Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: I move, That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill contains changes to the Resource Management Act that are necessary to support the Government’s energy and climate change policies. The bill provides a stronger directive to recognise the benefits of the efficient use of energy, and the value of renewable energy as a lower greenhouse gas - emitting resource. It is about being smart in our use of energy, and about being smart in our choice of energy sources. The Resource Management Act is New Zealand’s principal legislation for ensuring the sustainable management of resources, so it is important that energy and climate change matters be given appropriate recognition within it. These changes will not result in our skylines being peppered with wind farms. Clearly all activities administered under the Resource Management Act are assessed against a suite of sustainability principles. This bill simply clarifies, within the hierarchy of decision-making criteria, the importance of not wasting energy, and of recognising the benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources.

The bill also requires people to have particular regard to the effects of climate change. That is simply good risk management. Changes in typical rainfall patterns, a sea level rise, and potential flooding could place infrastructure and people at risk. To support that provision, the New Zealand Climate Change Office is currently developing a range of material to help councils to identify and plan for the risks associated with climate change.

Finally, the Government has chosen to control the impact on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions at the national level. By removing the ability for regional councils to also apply controls, this bill removes the potential for duplication and unnecessary costs to occur, and the potential for local controls to conflict with national objectives. The Government remains committed to ensuring that New Zealand has a sustainable energy industry, and to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in opposition to the third reading of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is that this legislation will create a huge amount of uncertainty at the local government level. It was interesting to listen to the Minister’s opening comments, when he said that this bill would bring sensible legislative structure to the use of renewable resources. When one looks at the detail of the bill, and at the definition of what the Government means by that, then one can only conclude that the bill will do the exact opposite of what the Minister suggested it would do, in the sense that local government will not know what the legislation means. Surely, councils will end up employing consultants, lawyers, and goodness knows what other people to give them advice on it. That is just for one reason: the legislation will create uncertainty.

The real truth behind this bill is that the Government went overseas and ratified the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners, in order to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to tour the world and promote herself for a position to take up after she is no longer the Prime Minister of New Zealand—which is likely to come faster than she thought it would. I think she thought she had a bit of time still to go as Prime Minister. So we may see a hastening of further trips around the world, and more of this kind of legislation.

The reality is that this legislation will not achieve its stated objectives, and we oppose it for that reason. The Resource Management Act clearly does need reform. The work that Owen McShane did prior to the 1999 election identified 12 areas of reform that were needed to the Resource Management Act. The previous National Government decided at that time to put most of those recommendations through a select committee process. Unfortunately, at the change of Government the incoming Minister put a red pen through all those recommendations, and they were not carried out. Had they been carried out this legislation would, most likely, not have been necessary. The big mistake, of course, was that this Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and that action has brought this legislation to the House. Ninety-two local government authorities will now have to sit down with all their various consultants and advisers, and try to figure out a way forward under this legislation. That certainly will not help, in any shape or form, with regard to the sensible use of renewable energy.

It is interesting to note from the various contributions throughout the debate that the Green Party has been all over the place on this issue. That is not unusual, but it is a little inconsistent when we are debating environmental legislation. On the one hand, the Greens support the notion put forward by the Minister of Conservation that there should not be a hydroelectricity dam built at Card Creek—the Dobson Dam—because of the significance of that area, in their view. I have visited that area; it is 200 hectares of gorse. Clearly, gorse is a new significant plant, so the Greens oppose that dam! Then, on the other hand, the Greens give support to the Government when it comes to emergency electricity generation in New Zealand. In the eye of an energy crisis they support diesel generation, using imported fuel in diesel turbines, being put in place. I think it would involve running a 747 aircraft engine on diesel. The Greens lend support to that notion, but will not allow a renewable energy source to be put in place at Card Creek on the West Coast of the South Island, where the rainfall is reliable and regular, and where there is an energy shortage. That dam would make the West Coast self-sufficient. To me, opposing that makes no sense.

At the same time as that proposal is not supported, there are huge restrictions in the same legislation, the Resource Management Act, that are stopping the huge resources of New Zealand coal—not Indonesian coal—from being developed and used in a sensible way. I ask the Minister what we are trying to achieve here. And if that is not sufficiently confusing to the people who may be listening to this debate, there is more. This bill makes reference to the discharge of greenhouse gases. That sounds pretty logical. If we adhere to the view that greenhouse gases are altering the environment and we want to bring a halt to that, then I guess that follows on. But how does that square with stopping hydroelectricity development, and at the same time allowing diesel electricity generation—allowing the importation of Indonesian coal into New Zealand for electricity generation—and putting a brake on further exploration for gas in areas like Taranaki? We can understand that the wider New Zealand public may be a bit confused about that. I am sure the Minister will take another call and disabuse people of some of their confusion, by giving a full explanation of how that ridiculous situation could have come about.

