Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill

The ACT party will certainly be opposing this Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. Members just have to go to the first paragraph of this legislation brought to this House by the beleaguered minority Labour Government to see that the bill introduces measures to support the Government’s climate change policy package. If members ever wanted a reason or justification not to support this legislation, that is it. This Government’s climate change policy package has been nothing but a disaster from day one. There is another aspect of the bill—and the Government keeps wheeling it out; I think it is called the “salami technique”. The Government keeps cutting off a slice and presenting to the Parliament, and each new one is worse than the one that came before. It certainly does not address or solve any problems associated with the energy situation and the environmental consequences of that in this country, or anywhere else for that matter.

I shall correct one point the Green spokesperson Jeannette Fitzsimons made before she resumed her chair. She specifically criticised me for saying that there is no hard scientific evidence of sea level rises. I will quote the reference, and I invite all members to go into the website. The Proudman oceanographic institute has kept sea level records throughout the Pacific for 50 to 60 years. I know that there is a site at Tuvalu, Honiara, and most of the Pacific atolls and islands. There is no significant sea level rise measurable in any of those sites. Yet, in spite of that, because of the political beat-up, Prime Ministers have gone to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, wrung their hands, and said: “We’re all going to be washed out and we’re going to have to move down your way.”, and comments like that, yet there is no evidence to support that.

Jeanette Fitzsimmons gave a scientific reference. She referred to an article in the Nature magazine—I think it was the latest publication—that had evidence that the sea level was rising at 1½ to 2 millimetres a year. The United Nations model says that it should have increased 3 metres by now. Yet the only thing she can measure is 1½ millimetres, which is the thickness of two fingernails.

Let us do a quick calculation. If the sea level is rising 1½ millimetres year, do we need to rush off the coast? No, because it will take 750 years to rise a metre. At that rate, assuming that it is a constant rate—and of course it is not; all water bodies fluctuate, so there are variations. It will not always be up; it will be going down at other times. Certainly, the climate is changing. It always has been changing. At the peak of the last ice age, between, say, 25,000 and 15,000 years ago, the sea level was 200 metres lower. Are we saying that about a world population of half a million people, and the equivalent number of Neanderthals who were around at that time, were causing this? They caused a sea level rise of what is 200 metres lower than it is now, to the current level? But no, the Greens have a Nature magazine article—alarm, shock, horror—that states that the sea level is rising at the pace of two fingernails a year. Even if it assumes that it is all constantly rising, and not fluctuating, which it clearly is, then in 750 years it would be a metre higher. Someone said to let us start building the arks now. That is unbelievable hogwash that this Government has swallowed, hook, line and sinker. There is no question of that.

Then, of course, we have the Kyoto Protocol. I was a member of a New Zealand delegation in 1992 that went to the Earth Summit conference in Rio de Janeiro. I was there. I said: “This is nuts. Don’t sign. Simon, don’t do it, boy; don’t sign.”, but he had his pen out. He was determined to sign it, because it made him feel all warm down under. They were determined to sign that fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol.

The interesting thing is that scientists tell us that even if the protocol is fully implemented, it will not work. In 100 years’ time, if the protocol is fully implemented, at best it would buy us 5 years of change. It is grossly unfair. Only OECD countries, of which New Zealand is one, have to do anything. We have a huge commitment, and Simon Upton and this Government were prepared to put on the thickest hair shirt and say “We’ll show the way. We’ll lead the world. We’ll tell them. We’ll save the planet.”

How much does New Zealand actually contribute to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions? It is 0.2 percent. Yet we are wearing the thickest hair shirt and running round saying that we single-handedly will shoot ourselves in both feet and save the planet while we are about it. What absolute rubbish! This bill is just another step along that foolish pathway. It is crazy and it bears no examination whatsoever to say that it is nonsense. There are 45 prominent scientists in the United States alone who have signed a petition, effectively saying that the Kyoto Protocol is absolute hogwash. Yet this Government roars off. What is the problem? It is captured by geopolitical agendas. It is the bureaucrats who rush off to meetings every 6 months all around the world; they confer, discuss, and then ask where it is spring, in time for their next meeting, and that they will go there. They spend fortunes going to those meetings.

