Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11326] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to spend very long on Part 2 because I think that Part 1 laid out all the issues in the bill. Part 1 also laid out the problems which are repeated in Part 2. Clause 5(1) amends section 7 of the principal Act by inserting paragraph (ba): “the efficiency of the end use of energy:” and I have tabled an amendment to add the words “where this is practicable.” The issue that New Zealand First has is that the limitations in Part 1 are also there throughout the whole of Part 2. The reason for my amendment is that although the use of the term “end use” is an improvement it disregards all sources of energy. New Zealand First’s problem is that along with the present Government’s haphazard fragmented approach to power generation—and there is no better evidence than what was seen by those of us who were down in Waitaki last Thursday and Friday—and with a lack of coherence in practical terms notwithstanding the fact there might be coherence in legal terms there is no provision in Part 2 for non-renewable sources such as coal. 
In fact the issue of the use of coal throughout the bill becomes a real problem. I took into account the submissions made by the relevant submitters—including Fonterra which now uses coal as a source of fuel—that modern better technology means for certain there are reduced discharges of greenhouse gases into the air when coal is used. But this bill precludes that expressly clause by clause in Part 2. 
The other issue I want to raise again despite what has been said by others in the Committee is that this bill in its legislative form will impose issues for councils. There is no mistake about that. It is not sufficient for us to be told that non-statutory guidelines are of help. They are not and those who are seated behind the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven know exactly that. A national policy statement has legal impact in effect; non-statutory guidelines have not. Therefore I say again that unless the issue is very quickly remedied to influence the final form of this bill councils will have problems. There will be differing interpretations despite the excellent work done by at least two regional councils with regard to the issue of emissions in their current regional plans. Nothing in Part 2—and I will be very pleased if the Minister can clarify the matter for me and tell me I am wrong—makes that issue clearer for practitioners of the legislation should it be passed so they can work with certainty. Worse than that if there is a lack of certainty on the part of those who have to adjudicate upon and work on resource consents then there will certainly be an added cost for those who lodge applications. 
Lastly this bill notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister in his introduction speech will have a cost-added impact. The worst part about that for the Minister in the chair is that that impact is unquantifiable at the present time because there is no policy statement. New Zealand First then does not give any support to Part 2 even though it may be seen by some as a laudable attempt on the part of the Government to address the issue of reduced emissions. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s alive.