At the same time as all that is happening, this legislation will also add another complete layer of cost on to those out there in industry and business who are trying to get on with creating the wherewithal for New Zealand to develop in an environmentally sustainable way, and in a way that would use renewable energy. That would be a sensible solution to some of the energy problems that New Zealand has. I am completely at a loss as to how the Government can, with a straight face, apply these double standards up and down the country when it comes to resource consents and the development of renewable sources of energy.

The definition of renewable energy that the Government has inserted in clause 4 of the bill is, in itself, debatable. It mentions geothermal energy. As yet, I have not seen any scientific paper that states that geothermal energy is a renewable energy. There is quite a deep debate as to whether geothermal energy is a mined energy—the same as coal or any other kind of fossil fuel. I do not know the answer to that; the Minister may know. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s view on that. I am interested in hearing from anybody with a science background who can clear that up for me. To me, if we put a bore down into the earth and allow an energy source to surface, and if we use that energy source in such a way that it is not re-injected into the earth in its original form—which, of course it cannot be, because that would be perpetual motion—then that is mining, not a renewable energy source. I am interested in the explanation of that. To a layman, it does not make any sense. I see Ministers and other members of the House nodding in acknowledgment of that notion. I would be very interested in the answer to that question.

I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee— I admit to that—so I do not know what was debated in the select committee. But I know, by looking at the minority report of the ACT party and the New Zealand National Party, that there was a huge amount of discussion around a number of issues, and that nobody could actually agree on them. That is why there is a substantial minority report on this bill, and is why I put it to the House that this legislation is flawed, wrong, and inconsistent.

💬 John Carter: And done by Labour.

And it was introduced by Labour, so that should not surprise us. This legislation is wrong, is confused, is inconsistent, and will not bring any clarity to local government. It will bring a lot of confusion, and it will not achieve anything that it sets out to achieve. Somebody just said it is a typical “Parekura-ism”, and I think that is probably about right.

It is with great pride that I stand and speak in the third reading debate of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. In the time I have been sitting here and listening to colleagues, I have had the opportunity to do quite a lot of research on this issue, and I have been able to come up with some salient facts that I think may help the understanding of members in this debate.

The first important point is that this bill supports the Government’s well-established renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate change policies, which are very, very important. It also ensures the efficient use of energy—which, I am sure, all members support; even Mr Carter over there—and the benefits of renewable energy, and the effects of climate change are flagged for those working with the Resource Management Act.

💬 John Carter: That’s what Harry Duynhoven just read out.

Well, no—he might well have talked about some of these things, but I am also trying to create a bit of an overview, hopefully, with a little more passion.

The bill also removes ad hoc local decision-making on the control of greenhouse gas emissions, which are better managed at a national level—I think everybody agrees with that. The Government is certainly committed to a sustainable-energy future for New Zealand. This requires a balanced portfolio of energy efficiency improvements and a transition to renewable energy resources, and I think most members would agree with that. So this bill is about enacting part of the long-term strategy that enables New Zealand to achieve all those ends. Our policy will also deliver a more productive, internationally competitive, and environmentally sustainable economy, which I am sure all members also agree with.

There are some objectives to the bill. We want to give greater weight to the value of renewable energy, as I have said, and to clarify that energy efficiency should be a consideration regardless of the energy source. We want to give greater weight to considering the effects of climate change—for example, addressing the increased flood risk. Given the events of last week, we do not have to talk too much about that in this House.

We want to address issues like rising sea levels, which, of course, affect our Pacific neighbours—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Where? Name one.

—well, the Pacific actually—and changes in typical rainfall patterns. I know that the member for ACT will probably talk about some voodoo science, but I think that is all well established.

We also want to remove climate change as a consideration when local authorities consider industrial discharges of greenhouse gases. Those are best addressed through a national mechanism, which I think the Minister of Energy has pointed out on a number of occasions.

This is very good piece of work. It is an extraordinarily good bill. It has been through a long process, and I am extremely proud and privileged as a member of a good, hard-working Labour Government to support its third reading.

I am very pleased to follow the Minister, who has just talked about a good, hard-working Labour Government and a well-established energy policy. That takes my mind back to the debate that took place on 10 May 2000. Mr Hodgson said this: “I do not have time to go through it, but I do want to say that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, which I hope will soon pass into New Zealand law, and the strategy that derives from it, and the attention that we will be able to pay to mandatory environmental performance standards, and the like, will make a significant contribution to that climate change strategy.”

