Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7589] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Earlier this year we had before the House the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) and at that time it was the contention of New Zealand First that the bill needed more time and thought and that the real issues that confront much of the development in our country were not addressed in it. In response we were told that they would be addressed in the form of this bill in the various changes that were to come. If that is so then this legislation is a very very poor attempt indeed. It is a pitiful attempt with unfinished business. 
Those of us interested in marine matters—in fishing the oceans policy and aquaculture reform—will have seen already a high state of unpreparedness and an unthinking response from the Government with regard to those matters. At this stage there is a real mess out there in local government in respect of aquaculture reform. The Marine Reserves Bill is being held up for half a year—thankfully—but that reflects if one likes the mishmash of Government developmental thinking at the present time. That same lack of real clarity is seen in this bill before us now. 
New Zealand First also believes as others have stated that the Kyoto Protocol was one on which we should have moved in concert with our trading neighbours and major competitors. To have moved earlier was and is a long-term mistake. I say again that this bill is unfinished business. In local government when one is doing plans one is asked to do a section 32. In this bill we have a pitiful type of section 32. The benefits and costs are mulled over and are very lightly discussed but there is nothing here to convey to any council or to any would-be applicant what the legislation actually means. It is a long-winded discursive discussion about benefits and costs without any clarity at all. It is all here and it shows really what I have already contended—that this is very much unfinished business. 
It should not be because the Government in 2001 through the Ministry for the Environment had the document  
Kyoto Protocol: Ensuring our Future  
drawn up. Last year in October the Government at the end of its own work had a preferred policy package yet almost 9 months later we have come along to look at a major issue in the mind of the Government for which there is no certainty at all about national guidelines or about the regional objectives stated in the foreword and preamble. At the end of the day if this bill ever became law one would have to go back to a case by case assessment as is done under the present Resource Management Act. Therefore one must ask whether this bill removes the uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions and gives any clarity to those who—unfortunately—may have to administer it in the future. The answer is a very very clear “No”; it is really not of that shape at all. 
Although the Government’s paper in October last year stated that climate change is an international issue and therefore a national issue this bill does not reflect that concept at all. It does not even get close to that. The bill shows no evidence that the Government has a coordinated or integrated national policy at all despite what the Minister said. The proof is this: if this House in a fit of legislative urgency passed this bill tonight would it be able to be implemented tomorrow? The answer is a clear “No”. This bill is unfinished business; it requires so much more yet we are being asked in all good conscience to pass it on to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further thought. On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to say that we will not be voting for this bill’s first reading. The bill needs to give certainty to those people who will have to administer it. 
If I look very closely at the bill and go to clause 3 for an indication of what I am saying I find that paragraph (b)(i) states: “to plan for the potential effects of climate change;” but the clause does not state that the impact of discharge is to be considered. What a mixed message that sends to those councils that have to administer it and what an uncertain impact that will have when it finally gets out in some legislative way in the future if the Government has its way. 
Secondly section 7 of the principal Act which is already long enough will have two long extra bits inserted at the end making it more lengthy yet the body of this bill does not give any direction at the present time to anybody who will have to administer the bill. Again I wonder why a distinction is made between climate change in the future and the real impact which the Government already knows about with regard to discharge from industrial areas at the present time. Whether that is a matter of a cost factor or whatever else I am not quite sure but that issue is there. 
The Minister stated in his opening speech with some confidence that this bill is a bill that can be implemented. Our contention—and I do not wish to take the House any further—is that this bill is unfinished business that it is reflective of the whole nature by the way of where the Government is on climate change and that it does not deserve to go beyond the first reading. It will not have our support and we will vigorously pursue the issues that I have raised: first what the nature of climate change really is; secondly what the impact will be on the applicant; and thirdly and most important of all whether we will have yet more slight meanderings through a potential Resource Management Act without the Government having the conscience to put together a real Resource Management Act that gives certainty and speed to the applicant and that requires the minimum amount of compliance from the applicant so that we can really get on with developing the resources of this country. That should be the aim of the Resource Management Act. These little bits of tinkering are not the substance of sound economic development or of sound law. We will resist them to the hilt.