Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill

I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to Part 1 of this bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is a philosophical one, and that is that this Prime Minister of this Government, who now knows her days are numbered, has travelled overseas at the taxpayers’ expense all around the world, standing on stages from one country to another, and promoting herself in her next job, whatever that may be. Most likely it will involve some kind of climate change, United Nations, tree-hugging, green-type, peace-leading type structure. I do not know what it will be, but I am certain it will be something.

In Part 1 of this bill, it is all spelt out. What we have is members of a Government who went over to the other side of the world and ratified the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all of our trading partners. They then came scurrying back to New Zealand and tried to get some legislative framework around the idiotic position that they have taken, and it is in Part 1 of this bill.

What we have here in Part 1 is a definition of renewable energy sources. The select committee agonised over this. There were bits struck out, bits put in, new unanimous bits put in, and some bits that had minority reports to them. So clearly there was a huge amount of debate around that. The end result is that we now have legislation that can only cause huge uncertainty in local authorities.

It is good to see the Minister of Local Government here, because I am sure there will be some questions for him about what various bits of this part actually mean. I am sure the Minister will be able to answer completely without any confusion at all so that all the local authorities out there understand.

I will start with this quote from Clause 4: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, and ocean current sources”. I am sure the local authorities will know exactly what all that means. But the Minister may also be able to answer as to which one of those is renewable, and which one he believes may be questionable. There was a huge debate about geothermal, because it could be the same as coal. It could be something we are mining from the earth that one cannot replace. Then, on the other hand, it could be something that goes on and on for ever. Who actually knows?

Where were the science papers—I am sure the Minister or his advisers will have them—that state that that is renewable, and energy sources such as coal are not? It stands to reason, and is logical, that if one digs something out of the ground such as coal and burns it and turns it into a different form, well, then it cannot be renewable. It does not come back. But is that not what one does with geothermal power? That is the first question.

There are a range of other questions, and here is one that the Minister, I am sure, will be right up to speed on. Why was it that the recommendations in the Owen McShane report, when it came to reforming the Resource Management Act to bring clarity around some of these issues, were not upheld? Why was it that the Minister for the Environment looked at the Owen McShane report at the beginning of the new Labour Government and said that none of this was for them, and she would put a red pen through the whole lot? She was not going to have any of it. The Government was not going to reform the Resource Management Act so that it would take notice of some of those issues at that time. The report was put through two select committees chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons, and came back with no recommendation to bring about those changes that were recommended all that time ago. Now that is a question I am sure the Minister should be able to answer. Nobody else in New Zealand knows the answer to that, but I am sure the Minister does.

Then, of course, one gets to the crux of the whole thing, which is greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, there has been a lot of debate about that. We have had the debate about the “fart tax”, which of course was supposedly a greenhouse tax.

💬 Brian Connell: That was a U-turn!

That was a major U-turn, unlike the ones that have been made recently, the ones on schools and the foreshore. It was a major U-turn and the beginning of the U-turns.

It was quite absurd, was it not, the idea of the Government taxing millions and millions of sheep, and thousands and thousands of cows in this country for flatulence. Was it not absurd! Was it not good to see the U-turn. Was it not good to see the member Shane Ardern so eloquently demonstrating the absurdity of taxing those innocent stock going about their business in this country generating export dollars for us. It was good to see the Government do a U-turn on that matter. But the bigger goal, and what Shane Ardern is taking on now, is to see the Government do a U-turn on something equally absurd, but more insidious and less obvious to the general public; of course, I am referring to the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill.

I am standing to speak on Part 1, the commencement date, the purpose of the Act, and the interpretation of the Act. What I find interesting about this is that the bill is presented to the Committee in order to more easily clarify section 7 of the Resource Management Act, which requires efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. That is because it became apparent over the last 10 years that the Resource Management Act was inadequate in dealing with the efficient use of energy, particularly from minerals. The benefits that the country, the world, and the atmosphere can gain through the use of renewable energy resources, including that from minerals, which are less often renewable, unlike solar power and geothermal and so on, were not dealt with so well by the Act.

The National Party acknowledges the benefits of renewable energies. There is no argument about that. We are not extreme. We are not like the Greens. We are not going to suggest using renewable resources in the sense of putting plastic bags around the buttocks of various stock caged in our country, and using that energy. We are not as extreme as that.

