Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16677] 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his reported statement in the  
Press 
 on 11 June 2008 that “CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Data released just yesterday shows that the Government has New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions from electricity production going down. As I have often said we need to build 175 megawatts of additional renewable generation each year to achieve our 90 percent target by 2025. This year we are completing 300 megawatts with another 130 megawatts under construction. Of course this year’s drought will produce a blip in emissions as I have said previously. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister of Energy continue to stand by his statement when figures produced by his own ministry show that emissions from electricity generation have risen from 4900 kilotonnes of carbon in the year 2000 to 6600 kilotonnes in 2007 which is a 34 percent increase; and why is he saying that the Ministry of Economic Development has got it wrong? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In fact the highest figure for emissions was actually in 2005 when it was 8415 kilotonnes. The reality is that emissions are tracking sustainably down. I quote from the  
New Zealand Energy Quarterly 
 which was released yesterday for the March quarter; it shows emissions dropping from 2.3 million tonnes in the quarter to June 2006 to 1.8 million tonnes in the quarter to March 2008—that is total figures. Per unit of electricity generation it dropped from 0.22 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour to 0.18 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour. 
Su’a William Sio 
: How will the Labour-led Government’s target of reaching 90 percent renewable energy be achieved? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This target will be achieved through the incentives for renewable energy put in place by the emissions trading scheme which National opposes and by the 10-year restriction on thermal baseload generation which National also opposes. I understand that National believes that a 90 percent renewable target is desirable; the problem is that it does not support the measures needed to achieve that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister ever spoken to Simon Upton on this matter or to anybody who was in the National Party at the time it signed up to the Kyoto Protocol; and does he have any idea what National had in its mind when it signed up? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We didn’t ratify it! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I just heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that they did not ratify it. I thought there was National Party support for the Government’s having ratified it. I thought that was clear policy but if that is to be relitigated National members are showing their true colours. The reality is that it was the National Government that signed the Kyoto Protocol. It was right to do so. We were right to ratify it as were other developed countries. It is the best hope the world has of reducing emissions currently. The member makes a very good point because the reality is that now that it is settled across Parliament that we should be in Kyoto what we as a Parliament are doing is trying to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. The cost does not arise from the emissions trading scheme it arises from the obligation to reduce emissions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm the Ministry of Economic Development figures that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2000 were 4900 kilotonnes and in 2007 were 6600 kilotonnes—an increase of 34 percent; and is he now asking the House to accept his argument that the increases are starting to decrease? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I can confirm that— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well I have not hidden it. In my answer to the primary question I said they were even higher in 2005 when it was 8.4 million tonnes or 8415 kilotonnes. Since then they have been on a sustainable downward path although we will have a blip this year because of the drought but that should not be a surprise to Mr Brownlee. The key to getting them down sustainably even further is by building more renewables. That is why the Government has a 90 percent renewable target and that is why we are building renewables. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister had a conversation with Dr Nick Smith who as a former Minister for the Environment spent his time going around the country shutting everything down— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he did; and Rawhiti 2B is a good example but he was stopped in his tracks that day was he not; and he spent all his time as a Minister shutting everything down and arguing environmentalism and now all of a sudden has changed his mind; and has the Minister spoken to him about that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that the only National Party policy in respect of electricity seems to be this call to reform the Resource Management Act. That Act which was passed by the National Government has not been an impediment to the renewables that we are building. We are constructing 300 megawatts this year. That was all consented to under the Resource Management Act. We also have another 130 megawatts under construction. That was consented to under the Act; in fact I do not think that even one was notified. In addition we have increased transmission expenditure to over $300 million per annum climbing to $500 million and all of that has been consented to under the Act. So the Resource Management Act is just being used as an excuse. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree that the Government’s claims about sustainability and carbon neutrality are just spin in the face of its record—given that 75 percent of all new electricity generation commissioned since 2000 has been 75 percent thermal? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I do not think the Government can be accused of being all spin on these issues. It is true the United Nations chose to focus on New Zealand because it does see us as a source of hope in the world on these issues rather than a source of despair— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: They may laugh but we have our electricity emissions under control we have our transport emissions projected to be stable and we will get a decline in them. That is a significant achievement given increases in GDP and population. Of course we have deforestation emissions under control through and only because of the emissions trading scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the Resource Management Act is not a problem for those wanting to build renewable generation when his own Government’s record is that 75 percent of new generation built in the last 8 years has been thermal and that the 500-odd megawatts of new renewables he talks about which is just a faceplate measurement will be less than 40 percent efficient? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As to the last point again the member is just wrong. Geothermal has the highest load factor of all and that is our major contribution to new generation: both this year and the 130 megawatts I mentioned we have already started for next year is all geothermal. That operates at close to 100 percent operating factors. In terms of the Resource Management Act I note that all of the generation as I previously said that is being built has been consented under the Resource Management Act. Further the only one I am aware of that was turned down was Dobson and that was not turned down under the Resource Management Act. It was turned down under the Conservation Act and has been replaced by the Arnold River scheme which has lower environmental impact and it looks very likely that that will be consented under the Resource Management Act albeit note that I am not trying to put pressure on the decision maker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that it took 6 years to re-consent the Waitaki scheme and it took 7 years to re-consent Contact Energy’s Wairakei geothermal scheme and if those two points can be confirmed does he still want to say that the Resource Management Act is not a problem? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that I am a lawyer and I used to do quite a bit of Resource Management Act work. If I were the client I would be concerned if it took 6 or 7 years and it was adverse to my interests. But of course the reason why we do not hear great complaints about it is as the member ought to know when we are re-consenting a Resource Management Act consent during the period of that process the pre-existing consent continues in force.