Often the recommendations of scientists are totally overturned and distorted by the bureaucrats and the politicians. I have to tell members that this so-called human induced climate change industry is self-perpetuating, and it is out of control. It is not to say that there are not serious issues. There certainly are serious issues, but the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer, it will not solve them, and what New Zealand will do by ratifying it, is shoot itself in the foot. We will suffer more than any other country. Our steelworks and our cement works will close. What will they do? Will it make any difference to the world’s climate? Not one bit! They will go off to Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, wherever, where they have no obligation whatsoever. China, with that roaring growth economy, has no obligation whatsoever. India is under no obligation whatsoever. The whole of South America has no obligation whatsoever. Australia and the United States were sensible enough to say that they do not want a bar of it. Yet little old New Zealand roared out there, put on the thickest hair shirt, and said that we are right into it, we are going to lead the charge, and we will save the planet.

Our salvation may be that Russia probably will not sign it. It might, but I do not think it will. If Russia does not sign it, it will not come into effect. So we are putting in place all these measures that are in this legislation, for no reason whatsoever. If we look at our energy sector we are saying that we cannot use coal. We know that our gas is running out. We know that we do not want to dam, modify, and harness, all our remaining wild rivers; we will not have nuclear energy, because this Government has a mantra on that. Coal—we have enough coal to last us 1,000 years of full energy use. Our Southland lignite deposits alone are equivalent to 50 Maui gasfields. Yet this Government puts its head in the sand, pulls the hood over its head, and says: “Oh no, coal is bad.” Modern technology makes coal a very cost-effective energy source, and a relatively clean one. Germany has just commissioned a 3,000-megawatt new coal station.

I begin first by thanking the officials for their assistance throughout the passage of this legislation. They have worked very hard for us. I also thank fellow select committee members, who at times engaged in vigorous debate, as we worked through these issues.

The speaker before me said there were some serious issues that needed to be addressed. He presented a very good argument, and was able to eloquently and entertainingly put forward some statistics, but I would not like to rest my future on his statistics. He admitted that there were some serious issues, but did nothing to address them, at all. United Future will support the third reading of this bill because we support renewable energy use. We think it is sensible. We think it should be promoted in New Zealand. It makes good sense.

We support the efficient use of energy. This bill makes some progress in encouraging that in New Zealand, and we think that is worthy of support. We also support common-sense planning for the potential climate change effects that could come. No one is trying to say that we know everything that will happen. No one would have predicted the storms that have hit this country this year. I think the speaker before me admitted that there were some serious climate issues around the world, and it is sensible for us to do what we can to prepare for that. For that reason, United Future will support this bill.

This bill is not the Kyoto Protocol bill. That legislation was passed through Parliament earlier in our term, and United Future clearly opposed signing up to or ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, because we do not believe it is an appropriate response to the serious issues that face us. But this bill is something entirely different. It is a common-sense, moderate approach to some of those issues, and we will be supporting the third reading.

This bill will not save the planet. No one is trying to suggest that it will, but it will move us in a sensible direction, and help us with our policy here. First, this bill requires that local councils plan for the effects of climate change, and we believe that with some appropriate guidance from the Climate Change Office, councils will be able to do that sensibly throughout the country. If we do some serious planning for those issues now, it may result in the saving of property in the future, and potentially even the saving of lives. We are happy to support that.

Second, this bill attempts to level the playing field with regard to renewable energy projects. We believe that is a good thing to do. It is not always easy to get consent for renewable energy projects, because they often affect the communities in which they are located. This bill seeks to give a bit of assistance in that process—not really an advantage, but simply a levelling of the playing field—so that they will be able to compete and get the consents they need, in order to deliver New Zealand more energy on a renewable basis. We think that is good.

We also welcome the fact that the bill no longer requires that regional councils take note of the effect of the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is good news. It may not be what the Government entirely intends, and it certainly is not what the Green Party wanted from the bill—which is why Jeanette Fitzsimons tried to move her amendment in the Committee stage yesterday. She thought it would be tied to the carbon charge, and therefore the two would come into effect at the same time. We do not believe that regional councils should ever have been taking note of the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, and we are glad to see that this bill will remove that requirement.

