Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill

I rise in support of this bill, and I suppose it is with a slight disappointment that I have heard the comments from the ACT member, especially those surrounding ACT’s position, which is that this is another step along a foolish pathway. That suggests to me that the ACT member does not support well-established climate change and energy policies. More important, he does not agree with a platform or basis for the national coordination of controls on greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is a must in our society today. The bill also ensures that the efficient use of energy, the benefits of renewable energy, and the effects of climate change are flagged for the attention of those working with the Resource Management Act, and, importantly, provides for national leadership, clarified roles, and reduced administration, compliance, and participation costs related to energy and climate change matters. Furthermore, it gives greater weight to the value of renewable energy and clarifies that energy efficiency should be a consideration, regardless of the energy source. I commend this bill to the House.

The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is muddled and confusing. It will prove dysfunctional in its application to the energy sector and, consequently, it will slow down infrastructure development in that sector just at the point when it should be speeding up. That will prove to be critical. When the lights go out across New Zealand, I will leave it to Pete Hodgson and his cohorts to face up to the angry public of New Zealand, and to tell people why providing a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister was more important than having a viable electricity sector. That is what this bill is really about, is it not? It is a rearguard action to cover this Government’s determination to rush headlong into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, regardless of the implications and consequences of that to the productive sector of New Zealand.

That this legislation will impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers, I have no doubt. This bill requires councils to plan for climate change, although there is huge uncertainty as to its causes and effects. Temperature and rainfall models at a global—let alone a national or a local—level are scenarios, not predictions. Mr Shirley has already made the point, but it is worth repeating, that there are 17,000 highly regarded scientists worldwide who say that the models underpinning man’s role in global warming theories are seriously flawed. How, then, are councils meant to plan for global warming with any confidence? The answer is that they simply cannot do so. We cannot even agree on that at a national, let alone an international, level. Much money will be spent on consultation, consultants, and reports, but the progress will be nil. This legislation will not make a jot of difference to climate change, and therein lies the rub. What is certain is that the productive sector will be frustrated. Working through the Resource Management Act process right now is a nightmare, but compared with the requirements of this bill, it is a cakewalk. One of the biggest constraints on business in this country is certainty with regard to electricity supply. The cost of that supply is, of course, important, but a guaranteed constant supply is absolutely essential. It goes to the very heart of whether a business is prepared to invest its capital. Unless our environmental rules are simplified, that very confidence will be shattered.

I have no doubt whatsoever that we are experiencing a period of global warming. It is not the first and it will not be the last, despite all the do-gooders who preach the gospel of doom, gloom, and destruction, etc. That will not make a bit of difference to the process. What I am not convinced about is man’s contribution to global warming. Whatever one’s view on that, the problem is outside New Zealand’s ability to alter. For goodness’ sake, New Zealand’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is 0.02 percent. When we put the issue in that context, we have to wonder why the Government decided to make global warming New Zealand’s problem. Why sign up to an agreement that our major trading partners think is utter foolishness and, therefore, disadvantage our productive sector? The Government’s answer, of course, is that we have to do our bit. Is that not a noble concept? What a pity it is that the Government did not apply that rule when it came to doing our bit with regard to our contribution to security across Australasia. The Anzac spirit is dying, and I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Labour Party. The cost to New Zealand of thumbing our nose at our best friends will be counted in the billions of dollars, and it is something I deeply regret and apologise for on behalf of all Kiwis.

Who will pay for this type of legislative nonsense? The Government’s first response was to try to tax farmers—or, more specifically, their animals. That did not come to pass, and it was the first of the major U-turns that has characterised this Government over recent weeks. It was the first sign that people in this country are sick and tired, and have had a gutsful, of this poll-driven Government. The people of this country have lost confidence in this administration, and this type of bill will do absolutely nothing to restore their confidence in it.

Clause (3)(a)(i) of the bill deals with the efficiency of the end use of energy. To my mind, that is totally illogical. The bill’s message is that we do not really care how efficient we are at generating electricity, but we will thump people for how they cook their toast or vacuum the house. The bill limits the options for how we are to generate electricity. It may not do so directly, but it does so by its emphasis on renewable energy sources. We all know that we have an energy crisis, but if people dare to mention the burning of coal to generate electricity, they are branded as heretics. Green Party members, I believe, would probably try to burn them at the stake for doing so, if they could find a non-polluting, tree-hugging, hippy kind of way to do so. We have 800 to 1,000 years’ worth of coal reserves in New Zealand—enough to solve all our generation problems—but we cannot have even a rational debate about it. Despite the advice to the contrary that the Green Party offered yesterday, I say emissions from the burning of coal can be reduced by up to 50 percent if we use the right kind of technology. I believe it is about time that we started embracing that, and doing something about it.