I want to go back to the mandatory environmental performance standards, which on 10 May 2000 Minister Hodgson said were about to follow in this “well-established” energy policy. I turned to the actual bill—which was well supported by the Government, being a member’s bill—and saw that it states in clause 11 that “a strategy must be consistent with any national policy statement for the time being in force under the Resource Management Act 1991.”

Are those the elements of a “well-established” energy policy? I think not. When I go back to the bill’s opening narrative, I see it states that it will aim for energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, and planning for the effects of climate change. That language is very similar to that used by Ministers and members of the Government in the year 2000. What do we have in the year 2004? We have more pious language, more platitudes, no clear definition, no consistency, and no clarity for those people who have to work under the Act.

So when we come to the third reading debate, the question has to be asked: does the bill achieve its purposes? Does the bill give councils and practitioners—not the least, potential holders of resource consents—guidance in implementing these legislative provisions, should they be passed? Does the bill add further information? Does it impose further compliance costs upon councils and potential applicants? In other words, is this going to be an effective bill on behalf of this “hard-working” Government? The answer has to be a very clear no, no, no.

This bill does none of those things. Instead, it introduces an element of uncertainty at the very time we are—and we were last year—again at the very forefront of an energy crisis. It does that for two reasons. First of all, it does so because of a rigid adherence to renewable sources only. There has been no ability in the last 4 years for non-renewable resources—and gas and coal are the main ones—to play any real part in Government planning and thinking.

I was one of those who heard the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee say that some of us in the House must have been talking to coal sources. I can assure our committee chairperson that I have talked to no coal sources. But what I have done, along with other members of the House, is to look at the total structure of where we are with regard to energy generation in this country—not the least because some of us are engaged in looking at the Waitaki River catchment. What we see at the present time is a very haphazard, fragmented approach. There is no coherence in our energy policy, despite the recent Act—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes there is.

The Minister says otherwise. I say again that people out there in the field know that I am right—there is no coherence in our energy policy. There has been no determination to really explore the options and sources of our energy policy, and this bill is a very inadequate apology for one small segment of our potential energy policy. I am very hopeful that between now and whenever the election falls next year this issue can be well debated, because the failure of the Government—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Ha, ha! We will be here.

There may be laughter and joy over there, but the failure of the Government to really pursue the alternatives—the options—will be a heavy one for New Zealanders to bear in the future with regard to higher energy prices, higher generation costs, and no long-term ability to plan.

Companies such as Genesis Energy said in their submissions that natural gas and coal would be an important energy source for at least the long-term and foreseeable future. When we examine the options—and only one of them is inherent in this bill—and look at the high cost that could yet be paid in the case of Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua, the high cost of transmission from the South Island with outdated lines, the high cost therefore to the end-line consumer, and do not seriously consider a policy that allows modern, high-technology coal stations to be sited in, for instance, the Auckland region at a cost, but not one comparable to the high cost of inter-island generation, then we have to wonder whether the Government has really thought about generation both for the present and future.

The other issue I want to bring back to members’ minds is this: this bill contains no decent, proper definition of the effects of climate change at all—we have had a pass-off. If one looks at the Resource Management Act, one sees some comment there about those effects, but they should have been effectively spelt out in this particular bill, and they were not. More than that, there was certainly no attempt—nor could there be—to adequately convey what benefits were to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Nor were we supplied with the comparative value of the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy, as compared with the development of energy from non-renewable sources. They were just not there.

So throughout the bill we have had a Minister who should have worked towards a national policy statement, to give mandatory guidance to those who operate and work under the Act. He should at least have talked to us about environmental performance standards, if that was to be the desirable end of the bill—in the Government’s mind—with regard to the end use of energy. Instead, none of those things eventuated. The Ministry for the Environment told us in recent years it would develop national policy standards, but eventually it did nothing at all. Therefore, I say again that this policy—the strategy of 2001 as developed from the Act of 2000—and this slight interference with energy generation in this country, will not be good enough.

I say again that the Government had the opportunity just over a year ago to seriously look at the Resource Management Act and produce a consistent Act. It did not take that chance, and we are going through these two potential Acts—one here, the other with regard to the Waitaki River valley—without any overarching purpose and policy.

New Zealand First is very mindful of the fact that we have energy needs, but we do not support this Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. The bill reflects the Government’s unfounded optimism in the continued value of adherence to the Kyoto Protocol. It reflects an unfounded belief in the long-term benefits of a renewable energy source, as opposed to those that are non-renewable. This bill is not sufficient to meet the continuing needs of power generation for us today, or in the future, and therefore should not proceed.

