Parker David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Parker David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4353] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 My understanding is that we are debating the climate change estimates not the energy estimates— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —so I will not respond to the energy points that the member Dr Smith made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But they’re quite relevant. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: They are relevant to the energy sector and I will respond to them later. But dealing with the climate change issues the National Party is criticising the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol which was essentially designed by that very party when it had better representation in the form of Simon Upton. We have done no more than implement what that party when in Government thought was a good idea. 
There is no doubt that climate change for policy purposes has to be seen to be a real and pressing issue that demands a policy response. This Government has advanced a policy response to it through the Kyoto Protocol at the time when National having negotiated the terms of that protocol then said for reasons of political advantage that although climate change problems might exist we should do nothing about them. That is the essential difference between what Labour has done and what National did. 
In terms of the increase in the proportion of thermal generation over recent years the member is correct in quoting those statistics that show there has been higher utilisation of existing fossil fuel - based capacity. Although a small amount of that has been from the additional capacity this Government caused to be built at Whirinaki most of it has resulted from the increased utilisation of existing plant. And that of course was one of the objectives of the Bradford reforms which that member voted in favour of because it was true that levels of overcapacity in the generation sector were being inefficiently used. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did you stop Dobson? Why did the Government stop Dobson? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This Government did not stop Dobson. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it did. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No what it did was it declined— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter to TrustPower refusing to allow the use of the land adjacent to the Arnold River which saw the rejection of the Dobson power scheme. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. The member should wait until the end of a speech to seek leave to table something. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was going to say that the Minister of Conservation declined to allow the dam to inundate areas of the conservation estate. That is not the end of the matter though because TrustPower having been turned back on that particular version of use of water from the Arnold River has redesigned its scheme and is presently pursuing a consent for a similar amount of power to be generated from the same water from the Arnold River but with a lesser environmental impact that would not inundate the conservation estate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It has no storage. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well it may have less storage but it has run-of-river capacity that is still capable of generating a similar amount of total electricity for the benefit of New Zealand’s power system and indeed for the particular benefit of supplementing the supply on the West Coast. So I disagree with the member’s characterisation of that. 
He talked about the Whirinaki power station being built. The reason Whirinaki was built was that it was needed to cover dry year risk. One of the characteristics of New Zealand’s electricity system is our reliance on hydroelectricity. It is a wonderful resource that we are lucky to have but in a dry year when the amount of water stored in the lakes is less we have an additional need for generating capacity. The market did not deliver that dry year security of supply so the Government intervened by building the Whirinaki facility to cover that dry year risk. 
Criticisms are made of that Whirinaki facility. Some say it would be better sited elsewhere. Those criticisms are made with the benefit of firstly hindsight and secondly— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why didn’t you put it in the right place the first time? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: At the time the reason why it was set up at Whirinaki was that it needed to be done urgently and Whirinaki was a consented site. Therefore the facility was sited at Whirinaki. The reason why it needed to be set up urgently was that the imperfections of the market model which Dr Nick Smith voted in favour of—Mr Bradford’s reforms—left us with dry year risk that was not properly accounted for. 
Turning to climate change more generally this last week we have seen a re-estimation of the balance of the Kyoto obligations of the Crown during the first commitment period which runs from 2008 to 2012. Last year we had great hoopla from the National Party when it made great mileage out of the fact that New Zealand’s projected deficit during the first commitment period had increased to 68 million tonnes. It has now been reduced to about 41 million tonnes and I think that that is good news.