Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:646;Page:15407] 
10.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he believe New Zealanders may have to accept initial volumes of biofuels from unsustainable sources as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 3 April 2008 under the headline “Parker pushes biofuel agenda”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Like the Greens I believe we can avoid importing unsustainable biofuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why on earth is his Government so insistent on introducing biofuels this year before any sustainable standards are in place when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said that imported biofuels will put New Zealand’s clean green image at risk and that his bill should be dropped and when the United Kingdom House of Commons audit committee has called for a moratorium on biofuels until there are rules on their environmental integrity? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Existing biofuels produced and used in New Zealand are from sustainable sources. The member Dr Nick Smith has indeed noted that there are additional sources of biofuels like tallow that can also be brought forward for use sustainably. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is of course right to be concerned about sustainability issues. The bill already includes provisions around that and as I have previously said we are happy for the committee to tighten these provisions. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister share with the House the support he has seen for the Biofuel Bill to proceed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen reports that sustainable tallow to bio-diesel producers will be unable to proceed with their multimillion-dollar production plants without a mandatory sales obligation. A number of these are pleading for the bill to go ahead and they assure the select committee that biofuels can be produced sustainably and in volume in New Zealand. Yet again we are seeing National wavering in its support showing once again that it is all talk and just wants delay. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How was it that the Prime Minister could cite “sustainability” 38 times when opening Parliament last year and the Government plasters all over billboards and publications the Government slogan “Everyone can have sustainability” but its officials cannot define what it actually means until 2011? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Despite Dr Smith’s pretence at being blue-green here we have National again being consistent opposing every meaningful step the Government takes on sustainability— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be very happy to answer Labour’s questions about the Bluegreens and our vision for New Zealand but my question was about the definition of “sustainability” and the advice from the Minister’s officials that they cannot define what it means until 2011 despite the fact that the Government has repeated the phrase over and over again. I think that the Minister should address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just think that the member should enable the Minister to finish his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member’s question related to sustainability. We have the member criticising us for taking insufficient amounts of electricity from renewable sources while Mr Brownlee calls for more coal. Just last week we had Dr Smith saying to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the emissions trading scheme should be delayed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Those Ministers have responsibility for Government policy. They do not—thankfully—have responsibility for the National Party. Every time they get a difficult question they recite all sorts of misinformation about National and they do not address the question. I simply ask you Madam Speaker to ask the Minister to address the question of how the Government can recite all this sustainability rhetoric when its officials say that they cannot define what it means until 2011. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the point. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now that we have settled that issue there was an interjection from Mr Brownlee which I am sure you heard and for which he should apologise and withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Parker should expect that sort of comment across the House when he makes misleading statements. I have never called for an increase in the use of coal. This is some little piece of special thinking of his own which as many other people in the industry have noted he is prone to. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member makes quite a serious statement when he says “you should expect” certain statements to be made when debating matter is introduced into the House. It is not for any member to take unto himself or herself the right to try to bully this House or to break the Standing Orders because that member does not like the nature of what is being said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If I used the term “you” then I sincerely apologise. I meant that Mr Parker should expect it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The point is however that members know that there is a certain way in which to address issues in this House. Matters are debatable in the House. Frequently statements are made about policies or people that are not agreed with. There are ways of responding to that and that way is consistent with the Standing Orders. So I would ask all members to do that in the future. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: My answer was interrupted. Last week we had Dr Smith saying to the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the emissions trading scheme should be delayed. Now he wants delays— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question that the Hon David Parker is required to answer is quite simple: why can his officials not give a definition for what “sustainable” means in terms of biofuels until 2011? Whatever we might have said over a range of issues will of course be of great interest to the public but it is of no relevance to the answer to this question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The question started by quoting the Prime Minister’s record on sustainability in referencing sustainability. I am also doing that and contrasting it with the position taken by National which says one thing and then does another. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: After having called for a delay in the emissions trading scheme he now wants delays in biofuels. It is obvious that National is deeply divided on these issues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question is not about the emissions trading system and it is not about National Party policy. It is actually about Government policy. The simple question is: when the Government has given all this advertising and air time to sustainability why cannot his officials define what it means in respect of biofuels until 2011? The Minister has had five goes at addressing the question. Every single time he has attempted to answer it he has started by bagging the National Party for which he is not responsible. I simply ask and you should ask that he address the question of Government policy for which he has responsibility. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is a habit developing from the National Party that when I have the temerity to contrast its members’ rhetoric with their action they break up my answers. These are the notes I was speaking from. They are not unduly long. I was quoting from a  
New Zealand Herald  
article they quoted from a  
New Zealand Herald  
article in the primary question and I see nothing out of order in my answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister claim to have prepared notes for a supplementary question? If in fact he does and they are so clever and so succinct why does he not just table them and sit down? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That just shows how lacking in experience the front bench of the National Party is. Ministers prepare for question time and it is usually not hard to guess what kinds of supplementary questions members opposite will ask because they lack any imagination and therefore Ministers prepare their answers to those prepared supplementary questions usually typed out for the Opposition by their research unit. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: National is obviously deeply divided on these issues and despite Dr Smith’s rhetoric— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for what National’s view might be. What is disturbing in his prepared answers is that it seems that question time has now deteriorated to the point where regardless of what the supplementary question is the Government is going to recite some sort of damning of National policy rather than the Minister doing Parliament’s proper job of answering in terms of his ministerial responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I think if you took the trouble to go through the  
