Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7284] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 We have heard from the National Party members in recent weeks that they have discovered an underclass. They have discovered that there are disadvantaged people in society. Do they really think that every other political party in this Parliament has not known that? There have always been those less well off in society. There always will be. The difference between us and National is that our record shows that we do something about it. 
What have we done about it? Obviously we have reduced unemployment very substantially to the second-lowest levels of unemployment in the world and the lowest that this country has experienced for decades. We have much lower taxes for families with children so that those families have more money in their pockets to pay for food rent clothes entertainment and their lives—and for the raising of their children. We have more support for early childhood education and after-school care. We know there will always be more to be done but to suggest that we do not know about and address the problems of those who are less fortunate in society is rubbish. All those who look at the substance of policies will know that that is true. It is yet another example of the National Party trying to scratch an itch. 
In the last 6 months we have already seen John Key try to pretend that he is something he is not. On the subject of climate change in 2005 in this very Parliament he said in respect of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill which the National Party subsequently supported unchanged that it was a load of rubbish and the National Party would not be supporting it for very very good reasons. Given National’s subsequent change of heart that seems rather an exaggerated comment on his part. But perhaps of more concern was what he said next: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—” 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who said that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member asked who said that. John Key the leader of the National Party in this House in May 2005 said: “even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. He said that. He said “I”. He said in the first person that he did not believe in climate change. What did he say more recently? In November last year he said on National Radio: “I firmly believe in climate change …”. He is entitled to change his view. If he had stopped there it would have been fine but he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” One of those two statements cannot be correct. Those two statements are irreconcilable. This is another example of another hollow man in National changing his tune and saying what he thinks the voters want to hear when he believes something different and when his underlying agenda is different. 
This is a pattern in National that we have seen thoroughly exposed by Nicky Hager in that book  
The Hollow Men 
. We have seen time and again the National Party exposed for saying one thing when it has a different agenda. It used to be a secret agenda; it is now an available agenda and we know that the agenda is different. We know that its last leader Don Brash lied. He lied repeatedly. He lied to the electorate publicly. He lied time and time again. He lied. He was a liar. He was exposed by  
The Hollow Men 
 to be a liar. Finally his party found that because he was a liar it could no longer keep him and it ditched him. He was exposed for being a liar. The National Party should be ashamed of the fact that it was led— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I have listened for some time and the member is continuing too much down that particular line. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that this man is not a member of the House. He resigned because he was caught lying. Saying that is not in breach of the Standing Orders and I think I am in order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: He was not actually caught doing what you said he had done. That was not the reason he resigned. That is not the public reason. I am cautioning the member because it could lead to disorder if we go too much down that track. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a debate and my colleague the Hon David Parker was making a point in that debate. There is nothing inside the Standing Orders that prevents him from doing that. He is not talking about a member of the House. There are some quite clear rules on that. He is talking about some events that took place over the last 2 or 3 years in politics and his views on them. He is accountable for those views. I happen to share them but they are not outside the Standing Orders or the Speakers’ rulings. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just asking the member to be careful. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We know that during the election Dr Brash denied links with the Exclusive Brethren. That was found out to be an untrue statement even during the election. He recanted to a certain extent but still covered up his links with the Exclusive Brethren. Those links were exposed in the Nicky Hager book  
The Hollow Men 
 as were various other planned policy changes that were hidden from the electorate. We now have the new leader of the National Party asserting that he believes in climate change “and [I] always have”. It is that second statement that I take issue with because I find that impossible to reconcile with his earlier statements in the House. 
Similar inconsistencies have been shown by the new leader of the National Party in respect of his stance in Iraq. I spoke at forums where he said that New Zealand should be part of the war in Iraq. He also made similar statements in this Parliament when he was talking on the marine security legislation and again made reference to the fact that New Zealand should be in Iraq. He is now saying that he never thought it should be. I found those two statements difficult to reconcile. 
I turn to an area where this Government is making real progress and that is in respect of sustainability. Climate change responses are growing around the world. The popularity of those responses is changing and we are seeing now a coming together in this Parliament of different parties that want to cooperate with the Government on these initiatives. I thank them for the increasing support for those initiatives. 
I want to clarify some of the things that we are in the process of achieving. Since industrialisation began in New Zealand New Zealand’s energy-related emissions—other than the occasional war or recession—have always grown. Were we to continue under business as usual our transport emissions are forecast to grow by 35 percent over the next 30 years. Plainly that would be undesirable for the planet and also the economy because it would put a load on our future economy that would be costly to avoid in the future. So the Government has had a look again at our energy and climate change policy and we have divided our responses into transport power generation and other stationary energy the forestry sector and the agricultural sector. Our strategies were put out before Christmas for consultation and have had considerable support from within many sectors of the community. 
 In the electricity sphere we have two main planks. We say that we should as a point of principle have all our new electricity generation coming from renewable sources except to the extent necessary for security of supply. This is an affordable option for New Zealand because we have affordable renewables particularly in the form of geothermal and wind. We also need to do more to make our electricity go further by being more efficient in the way we use energy. The Electricity Commission which is an arm of the Government has been successful in rolling out about 1.5 million of those fluorescent bulbs that help New Zealanders reduce their own emissions and their own power bills while helping the environment. 
In transport we are proposing more investment in modes of transport that are efficient. The Government has bought back the rail line. It has increased funding for public transport from $40 million in 1999 to $450 million this year which is a very big increase and we are improving the efficiency of the vehicle fleet starting with some leadership in the Government fleet and the ministerial fleet. I am no paragon of virtue here; I am one of those who will have to change for the better. These are the sorts of things that New Zealanders can do and that the Government is leading. Finally in transport we are introducing a renewable fuel proportion in the form of biofuels and those announcements are being made today. 
In forestry we do need to curb deforestation. Rates of forest planting decreased most under National but they have decreased under our Government as well as a consequence of the decline in the profitability of forestry compared with other agricultural land uses. We have policies to reverse that but we also need to control deforestation of land. Deforestation accounts for about one-quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Wholesale deforestation is no better in New Zealand than it is in Brazil. We have some trading mechanisms that we think will work in that space. 
I look forward to consideration by other parties of these important policies.