Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill

I rise to speak on Part 2 with the same level of opposition to it as I had to Part 1, although there is something that my colleagues on the centre-right might consider: if this part were to achieve its real objective—which is to find a new job for the Prime Minister off shore—then we might change our vote. It might be a good decision to make! If it were to achieve that result—which is what it is really intended to achieve—then we might support it.

It is good to see the real Minister of Transport, Harry Duynhoven, in the chair. Looking at that Minister, who has his arm in a sling, one can see what happens to the competition when there is a major reshuffle in the Labour caucus and the senior whip is promoted to a ministerial portfolio. Labour members know how to deal with the competition—that is for sure. It is called an honourable discharge—or “Labour Party politics” is probably a better term for it.

💬 Phil Heatley: Twisting their arm!

It is called twisting their arms—that is right. Part 2 of this bill is the part that deals with the nonsensical, silly approach that has been applied by this Government. Did anybody hear all the major contributions from Government members on the merits—or not—of Part 1? I did not hear them. Did anybody hear them? Nobody heard them. Not even the Minister of Energy took a call to explain the stupidity of this legislation to any members of the public who might be listening. After not having heard a single Government contribution on Part 1, we are now debating Part 2, and are hopeful that somebody will explain to us why we need this nonsensical legislation.

Let us have a look at what it does. Clause 5(2) states: “Section 7 of the principal Act”—which is the Resource Management Act—“is amended by adding the following paragraphs: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.” Let us explore that for a moment, and find out what the use of renewable energy might mean. The first things that happened under this Government’s leadership—under the leadership of both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Conservation—was there was a proposal to build a hydro dam on the West Coast of the South Island. The Minister said: “Nope, we can’t do that—no can do. That is a very important piece of conservation land, 200 hectares of gorse—we can’t flood it in any circumstances.” Then we had an energy crisis. The Minister said: “We’ve got the answer to that. We’ll burn coal.”! As my colleague said, we are not even going to use our own coal, of which we have gazillions of tonnes—1,500 years’ worth, somebody said. We are importing coal from Indonesia. We will burn that coal to get us out of an energy crisis.

Then we come to this legislation, which states that emphasis must be given to using renewable energy. If that is not an oxymoron, somebody better take a big, deep breath and explain to me what it is that I am missing, because something seems to be missing in that equation. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Energy, is passionate about this. I have heard him talk about it. I am sure he will take a call and explain to me why I am so confused over the position the Government is taking in this legislation. It states that local government must take into consideration, in its business, the concept of renewable energy, even though central government, in a power crisis, will use coal, not hydro power—because we are not allowed to develop any more hydro dams, and there are no more being developed that I know of.

Let us have a look at that. I want to challenge one or two of the notions that were put forward by the Greens, who, of course, support the Government in this nonsensical approach but who, I notice, voted against Part 1—and I congratulate them on that. United Future, whose members have spent the entire time they have been in Parliament talking about this, are now voting for the bill—nothing surprises me in politics any more—but the Greens, to their credit, did vote against Part 1, although I suspect it was for completely different ideological reasons from the ones I have just put forward. The Greens said that they would vote against it, so I give them credit for doing that.

I do not want to spend very long on Part 2, because I think that Part 1 laid out all the issues in the bill. Part 1 also laid out the problems, which are repeated in Part 2. Clause 5(1) amends section 7 of the principal Act by inserting paragraph (ba): “the efficiency of the end use of energy:”, and I have tabled an amendment to add the words “where this is practicable.” The issue that New Zealand First has is that the limitations in Part 1 are also there throughout the whole of Part 2. The reason for my amendment is that, although the use of the term “end use” is an improvement, it disregards all sources of energy. New Zealand First’s problem is that, along with the present Government’s haphazard, fragmented approach to power generation—and there is no better evidence than what was seen by those of us who were down in Waitaki last Thursday and Friday—and with a lack of coherence in practical terms, notwithstanding the fact there might be coherence in legal terms, there is no provision in Part 2 for non-renewable sources such as coal.

In fact, the issue of the use of coal throughout the bill becomes a real problem. I took into account the submissions made by the relevant submitters—including Fonterra, which now uses coal as a source of fuel—that modern, better technology means, for certain, there are reduced discharges of greenhouse gases into the air when coal is used. But this bill precludes that, expressly clause by clause in Part 2.

