Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18171] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the support that the Government and the Prime Minister are giving the Greens in election year. Once again the Prime Minister has delivered a speech in which she talked about a sustainable future and a better quality of life without a single reference to ensuring that we protect and invest in the ecological foundations on which that quality is based. That is right: the environment did not rate a mention—not once—in the Prime Minister’s vision for the future of our country. 
One would never guess that the Government’s own research company recently told us that 95 percent of our lowland rivers and streams are not fit to swim in let alone to drink. One would never guess that 65 wild rivers are threatened with hydro development. One would not guess that our vehicles kill more people with what comes out of their exhaust pipes than by running people over. One would not guess that people are dying and seriously ill from toxic waste that was sprayed on them in Vietnam or on New Zealand farms in the era of 245-T which was manufactured near them in New Plymouth or that permeates their land around timber treatment sites. 
As people return from their summer holidays they are talking of the changes they have seen. Favourite beaches are now built up favourite camping grounds have been sold for private development there have been sewage spills and there has been a loss of the unspoiled character of the New Zealand coast. That is what people mean by quality of life—it is not just about how much money they earn. We fear that the liberalisation of foreign investment in the Overseas Investment Bill will accelerate that trend and Rod Donald will talk more about that. Others are seeing their quality of life threatened by the prospect of power lines—much larger than anything we have seen so far in New Zealand—marching across the landscapes they love and even over their homes and gardens. There are alternatives to those lines but the Government is not actively pursuing them—just leaving it to the market and to a State-owned enterprise bent on empire building. 
Those who focus on economics as a measure of everything simply do not understand that for many of the people affected compensation is not the answer. Numerous surveys both very recent and going back to the 1970s show that a majority of Kiwis would trade some income and wealth for a better quality of life which is defined as the social and environmental conditions they live in. That is why the country and the Labour Government need the Greens to protect our land water air food and the other creatures that we share the planet with. Labour on its own cannot be trusted to do that. 
Maori also are not focused solely on economics. Economic development is crucial if Maori are to participate fully in the benefits of our society. But unless policy on the treaty also looks at the kind of relationship we build between Maori and Pakeha in this country and unless it works at better dialogue better understanding of each other and greater tolerance then economics alone will not do the trick. 
The number of people who gathered in Rotorua this past weekend to make a stand against the field trial of genetically engineered pine and spruce trees shows that opposition to GE is still a very live issue. But it seems to have moved somewhat off the Government’s horizon. In previous speeches Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have lauded biotechnology as the great white hope of the knowledge economy to make money for New Zealand. The failures of GE overseas seem to have moderated that stance and today we are pleased to see there was no mention of it at all. With Monsanto shown to have bribed Government regulatory officials in Indonesia GE companies pulling out of the European Union and Australia massive stock market losses by GE agriculture firms and a crisis from weeds and herbicide poisoning in Argentina it is clear that we would have lost nothing by keeping our moratorium in place and benefiting from the international reputation that would have given us. Despite the lifting of the moratorium—against the wishes of 70 percent of New Zealanders—there have been no applications for release but the situation demands that we be eternally vigilant. 
For that reason and to keep the Greens’ 2002 election promise to the 70 percent of people who support us on this issue I move  
That all the words after “this House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led minority Government because despite there being some positive elements in its programme its decision to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health our environment and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks” 
. 
I look forward to the day when the Greens will no longer need to move a motion of no confidence in the Government. Labour could win our support this month by supporting Ian Ewen-Street’s member’s bill to restore the moratorium or it could win it after the election with a post-election policy agreement for a new Government that includes progress on the GE issue. 
