minister but not as leader of the Labour Party.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. The question has to relate to ministerial responsibility. So the Minister should respond to that, but not as leader of a political party. Do you wish to proceed, Mr Peters?

In fact, I advised my audience that on such matters they should consult Phil Goff, Minister of Trade, but in other respects the audience was delightful and happy with the event.

💬 Keith Locke: I seek the leave of the House to table an editorial from this morning’s Dominion Post, headed “No time for silence on Tibet violence”.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Clean-coal Technology—Progress

11. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by his statement made to the New Zealand Petroleum Conference on 11 March 2008 that “There is a degree of wishful thinking and exaggeration around how close clean-coal technology really is.”; if so, why?

Yes.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister may not have heard me, but I did say: “if so, why?”

It is because it is so self-evidently true.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen the comments of his Associate Minister of Energy, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who spoke at the same petroleum conference, a day before the Minister spoke, and said that carbon was now being captured and stored around the world, that the Americans, the Germans, and the Austrians were doing it, and that he thought clean coal “is here”; and do those totally conflicting statements made by two energy Ministers in the space of 24 hours indicate the reasons for industry concern about this Government’s energy policy?

Mr Duynhoven is quite correct that carbon is being stored underground. The trials in respect of carbon capture and storage are small, except to the extent that it is being used as an oil recovery technique where carbon dioxide is being pumped into oilfields to increase the recovery of oil. In terms of carbon capture and storage in respect of coal-fired generation, which that member seems to find sexy, Mr Duynhoven and I both agree that that technology is not yet here, and that it is expensive.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister said, in respect of clean coal, “A dose of reality is required”, did he mean his version of reality, which is to rely on New Scientist magazine editorials, or was it a criticism of Harry Duynhoven, or of any one of the Government’s own agencies—Solid Energy, Genesis Energy, the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, Crown Minerals—and the many other organisations mentioned by Mr Anderton in his answer to question No. 4 today?

There are more complexities to this issue than that member obviously understands. We are supporting Solid Energy, Genesis Energy, and other companies to do their bit to advance the work that needs to be done before carbon capture and storage can even be considered in New Zealand. One of the things we have to do is actually work out whether we have the necessary underground reservoirs to store it, even if it were economic to capture it from a coal-fired power station’s exhaust flume. There are many barriers to be overcome before carbon capture and storage is economic in New Zealand.

💬 Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of the statement that “If we are serious about climate change, we have got to be serious about clean coal, and if we are serious about clean coal, we have got to put in half a billion dollars to make it serious, to make it worthwhile, and that is what this proposal is all about.”, which was made by Kevin Rudd just before he became Prime Minister of Australia, and in which he went on to say that “Coal, and coal-fired electricity, is critical for our economy.”—he said that more than once in his statement—and does the Minister believe that Kevin Rudd, who is now the Prime Minister of Australia, is guilty of wishful thinking and exaggeration?

No, I do not. The two statements—his statement and my statement—are perfectly reconcilable. Australia generates about 90 percent of its electricity from coal. Finding a solution through carbon capture and storage is fundamentally crucial to Australia’s economy, not just for its electricity production but also for the value of its coal exports. It is far less important for New Zealand. Australia needs to spend half a billion dollars, as the member said. The Americans have just pulled back from projects because the costs are escalating past them. It is for those countries to develop that technology, and we will adopt it. We will do related research so that we can adopt it, but we will not lead it. We will spend money on getting to the level of 90 percent renewable electricity—that will be far cheaper and far quicker.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister continue to have such a Dickensian view about clean-coal technology, when the Government’s own State-owned enterprise, Solid Energy, is investigating coal-seam gas, coal gasification, coal to liquid, and carbon capture and storage—all with a focus to lower carbon dioxide emissions that are likely to come from the Minister’s own mandated biofuels obligation?

The Government does not oppose carbon capture and storage as a technology, but it makes the point that it is not here yet and that New Zealand will not be at the forefront of its development, which will cost many billions of dollars.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Is it because of the Minister’s “slightly unusual thinking” that he insists New Zealand should not benefit from a fuel resource that could, with full mitigation against excess greenhouse gas, provide us with an energy source for 800-plus years?

It is obvious that someone read my speech to the New Zealand Power Conference and the New Zealand Petroleum Conference for Mr Brownlee and that he did not read it himself. If he had read it, he would have seen that I actually acknowledge that the coal resources New Zealand has are enormous and a very important future source of energy that could be an economic source. But I made the point that there are environmental hurdles to be overcome, and that is true.

Scientific Research—Funding

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What action is he taking to improve funding for New Zealand’s world-class researchers and scientists?

The Government is moving to a greater proportion of some of our bigger research funding areas from a purely contestable past to a negotiated future. On average, the negotiation will deliver funding certainty for 8 years, although in some cases it will be as much as 12 years. From 1 July, $155 million will be available for this purpose.

💬 Moana Mackey: Why is negotiated funding of this nature important for researchers and scientists?

Negotiated, longer-term contracts give researchers more certainty that funding will be available in the long term, self evidently. It allows them to focus on outcomes rather than the next funding round. It reduces transaction costs, and it improves their ability in the appropriate areas of science to deliver world-class science for our economy and our society.