💬 Brian Connell: Do they say that?

They say that sort of thing. But we are saying that the use of solar power, tidal power, geothermal power, biomass, wave power, ocean current sources, and wind power, as well as hydro, is very beneficial to the country. But what seems strange, particularly in clause 3, “Purpose”, is that local authorities, in planning for businesses and industrial development for energy users, whether they be residential or commercial, are allowed to plan for the effects of climate change. In other words they are allowed to guess whether the use of renewables is going to be positive or negative, and guess whether the use of mineral energy resources will be positive or negative. But they are not allowed, as is stated in paragraph (b)(ii) of clause 3, to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into the air of greenhouse gases. They are allowed to look at the potential effects, but they are not allowed to measure them and consider the actual effects of those emissions into the atmosphere. That seems absurd to me. One can measure the effects, and one can see whether they are beneficial or not beneficial. If they harm the environment, and people know it, people should be able to use that information in their planning, and not just in the granting of resource consent, but also in the granting of an extension of resource consent.

I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven—who is sporting a broken arm because I know he was arm-wrestling David Benson-Pope to get into Cabinet, and he lost—why it is that councils are able to plan for the effects of climate change, but not measure it and use that information.

New Zealand First does not support another selective amendment to the Resource Management Act. Just over a year ago this House had the opportunity to seriously review and consider the Resource Management Act, and failed to do so. We now have this amendment bill and a further one yet to come to the House that is a selective amendment of an Act that requires major review. We understand that this bill that is before us gives effect to the Government’s energy and climate change policy, and the elevation of energy and climate change matters as ones of environmental and sustainable management priority.

We acknowledge the Government’s intention. We are aware of the Act of 2000, and the strategy of 2001. However, our party did not, and does not, support New Zealand’s participation as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, unlike the two major parties in this House. New Zealand First does not support Government and legislative bias of only renewable energy sources of power generation, as this bill envisages in Part 1.

In looking at Part 1, particularly with regard to the amended new clause 3, in relation to issues of efficiency, effects, and benefits, there strangely lacks one major definition—that is, exactly what is meant by “effects”? In the commentary the committee has stated that this is a term that is in the principle Act and need not be defined here. My first question to the Minister in the chair is: “Why did the Government not given an adequate explanation of the term ‘effects’ ”? Secondly, what are the benefits? Thirdly—and probably most important for those who have to administer the Act for local authorities—where is the clear direction to local authorities on the real intention of Part 1?

In default of a national policy statement, in default of any non-statutory firm guidelines, where do local authorities go with regard to this Act in their energy policies? We are aware that some councils have energy policies, and some have anticipated some of the terms and the concepts in this bill, but very few. This bill leaves a considerable frustration in the local authority area. There is no national policy statement in view; there is no significant non-statutory guideline or guidance with regard to the bill; and, most of all, and probably most important for local authorities, they confuse absolutely the intention with regard to clause 3(b)(i) that the planning for this effect of climate change in their region will not be one involving ratepayer cost. I do not think that sufficient thought was given to the fact that plan changes will be needed, and if not plan changes, then there will certainly need to be considerable research done in order to initiate the consent process that will follow from the implementation of this bill in the future.

The background material, the scientific information, and the guidance are just not there. I go back to the first reading where there was a Labour statement that a national policy statement was not needed, and I refute that absolutely. Without guidance at national level this bill will not be easy to administer.

However, worst than that, without national guidelines and a national policy statement we will have a disconnected state of administration, council by council. This is particularly so, because although in clause 4 there is an interpretation for climate change and one for renewable energy, there is none that covers the cost of administering the effects and benefits of this bill. New Zealand First finds this a very strange piece of legislation and almost indicative of the haste that the Government has in other legislation, as well, where the intention arrives here in some bill form, but the practical implementation of that is left for a further day. It is not good enough, but, most of all for most administering authorities, it will certainly cause them some considerable disquiet.

The ACT party will certainly vote against this foolish legislation brought to this House by this beleaguered Labour Government. It is a result of the Labour Party’s foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. It is part of the Government’s foolish response mechanism, and I can only predict that we will see more of this type of stupid, foolish legislation in this House from this Labour Government.

