Parker David: Urgent Debates — Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Release of Report 
Parker David: Urgent Debates — Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Release of Report 
[Volume:627;Page:21775] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 We have heard two speakers from National today. Neither of them has told this country—which is more at risk from the effects of climate change than just about any other country in the world because of our reliance on agricultural production to drive our economy—what they would do. All they have said is what they would not do. They said they would pull us out of the Kyoto Protocol. They said they would reverse the carbon tax. But they have not said what they would do to address the underlying problem. 
National of course has a history of having just simple messages. Its present one is that the answer to everything is: “Cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes.” Its answer to global warming is to cut taxes. What was National’s answer in the 1990s when it went to the election with its bribes? It said: “No ifs no buts no maybes. We’re not going to cut your superannuation and we’re going to remove asset testing.” Of course it did not remove asset testing and it did cut superannuation. National cut the baseline of superannuation for a couple from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. What did it say on education? It made another grand promise when it said: “No more tertiary fees.” I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said he would resign if there were fees. What did he do after the election? Well tertiary fees stayed—he increased them but he still did not resign. National promised that workers’ pay would not be cut. It promised that workers’ terms and conditions would be maintained. What did it do? It brought in the Employment Contracts Act which heralded a decade of very poor economic performance by New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are having an urgent debate on the projected balance of units during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Several times during my speech you ensured that I kept to the topic. I have been listening very carefully to Mr Parker for the last 3 minutes. He has talked about everything but the matter for which special time has been set down. I know that the Government is deeply embarrassed by the billion dollar bungle but I think that Government should have to respond and keep to the Standing Orders in terms of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member and just say that Mr Parker has not yet had 2 minutes. Of course under the Speakers’ rulings people are given the opportunity to rebut. But I would ask the member now to come to the debate. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I was rebutting the assertion and I remind listeners once again that National did not tell us what it would do; it just said what it would not do. 
Why do we have a protocol? Why does the world with the exclusion of the flat-earthers in the National Party say that global warming is the biggest environmental issue that faces the world? It says that because the reality is that global warming induced by human activity particularly the use of carbon fuels and the production of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane is changing our climate. That is not a fringe view; that is the normal view amongst scientists. There are a few naysayers left but by far the majority of mainstream scientists from all countries in the world agree that that is the case. That includes the G8 scientist groups who recently said that there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring—air and ocean temperatures are increasing sea levels are going up—and that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. They point out that carbon dioxide levels are higher than any previous levels that can be measured from the last 420000 years. Global warming is a reality. It is a problem. 
Why is New Zealand in the Kyoto Protocol? For a start I suppose we should note that a National Government under the then Minister Simon Upton negotiated the agreement of the protocol’s terms for New Zealand which Labour agreed was the appropriate thing to do and Labour subsequently ratified the protocol when it became the Government. Was New Zealand a leader in this? One would think after listening to the National members that New Zealand is out in front. In fact I think we were about 101st out of 150 countries to adopt the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Shirley said that Europe does not have a problem with Kyoto Protocol targets. What a load of rubbish! It is true that Russia and some of the former border States of the Soviet Union do not but the developed countries in Europe do have a problem with the targets as we heard from Mr Baldock when he told us that those countries are having to revise upwards their estimates of their obligations during the first commitment period. Japan is in as well and Japan and Europe are major trading partners for New Zealand. 
The next criticism we sometimes hear is that these international agreements do not work. Well we really had better hope that this one does. This Government really thinks we should be putting our shoulder behind the Kyoto Protocol because if we do not New Zealand stands to lose a huge amount. We can also look at what has happened with the last example of an international agreement on an environmental matter which concerned gases that cause ozone depletion. New Zealand was one of the countries in on that agreement before some other countries had agreed. Eventually most other countries did agree. Has that agreement worked? The atmospheric research facility at Lauder in Central Otago in my electorate is one of seven or eight leading research stations in that field in the world. It is part of the international effort on atmospheric research—so much so that much of its funding comes from international sources rather than from the New Zealand Government. I was there recently with the Hon Pete Hodgson talking about whether the international agreement in respect of ozone depletion has worked. The research facility staff are not at the point where they can in a peer-reviewed journal stake their scientific reputations on it having worked but they are very confident that it has—that the concentration of ozone-depleting gases in our atmosphere is decreasing and that as a consequence we are seeing the start of the rebuilding of the ozone layer. That for me was wonderful evidence that the international community can make a difference with big problems when it wants to. The ozone issue is not as easy as global warming but it is probably not as important either and we are determined to make it work. 
What have we heard Dr Smith say today? Well it is a bit inconsistent for him to rail against what the Government is doing currently when in 2001 he said in a  
Sunday News  
column on Sunday 4 November: “The problem is enormous. Modern civilisation is based on burning coal and gas. The billions of tonnes of carbon being put into the atmosphere each year are gradually building up. Eventually it will stuff life on Earth. New Zealand can’t ignore the problem. Poor countries refuse to do anything because their emissions are so small in comparison to rich countries like New Zealand.” That brings me to my next point. One of the criticisms that has been made today is that New Zealand should not be in there because some of the undeveloped countries are not yet bound by emission targets. That is true; they are actually part of the protocol but they do not have a target to reduce emissions during the first 5-year period between 2008 and 2012. Why? Because they actually produce fewer emissions on a per head of population basis compared with developed countries like New Zealand so it would be unfair to include them at this stage. 
Dail Jones 
: What about China? 
DAVID PARKER 
: China on a per capita basis produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than New Zealand. 
We have heard of various amounts that the revised projections are going to cost the New Zealand economy. The true figure is estimated to be $500 million between 2008 and 2012. It could be less than that because the assumption is that we will not make progress on energy efficiency. I think that is a very conservative assumption because we are pretty wasteful of energy so far in New Zealand so we have some easy gains to be made. Also it is assumed that we will not make any progress on our livestock emissions of methane despite some of the very good research programmes that we have in New Zealand and it is assumed that we will not make as much progress as we might do on forests. 
But let us assume for a moment that $500 million over 5 years is right. Let us put that in context. The last drought in Canterbury in the late 1990s cost about $230 million at the farm gate in lost production. When costs beyond the farm gate were included the drought cost about $1 billion throughout the economy. This year alone the Government has spent about $200 million as a consequence of floods. Both floods and droughts increase in frequency as a consequence of global warming. Indeed the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report dated May 2005 which came out last week analyses the changes in drought risk associated with climate change. This causes me real concern down in Otago my electorate. It is estimated that in Otago—and it is the same in Canterbury and Marlborough—the incidence of drought as a consequence of global warming in the forecast period covered in this report will become between two and four times as frequent. What used to be a one-in-20-year drought will become a one-in-10-year drought or a one-in-5-year drought and when the droughts arise they will be tougher and drier. With the exception of a couple of the big rivers like the Waitaki River and the Clutha River there will be less water in the rivers for irrigation and the droughts will be drier. So the costs of doing nothing are very high for New Zealand. 
In terms of the promises of National members I return again to their theme. What do they promise? They promise tax cuts. This week we have already seen the costing of their new justice policy which would scrap parole for people who are currently in prison. That move would cost $700 million per annum as a consequence of the increased prison population plus $3 billion in capital expenditure for new prisons. The $3 billion would be a one-off cost and the $700 million would be per annum for every year into the future. We have heard it said that the Kyoto policy is detrimental to farmers. We are protecting farmers. This is of importance for all New Zealand but it is of special importance to farmers. They bear the cost of droughts floods and trade barriers into Europe. We are protecting them through this very good policy. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.