The other issue I want to raise again, despite what has been said by others in the Committee, is that this bill, in its legislative form, will impose issues for councils. There is no mistake about that. It is not sufficient for us to be told that non-statutory guidelines are of help. They are not, and those who are seated behind the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, know exactly that. A national policy statement has legal impact, in effect; non-statutory guidelines have not. Therefore, I say again that unless the issue is very quickly remedied to influence the final form of this bill, councils will have problems. There will be differing interpretations, despite the excellent work done by at least two regional councils with regard to the issue of emissions in their current regional plans. Nothing in Part 2—and I will be very pleased if the Minister can clarify the matter for me and tell me I am wrong—makes that issue clearer for practitioners of the legislation, should it be passed, so they can work with certainty. Worse than that, if there is a lack of certainty on the part of those who have to adjudicate upon and work on resource consents, then there will certainly be an added cost for those who lodge applications.

Lastly, this bill, notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister in his introduction speech, will have a cost-added impact. The worst part about that, for the Minister in the chair, is that that impact is unquantifiable at the present time, because there is no policy statement. New Zealand First then does not give any support to Part 2, even though it may be seen by some as a laudable attempt on the part of the Government to address the issue of reduced emissions.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Harry Duynhoven.

💬 Shane Ardern: He’s alive.

Not only is he alive, he is also very well. I assure Mr Ardern, whom I saw on Sunday evening, that I already had a broken bone in my hand at that time, as he will recall, so it has little to do with the events of this week.

The key objectives of this bill—and I want specifically to address Mr Jim Peters’ point—are to give greater weight to the value of renewable energy, and to clarify the fact that energy efficiency should be a consideration, regardless of the energy source. These are prime factors in this bill.

One reason the Labour Party will oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Peters is our belief that to meet the provision he proposes would add extra compliance costs for both applicants and local authorities. The test in clause 7 already incorporates an assessment equivalent, so the amendment would then be a duplication, add further complexity without any real benefit, and result, I am sure, in later court cases around those issues.

Ms Fitzsimons put forward a motion during the debate on Part 1 to do with the timing of two clauses in Part 2. The motion referred to new sections 70A and 104E. Because councils are choosing not to apply controls on greenhouse gas emissions now, to delay the introduction of new sections 70A and 104E would result in little change. Such a delay would also result in ongoing uncertainty for councils with regard to consent applications and associated litigation costs, and would potentially result in duplication of controls when the carbon charge is implemented. The introduction of these new sections will provide certainty about the role of councils. There is no policy gap in the interim, and more climate change policy mechanisms are being implemented than just the carbon charge.

I come now to one of the prime criticisms of the legislation, which is that Russia has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. What happens internationally if the Kyoto Protocol falls over? New Zealand was not one of the first to sign the protocol, as is often claimed. On Monday of this week I was with Genesis Power in the Wairarapa, where we looked at the extension project to the wind farm it has there. It was really interesting. One thing discussed during that visit was that Meridian Energy had recently been engaged in negotiations with an entity from the Netherlands, with regard to carbon credits. The Dutch—and I can speak with some authority on this issue—are not renown for putting up money ahead of time, if they do not see a benefit. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol comes into force, Europe is already progressing on that issue. Meridian Energy has been able to negotiate with, and will be in the position of being able to sell carbon credits to, the Netherlands.

New Zealand is in the position of being able to say: “Hang on a minute. Why would countries do that?” They are doing it because they see that, regardless of the cause of climate change, there is climate change and a need to do something about it. That is the situation of the world we live in. We cannot prove today—at least, I cannot—that climate change is a result of whatever events have occurred over the last century, but we do know that climate change is definitely occurring.

Therefore, we have an obligation—and this Government recognises it—to do what we can to be part of worldwide action to ameliorate and do what we can to reduce the effects of climate change. The Dutch have recognised that, and are putting their money upfront. New Zealand companies can do business with them. I am pleased to say that I sat alongside the Dutch Minister at the last International Energy Agency conference, and we discussed just these matters then. The Netherlands is very serious, as is Europe, about this issue, and I believe that the Russians will sign the protocol—but let us wait and see. In the meantime, this Government is getting on with it.