It seems that the Government has a fixation with renewables. I do not think that it actually understands the physics of that, because no matter is created or destroyed; it is merely transformed. But, somehow, the Government is going to categorise what become renewables.

I know that Mr Hodgson, the Minister of Energy in this Labour Government, has a fixation with wind. He believes that somehow by harnessing the wind we will solve our country’s energy woes.

💬 Brian Connell: So has Mr Benson-Pope.

Yes, Mr Benson-Pope has a fixation with wind too, but that is another matter.

I believe that New Zealand is on the brink of an energy crisis through inaction and lack of planning and foresight by this Labour Government. At best, a wind turbine generates 0.8 of a megawatt a year. Just to keep pace with our expanding energy demands we would need to build over 200 turbines every year. Just think what the landscape would look like if we were building 200 wind turbines across our landscape every year. Of course, wind is intermittent and variable. I was reading figures just the other week and saw that in Denmark no power is generated for something like 37 percent of the time, because the wind is not blowing. So wind power is not a reliable solution to the problem. It is certainly a contributor, and I believe that it is a valuable contributor. I am not knocking wind turbines, at all. They have a role to play, but wind power is not the solution.

This Government somehow thinks that tilting the Resource Management Act in favour of windmills and condemning coal will prove to be a solution for our energy woes. It will not. We know that the Maui gasfield is at the end of its commercial life—2007 will be the commercial end, and it could be sooner. That is a huge problem for this country. We know there are huge deposits of lignite coal in the Southland deposits—50 Maui gasfield equivalents in the Southland lignite deposits alone. However, because of this Labour Government’s mantras and foolish adherence to that flawed Kyoto Protocol, coal is off. We cannot talk about coal.

We have about 1,000 years’ supply of coal deposits in this country to meet our energy demands—if we are prepared to use them. I know that the Minister in the chair, Mr Duynhoven, is sympathetic to that view, but he has been railroaded by the rest of his colleagues. It is a shame he did not make it into Cabinet, because he would have been a better Minister in Cabinet than the clod—who is the character the Government has just promoted?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will not allow the use of the word the member used to describe the senior Government whip. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

What was the word?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows exactly what he said.

I am sorry, I cannot recall what I called him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is aware of what he called him.

If I caused him offence, then I will certainly withdraw—be that as it may.

A select committee of this House went down to look at Project Aqua last week. In that project we have the modification of one of the few remaining rivers in this country that is unmodified—the Lower Waitaki. If we are not going to use our coal resources, and if we are going to adhere to the policy of total emphasis on renewables, then the country had better be prepared that there will not be an unmodified river left in this country. That is the reality of the situation.

When I look at some of those definitions, too, I see that they are equally as confusing. Clause 4 states: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, and ocean current sources.” Now, solar energy is actually nuclear energy; it is radiation.

The first point I want to make is that this is not the Kyoto Protocol bill, despite the constant calls from others who have spoken in the debate before me. In fact, if members look through the legislation, they will find that the word “Kyoto” does not even appear. It appears once in the Local Government and Environment Committee’s commentary on the bill, but it does not appear in the legislation. That is why United Future is able to support Part 1, and, in fact, the bill. We have made it clear that we are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. I do not know why we any longer waste our breath on it, because it is pretty well dead and buried. It is very unlikely that Russia will ratify it. Most people around the world are beginning to look at what they will do after the death of the Kyoto Protocol.

Part 1 makes it very clear that local authorities are required to plan for the effects of climate change. As I said earlier, it caused me some concern when I first saw that in the bill, because of the huge range of effects people estimate that climate change may have on our landscape. It is clear that the Resource Management Act already requires local councils to take note of the effects, and potential effects, of future activity upon our landscape, so this bill really only makes clear what the Resource Management Act requires councils to do. The New Zealand Climate Change Office and officials have assured us that they will give local authorities some good guidelines on what the band of climate change may be, and what the effects could be. If that does not work in terms of giving clarity to local councils, some national policy statements will follow. But these take time to produce, and we have accepted a reasonable explanation that it is time to move forward in that regard.