This bill creates a window of opportunity for us in New Zealand. It could be a very long window, depending on how long it takes the Government to complete its climate change proposals. We hope it will eventually alter its strategy and recognise that the emission of greenhouse gases is not the most pressing thing that faces us as a nation, and that we should be looking at alternative forms of energy that might have greenhouse gas emissions, but save some other environmental situations we have in our country.

A year ago I went to Europe to look at some of its energy production. I was astounded to find that Europe relies a great deal on waste-to-energy. It incinerates a great deal of its waste and turns it into energy, and I welcome the fact that this bill may remove one further impediment to that process being developed in New Zealand.

I know that there are companies that have some very good proposals for how they could deal with the waste we produce. In fact, we produce so much waste in New Zealand that it could almost be called a renewable energy resource. It is something we seem to develop every year, and is not likely to go away. I have seen reports where companies have suggested that we could build three plants in New Zealand and incinerate all our waste, after recycling as much as we can from it. Those plants could incinerate most of our waste, generate 300 megawatts of electricity for us, and get rid of those unsightly landfills around the country that do no good for anybody.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: They need a bit more vision—

Yes, the member is right. It is still not a lost cause. The technology is much improved, even since the Meremere days, and it is something I believe we should look at very seriously. Three plants located around the nation would take care of our waste and generate 300 megawatts of electricity for us.

When I was in Germany, I also looked at a sewage treatment plant that incinerates its sludge after completion of the treatment process, and is able to generate 80 percent of the energy needed to run the plant. Now, we just would not get a consent for that under the current requirements, because of the greenhouse gas emissions that would come from it. But New Zealand does have a problem with sewage sludge, because we do not know what to do with it. For a while there, we started spreading it around the garden, thinking it was good fertiliser, until we found out what was in it, and its concentrations of dioxin.

I think it is excellent that perhaps we now have an opportunity to see some of that technology brought into New Zealand or developed here. We have the expertise here, and some of our sewage treatment plants might be able to look at adding on incineration to get rid of the sludge and produce energy for the nation, as well.

Perhaps now that greenhouse gas emissions will not be considered, we may also be able to look at coal-fired generation, which I believe is something that we should be doing in New Zealand, as well. I have to congratulate the Associate Minister for Energy, Harry Duynhoven, because while we were here yesterday, debating furiously about this bill and talking about coal a great deal, he was up the road actually opening a fantastic plant that is a pilot project in coal. Apparently, it was also started with $6 million from the Government to CRL Energy, for which I commend the Government.

This is the beginning of the kind of technology we need in New Zealand, where coal can be burnt efficiently and in an environmentally safe way. Ultimately, it may lead to technology able to sequester carbon dioxide, and we will be able to burn coal without any effect at all as far as greenhouse gas emissions go. So I commend Harry Duynhoven. He may have a broken arm at the moment, but he was quicker than the rest of us—he was up the road doing something effective for New Zealand in opening a plant that will be of great benefit to us.

The Kyoto Protocol, as I said earlier, is pretty much dead and buried, and we welcome that. The speaker for the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons, said that 10 years ago some of the best minds in the world got behind this protocol and developed it. It just escapes her attention that some of the best minds in the world live in Australia, the US, and Russia, and they have rejected this strategy as a means of addressing the concerns that face the world. Initially perhaps, the Russians saw it as a bit of a windfall, but they have since realised that if they want a developing economy, signing up to the Kyoto Protocol could be the worst thing they ever do.

But as I said earlier, we do not support this bill because it is the “Kyoto Bill”—we support it because it is a common-sense, sensible strategy. It has some advantages for us in New Zealand. It is not the entire answer, but United Future will be happy to support it in its third reading, and then address our attention to other important matters for the nation.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I come to your point of order, Mr Carter, I would just remind members that throughout this debate there has been reference to a certain member in the House—good-natured, of course. I ask members to please remember their obligations to the guidelines on the correct address for members in this House. It was good-natured, so I did not want to pull the speakers up.

Debate interrupted.