Part 2 certainly perpetuates the nonsense that we saw in Part 1. We heard the Minister say that climate change is happening, but climate change has been happening since Adam and Eve in time immemorial, as my colleague pointed out. It is of huge concern that a very intricate bureaucracy and layers of legislation are being put into the bill, when this Labour Government, in its preferred policy package, has clearly stated that confusion surrounds the issue of climate change. I think it would be useful if the Minister took a further call—and I say good on him for taking one call—to explain to us why, when the Government says that there is much confusion, that the area of climate change is uncertain, and that it is unclear exactly what will happen to whom and over what time frame, the Government is putting in all these extraordinary things like negotiated Government agreements, which distort the markets and give the wrong incentives. Why is the Government doing this, when it admits that there is so little knowledge about the root cause of climate change?

I note that in clause 5(1)(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy is referred to. Why has the Government not started doing the sort of sensible things that are being done in Europe, in terms of making sure that we have efficient end use of our energy anyway—for instance, with regard to motors? In Europe—the Minister has looked at what happens there—a system is in place to incentivise companies and manufacturers of motors, so that if they have highly efficient motors, then they get a gold star standard, which is graded from levels 1 to 5. There are clear incentives to make that happen. We have an example of a company in New Zealand that has invented an energy-efficient brushless motor, and is licensed to sell it in North America and all over Europe. But in New Zealand there are no incentives for companies to have that efficient end usage of energy.

It seems absurd that the Labour Government has put into this bill an incredible framework of intricate, useless bureaucracy, and has not done the simple, sensible things first. Instead, it has forged ahead of our trading partners, and we have the ridiculous situation whereby in my electorate New Zealand Steel, which employs 1,200 people directly and 5,000 indirectly, may well have to close down if the Government imposes the carbon credits that it is planning to impose.

Instead, New Zealand Steel will get a negotiated Government agreement. That is fine. Then that company tells me that one of the most useful ways it could run its highly important plant—highly important to New Zealand—would be to use coal. The company is very prepared to use the most contemporary technology that there is, but it would have no hope of getting a resource consent to do so—absolutely no hope. That is an indictment on the difficulty that this Government has put us into. On the other hand, Genesis Power is planning and applying for a wind farm. Wind farms are great—absolutely great. I can see the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, with his genetic propensity—being a Dutchman—has great enthusiasm for windmills and wind farms. That is splendid.

It was interesting to listen to Paul Hutchison call for incentives for less polluting motors. Every incentive that has ever been proposed—whether it be a financial incentive through carbon charges, making clean fuel more cost effective, an environmental standard, or whatever else it was—the National Party always opposes. So there we go; there are the incentives. That is how far we will get with them.

It is pretty clear from what a number of members have said—and the latest is Mr Peters—that the coal industry has been doing a fantastic public relations job recently. The coal industry has been around the country persuading people there is something called clean coal, and telling them it has the technology to not emit carbon dioxide. That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the world has anyone proved that coal can be burnt without ever releasing the carbon dioxide. It can be tied up for a wee while; it can be put down an oil well until it eventually bubbles out again, but in terms of the long-term effects on the climate, we do not yet have any way of burning coal without releasing all the carbon in the coal as carbon dioxide. We may have a way of doing that one day. When we do, coal can be added to the list of clean technologies. At the moment we do not, so let us forget coal and get on with what we do have.

It is disappointing, and quite worrying, that the Government was not prepared to vote for my amendment to link the removal of the regional council powers with a national economic instrument. That was the genesis of the idea. The whole purpose of taking away those Resource Management Act powers was that greenhouse emissions are better controlled at the national level. That shows that the Government itself is very much in doubt now as to whether it will impose a carbon charge. It is now over 10 years since that was first tried by an environment Minister, and he was knocked back in Cabinet. Simon Upton wanted to do that in the early 1990s, and he could not get it through Cabinet. It remains to be seen whether anybody will ever get a carbon tax through a Cabinet. But in removing those regional council powers and putting nothing in their place, we are left with nothing.