Secondly, clause 3(b)(ii) requires councils “not to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into air of greenhouse gases”. I would have thought that Mr Shirley, and others who have spoken in the debate before me, would fully support that, because that will remove any impediment to local councils being able to give consents to coal-fired plants. We in United Future rejoice in that. All we have to do right now is to change the ideology of the current Government with regard to its opposition to coal-fired generation. If that does not occur in this term, perhaps the next Government to be sworn into the House will have a different opinion and will be able to move very speedily into releasing coal-fired generation across the country—because councils, as a result of this legislation, will not take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We consider that to be a good step in the right direction. As Mr Shirley said earlier, this legislation does not condemn coal. In fact, it may well make it easier—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s not listed in the renewables.

We will discuss the renewables in just a moment. However, we believe it is sensible to ask councils to take care of those things in clause 3(b)(i) and (ii), and that will result in good law for the Resource Management Act. It is crazy for us to put our heads in the sand and say that nothing is going on in respect of the climate around the world. There is some debate about whether the cause is greenhouse gas emissions, and also about whether it is a cyclical thing as a result of increased heat coming from the sun. However it is caused, it would be wise for councils to take into account the effects of climate change in their planning. United Future has no problem with supporting that.

When we move to the definition of “renewable energy”, we come across different terms, like “solar”, “wind”, “hydro”, “geothermal”, “biomass”, “tidal”, “wave”, and “ocean current sources”. All of those should be promoted within New Zealand to enable us to generate energy on a more sustainable and renewable basis. I agree with Mr Shirley that it is not possible for wind on its own to solve all our energy requirements. As we calculated when we were in Waitaki the other week, it would take something like 5,000 windmills to generate the power that Project Aqua will generate. So it is not a question of one of those things meeting all the requirements; it is a combination of all of them. In particular, we hope for advancing technology in respect of tidal and wave technology that may enable us to generate electricity in a very, very sustainable way. As I mentioned in my second-reading speech, this is not so much about giving a leg up, or giving an unfair advantage—

National will certainly not be supporting the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting it, because it undoubtedly is yet another contribution to the entangled mesh of bureaucracy that this beleaguered Labour Government has placed around the Resource Management Act. Indeed, this is a desperate and beleaguered Minister—and we have evidence in the chair there; he certainly looks a sorry sight. He has been playing around, undoubtedly and desperately.

Certainly, if this legislation was to bring in efficiency and was evidence-based, then we would look at it. But as we go over to the purpose clause and note that it includes the requirement for local government to take notice of the effects of climate change, we then have to look at the Government’s own preferred package on climate change, and this is what it says about it—this is vital: “The area of climate change is uncertain. We know the world has a problem, but it is unclear exactly what will happen with the climate, to whom, and over what time frame.” This is the Government that has put in one of the most prescriptive and onerous pieces of legislation in terms of domestic climate change policy, and it will affect all New Zealanders adversely, way in advance of our trading partners like Australia and America, and this is the Government that is further entangling us in this mesh of bureaucracy when it admits, in its own preferred policy package, that absolute confusion surrounds climate change. This bill is utterly inappropriate. It is absolutely premature, and it indirectly imposes all sorts of distortions on New Zealanders both at the local government level and at the national government level, and it indeed is a great folly because of that.

I think it is important to spell out to the Committee the sorts of consequences that will be imposed on ordinary New Zealanders through the Government’s preferred climate change policies. The Government has said—and it has it on its website—that petrol prices are liable to go up between 3 and 6 percent in 2008; diesel prices by 5 to 12 percent; electricity, 4 to 9 percent; gas, 3 to 8 percent; and coal, 8 to 19 percent. That is just domestic use. Ordinary New Zealanders are simply not aware of this, because the Government sort of signalled it as being in the distant future. To make it even worse, the industrial costs that will be imposed on New Zealand are, for electricity, 6 to 16 percent; gas, 9 to 24 percent; and coal, 17 to 44 percent in increased charges. That will have a huge effect on the New Zealand economy. Labour has done this whilst its own preferred policy package says that confusion surrounds the whole area. It is just arrant nonsense, and it is an example of a Government that is undoubtedly way out of control. In the fine electorate of Port Waikato I have two examples of where this bill will absolutely conflict in terms of sensible planning. One is New Zealand Steel. That company will go bust unless it has a negotiated Government agreement. That is a huge distortion.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is not surprising, is it, that the planet is in a mess, when we look at the level of ignorance even among members of Parliament. It is not innocent ignorance, but wilful ignorance, despite the information that has been put in front of them, time and time again. We heard Shane Ardern say that we have signed the Kyoto Protocol, ahead of all our trading partners. It will be news to New Zealanders that we do not trade with Europe, Japan, and Canada any more. They do not count. People who care only about America are prepared to dismiss the rest of the world as though it does not matter. They signed the Kyoto Protocol long before us—we are playing catch up.

