Connell Brian: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11413] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is muddled and confusing. It will prove dysfunctional in its application to the energy sector and consequently it will slow down infrastructure development in that sector just at the point when it should be speeding up. That will prove to be critical. When the lights go out across New Zealand I will leave it to Pete Hodgson and his cohorts to face up to the angry public of New Zealand and to tell people why providing a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister was more important than having a viable electricity sector. That is what this bill is really about is it not? It is a rearguard action to cover this Government’s determination to rush headlong into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol regardless of the implications and consequences of that to the productive sector of New Zealand. 
That this legislation will impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers I have no doubt. This bill requires councils to plan for climate change although there is huge uncertainty as to its causes and effects. Temperature and rainfall models at a global—let alone a national or a local—level are scenarios not predictions. Mr Shirley has already made the point but it is worth repeating that there are 17000 highly regarded scientists worldwide who say that the models underpinning man’s role in global warming theories are seriously flawed. How then are councils meant to plan for global warming with any confidence? The answer is that they simply cannot do so. We cannot even agree on that at a national let alone an international level. Much money will be spent on consultation consultants and reports but the progress will be nil. This legislation will not make a jot of difference to climate change and therein lies the rub. What is certain is that the productive sector will be frustrated. Working through the Resource Management Act process right now is a nightmare but compared with the requirements of this bill it is a cakewalk. One of the biggest constraints on business in this country is certainty with regard to electricity supply. The cost of that supply is of course important but a guaranteed constant supply is absolutely essential. It goes to the very heart of whether a business is prepared to invest its capital. Unless our environmental rules are simplified that very confidence will be shattered. 
I have no doubt whatsoever that we are experiencing a period of global warming. It is not the first and it will not be the last despite all the do-gooders who preach the gospel of doom gloom and destruction etc. That will not make a bit of difference to the process. What I am not convinced about is man’s contribution to global warming. Whatever one’s view on that the problem is outside New Zealand’s ability to alter. For goodness’ sake New Zealand’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is 0.02 percent. When we put the issue in that context we have to wonder why the Government decided to make global warming New Zealand’s problem. Why sign up to an agreement that our major trading partners think is utter foolishness and therefore disadvantage our productive sector? The Government’s answer of course is that we have to do our bit. Is that not a noble concept? What a pity it is that the Government did not apply that rule when it came to doing our bit with regard to our contribution to security across Australasia. The Anzac spirit is dying and I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Labour Party. The cost to New Zealand of thumbing our nose at our best friends will be counted in the billions of dollars and it is something I deeply regret and apologise for on behalf of all Kiwis. 
Who will pay for this type of legislative nonsense? The Government’s first response was to try to tax farmers—or more specifically their animals. That did not come to pass and it was the first of the major U-turns that has characterised this Government over recent weeks. It was the first sign that people in this country are sick and tired and have had a gutsful of this poll-driven Government. The people of this country have lost confidence in this administration and this type of bill will do absolutely nothing to restore their confidence in it. 
Clause (3)(a)(i) of the bill deals with the efficiency of the end use of energy. To my mind that is totally illogical. The bill’s message is that we do not really care how efficient we are at generating electricity but we will thump people for how they cook their toast or vacuum the house. The bill limits the options for how we are to generate electricity. It may not do so directly but it does so by its emphasis on renewable energy sources. We all know that we have an energy crisis but if people dare to mention the burning of coal to generate electricity they are branded as heretics. Green Party members I believe would probably try to burn them at the stake for doing so if they could find a non-polluting tree-hugging hippy kind of way to do so. We have 800 to 1000 years’ worth of coal reserves in New Zealand—enough to solve all our generation problems—but we cannot have even a rational debate about it. Despite the advice to the contrary that the Green Party offered yesterday I say emissions from the burning of coal can be reduced by up to 50 percent if we use the right kind of technology. I believe it is about time that we started embracing that and doing something about it. 
The water options for electricity generation are also running out. The much-vaunted Project Aqua will not solve the problem. By the time it is built the demand for electricity will be outstripping our supply so the question we must ask ourselves is what we will do then. Will we destroy another river? Or will we use wind generation? Can members imagine tens of thousands of noisy and yet to be proven windmills dotted across our landscape? 
Jim Peters 
: Tens of thousands? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: OK let us allow that there would be 5000 windmills not tens of thousands. Actually I do not resile from that figure. I believe that there would be 5000 or maybe 10000 windmills. Who knows? That is just the problem—we do not know. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: We will be just like the Netherlands. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes New Zealand will look just like the Netherlands. I would rather support a few discreet coal-fired plants located exactly where we need them than put up with the noise pollution from windmills. 
The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is in fantasyland. It will not make a positive contribution to climate change but will simply be another bureaucratic nightmare. It is not a salvation; it is a distraction. The bill will not change global warming outcomes by one iota. In my opinion the quicker that this legislation is consigned to the rubbish bin the better it will be. National does not support this bill. This bill has as much chance of getting National’s support as the Prime Minister has of getting the support of her Maori caucus.