Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7599] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I suppose we should not be surprised that the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Benson-Pope did not refer to one aspect of the bill whatsoever but rather engaged in a somewhat tedious attempt to throw mud at the Opposition side of the House. We have become used to such utterances from that member. 
The ACT party is indeed very concerned about this bill because here again we have the Government bringing to Parliament an amendment to the Resource Management Act. We should think back and follow the path leading to this bill. The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 and it was obvious by the mid-1990s that there was a need for major reform—there were some fundamental problems with it. Simon Upton engaged in a massive review. Unfortunately he became too bogged down in the process to get any legislation passed before the 1990 election. But he had introduced a bill with some significant changes. That bill went off to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 1999. There was a change of Government and Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Greens was put in charge of that select committee. That select committee then completely overturned the whole amendment proposal that was designed to streamline the frustrations with that Act and reported the bill back in March 2001. 
What happened then? The Labour Government left the bill languishing on the Order Paper for some 18 months and then in a sudden rush of blood to the head rammed the No. 2 bill through all stages under urgency having overturned all of what I think were necessary but not sufficient amendments—what I call the “Upton amendments”. The Government rammed through the Fitzsimons stuff and we had all those things like the reference to cultural landscapes and the special provision for wahi tapu—all crazy stuff that the Prime Minister knew about; it had obviously been signed off in Cabinet. Then if members remember this the heat became too much for the Prime Minister and in the Committee stage the Government did a back-down. I thank United Future for playing a key part in that. In propping up the Government United Future pointed out that that was crazy stuff and the Government backed down. 
But the problem we are left with is that a fundamental reform of the Resource Management Act is still required. Here we have the Government coming in with a very specific and very strange little amendment that does not address the fundamental problems with that Act that Minister Swain’s committee identified. Those problems are some of the biggest constraints to investment in this country and some of the biggest frustrations to local bodies and wealth creators in this country alike. Mr Swain’s review has been sidelined and instead right at the top of the agenda we have this Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill because of this Government’s fixation on adherence to the Kyoto Protocol. 
The last speaker for National asked a very good question and we did not get an answer to it. He asked why the Government had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. I would remind him that it was the previous National Government that signed up the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to know why it did that because the Kyoto Protocol is an absolutely flawed instrument. Even the scientists who advocate for that protocol recognise that it will not make one jot of difference even if it is fully implemented. One hundred years out from now the Kyoto Protocol will perhaps buy people 4 or 5 years at best. And it is greatly unfair as we all know because only the annex 1 countries have to take action under it. 
But to come back to this bill specifically I am alarmed that here again the Government has finally told us to address the Resource Management Act but it does not address the fundamental flaws in that Act. Instead essentially we are making some adjustments to section 7 and adding another special provision for energies derived from minerals. The explanatory note of the bill that is before us actually states: “… under the RMA the definition of contaminant includes greenhouse gases.” Well that is a nonsense in itself. Why not address that nonsense? To say that methane or carbon dioxide which are naturally occurring substances in large volumes are somehow a contaminant is nuts. We need carbon dioxide in our atmosphere; photosynthesis depends on it. So for the Government to state as a starting point that carbon dioxide is a contaminant is very foolish. But be that as it may the Government has decided to roar ahead with this amendment. 
When we look at the energy crisis we see the Government has not addressed the situation that one of its State-owned enterprises has signed a contract to import 600000 tonnes of coal from Indonesia. Trucks are pouring over the Kaimai Range as we speak carting the imported coal from Tauranga to the Huntly power station. How much carbon dioxide emission is involved in (a) the transport of those thousands of tonnes or (b) the burning of those thousands of tonnes of coal at Huntly? What did we have earlier this year? We had a very sensible proposal to build a hydro station of 65 megawatts on the Arnold River on the Department of Conservation estate. Government members scoff at 65 megawatts but it is a very significant block of energy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How many megawatts in Huntly? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh about 1200 all up. But 65 megawatts are not to be sneered at. That is more than the total consumption of the West Coast including the future expansion of consumption there. That station would have fed electricity back into the national grid. Government members laugh at those little hydro schemes but I tell them that they are important. One will get a lot more energy out of those schemes than the Government will get out of its windmills. This Government has a fixation with windmills. That is largely what this bill is all about—to fast track windmills. 
Let us look at what the Government said to foresters. If one was really concerned about climate change greenhouse gas emissions and the foolishly flawed Kyoto Protocol one would have put in a market instrument to encourage the planting of forests and the sequestration of carbon. But what was one of the Government’s first steps? It nationalised the property right of the forest owners thereby removing the incentive for the private sector to keep planting trees and expanding our forestry stock. So the Government is into micromanagement but messes it up at every turn. On the one hand the Government has taken away the property right of forest owners who would have planted trees and sequestered that carbon and on the other hand it then wants to give some sort of special fast-track benefit to what it calls “renewables” like windmills which will give insignificant power volumes. The Minister will concede that in the medium term perhaps over a 20-year horizon if we cannot get more gas we will have to burn a lot of coal in order to maintain our basic energy demands. This bill has not addressed any of that; it is all about political correctness. 
One part of the bill I do agree with: the Government has made it clear to local government that it should not be applying itself to discharges from industries in terms of greenhouse gas by having a national policy statement in effect. I support that. That is the only part of this bill to me that does seem to make sense. 
But the Government stands condemned through not taking the opportunity to do the major review of the principal Act that is required and which it failed to do earlier this year when it rushed a foolish measure through under urgency having left it languishing on the Order Paper for 18 months before that. Now the Government comes to the House this evening with this very narrow very minor politically correct amendment that fails to address the basically flawed nature of that Act.