Peck Mark: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7590] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Let me first of all remind the House that this bill essentially does five things: firstly it supports the Government’s well-established climate change and energy policies; secondly it provides a basis for national coordination of controls on greenhouse gas emissions; thirdly it ensures the efficient use of energy; fourthly 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 finally it provides national leadership clarity of roles and reduced administration compliance and participation costs related to energy and climate change matters. 
In looking at this bill there are two matters I wish to address very quickly today. The first is the issue of the debate about climate change and the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. I want to pass a challenge to the member for Nelson—he should remember that he is actually the member for the Labour seat of Nelson—which is that we take it rather seriously on this side of the House when farmers start resorting to sending cow manure through the mail. Indeed when my office received a packet of cow manure my staff took it straight to the police. The police were very interested about where it had come from. I say to the wit who sent me a packet of cow manure and who did not have the fortitude to put his return address on the back of it that far from our being frightened of going to the farmers meetings we would encourage farmers to take the hard approach of entering into some real debate. 
There is debate about those issues. I tell members that there will be debates in Southland this week. How do I know that? Because they have been arranged by the National Party and by Federated Farmers in conjunction with it. How do I know that? Because the media gave me the list of where the meetings will be held. I can tell those who will be in Winton on Thursday afternoon that they will be meeting when the House is sitting. Had they had the courage to organise a meeting for a time when I was able to attend I would have been there to debate the policy with them. I say to the member from the Labour seat of Nelson who preceded me in this debate that far from members on this side of the House not wanting to enter into the debate we are quite keen to do so because there are some issues in it. 
I also say that the farmers 
never let the facts get in the way of a good story on this matter. What is the first thing I know about it? I know that anything that will happen with these emissions will not kick in until 2012. That is the first thing. Is the Minister of Energy nodding his head? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 2008. 
MARK PECK 
: OK I am 4 years too far out. 
 The second thing I know is that there is a principle called “polluter pays” and if we were to adopt that principle then the farmers would pay the total cost. 
Jill Pettis 
: $60000 per farmer. 
MARK PECK 
: That cost would be $60000 per farmer. I will say one other thing which is something that my colleague Damien O’Connor likes to say from time to time. Here they are all upset about paying 65c per cattle beast and 9c per sheep yet when the dairy price dropped from $5.30 to $3.30 they hardly raised a sweat. I just wonder where they are taking the debate. For the price of a few envelopes they send me a packet of cow dung yet they are not prepared to enter into the debate. They never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
I do not know much about animal husbandry but I know that the Minister of Energy does and I imagine that when an animal is not producing waste it is using its energy to produce stuff like muscle and fibre. In time there could well be a pay-off to farmers from the research that will go on as a result of this particular levy but we do not know because that is what the research is actually about. 
Farmers are part of the New Zealand community as well and they should front up to their obligation as part of the climate control situation. There is a final factor that they need to think on and it goes like this: if ever there was an industry that was reliant on the climate it is farming. The last thing I want to see in Southland is bananas growing. I want to see our dairy industry going really well and our sheep industry going very well indeed and that is all about climate. It is important that we do look at climate change. I am very keen to enter into this debate but I tell farmers to stop organising it through the National Party and Federated Farmers. Let us have some decent debate. I had a debate with a number of these people before the election. 
I have one final thing that I want to say to a friend of mine in Southland called Mr Affleck. He is all upset about the fact that the Government has finally decided to do something about energy and stand-by generation. He said that the Government has been panicked into providing stand-by generation. Well about 2 months earlier he was saying that the Government had been derelict in its responsibilities in not providing stand-by generation for exactly these sorts of situations. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: We did what he suggested. 
MARK PECK 
: We have done something about stand-by generation and now we are said to have panicked. I say that Mr Affleck should grow up and come into the real world. He should enter into the debate in a proper manner and at least have the ability to give some credit to this Government which is keen on doing something about energy and doing something about climate change and is promoting them in this bill. At the end of the day we all live on these stringy little islands together. We are all in this together and we should all be doing our bit.