Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2319] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 There is room for one more speech on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill and I would certainly like to make a few comments. I think it does not matter who is speaking about climate change or in what forum: one needs to know what that person’s attitude is to climate change. Am I worried about climate change? No I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it. That is my position. If we understand the absolute fragility of the atmospheric balance and the nature of ocean currents and what is actually happening in the combustion of fossil fuels I am terrified. That is my position. However I am opposed to this bill which is why I take this call. I want to clarify that stance. 
This bill will not fix the problem. There is what I call the delusion and the danger of the placebo. We tell ourselves we are doing things that will fix the problem but in actual fact they will not and perhaps we are doing them to score brownie points internationally. I believe that Jeanette Fitzsimons is sincere and is trying to do what she can in the absence of a national and an international strategy that works. She is saying: “Let’s start here.” but I say that that argument is fraught with mistakes. 
I say the bill will not work for this reason. Let us look at the kind of effort that is going into the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. Category 1 countries are the only ones talking about doing something—and they are falling like flies—and the rest of the world which has the greatest potential to increase greenhouse gas emissions is not captured even by the desire to be at the table talking about the situation let alone the desire to do anything. So we have a mishmash internationally and this bill does the same sort of thing locally. 
This bill sets up a variance between regions in New Zealand and all the different local authorities. I believe this move will have the converse effect to what is intended. Rather than shifting the focus on to actually doing something the bill provides a mechanism for local authorities to exercise a discretion to opt out. I take for example my own local province. A bit of climate change would be quite helpful in Southland. It may well be that the local authority in a province like Southland sitting on 4 billion tonnes of lignite may set new standards. The local authority may say that it does not believe in this stuff and that it will go ahead develop its resource and build an economic powerhouse in Southland. Southland already has the smelter which is 15 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions so it could add to that. The local authority could set up some power stations create some liquid fuel generate some power and smelt silicone—and this bill is the very bill that allows that to happen because it shifts that discretion on to local authorities. 
I am not saying Southland will do that; I am using it as an example. But there will be some local authorities that might promote that alternative should this bill be passed. So I believe this bill will have the converse effect to what is intended. Of the 70-plus local authorities in New Zealand there will be some who say: “Let’s give this a go. This is our opportunity. This is our out.” That matter concerns me seriously. 
If we are to deal with this problem it should not be with a placebo. We have to buy into a range of effects that will actually change the outcomes. Even if we buy into the category 1 stuff in the Kyoto Protocol we are moving the same result out only about 6 percent. We have to buy into serious investment in technology. We must change the way that we think—a paradigm shift. 
Fiddling around and creating a whole lot of complexities within the Resource Management Act which does not deliver consistency now will either stop investment because people do not understand—Whangamata revisited—or it will provide an opportunity for a local authority to thumb its nose and say: “Let’s build a resource for economic gain and the moral issue may not be considered.” National will be voting against this bill.