It may be that councils are no longer looking at putting controls on greenhouse emissions, but the Environment Court might well have done so. We have had three really important cases in the past. The first one was when Simon Upton called in the application for the Stratford power station and imposed carbon mitigation requirements on that power station. The fact that the then Government was kind of fooled, and the requirements were written in such a way that they have not come into effect, is a secondary issue. The second important case was when Greenpeace negotiated a side agreement with Contact Energy over its new gas-fired Otahuhu power station. That station has not been built, but the consent is there. Greenpeace negotiated an agreement that it would not oppose the building of a new, relatively clean gas-fired station if a certain amount of the very old, very dirty, and very inefficient New Plymouth station was closed down. That was a fair deal, which had benefits for the climate. The third case was when the Environmental Defence Society had conditions put on the consent for the new Huntly gas-fired power station that effectively capped total emissions from the combination of the new and old Huntly stations, so that Genesis Power could not go on saying that the new station was just to replace the less efficient old one and then continue to run both of them at full steam. So we have had three cases where the Resource Management Act has been used, admittedly not as effectively as a national instrument could be used, to try to control greenhouse emissions. We are now throwing that out, and there is no commitment to put anything in its place. I think that is really unfortunate.

I have seen all the arguments that the officials gave the Minister to tell the House as to why this amendment should not be supported. I saw those arguments last week, and I do not agree with them. I think we can shoot holes in all of them, but it is, of course, the Government’s right not to support the amendment. I have to ask how much longer we will take as a nation before we really do something about the biggest long-term threat to the global environment. We cannot hide behind the fact that there are still some uncertainties around how fast climate change will happen and what the exact nature of the local effects will be, to avoid taking action on what is going to be a serious issue.

I know that members on the other side may think I am trying to close the debate down, but I would like to make a contribution. I am supportive of the bill, because, contrary to the dinosaurs on the other side of the Chamber, I believe that we do need to look at efficient energy. The whole South Pacific region climate change is a serious issue. I doubt that members appreciate that. We know about small island States. Most of Tuvalu, a very low-lying island in the Pacific, went underwater for over an hour last week. That could be attributed to the damage to our environment.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Absolute nonsense.

A dinosaur like Ken Shirley wants to say “Nonsense”, but the whole world acknowledges the effect of the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect on our climate, as well as the pollution of the environment. The sort of air we breathe as a result of the ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide that is coming out of exhaust pipes of various kinds of traffic, including thousands of cars, is very damaging, not only to the environment but also to the health of people. These are very important issues, and this bill goes some way towards getting local authorities to acknowledge the problem.

If people want to put their heads in the sand and ignore it, they can do that all they like, but certainly in our South Pacific region these are very serious issues that people will have to confront in the near future. We could see low-lying islands in the Pacific totally disappear as a result of the effect of greenhouse gases. The points that have been made by the Minister are very valid in relation to Europe. It is acknowledging the problem and getting ahead in developing renewable energy and greater efficiency in the way energy is used, and that is a lesson we need to learn from the Europeans. I do not accept the large industrial nations’ arguments that we can for ever continue to burn fossil fuel and ignore the consequences.

The ACT party is certainly opposed to this bill, but I would like to rebut as part of this debate the comments we have heard from the Labour member who just resumed his seat. We all hear about rising sea levels as a result of climate change. That is where the United Nations model has most failed. There is no evidence to support its model. It keeps adjusting it down and down. We have 50 years of sea level records—oceanographic and tidal recordings—at Tuvalu, at Honiara, at Kiribati, and all around the Pacific—and in the Tuvalu case Mr Field has just mentioned, I invite him to go into the Proudman Institute’s website, which shows 50 years of records, and he will see there is no measured increase in mean sea level at all. Yet, at every Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the head of Tuvalu says his island is disappearing under water, and all the other heads of Government say it is terrible and it is because of climate change. I invite Mr Field to look at the science. It does not support it.

Sure, there are tidal surges. There have been tidal surges around the Pacific for ever, and small islands sometimes suffer those tidal surges. As he knows, on Niue there was a hurricane where the ocean surged 35 metres upwards and smashed the hospital—which was about 200 metres inshore—to pieces off the cliff face. Those are the sorts of surges we can have. But members should not say there are sea-level rises, because the evidence is not there to support it.

