Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6361] 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence that her Ministers of Transport Agriculture and Energy will be able to develop adequate plans for their sectors to implement the goal she stated yesterday in the House “not to put more carbon into the atmosphere than [New Zealand] is able to offset by other means.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As has been said the goal is aspirational. I have full confidence in those Ministers to develop plans to work towards that goal. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government commit to ensuring that next year’s transport emissions—15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—will be offset for example by converting almost 800000 hectares of land which is all of the land from Parliament up to Masterton and Levin into permanent forest; if not by next year then when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not anticipate all of that particular area of land ever being converted to permanent forest. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Government reconcile the damning rhetoric of Labour Ministers and MPs with George W Bush’s record on climate change and the accusations that he is the pocket of oil barons when the United Nations figures tabled in Nairobi this week show that New Zealand’s emissions have grown since Labour has been in office by 6.8 percent as compared with 1.3 percent for the US in the same period—that is emissions in New Zealand have been growing at five times the rate of those of the United States? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Over the short term there have indeed been some differences but US emissions of carbon dioxide are the seventh-highest in the world at 24.3 tonnes per person whereas New Zealand’s emissions are 18.5 tonnes per person. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that next year’s agricultural emissions—37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—are offset for example by converting almost 2 million hectares of land which is 80 percent of the Waikato region into permanent forest; if not by next year then when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I doubt whether that will ever occur. To remove New Zealand’s dairy industry substantially and a large part of its horticulture industry would make it much more difficult in the long term to meet not merely climate change emissions targets but any other targets the Government sets in any other policy area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Prime Minister explain the Government’s record of forest plantings dropping in every single year that the Government has been in office to the point where the last 2 years have seen more trees logged than planted—for the first time since 1953—whereas neighbouring Australia has increased afforestation in every year since 1999 and has planted an additional 450000 hectares of forest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member would care to project his figures slightly backwards he would find that in almost every year during the 1990s forest planting also dropped. It halved between 1996 and 1999. The primary reason for that was the large-scale conversion of land to dairying plus low timber prices. If the National Party continues to propose policies whereby there is to be no negative impact on any part of any primary sector industry it will find it quite impossible in fact to achieve any targets in that respect. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I know that it is normal to table documents at the end of a question but given the assertions made by the Acting Prime Minister I seek leave to table the record of forest plantings which shows that plantings grew—every single year—from 16000 hectares in 1990 to 98000 hectares in 1998. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the planting rates over the last 30 years which indeed grew somewhat in the early 1990s peaked in 1994 and then continued to drop almost every year thereafter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given the Acting Prime Minister’s response to my last two questions does the Government then agree with the Green Party that a dramatic reduction of emissions will have to play a major role in the Government’s excellent goal of achieving carbon neutrality and that the goal cannot all be achieved by offsets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that is absolutely clear. We do need to achieve much greater energy efficiency. We need to achieve a much greater reduction in emissions in terms of our transport usage. Clearly also those need to be long-term measures because dramatic short-term adjustments would have serious impacts upon the economy leading to massive unemployment and social dislocation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has the Prime Minister stated that energy efficiency is the Government’s priority when the Government’s own review of its energy efficiency strategy in March this year showed that despite spending $110 million on its much-vaunted strategy energy efficiency improvements have declined in the 5 years of this Government as compared with the 5 years of the previous National Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no question that the strong economic growth over the last few years has had an impact in that respect. It is now time to ensure that we get greater energy efficiency over the longer term. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why do you always get it wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course if the member who is now interjecting is prepared to close down the aluminium smelter he will probably contribute in that regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect I think you should have ruled that question out of order because there never were 5 years of the previous National Government. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to make his point of order in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am making my point of order because it is historically a fact and it is not to be dismissed or stood by in the way that I think you are tempted to do Madam Speaker. I am making a serious point here. There were not 5 years of the previous National Government. Everybody knows that. The member should have been ruled out of order straight away and asked to ask a question with some historical accuracy. Between 1996 and 1998 there was a coalition Government—and of course that was the only time the country was run properly. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Madam Speaker I encourage you to accept Mr Peters’ point of order. If he is willing to take responsibility for the rise in emissions during the period when he was the Deputy Prime Minister I think we should allow him to do so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their contributions. Members are of course as they know responsible for the facts of their supplementary questions. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether the questions are factual. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the formal review done by the Government of its energy efficiency strategy which shows that after spending $110 million things are a lot worse than they were before. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.