Smith Nick: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7585] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 If there is any Act of Parliament that is in need of reform it is the Resource Management Act. The National Party will support any legislative vehicle that will give us the opportunity to make sensible changes to that Act so we will support this bill to a select committee. 
If we believe that this bill will deal with any of the logjam that exists in resource management and deal with any of the energy roading or other issues we are sadly mistaken. This is a Clayton’s bill. We have 240 detailed process provisions and the Minister wants only to tinker with a few of the provisions in section 7 otherwise known as the other matters. 
I want to outline why National believes this is a very poor shot at significant reform of the Resource Management Act. I also want to challenge the Government on its confused policies around climate change. Let us first turn to the sorts of pathetic changes— 
Darren Hughes 
: What does your lawyer think about it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know that member is such a pathetic constituency member that he is happy to stand up in this House and see me charged with contempt of court for doing my job. I say to the member opposite and others— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You know the rules. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is interesting; Clayton Cosgrove says that I know the rules. Will he support special legislation to save Harry Duynhoven’s neck? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You knew the rules mate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well why does that not apply to Harry Duynhoven I ask the member? [ 
Interruption 
] The member is interjecting. I want to challenge him and say that if he is standing on a point of principle and challenging me today for standing by a family in my electorate so they can have custody of their child but is prepared to pass special legislation to save Harry Duynhoven’s neck I want to know why. [ 
Interruption 
] I know members opposite will use every possible dirty trick to try to stop debate in this House and will even go to the length of the top law enforcement officer trying to kick me out of Parliament for expressing a view. I will stand up and say what I think and say that this bill is not good enough. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I have to put up with those sorts of interjections from Clayton Cosgrove David Parker and Pete Hodgson in trying to make a sensible contribution on this bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that I have let this go. It is the first sitting day of the week. I just ask members to be relevant. An irrelevant interjection does not justify a member in dealing with that interjection. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made a ruling Mr Shirley. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek a point of clarification on that ruling Mr Assistant Speaker. You said it is Tuesday. Am I to understand from that that there is one set of rules for Tuesday and another set of rules for Thursday? If there are the Opposition parties would like to know. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I tell Mr Shirley that he is not to understand that. I have recognised that there has been a bit of toing and froing during this debate. This is a robust place and I expect that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. During the course of Pete Hodgson’s first reading speech there was not one interjection from members on this side of the House. We heard him in silence and for you to suggest that we were continuously interjecting on this bill is not correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I was not suggesting that Opposition members were interjecting. The interjections came from the Government side. I have pulled them up several times. One member who changed his seat has now gone back to where he was sitting. I want to get on with the debate. Members should take note that we need to continue this debate and be relevant to the bill that is before the House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the last debate we had a barrage of interjections that were not rare and reasonable. I want an assurance that during this debate you will uphold Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which states that interjections in debate are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable. I want an assurance from you that Government members will give our speakers a fair go. The nonsense that went on in the last debate was quite outrageous. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and also refer him to Speaker’s ruling 51/4 which states that strictly speaking members can be heard without interruption but members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. I expect that is how this debate will be conducted. 
Shane Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled on this I tell Mr Ardern. 
Shane Ardern 
: It is not to do with the point you have ruled on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better not be. 
Shane Ardern 
: It is a further point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. This whole process started because of interjection from the Government benches. I want an assurance that this time will not be taken off Mr Smith’s time because he knows a lot about the subject of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the time has not been taken off and that is a decision of the Speaker. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill that attempts to make changes to the Resource Management Act is both confused and a Clayton’s provision. I draw the member’s attention to the submissions that were received by major players in the energy sector. This is a year in which we have had an energy crisis there have been substantive effects on the gross domestic product and every New Zealander has been asked to save power. 
Parliament should be focused on the sorts of provisions that will remove the roadblocks to sensible energy developments. This bill from the Government will do nothing of that sort. The detailed objection provisions the provisions by which this Government will give legal aid to those who want to block development and the provisions that allow anybody to object to anything anywhere are not being constrained. We are not seeing any provisions that would amend the provisions of the Resource Management Act that have players in the energy sector saying it will take 7 or 8 years for people to get resource consent for a major development. 
I was expecting from this Minister of Energy who has been so grossly embarrassed by the energy crisis this year some sensible reforms to the Resource Management Act. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis says that he has not been embarrassed. I would like that member to explain why New Zealanders were asked to make such huge power savings this year. Not for just 1 year but for two periods during the term that he has been Minister we have had major energy crises. At the core of that debate is a need for new generation and for more sensible laws with regard to resource management that will allow for the consents of those important developments. I see confusion in these provisions about resource management law. 
 I would like to know where the Minister for the Environment is. I would like to know for instance why energy but not roading is in clause 7. I know that most New Zealanders think there is a roading crisis. Anybody who goes around Auckland knows that by good economic estimate there is nearly $1 billion per year of economic costs because of delays in building roads. Why is it that building renewable energy plants will be a matter of national importance but dealing with transport issues will not? 
The transport issues go to the core of the Resource Management Act. We on this side of the House know that there are dozens of roading projects that are held up for up to 7 years because of the Resource Management Act. Why is it that putting up windmills will be given preferential status but building an additional railway port or roads will not? That makes absolutely no logical sense at all. What we have is piecemeal legislation that makes no attempt at all to deal with the substantive policy issues that are of concern with regard to the Resource Management Act. 
Then we come to the climate change issues. If ever I saw a muddle it is with regard to climate change. Let us look at what the Minister is saying with regard to this bill. If there is a negative climate change effect from a new power station that is not to be dealt with under the Resource Management Act but a positive climate change effect is to be dealt with under the Resource Management Act if it is an energy project. If someone applied for resource consent for planting a large area in forestry that would have a positive climate change effect. Can that be taken into account under the provisions of this bill? No it cannot. Can the Minister explain to the House why she is going to exclude the positive effect of planting a forest? We know that by planting a forest we absorb substantial amounts of carbon. Why is that not to be taken into account yet building a windmill is? Can anybody explain that sort of rationale? I say that it cannot be explained. 
Then there is this Government’s flatulence tax. The Government is saying that if a farmer has a cow or sheep that emits the Government will put a special tax on that but if a giant power station wants to emit huge amounts of carbon with a new coal plant that is not to be taken into account under the Resource Management Act. Anybody with a small amount of knowledge of climate change would know that the impacts of new coal gas and oil generating stations will have a huge effect on this country’s greenhouse gas emissions. They will not be taken into account but the poor old cocky will have to pay the flatulence tax. I would love a member opposite to explain that sort of logic to the House because it is truly remarkable. 
What we need is a consistent climate change policy that deals right across the board with all the issues rather than in a piecemeal way that counts a positive here and does not count a negative there and that has different rules for farmers and for electricity generating stations. We need a consistent approach and that is not provided for in this legislation. 
I also express some concern about the fact that every council in the country will be asked under the provisions of this bill to take into account climate change effects. Well! That is like putting the treaty into legislation. Scientists honestly do not know. In fact it is quite disturbing that the scientific panel from the United Nations dealing with climate change talks about scenarios but the Government talks about projections. The granddaddy of them all is the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change saying to the people of New Zealand: “The Government has a responsibility to provide a stable climate.” Anybody with a half a brain knows that the climate over the last 1000 years has been continuously changing and will continue to change. It will change well into the next 100 and 200 years and the provisions in this bill are illogical. We will support the bill to the select committee but we will have to make very substantive changes to make any sense of it.