Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11402] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the third reading of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill and I do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is that this legislation will create a huge amount of uncertainty at the local government level. It was interesting to listen to the Minister’s opening comments when he said that this bill would bring sensible legislative structure to the use of renewable resources. When one looks at the detail of the bill and at the definition of what the Government means by that then one can only conclude that the bill will do the exact opposite of what the Minister suggested it would do in the sense that local government will not know what the legislation means. Surely councils will end up employing consultants lawyers and goodness knows what other people to give them advice on it. That is just for one reason: the legislation will create uncertainty. 
The real truth behind this bill is that the Government went overseas and ratified the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners in order to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to tour the world and promote herself for a position to take up after she is no longer the Prime Minister of New Zealand—which is likely to come faster than she thought it would. I think she thought she had a bit of time still to go as Prime Minister. So we may see a hastening of further trips around the world and more of this kind of legislation. 
The reality is that this legislation will not achieve its stated objectives and we oppose it for that reason. The Resource Management Act clearly does need reform. The work that Owen McShane did prior to the 1999 election identified 12 areas of reform that were needed to the Resource Management Act. The previous National Government decided at that time to put most of those recommendations through a select committee process. Unfortunately at the change of Government the incoming Minister put a red pen through all those recommendations and they were not carried out. Had they been carried out this legislation would most likely not have been necessary. The big mistake of course was that this Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that action has brought this legislation to the House. Ninety-two local government authorities will now have to sit down with all their various consultants and advisers and try to figure out a way forward under this legislation. That certainly will not help in any shape or form with regard to the sensible use of renewable energy. 
It is interesting to note from the various contributions throughout the debate that the Green Party has been all over the place on this issue. That is not unusual but it is a little inconsistent when we are debating environmental legislation. On the one hand the Greens support the notion put forward by the Minister of Conservation that there should not be a hydroelectricity dam built at Card Creek—the Dobson Dam—because of the significance of that area in their view. I have visited that area; it is 200 hectares of gorse. Clearly gorse is a new significant plant so the Greens oppose that dam! Then on the other hand the Greens give support to the Government when it comes to emergency electricity generation in New Zealand. In the eye of an energy crisis they support diesel generation using imported fuel in diesel turbines being put in place. I think it would involve running a 747 aircraft engine on diesel. The Greens lend support to that notion but will not allow a renewable energy source to be put in place at Card Creek on the West Coast of the South Island where the rainfall is reliable and regular and where there is an energy shortage. That dam would make the West Coast self-sufficient. To me opposing that makes no sense. 
At the same time as that proposal is not supported there are huge restrictions in the same legislation the Resource Management Act that are stopping the huge resources of New Zealand coal—not Indonesian coal—from being developed and used in a sensible way. I ask the Minister what we are trying to achieve here. And if that is not sufficiently confusing to the people who may be listening to this debate there is more. This bill makes reference to the discharge of greenhouse gases. That sounds pretty logical. If we adhere to the view that greenhouse gases are altering the environment and we want to bring a halt to that then I guess that follows on. But how does that square with stopping hydroelectricity development and at the same time allowing diesel electricity generation—allowing the importation of Indonesian coal into New Zealand for electricity generation—and putting a brake on further exploration for gas in areas like Taranaki? We can understand that the wider New Zealand public may be a bit confused about that. I am sure the Minister will take another call and disabuse people of some of their confusion by giving a full explanation of how that ridiculous situation could have come about. 
At the same time as all that is happening this legislation will also add another complete layer of cost on to those out there in industry and business who are trying to get on with creating the wherewithal for New Zealand to develop in an environmentally sustainable way and in a way that would use renewable energy. That would be a sensible solution to some of the energy problems that New Zealand has. I am completely at a loss as to how the Government can with a straight face apply these double standards up and down the country when it comes to resource consents and the development of renewable sources of energy. 
The definition of renewable energy that the Government has inserted in clause 4 of the bill is in itself debatable. It mentions geothermal energy. As yet I have not seen any scientific paper that states that geothermal energy is a renewable energy. There is quite a deep debate as to whether geothermal energy is a mined energy—the same as coal or any other kind of fossil fuel. I do not know the answer to that; the Minister may know. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s view on that. I am interested in hearing from anybody with a science background who can clear that up for me. To me if we put a bore down into the earth and allow an energy source to surface and if we use that energy source in such a way that it is not re-injected into the earth in its original form—which of course it cannot be because that would be perpetual motion—then that is mining not a renewable energy source. I am interested in the explanation of that. To a layman it does not make any sense. I see Ministers and other members of the House nodding in acknowledgment of that notion. I would be very interested in the answer to that question. 
I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee— I admit to that—so I do not know what was debated in the select committee. But I know by looking at the minority report of the ACT party and the New Zealand National Party that there was a huge amount of discussion around a number of issues and that nobody could actually agree on them. That is why there is a substantial minority report on this bill and is why I put it to the House that this legislation is flawed wrong and inconsistent. 
John Carter 
: And done by Labour. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: And it was introduced by Labour so that should not surprise us. This legislation is wrong is confused is inconsistent and will not bring any clarity to local government. It will bring a lot of confusion and it will not achieve anything that it sets out to achieve. Somebody just said it is a typical “Parekura-ism” and I think that is probably about right.