The water options for electricity generation are also running out. The much-vaunted Project Aqua will not solve the problem. By the time it is built, the demand for electricity will be outstripping our supply, so the question we must ask ourselves is what we will do then. Will we destroy another river? Or will we use wind generation? Can members imagine tens of thousands of noisy, and yet to be proven, windmills dotted across our landscape?

💬 Jim Peters: Tens of thousands?

OK, let us allow that there would be 5,000 windmills, not tens of thousands. Actually, I do not resile from that figure. I believe that there would be 5,000, or maybe 10,000, windmills. Who knows? That is just the problem—we do not know.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: We will be just like the Netherlands.

Yes, New Zealand will look just like the Netherlands. I would rather support a few discreet coal-fired plants, located exactly where we need them, than put up with the noise pollution from windmills.

The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is in fantasyland. It will not make a positive contribution to climate change, but will simply be another bureaucratic nightmare. It is not a salvation; it is a distraction. The bill will not change global warming outcomes by one iota. In my opinion, the quicker that this legislation is consigned to the rubbish bin, the better it will be. National does not support this bill. This bill has as much chance of getting National’s support as the Prime Minister has of getting the support of her Māori caucus.

I spoke during the Committee stage, and made National’s position very clear. This bill is nonsense. It takes away opportunities for investment and growth, which are criteria that National believes are important to grow the economy. The worst thing with a bill like this is that it stops initiatives from people who would be prepared to invest in infrastructure. Two issues come to mind with regard to infrastructure—roading, and energy. Under this bill, we would not have the energy resources to grow the economy, and that is something that National opposes. In this case, the bill does absolutely nothing. It ties up, and adds to, the bureaucracy, red tape, and regulatory creep that we find with compliance costs—especially under the Resource Management Act.

I spoke in the Committee stage about Solid Energy. Solid Energy runs the coalmines in my electorate at Huntly. We have an opportunity because there are enough coal reserves for over 1,000 years, as Mr Shirley has identified. Why are they not being used? They are tied up because this Government, with its Resource Management Act and all its consents, is stifling the opportunity to be able to use those coal reserves for the benefit not only of that community, but also of the whole country. That is what is happening because this Government has its mind made up, and it should not be happening. What happens in reality is that thousands and thousands of tonnes of coal comes in through the Port of Tauranga, through my electorate, and is stored overnight.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: We heard all this the other day.

That is right, and this is important, because if this Government took notice of what we say, we would not be in a position of having to import coal when we have coal sitting on our doorstep. It is ridiculous. We export coal from the West Coast of the South Island to Japan, and we bring in coal from Indonesia to Huntly to fuel the Genesis power station.

That is how this Government operates. It has absolutely no idea of what makes the world go round. That is the sort of stupid, stupid decision that this Government gets involved in. The Minister said—when he heard me say this the other day—that it was important that the Government keeps hammering home that these things are important. Until this Government learns that it is stifling investment and initiative with this sort of stupid legislation, National will continue to vote against it and fight against this sort of nonsense.

It was interesting that the United Future member spoke about going to Germany and seeing where they use sewage to generate some energy. Of course, the greenhouse emissions that come from that would never be allowed in New Zealand. Two years ago I was with a delegation that went to Wollongong, just out of Sydney, where we saw something similar. In Wollongong, rubbish is brought into a great compacting operation and a recycling set-up that I have never seen before. It showed great initiative and great opportunities, and we saw that it was being utilised to provide power to the city. That company was looking to come into New Zealand because it believed it could take care of a lot of New Zealand’s waste.

It is already in Italy, and it saw that there was an opportunity to come into New Zealand. But, no, it would not come here, because this Government, with its resource management legislation and prescriptive interpretation of everything that ticks, makes it impossible for a firm like that to make that investment in New Zealand. This Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill shackles investment and shackles opportunity, and National, as it did in the Committee stage, is voting against it.