Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18817] 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What landmark environmental legislation has passed recently? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Legislation for an emissions trading scheme and legislation to introduce biofuels have both been passed by Parliament in the last fortnight. The emissions trading scheme being phased in over the next 5 years is a cornerstone of the Government’s climate change action. It will create incentives to invest in cleaner technology improve the efficiency of our production and encourage climate-friendly investment such as forestry. The Biofuel Act will see vehicles start to run on sustainable biofuels marking a transition away from reliance on imported oil 
Moana Mackey 
: How will these two pieces of legislation affect ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: These initiatives will future-proof our country cushion the impact of rising oil and electricity prices and ensure access for our primary exports into high-value markets. The country already faces a cost under the Kyoto Protocol for increases in emissions. The emissions trading scheme will reduce that cost by reducing emissions and emitters rather than just taxpayers will start to bear the cost of their greenhouse gas pollution. To help New Zealand families we are instigating the biggest push for household energy efficiency ever seen—$1 billion to help make New Zealand homes warmer dryer and cheaper to heat. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will he accept responsibility for errors made in this critical legislation given that he insisted on introducing and passing 785 amendments on one day or will he do as Annette King has on the Electoral Finance Act and blame officials Parliament and everyone else but Labour for mistakes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party always resorts to process arguments when it has none of substance. Once again we see National this week being caught saying one thing to one audience one thing to another. David Carter was reported in the Gisborne paper this week as saying— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked whether he will accept responsibility for mistakes in the legislation. We have heard all sorts of other irrelevancies. I think the Minister should address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course I take responsibility for the legislation; I took it through the House. The National Party has once again been caught telling audiences what it thinks they want to hear. We had David Carter in Gisborne earlier this week saying that it was an economic folly to bring agriculture into an emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well that is what is reported in the paper—the member should blame it not me. Last night he and Lockwood Smith were both saying that yes agriculture should be in and they then spent 10 minutes explaining why it should not be. 
Moana Mackey 
: What credible reasons has the Minister seen for opposing this important legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen none. The National Party pretended to oppose the Biofuel Bill on environmental grounds despite the sustainability criteria’s meeting the approval of the Greens who are paragons of environmental integrity. National opposed the emissions trading scheme on the basis of six very weak so-called principles which crumble under any kind of close analysis. There were no issues of substance to support its opposition. Those were just excuses for delay. It was all politics not principle that caused National to flip-flop. National members thought that by pulling their support for the bill they could embarrass the Government by the legislation’s failing to pass—they were wrong. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that although a price on carbon is a much-needed first step there is an enormous amount more work to do to reduce New Zealand’s domestic emissions—such as improved investment in public transport and active transport vehicle fuel efficiency standards better planning of cities and zero-energy buildings—and will he gazette a target date at which New Zealand’s net emissions will flatten off and start to head downwards permanently? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do agree that the emissions trading scheme in itself would not be enough. We are making substantial progress on renewable electricity and we have related targets there. We have dates by which we are aiming to achieve carbon neutrality in the whole of the energy sector and we are making great progress on public transport too. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister seen this statement from Te Ohu Kaimoana: “Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa have concerns that there have not been due care of their settlements in developing the ETS and that should concern us all.” and what assurance can he give to Te Ohu Kaimoana Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa that their concerns are being addressed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen at least some of those reports. In respect of the Ngai Tahu issues I explained the Government’s position on that in the House recently. Essentially quite generous compensation has already been paid; in fact the value of carbon emission units exceeds the value of the land as at the transfer date. We questioned the claim as to the amount of the loss. But notwithstanding we are checking to see whether there was any withholding of information at the time of the settlement. If there was then the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said he will look at the matter further.