The Prime Minister has foreshadowed some improvements in childcare housing workplace superannuation and addressing the causes of crime all of which we welcome and support although there are at the moment very few specifics. But she is curiously silent about the looming threats that put at risk our economy and therefore our way of life. New Zealand has now had 5 years of a booming economy. We have used that boom to foster increased consumption and have done little to invest in an economy that can weather the shocks that are coming. On the one hand too many people have not participated in the good times and poverty remains an issue particularly for many of our children. Poor housing and poor health lead to poor education and unemployment. On the other hand those who have benefited from more money have nevertheless borrowed even more and the credit card economy means that many households as well as the nation as a whole are living beyond their means. When the economic bubble bursts as it must at some stage those families will be particularly hard hit. 
In my state of the planet speech 2 weeks ago I drew attention to authoritative voices warning us that we are very close to the point where world demand for oil will outstrip the capacity of the oil fields to supply. I have been pleasantly surprised at how that seems to have resonated with the public. The Greens are up significantly in both polls this week and today we are the only third party to be above 5 percent—very comfortably in fact. We have had many affirmations but I will now address the few arguments that the sceptics have managed to muster. 
The simplistic response is that technology will always find a way. That denies that there are any limits at all to planetary resources and amounts to a “close your eyes and hope” attitude. More sophisticated are the arguments that rising prices will make oil exploration more worthwhile so we will find more; that it will make the development of tar sands and oil shales economic—and those resources are large—and that it will suppress demand so that oil production can cope. 
The last argument about suppressing demand just states that either we will become more energy efficient which is exactly what the Greens are proposing we should do or the poor will miss out as prices rise. That is not something we want to encourage in a fair and inclusive society. I would like to think that we can keep ahead of oil scarcity with energy efficiency but the evidence is that we are not even meeting our current very mild target with current policies. In the first year of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy we managed a 2 percent improvement but last year it was zero. We need a big policy and funding shift if we are to do better than that. 
Oil exploration always drills the easiest targets first. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have dropped sharply ever since despite continued effort. At present we are finding about one barrel for every four we are using and no one can say the price has not been good over the last year. 
Oil shale and tar sands are vast but they yield little net energy because it takes so much energy input to exploit them. As the price of fuel rises the cost of extracting these heavy dirty inaccessible and environmentally very destructive oils will rise with it. In short if $55 a barrel was going to make oil shale economic we would be into it now. The  
New Zealand Herald  
reported today that OPEC sees its target price of US$22 to US$28 a barrel as “unrealistic” and analysts are anticipating it will be moved to around US$40 a barrel. Today’s price of US$47.95 suggests they may have underestimated again. 
Nor can we turn to coal. For one thing turning coal into oil is an extremely dirty and dangerous process leaving destroyed landscapes and toxic wastes. Secondly the carbon emissions would be astronomical at a time when all the reports coming in on climate change suggest that we have seriously underestimated this threat to our economy and our way of life. The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice took everyone by surprise and is itself accelerating climate change because the darker colour of the exposed ocean traps more heat. Release of the methane hydrates from thawing tundra would do the same on a larger scale. Last week’s report from the UK said that if we do not turn round carbon emissions in the next decade we will not stop runaway climate change whatever we do after that. A doubling of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere once seen as the limit of acceptable change now looks very dangerous. Long before we could get oil-to-coal under way the reasons not to start will be overwhelmingly obvious to everyone— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s right. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: —even the ACT party. 
So what is the Government doing about this? The Prime Minister said that the Government will provide leadership in “making this country relevant to and engaged in Asia’s future” by exhibiting at the World Expo in Aichi Japan this year. What she does not say is that the Government’s foundation partner in the New Zealand pavilion will be our coal company Solid Energy. Is this how we want to be known in Asia—as a country that profiles itself to the international community as wanting to sell them the means to change their climate destroy their food production raise their sea levels threaten their biodiversity and cause droughts and floods? 
There are several worrying proposals on the table for new coal developments and the Government has not discouraged them. Nor has it addressed the inefficiency of our vehicle fleet which could be twice as good with proper standards. It is still building new motorways which will not even be paid off by the time oil prices shrink our use of cars. Unsustainable transport is a big contributor to our growing balance of payments deficit. Imports of petroleum and its products increased by 21.7 percent last year. Vehicles parts and accessories increased by 7.4 percent which is the largest single category. 