Ken Shirley thinks the answer is coal. Well, I guess if one does not really believe climate change is a problem at all, then, of course, one would say to burn coal—never mind the mess it makes in every other way. The evidence for climate change is now overwhelming, even if there are some uncertainties about the rate of the changes.

It is clear now how the Minister has persuaded United Future to change its vote. It was against this legislation in the select committee and it is now for it. It is clear that United Future has been persuaded by being promised that in the next term of Parliament it can have coal, just as ACT, National, and New Zealand First wish, as well. That is a shame, because it is not, as Paul Hutchison said, premature to get into climate-change policy; it is probably too late. It is certainly too late to prevent some of the effects, and it may be too late to prevent even worse effects.

Local government has been asking for this legislation. It wants to plan to avoid the sorts of floods and disasters that have been plaguing the lower North Island recently. Nobody can yet say that those floods were caused by climate change, but there is no doubt that that kind of effect is consistent with what we can expect if climate change accelerates. Local government wants the tools to plan conservatively to prevent that kind of effect, and the Ministry for the Environment has already produced substantial guidance. We do not need to wait for a national policy statement, the work has been done, it is there now, and local government is able to use it.

I want to propose an amendment to clause 2, because there is a bargain at the heart of this bill that may not be kept. The bargain at the heart of this bill is that the tools that regional councils have to take greenhouse emissions into account when they are considering air emissions are to be taken away in exchange for there being a national instrument, which is a much more effective way of controlling them. That national instrument, under Government policy, will be a carbon charge in 2007. I have always been a bit concerned about the 3-year gap in-between, but I am much more concerned now that it appears possible that the Kyoto Protocol will not be ratified at all. If the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified at all, there will be no carbon charge, there will be no national instrument, and the only mechanism that exists to control greenhouse emissions will be what regional councils have been doing—and in a couple of cases quite successfully.

Two very successful agreements have been negotiated on two new power stations to mitigate their greenhouse emissions. I believe that the coming into force of clauses 6 and 7, which remove the powers of regional councils, ought to be linked in time with the coming into effect of a national instrument.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt the speaker, but we are on Part 1, and she is talking about clauses 5 and 6, which are in Part 2.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I point out that my amendment is to clause 2, which is in Part 1. That is where the “coming into force” is provided for. Therefore, I need to speak to my amendment to Part 1, which is where clause 2 occurs.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. Maybe she might like to continue.

It is worth noting, in view of the things that have been said about carbon charges and the higher prices that they will cause, that the money raised by a carbon charge does not go into a black hole and disappear from the economy. It is available to pay back in tax reductions elsewhere. Green Party policy is that we would lower income tax by the amount we collected from the carbon charge. We would pay a bit more for our fuel, we would pay a bit less at the bottom band of our income—not at the top, as ACT would like to do—by whatever we collected from the carbon charge. That money is available to go into the economy and achieve other things.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to say very strongly that National does not support the passage of this legislation. We do not support it on a number of fronts. The first reason is that this legislation is very muddled. I believe it will bring great uncertainty into the energy sector, and, without doubt, it will impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers as they try to come to grips with what this legislation is trying to signal.

This bill requires councils to plan for climate change when there is huge uncertainty about its causes and effects. Jeanette Fitzsimons conveniently overlooks the fact—and she will know this—that there are 17,000 eminent scientists in America alone who say that the theories that underpin global warming are flawed at best and complete rubbish at worst. How then are we to expect councils to deal with this problem with any authority when we cannot even agree about it at national level, let alone an international level?

Jeanette Fitzsimons went on to say that it is unlikely that this protocol will be ratified. Does that imply that the rest of the world is ignorant, just because we view this issue differently from the Greens? I do agree with Ms Fitzsimons on this basis—I believe we are going through a period of global warming. What I am not convinced about, however, is to what extent this is a man-made phenomenon. Given that, why would New Zealand buy into what is a global problem and not a problem of New Zealand’s making?

