Graham Kennedy: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise as the final speaker in this debate to call for the adoption of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. Let us briefly recall the background to the bill. In 1991 the National Government introduced the Resource Management Act which was adopted by this House. Among other things this Act accorded the power to regional councils to consider climate change matters when issuing air discharge consents. In 2004 the Labour Government amended the Act removing those powers. Shortly thereafter in 2004 the Green Party submitted this bill which seeks to restore those powers. I acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for her insight and perseverance in this matter. 
Neither National nor Labour denies the magnitude of the climate change problem. To quote Eric Roy: “Am I worried about climate change? No I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it.” To quote Steve Chadwick: “Climate change is a very serious challenge.” one in which “We have to play our part”. For its part the Maori Party was pleased that the bill was having a reading because it was forcing Parliament to confront global concerns. Yet National opposed the bill in its first reading. Its stated reason was that regional councils would face invidious decisions in respect of their own areas and that the problem with climate change was a global and national issue only. Members cited Franklin District Council in whose area New Zealand Steel is located and Southland where a local authority might encourage coal extraction and whose people might welcome global warming. This is a bit rich considering that National put on indefinite hold the national instrument that was passed last year. 
The Labour Government opposed the bill on the grounds that a national policy was required and it intended to introduce a carbon price. Moana Mackey expressed concern over the regional inconsistencies that could arise from leaving something as important as climate change to regional councils. Labour apparently believed that it was something that only central government should do. Labour of course did not have the carbon tax voted down as the previous speaker just said it simply dropped it and switched to an emissions trading scheme but it delayed the emissions trading scheme so long that with the change in Government it is now subject to review. So no carbon price has been set and now Labour is changing policy and supporting the bill. I thank Labour for its unflagging commitment and consistency in our time of national need. 
Of course Labour could have legislated for its proposed carbon tax before the 2005 election when it had a majority with the Green Party—it did not. It could have legislated in 2006 with the Green and Maori parties—it did not. It could have supported this bill last year and at least restored the power of regional councils to consider carbon in air discharge consents. It did not. It is voting for the bill today in the exculpatory knowledge that it lacks the numbers to pass. 
The rationale for this bill remains as strong today as in 2004. It is to restore the status quo ante when the 1991 Resource Management Act accorded regional authorities the power to consider climate change in making decisions. It is not Franklin District Council that would make such decisions but Environment Waikato. That regional council is entirely capable of taking into account the global national and local interest in combating climate change. No doubt if the regional council succumbed to the siren call of local global warming the Government would be empowered to override such irresponsibility. But we should not underestimate the wisdom of our best local policymakers especially on issues such as climate change which threatens our children. 
It should be noted that of the 1925 submissions a significant majority favoured the bill including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Those opposed offered three arguments. The first was the quaint logic that restrictions on industrial emitters were unfair if none were placed on vehicles or livestock. But the Resource Management Act requires air discharge consents for stationary industry not vehicles or livestock. No one has ever to my knowledge suggested it should. The second was the misguided fear that local government lacks the scientific and economic expertise to deal with the issue. The short answer is that such expertise often does reside in regional councils and national experts are there to assist in any event. The select committee heard evidence that the bill would work better if the National Government put in place a national environmental standard guiding councils on how to consider carbon in their deliberations. That would have been our preference too. The third was a simplistic belief that action against climate change should not be a local government responsibility but a national one. Of course as has been remarked it is both. 
We all know that throughout this country and now in this House—with the singular exception of the five erstwhile ditherers among us—we are currently failing in our struggle with climate change. We have been cognisant of climate change since the early 1980s. We commenced political action in the mid-1980s. We identified the global interest to combat it in 1992. We introduced our first weak global legislation in 2008. So a quarter of a century has passed before the global ship of State is even considering turning round. But the required 90 degree turn-round remains at the level of consideration only. In fact the global economy remains on a fixed course to disaster. It is as if humanity is poorly attuned to the pitch of the alarm siren. Certainly Mr Boscawen and his ACT Party cannot hear the pitch whether it is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the majority of submissions to Parliament’s Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Over those 25 years our global emissions have risen. Yet if we are partially deaf we are certainly not mute. We still bicker vociferously over the next critical step. 
New Zealand must do everything within its power to play its part. This is not an act of altruism. We are not aspiring to be a global leader—no one would notice. It is simply in our direct national interest. We must act at the global level the national level and the local level. There is no inconsistency between these levels in pursuit of the common good. Each has a responsibility to act. Each must play its part. Let us adopt this bill without further delay.