Hughes Gareth: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to greet all members in the Chamber congratulate all those successful members and commiserate and acknowledge all those unsuccessful members. I would like to acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker in your returning role and I guess it is fair to acknowledge the Government. Good on you for forming a Government. I think that this side of the House would have preferred it differently but I would like to acknowledge that you did have the numbers. What I would like to touch on is what your plan is for this next 3 years. I am happy to take a call in this Address in Reply debate responding to John Key and the Speech from the Throne.  
I want to touch on what the Prime Minister touched on which is the four key priorities: trying to get the Government’s books into surplus trying to get a competitive economy trying to reform the Public Service and trying to rebuild Christchurch. I want to look at what they mean for this country and why this Government is asking the right questions but is providing the wrong answers to those four priority points—surplus the economy the Public Service and Christchurch. I want to ask the Government why when there are 120 points in the plan it still does not make the grade. I want to ask the Government where the vision is with all those 120 points. I want to show the Government benches that we do have options available. We do have options. If we keep our assets Kiwi if we invest in our valuable “clean green” brand and if we invest in a compassionate economy we can build a richer New Zealand—a New Zealand for everyone.  
So firstly let us look at the first Government priority: trying to get the Government books back into surplus by 2014-15. It might surprise some of the members but the Greens support it in this aspect. You know we support sustainability when it comes to the environment and we support fiscal and environmental sustainability as well. It is clear that the country has got a debt problem. We have got a gross Government debt of around 33 percent to 36 percent of GDP and you only have to look at Europe—what is happening in Portugal and Ireland and the riots on the streets in Greece—and you see that we are on an unsustainable track. So we are asking the right question which is about Government debt but we have come up with the wrong answers. John Key’s speech talked about announcing only $800 million of new Government spending cuts to the public sector further cuts to the Government and departments like the Department of Conservation getting gutted yet what we are seeing is more wasteful spending being announced by the Government.  
Take the motorways. We have got $19 billion being borrowed by the Government to pour on these motorways with negative benefit-cost ratios. We have got the Government subsidising risky deep-sea oil ventures with $25 million - plus and direct subsidies to foreign offshore drillers. We have seen the new irrigation fund. What we are seeing is this Government cherry-picking: picking the winners in our economy. We are seeing motorways for truckies we are seeing special deals for Warner Bros we are seeing more pokies for Skycity we are seeing the Government picking the winner when it comes to the economy but it is the taxpayer picking up the tab. We see fiscal austerity as the watchword but the Government is selectively borrowing billions to back these supposed winners which are going to have huge impacts for our economy and country. When there are 120 points and there is no point when it comes to revenue you have got to ask some serious questions. Raising revenue has to be part of the question if we are trying to return the Government books into surplus.  
The Government said yes to more obscene bonuses. We saw the Government say yes to more tax cuts for the super-rich but we saw the Government saying no to capital gains tax we saw the Government say no to the temporary earthquake levy and we saw the Government say no to the small irrigation levy which would have helped our farmers and our waterways. We were the only party in the last election to go to the public with a plan to actually pay off debt faster. The Green Party went to the public with a plan to pay off $6 billion in debt over the next 3 years. But what we see from the Government benches is members playing politics looking out for their mates and taking our economy down the wrong road.  
When it comes to the competitive economy priority of the Government this again is another area where we agree with the Government. To help the sustainability of our economy and our environment we need to be reducing debt and to do that we need a competitive economy. But again what we see is the wrong answers given to the right question. The 120-point plan can be summarised in four words; I think they would be “drill it mine it”.  
Oil is the biggest strategic risk to our national economy. It is 16 percent of our imports. That is the largest single share of our national imports. We are seeing wealth directly flow offshore. Every US$1 rise in the price of oil wipes $40 billion to $60 billion off our GDP. It is the key area in the Ministry of Economic Development energy outlook analysis of the country so if oil is the problem why is drilling more of it the answer? The pathway to prosperity is not drilling new risky oil wells in deep hostile environment. It does not stack up when New Zealand sells itself far too cheaply. We see hardly any royalties hardly any taxes hardly any jobs for Kiwis we see the profits flow offshore yet it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab when it becomes a mess.  