I would like now to address the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, and ask him to comment on these issues. The Government did a U-turn on the “fart tax”, which is related to this climate change issue—a complete flip-flop on that—when it came under pressure. It was going to close all the schools, and has now announced a 5-year moratorium. A big U-turn has been done on that issue this week. The Government’s closing the gaps and race-based policies have had a big, big U-turn. They are now styled “needs-based” policies, even though just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that that was a racist thing to do. She is now quite happy to go down that path.

When the Government is on the trot with all those U-turns, why does it not drop the nonsense associated with this climate change legislation? It should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. It is not too late. The mantra is foolish that the Government is pursuing on that, and it is trying to impose it on local government in this legislation. That will never work, yet the Government persists with it.

For goodness’ sake, the Government should realise that it is down the wrong track and do another U-turn. After all, it is on a roll and getting pretty good at U-turns now. So why should the Minister not go back to Cabinet? Another few Ministers have joined the Minister in the chair, at Cabinet. Surely they realise that this legislation is a loser for the Government, so they should do another U-turn. The country is getting used to that. We are expecting a few more U-turns now. It is getting to the stage that there is a new U-turn every day. Well, this issue must be the next one on the Government’s list of U-turns.

I urge the Government to pull out of the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. We should have never ratified it in the first place, and this legislation is a consequence of that foolish adherence to that fundamentally flawed protocol. I am particularly worried about what is happening in the energy sector in this country. We should all be concerned about it. We have already heard from others in this debate about the price that is to be placed on coal—and in this legislation we are having all sorts of fast-track measures put in for the so-called renewables—but what concerns me most is the actual nationalisation occurring in the energy sector.

One classic nonsense, while legislation like this, which is trying to promote renewables, is brought to the House, is that the Minister of Energy recently approved—and it is under construction right now—a temporary generator at Whirinaki. Thrown at that was $150 million of taxpayers’ money. It is a single-cycle gas turbine. It is actually a 747 jet engine that is fuelled on imported diesel. The idea is that $150 million of taxpayers’ money is thrown at it, with the hope that it never has to be used—so that it sits idle and rusts—but if it is does ever have to be used, it is the most inefficient and clumsy generation that we could ever have.

But the Government panicked: “Oh, we don’t want to go into election year facing an energy crisis, so let’s do something. It doesn’t matter what. Just grab the taxpayers’ money and throw it at it.” It is a dreadful waste that is appearing at Whirinaki.

The ACT member who spoke before me loves to rail on about the Kyoto Protocol and how we need to pull out of it, but he seems to be missing what is happening around him. Normally he is very aware of what is going on in the world. Even the member sitting next to him, Jeanette Fitzsimons, admitted in her speech earlier that the Kyoto Protocol is dead. It is very, very unlikely that Russia will ratify the protocol. Therefore, even though our Government has ratified it, it is very unlikely it will come into force internationally, and many people are already rethinking, and addressing the issue of what they will do post the death of the Kyoto Protocol. I was very encouraged to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons admit that, because it has taken her a long, long time to come to terms with that reality.

However, apart from Kyoto, it is still important for us to address the issues of the potential for climate change, as I said earlier, and also to not leave it up to individual councils to have to deal with greenhouse gas emissions when they come to issuing consents. United Future members are thrilled this bill actually removes the responsibility of regional councils to deal with that. It is much better handled centrally, and it will enable the Government—when it gets the policy right on energy generation—to be able to cope with it on a national level instead of leaving it up to individual councils to have different things going on in different areas.

Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward an amendment to this bill, and earlier in her speech she indicated that maybe United Future had been tricked into supporting the bill on the basis that it would ultimately become quite a pro-coal bill. But we have never had a change of mind during this process. We supported the bill in its first reading, and during the select committee stage we had some concerns, as we often do with legislation. We were then able to make some constructive changes to the legislation, so we are now able to continue to support it. That is the function we play in this Parliament.

But Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward her amendment, and I have to say to her, and to the Government really, that if her amendment were to be agreed to, in this bill, then United Future would have to make a U-turn, because it is exactly the thing we do not want to see contained within this legislation. A requirement for a national carbon charge is the very thing we do not want to see come in, in New Zealand, because it is anti-business. It would add costs to our businesses, so United Future has always indicated that it is opposed to the imposition of any national carbon charge.

In the absence of that carbon charge—and I think it is time, perhaps, that the Green member realised the wool might be getting pulled over her eyes—regional councils are no longer required to take into account greenhouse gas emissions, and the field is wide open for generation of all kinds. It is true we must have generation of all kinds in New Zealand. It does not make sense for us to take one kind of generation over another. It does not make sense in this country that we import fossil fuel while we sit on a huge coal reserve that could be generating energy for us at a much cheaper cost.

What is the effect upon our balance of payments when we import fuel to generate electricity but could be using our own resources, in that regard? I have been down to the Waitaki River with the select committee recently, and seen what the impact of Project Aqua could be on that river. Part of that project is driven by the ideology that will not allow other types of generation to be developed around the country, so we tend to try to maximise every drop of water out of our rivers—therefore, perhaps, potentially doing them some serious damage. It does not make sense that we will not allow the Dobson scheme to go ahead, for the sake of a small area of kahikatea at Dobson. It is a very sensible hydro scheme, which we have been pushing for ever since we came into this Chamber, and we will continue to do so in order for that scheme to deliver power for the West Coast, a region very much in need. People pay very high prices on the West Coast for their power, and transmission lines into the coast are not very reliable, so it would be much better for us to generate power there.

We will be supporting Part 2 of this bill, because we believe that it provides for the things that are beneficial to New Zealand in the future.

I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ statements regarding the need for members of Parliament to read the facts and statistics and come to their own conclusions—simply because the Green Party is the worst party in the world for dressing down facts and spitting out spin. The Greens are very short on facts, and always have been. Is it not absurd that they would have us import native timber from Fiji, but not allow us to sustainably harvest our own timber from the West Coast? Is it not absurd that they would have us import coal from Indonesia, burn it, and send it into the lungs of our choking children, but not allow us to harvest 800 years’ worth of coal in our own country? Is it not absurd that we are not allowed to use the renewable energy source of the Dobson Dam, but we are allowed to put up wind turbines all over the country? They will be the first to pull them down when they are not aesthetically pleasing.

I was amazed by the Green Party members during question time today when they were complaining about the Minister of Conservation tagging dolphins with an electronic tag that was to be picked up by satellite. In order to save the dolphin population the Department of Conservation will put a little tag into three dolphins. Sue Kedgley, the Green spokesperson, stood up and complained about the chainsaw that would come out of the Minister of Conservation’s boot. He was going to carve a hole in the dorsal fin of a dolphin and stick a 16-foot-long tag through the back of this fine mammal, and we would track them all over the southern ocean. If we could not pick them up on the satellite we would see their blood spurt everywhere! The absurdity of it all, of course, is that the dolphins were to be tagged with something smaller than the size of an earring that Nandor Tanczos would wear through his belly button. It was to be picked up through the satellite—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

I am coming to the point. Facts were not important for the Greens, and facts are not important for them in this bill. Wait until there is a public outcry driven by Green Party members when they find out that the Minister of Conservation is going to electronically tag plankton. There will be a public outcry from Green Party members because they are short on facts, big on fiction, and they are doing that in the debate on this bill. I say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that if she really wants to protest like the protesters of old, and if she really supports renewable energy, she should burn her bra. That is what she should do, if she really believed in it. She does not believe the spin that she puts out in this Chamber or in the community—

💬 Jim Peters: Point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I was just considering the same point. I think that is quite distasteful. The member can withdraw that remark, please.

Protesters of old did that all the time; there was nothing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have asked you to withdraw that remark.

I withdraw and apologise. The point is that if Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens were really sincere, they would have an informed public debate. They would acknowledge the truth about global warming: the fact that much of it is immeasurable; that there is concern across all parties in this Parliament about it; and that we want an informed and practical public debate. Bringing forward legislation such as this will not fix global warming. It will not fix it in Northland, in Taranaki, on the West Coast, in New Zealand, in the South Pacific, or in the rest of the world. That is why we oppose this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.