This debate has been characterised, like all debates I have heard in this House on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol, by an ostrich-like determination to ignore the evidence for human-induced climate change. A couple of years ago it took the form of denial that the climate was, in fact, in any way changing. That is no longer tenable, and most New Zealanders can see for themselves that climate variability has increased. So these days the argument is: yes, climate is changing, but human activities have no influence on that change, and therefore there is nothing that we ought to do about it. Well, 10 years ago now, the Governments of the world got together to find the best scientific minds in climatology, and form an inter-Governmental organisation to pursue exhaustively the science of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains the best minds of the scientific community around the world—some thousands of them, and they have been working for a decade. But those who want us to do nothing will not accept the findings of this august panel, and they want to look elsewhere.

Yesterday we had advice from Mr Ken Shirley that sea levels are not, in fact, rising, despite the advice of the world scientists. It was really interesting that as I left the House yesterday a member of the public who was in the gallery came up to me on the way out and introduced himself as a scientist. He said that I might be interested in the latest paper in this week’s issue of Nature. One could not get much more prestigious science than Nature, so I looked it up. This is a satellite measurement study that sets out to resolve the contradictions between previous different ways of measuring sea-level rise that had come to different conclusions. It has resolved the nature of the uncertainty between those predictions, and it has confirmed the upper measurement that globally the world’s oceans are rising by 1.5 to 2 millimetres a year.

I ask those who will not accept anything that Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control writes, anything that is published in Nature or science, or anything that derives from Europe—and that seems to be the general feeling around here; that is, all of those sources are totally discredited—whether they will accept the word of the Pentagon. Will they accept the word of the Global Business Network? Last week the Observer made public a report by Peter Schwartz, a Central Intelligence Agency consultant, and the former head of planning at Royal Dutch Shell Group, and the other author, Doug Randall from the Global Business Network.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Well-known networkers!

Absolutely! One could say a lot of “pinko-greenies”. That report was suppressed for 4 months by the Bush administration because its findings were so devastating. That report stated that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy. It states: “The threat to global climate stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism.” That is something we have been trying to tell anyone who will listen for quite some time. It states: “Climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.”

If there are two groups in the world that President Bush and his administration listen to, they are the Pentagon and the oil industry, and here we have both of them advising him that climate change is a more serious threat to the security of America than terrorism. In the light of these statements, this bill is timid and lightweight. It does a little bit of good; it potentially does a little bit of harm. That gives us a difficult decision to make at the end of this debate. Elevating energy efficiency and renewable energy to the list of matters to which Resource Management Act decision-makers must pay particular regard is a little bit of progress. That progress is weakened a bit by the inclusion of geothermal energy—which is often not renewable, and we still do not know enough about it—and the inclusion of hydro, which is renewable from the point of view of the water, but, unfortunately, not from the point of view of the braided rivers that it runs through, or the black stilt and rare native fish that live in it. So renewability is a problematic definition, depending on what one applies it to.

Jim Peters was absolutely right when he said that despite my energy efficiency legislation that went through in the year 2000, we still have almost no energy standards, we have no national policy statements, and energy policy is still not particularly coherent. We have to admit that the present Minister inherited some ghastly problems from the previous administration, and he has spent a lot of time trying to fix those, but we are just about running out of time for that and we do need to see a coherent national energy policy in New Zealand. I look forward to discussing this further with Mr Peters, perhaps in our select committee.

However, this bill also does another thing that is somewhat positive in that it allows councils to plan to mitigate the effects of climate change. Local government itself asked for that, and it may well help Rangitikei and others planning to limit the repeat of the flooding that has happened recently and the slips of recent days. Substantial guidance has already been produced by the Ministry for the Environment to assist councils that want to know what the effects of climate change are likely to be and how to mitigate them. I do not agree with Mr Peters that the effects of climate change should have been listed in the Act, because I think there is still quite a lot of uncertainty around that and we need to be able to adapt that advice in terms of the best and latest science.

However, this bill may also do some harm, and that is what gives us a difficult decision in terms of how we will vote in a few minutes. The power of regional councils to control greenhouse gas emissions has been removed, yet the Government refuses to legislate for the national instrument that ought to replace it. Of course, a national economic instrument is a much better way of controlling greenhouse emissions. We have always acknowledged that, but we now face the real possibility that there may never be one, especially in light of the refusal to accept my amendment yesterday, which would have linked the coming into force of the removal of the regional powers to the coming into force of a national economic instrument to replace them. Instead, we will have a gap, which, at best, will be 3 years, but possibly will be for ever.

The decision for the Greens is not easy. On balance, we have decided that we will vote for the bill in recognition that section 7 improvements are worth having, and that we will double our efforts to shift some taxation off income and wealth generation and on to carbon and other forms of pollution in the form of a carbon tax so that there will be a national economic instrument to take the place of the regional council powers.

Debate interrupted.