It might interest this Committee to learn that New Zealand contributes 0.02 percent of all greenhouse emissions. Yet we went at it headlong to sign into this Kyoto Protocol, ahead of our major trading partners—as Mr Ardern said. This Government was prepared to put the people of New Zealand at a significant disadvantage on the basis that it wanted to sign into this protocol simply for a photo opportunity. In a very cynical way, the people who were going to be asked to pay for this were the farming community of New Zealand, through the imposition of a tax on flatulence. That was the beginning of the U-turns that have characterised this Government over recent weeks. They have been the biggest U-turns since David first spied Goliath.

In Part 1 of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill, clause 3(a) deals with efficiency of the end use of energy. This, to my mind, is totally illogical. The message is that the Government does not really care how efficient one is in generating electricity, but it is concerned about how one uses it. That is why this Government is promoting Project Aqua. It is not concerned about the best use of the resource; it is simply saying that it does not care how electricity is generated or what damage it does to one of our great national resources, but, in order to support its philosophical position, it will have people sign on to Project Aqua.

There seems to be a view that water in this country is an unlimited resource. I have news for those people. The recent report from Environment Canterbury makes it very clear that on the South Island’s east coast, water is over-allocated. If that is seen as a renewable resource, then I believe we are mistaken. We are going down a track that will leave New Zealand terribly exposed. I pick up Mr Shirley’s point—I believe we are heading towards a significant energy crisis in this country, yet we are ignoring some of our best natural resources.

I would like to add my thoughts on this very important legislation. The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is legislation that National will not be supporting, because it takes us backwards. Pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act mean that this Government captures opportunities for development. This legislation just adds another huge compliance cost and another hindrance to development, to investment, and to the growth of our country and our economy.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made earlier by Mr Peters about clause 3, “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) talks about provisions relating to the efficiency of end use of energy, the effects of climate change, and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Of course, nowhere in this bill does it articulate what those concepts mean. I would have thought that when one talked about the effects of climate change, one would have to know what that means. We need to look at what the effects are. They have to be crystallised in an argument and articulated in such a way that when I read this bill it is very, very clear what those effects mean.

If there are effects, there will be benefits—which is what the clause says. What are the benefits to be derived? If this legislation goes ahead, I want to know what the benefits of it will be. Again, nowhere does it say what those benefits are. When I look from a strategic point of view at cause and effect, cost-benefit ratios, and those sorts of analyses, those are the questions I want answered. I ask the Minister of Energy, who has not taken a call yet. This is an opportunity for the Minister to put his mind to those questions, because not only am I asking them but also they have been raised by Mr Peters from New Zealand First. They are not questions that should be glossed over; they are important questions. They form the basis of the bill, because they are found in clause 3, “Purpose”.

I want also to mention the point raised by my colleagues about coal resources. There are 800, 900, 1,000—I have heard even up to 1,500—years of coal resources available that we could be using to provide energy. With new technology, coal can now be burnt leaving clean air. What coal can do for us has been overlooked. In my electorate of Piako, Solid Energy New Zealand, which operates the coalmines at Huntly, cannot, because of the restrictions of the Resource Management Act, supply coal to Genesis Power, the power station right next door on the river. So what is happening? Coal is being brought in from Indonesia. It is being trucked in from the Port of Tauranga, 24 hours a day. It is coming across the Kaimai Range into Matamata, where I live, and is being stored in a quarry just out of Matamata. The unloading of that ship is a 24-hour operation, so that 48 hours later it can be on its way again. That coal comes from Indonesia, while sitting on our doorstep, in Huntly, is Solid Energy coal that could be fuelling the Genesis power station.

Not only that; there is a problem with the trucking of the coal. The neighbouring farmers up Taotaoroa Road, where the quarry that stores the coal is, have to deal with a continuous stream of vehicles, 24 hours a day. They have problems with noise and dust, and the trucking interferes with the way in which they operate and do business. The coal is taken from there during daylight hours, between 6 in the morning and 7 at night. It is transported over to Huntly during those hours, because of the requirements of the local authority resource consents, and it is dumped for storage. On Monday I had a deputation from the area where the coal is to be dumped on an open stockpile at Solid Energy, and already there are huge problems with noise and dust in the preparation of the site.

So we will oppose this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.