But this Government does understand about climate change. It has done some worthwhile things with carbon credits and new renewables. The Prime Minister said in her speech that we must ensure as much of our energy comes from renewables as possible. We want to help the Government meet that goal. What the Greens were hoping for in the Prime Minister’s speech was some recognition that there is a serious economic problem here. We hoped for an announcement of investment in reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels a commitment to help our industries adjust and a refocus of our trade policy to make it relevant to the 21st century. 
The Prime Minister says she is building a nation of fairness opportunity and tolerance in which every New Zealander has a stake. But too many New Zealanders are falling even further behind. As the  
Listener 
 has pointed out a survey of 25 of New Zealand’s leading companies shows that the average pay rise of their chief executive officers last year was 25 percent—in 1 year. This compares with 2.4 percent in the average ordinary-time weekly earnings in the year to September 2004 and Westpac points out that for most people that is below the inflation rate. Statistics New Zealand shows that since 2000 the split of national income has moved in favour of capital and away from workers despite the present low unemployment rate. 
This is extraordinary for a Labour Government and it suggests that while National is driving a wedge between the working and the non-working poor Labour is also drifting away from those most in need who used to be its constituency. Sue Bradford will speak later this evening on some of our solutions to address this inequity but I can illustrate them with reference to the Prime Minister's wish to increase savings and asset ownership and to encourage people especially women off the benefit and into work. 
If the incentives to work are not strong enough I do not understand why the Government does not follow its own belief in the market which says that if something is in short supply one pays more for it. We could do more to encourage people off benefits by raising the minimum wage and making it worthwhile. Less than $12 an hour is not much of an incentive to take on the extra costs of going to work especially if one has children at home. I am not surprised there is a shortage of seasonal workers for fruit-picking and packing when I look at the wages the living conditions in some places and the uncertainty of whether there will be work at all. The income must be there before one can save it or invest it. 
We welcome proposals to help people save—for housing and superannuation at work. But many people will never be able to save because of the millstone of student debt. The Government should address this by letting past students work it off by contributing to New Zealand society and by having universal student allowances so that present and future students can borrow less. To help prepare for the coming crises we need our best and brightest at home and contributing here. 
The Prime Minister says we are short of workers and wants to encourage more women into the workforce. We welcome more resources for childcare which gives women a genuine choice but we must not pressure women to leave their kids if they want to raise them themselves. Raising children is one of the most important jobs one can do and parents must be free to choose to do it themselves if they want. There is a strong feeling that this Government does not regard raising children as “real work” yet it wants to address the causes of crime and to ensure all children have a good education which needs support from home. The State in our view should be neutral on whether parents work while their children are small or stay home and care for them and should support them regardless of which choice they make. 
Opposition parties are calling for a tax cut and that is seen as a defining issue in politics this year. The Greens welcome a debate on tax because we want to debate the more important issue of what should be taxed. There is no particular reason why it should be incomes profits or retail spending. We need to use the tax system to prepare to weather the shocks ahead and to shift some tax off the things we want to encourage such as work incomes enterprise and on to the things we want to discourage such as scarce resources waste and pollution. 
The Government signalled a carbon tax for 2007. It should start now. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified. It is time we sent a clear signal that fossil fuels will be relatively more expensive in the future and that renewables and energy efficiency will prosper. There are many other resources and kinds of waste on to which we could shift some of our tax under policies of ecological tax reform. 
This weekend thousands of people visited the Future Living Expo in Christchurch. Some came to my talk on peak oil and stayed to discuss our options. They were well informed. Businesses exhibited a range of contributions to a sustainable future—electric commuter scooters clean-burning and efficient wood stoves and the fuel for them solar water heaters of many models water efficiency sustainable building technologies and wind turbines. This is what we should be showcasing to the rest of the world rather than coal. Business—some businesses—and consumers—some consumers—are leading the way to a future that uses resources wisely. It is time for Governments to follow.