We see the Government with its insurance liability say: “Sure you are liable but you need only $30 million in insurance.” We see the Government quite happy to see New Zealanders who love their marine environment pay 100 percent of the environmental costs yet for only 5 percent of the value of the oil. What we saw with the  
Rena 
 tragedy off the Bay of Plenty was that the country is not prepared to deal with a moderate spill let alone a risky deep-sea oil well blowout. The only way to achieve oil exports which is what the Government wants to achieve—net oil exports as in its briefing for the incoming Minister of Energy and Resources—is to encourage risky deep-sea oil drilling more hydraulic fracturing or fracking and digging up the lignite the lowest-grade coal in the country.  
When it comes to the deep-sea wells that the Government plans to dig all over the offshore environment in New Zealand there is simply no way to plug a well blowout. What we saw in the Gulf of Mexico even with all of those rigs in the environment were 40000 people ready to respond but they still could not plug the well for weeks and weeks. I do not know how the Government thinks it is going to plug a well with its new legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Yet where it is planning to be allowing these permits for these deep-sea oil rigs is between what is known as the “roaring forties” and the “furious fifties” off the Raukumara Basin one of the most seismically active parts of the country. And when it comes to the bill supposedly giving Kiwis and taxpayers protection from these risky deep-sea oil wells the “EEZ Bill” it is really more of an “E-zee Drilling Bill” for the way it simply facilitates more risky deep-sea oil drilling.  
The second part of the plan relies on fracking—more fracking across our country. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is drilling vertical and horizontal wells letting off explosives and then using drilling fluids which are proprietary secret and often very toxic to extract oil and gas. What we know from fracking overseas is that it pollutes the groundwater it pollutes the air there are significant health worries and then we also know there is growing evidence including from prestigious UK and American scientific bodies of its links with earthquakes. So I do not know why the Government is embarking on this risky and very controversial fracking practice. It is no wonder that New South Wales Quebec France and many states in America have put moratoriums on it. And that is what this Government should be doing: if it wants to look out for the taxpayer if it wants to look out for Kiwis it should encourage the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be doing some more research into the risks and until then put in an immediate moratorium.  
Now the nexus of the Government’s so-called economic development plans of “drill it and mine it” is its “sell it” approach. When it comes to the State-owned asset Solid Energy one of the State-owned assets on the books it is its plan to be bringing in billions of dollars of capital to dig up the lignite. The lignite coal—[ 
Interruption 
]—I could not hear the interjections but I am sure they were not any good anyway. But anyway when it comes to the lignite we are going to see the taxpayer pick up the bill—hundreds of millions maybe up to a billion dollars the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment reports—for subsidising it through the emissions trading scheme. This is the forefront where we should be using our expertise investing in innovation like in efficient wood pellet products other wood products and biofuels for which again the Government has not announced an extension of the grant. This is where we should be planting our effort and our focus to get innovation for prosperity for Kiwis.  
Like selling the State assets which the Government wants to flog off it is simple madness. These are assets returning a dividend of 18.5 percent to pay off debt of only 5 percent. It does not make any sense. It has no mandate. There is massive opposition in the country. Yet on the flip side there is a massive opportunity cost as well. We could be using these assets to drive our prosperity to drive our innovation. We have got world-leading expertise in renewable electricity generation already. If we using our State-owned assets to drive export growth could capture only 1 percent of that $800 billion industry this could bring $800 million per annum into the country and 67000 jobs.  
So in summary I ask where the vision is—“drill it mine it” is not enough to lift Kiwis’ living standards. Slashing the public sector is not enough to lift 200000 Kiwi kids out of poverty. The wasteful spending on the motorways and subsidising polluters is not enough to protect our wonderful environment and our valuable “clean green” brand. And the Green Party will be supporting the motion that this House has no confidence in the National Government.