Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Resource Management (Climate Protection)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3924] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 This is a rare moment of multitasking in the House. Today’s second reading takes us back to June last year when I sought the call and then the House rose after I had occupied a brief 10 seconds of my speech. I say to the House that in terms of process as a presiding officer my speaking on a bill is a little bit unusual but not rare. I will not be presiding over any part of this bill and that is understood by members. 
I understand a fair element of why this bill was perhaps generated by the Greens. They have had a concern that New Zealand has been underperforming for quite some considerable time with regard to its commitments to Kyoto. In fact under the previous administration New Zealand went back faster than any other country in category 1. So I understand the genesis of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill whereby Jeanette Fitzsimons wanting to be proactive has brought the bill into the House. One understands why the bill was introduced but the questions we have to ask are whether it will actually work how well it will work and whether it will achieve the outcomes we require in order to get some improvement in New Zealand’s profile for greenhouse gas emissions. 
I think that one should categorise where one sits on this issue. I tell new members in the House that I have said a number of times that I have a particular concern about climate change. I believe that the combustion of fossil fuels is increasing the natural cycle of rising temperatures and various other climates changes in relation to that increase. I believe that effect so I have some real concerns that we need to be proactive in this matter. 
I say to the House that I do not think this bill will achieve the outcomes that are desired by the member in charge of it. For a start I have some real difficulties in saying that the resolution of this problem is something we should shovel from central government to local authorities. Given that there are about 76 different local authorities around this country I can see some real opportunity for a variety of applications for this legislation should it be passed by the House. 
The second point I make is that I think the Resource Management Act is the wrong vehicle with which to try to resolve the issues around climate change. The Resource Management Act is being litigated at the moment or going through a kind of negotiated process through consents. At the moment it is a very arduous and expensive course for anybody wanting to gain a consent or to establish a new industry or a new activity. The process is costly and time consuming and it is for that reason that National has introduced into the House a number of amendments to the Act. 
This bill was crafted and delivered to the House before the House had agreed to or started to deal with an emissions trading scheme which actually kind of overrides the necessity for this bill. We in National would say that an emissions trading scheme is a far better mechanism with which to deal with this issue. 
Then there are issues of practicality. One would have to say that in the 76 or whatever number local authorities around the place the level of expertise required in order to deal with considering the implications of climate change in terms of passing consents leaves some opportunities for huge litigation costs and ongoing processes surrounding how those decisions are made. And dare I say it; the quality of decisions from one local authority to the next may be somewhat less than perfect. 
Then there is the issue of timing. When a company or an individual applies for a consent under the Resource Management Act that is the very initial stage of the development and the company or individual will want some certainty around it. If for example the consent process adds another doubt as to whether a project may be advanced the financial backing—and we know a little bit about the financial environment at the moment—becomes much more difficult which adds another reason why it may be difficult to get something off the ground. It will be difficult to find the finance to go forward because there will be some questions about the implications of the consent applied by the local authority if this bill is to be passed. 
Secondly the emissions trading scheme will be another method for those offsets. One does not know just what the implications of the emissions trading scheme will be at the initial stages of a company or an individual going for consent. So there are a lot of questions about timing at the consent stage in terms of the implications of whether something should go forward. 
Then there is the element of how well a decision would be made. I preface my remarks by saying that consent is not something for a regional or local authority to try to develop a national imprint on. In fact it may well be the case that it is not something a national entity should try in order to determine an outcome that has an international repercussion. Let me give members an example. In the fair electorate of Invercargill we have Rio Tinto one of the premier smelters in the world in the respect of producing the finest grade of aluminium in the world. That one hopes will help it to ride out the various difficulties the aluminium smelting industry has at the moment. Prices for aluminium have dropped from about $3000 a tonne to something like $1400 a tonne. 
The illustration I will give will horrify some members. For every tonne of aluminium smelted at Rio Tinto at Tiwai Point 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases are emitted. People will say we should shut down that sucker because that is not what we want at all. If Rio Tinto was to apply for an expansion or something like that then it would be a local decision. It is horrifying but for several reasons it is not. For a start the product Rio Tinto is making aluminium has more offsets than the transport industry by 20 to 1. For every kilogram of aluminium that is used to replace a metal part in a vehicle the payback is 20 times those 2 tonnes in the saving of emissions unless carbon fuel is being combusted to run the vehicle’s engine. 
Secondly if the process because of the local decision was to shut down Rio Tinto’s Tiwai smelter then it would simply move to a category 3 country like China where there are currently 23 different smelters. As I said the profile of the greenhouse gas emissions from Tiwai is 2 tonnes per 1 tonne of aluminium smelted. If we look at China we see that the emissions are about 8½ tonnes per tonne. That is why I say that is not just a local authority or a regional decision for a national problem; it is actually a global decision. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why are the member’s oratory skills wasted in the Chair? 
ERIC ROY 
: I missed the member’s comment but the point I make is simply that I understand why this bill has come to the House. My response is simply that it is the wrong mechanism and the wrong bill when there are more effective ways to approach the issue. We need to be looking at national standards and emissions trading schemes and engaging in the process on a national basis.