Hansard 
 you would find that on more occasions than infrequently this member of Parliament always challenges by way of a point of order the answers coming from Ministers. He does it all the darn time as though he is somebody special and someone who has a special licence in this House to carry on in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] He is right about the humbug because that is what he engages in. He cannot take it. The Minister spoke only four words the last time and the member was on his feet taking a point of order. I say “If you can’t take it sunshine find a new job.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I just remind members that the Minister is to address the question. The Speaker is not responsible for the answer. The Standing Orders ask for that. Normally however it would be useful if the Minister could finish his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will conclude by saying that New Zealand should start and is starting the transition to sustainable transport fuels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has not his biofuels policy damned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and by his own admission that it is going to result in the importing of unsustainable biofuels joined the long list of embarrassing climate change policy failures of the billion-dollar Kyoto bungle the “fart tax” fiasco the carbon tax debacle the solar water heating flop the deforestation disaster and its thermal electricity ban being overturned by its own State-owned enterprise? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Not at all. In the last week of course we have had a release from Biodiesel New Zealand saying it can meet all of New Zealand’s bio-diesel requirements by the end of the year with a product that is sustainably sourced from tallow. National is I repeat obviously divided on these issues. Despite Dr Nick Smith’s rhetoric the senior fossils on his front bench like Mr Williamson and Dr Lockwood Smith are in the ascendancy and blue-green is increasingly black and slippery. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I realise you are working your way through the interests that various parties have in getting particular positions over question time but I point you to Speakers’ rulings 139/3 and 139/6. I do not think Mr Parker’s answers have met those requirements at all this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I thought the member was going to raise what I think is a legitimate point of order which is that the Minister is not responsible for National Party policy and I just remind members of that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I do not think I have ever done this before but I seek leave for an additional supplementary question—we have used up our allocation—because I think there is an issue at the essence of this argument that is being disguised by what is happening and I would like to try to clarify it with one additional supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon called last month for a halt on the rush to biofuels the British Government’s chief scientific adviser says that biofuels are threatening the lives of billions of people the G8 last month called for strict biofuel standards the European Union has admitted its biofuel policy has caused serious environmental problems and the German environment Minister only last week stopped plans to require additional biofuels so why on earth is this Government insisting on proceeding with a policy before standards for sustainability are in place and when by his own admission the policy is going to result in the importation of unsustainable biofuels? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers I must say that that was an example of a very long question. If members have long questions they are likely to get long answers. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is because the mandatory sales obligation far from being as extreme as the member proposes is for a modest 0.5 percent of transport fuel in the first year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the House of Commons’ environmental audit report on the difficulties and the call for a moratorium on biofuels in the United Kingdom. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations calling for a comprehensive halt on the implementation of biofuels as a consequence of the global crisis in food prices. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just seen a member of Parliament take almost 30 minutes mucking around with the House and raising numerous points of order and before the question is even answered for the satisfaction of all the House—because there is a colleague here who wants to ask a question—that member rises to his feet in his inimitable arrogant way and seeks to table all the documents. That is a disgraceful set of proceedings and he should be brought to heel by his leader rather than behaving like the clown he is. Only he gets away with it and I would like you to tell me why that is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will admit that this has been an interesting start to the week with lots of points of order which have come back into fashion and most of which are not points of order. However we will persevere. Are there any more questions? There are. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister have any concerns at all about the principle of growing crops to fuel motor vehicles knowing that it will increase the price of food and that a significant proportion of the people of this world are starving? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I do. That is one of the things that should be addressed in sustainability criteria. I point out that the existing biofuels being produced in New Zealand do not have that effect; tallow to bio-diesel would not have that effect and neither does sugar cane to ethanol from Brazil. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister been informed by anybody on the select committee of whether his officials informed the committee that they could not define sustainability before 2011 or did they say that that was the year when they expected the international standard to be ready and does he agree with the Green Party that a New Zealand sustainability standard could actually be ready in a few months? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I agree with both of those propositions. I note that it is actually Green members who have been at the forefront of their wish to see sustainability standards developed and applied for New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Economic Development saying that sustainability standards for biofuels could not be developed until 1 January 2011. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Despite the last point of order raised by New Zealand First that member got up and did it again. There is a member of the Maori Party who is seeking to ask a question and without any regard for him that member gets up and raises another point of order to seek leave. He knows the convention here that when the questions are finished a member can seek leave to table—not beforehand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I quite agree and I have noted this before. It is a convention but not more than a convention that leave is sought at the end of the time when the supplementary questions are over. But it is only a convention. Members are perfectly entitled to do what they like in this House—and normally they do—as long as it is more or less within the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether it would be worth your while pointing out to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that it also once used to be a convention for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to agree with Government policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. That is a classic example of what is not a point of order. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena ano koe Madam Speaker. Ki te Minita he aha ta te Kawanatanga hei tautoko i nga kamupene penehini ki te hanga kaupapa kia taea ai e ratou te toha whanui nga paraumu hinu a nga ra e heke iho nei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings once again to you Madam Speaker. To the Minister what is the Government doing to support fuel companies establish a distribution infrastructure necessary to enable widespread use of biofuels in the future? 
] 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A very good question. One of the purposes of the mandatory biofuels obligation is to encourage oil companies to develop the infrastructure that is needed to deliver biofuels in the future. These percentages start low and in later years grow higher as these industries come on.