Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11315] 
Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation)  
on behalf of the Convenor Ministerial group on Climate Change 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to draw to members’ attention the fact that there was a change to the Standing Orders that affect the Committee of the whole House. Before I call the first member I wish to remind members that recent changes to the Standing Orders have altered the way in which the Committee will consider the bill. Debate will now begin with the question that Part 1 stand part. Debate on clause 1 takes place at the end. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to Part 1 of this bill and I do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is a philosophical one and that is that this Prime Minister of this Government who now knows her days are numbered has travelled overseas at the taxpayers’ expense all around the world standing on stages from one country to another and promoting herself in her next job whatever that may be. Most likely it will involve some kind of climate change United Nations tree-hugging green-type peace-leading type structure. I do not know what it will be but I am certain it will be something. 
In Part 1 of this bill it is all spelt out. What we have is members of a Government who went over to the other side of the world and ratified the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all of our trading partners. They then came scurrying back to New Zealand and tried to get some legislative framework around the idiotic position that they have taken and it is in Part 1 of this bill. 
What we have here in Part 1 is a definition of renewable energy sources. The select committee agonised over this. There were bits struck out bits put in new unanimous bits put in and some bits that had minority reports to them. So clearly there was a huge amount of debate around that. The end result is that we now have legislation that can only cause huge uncertainty in local authorities. 
It is good to see the Minister of Local Government here because I am sure there will be some questions for him about what various bits of this part actually mean. I am sure the Minister will be able to answer completely without any confusion at all so that all the local authorities out there understand. 
I will start with this quote from Clause 4: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources”. I am sure the local authorities will know exactly what all that means. But the Minister may also be able to answer as to which one of those is renewable and which one he believes may be questionable. There was a huge debate about geothermal because it could be the same as coal. It could be something we are mining from the earth that one cannot replace. Then on the other hand it could be something that goes on and on for ever. Who actually knows? 
Where were the science papers—I am sure the Minister or his advisers will have them—that state that that is renewable and energy sources such as coal are not? It stands to reason and is logical that if one digs something out of the ground such as coal and burns it and turns it into a different form well then it cannot be renewable. It does not come back. But is that not what one does with geothermal power? That is the first question. 
There are a range of other questions and here is one that the Minister I am sure will be right up to speed on. Why was it that the recommendations in the Owen McShane report when it came to reforming the Resource Management Act to bring clarity around some of these issues were not upheld? Why was it that the Minister for the Environment looked at the Owen McShane report at the beginning of the new Labour Government and said that none of this was for them and she would put a red pen through the whole lot? She was not going to have any of it. The Government was not going to reform the Resource Management Act so that it would take notice of some of those issues at that time. The report was put through two select committees chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons and came back with no recommendation to bring about those changes that were recommended all that time ago. Now that is a question I am sure the Minister should be able to answer. Nobody else in New Zealand knows the answer to that but I am sure the Minister does. 
Then of course one gets to the crux of the whole thing which is greenhouse gas emissions and of course there has been a lot of debate about that. We have had the debate about the “fart tax” which of course was supposedly a greenhouse tax. 
Brian Connell 
: That was a U-turn! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That was a major U-turn unlike the ones that have been made recently the ones on schools and the foreshore. It was a major U-turn and the beginning of the U-turns. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It was quite absurd was it not the idea of the Government taxing millions and millions of sheep and thousands and thousands of cows in this country for flatulence. Was it not absurd! Was it not good to see the U-turn. Was it not good to see the member Shane Ardern so eloquently demonstrating the absurdity of taxing those innocent stock going about their business in this country generating export dollars for us. It was good to see the Government do a U-turn on that matter. But the bigger goal and what Shane Ardern is taking on now is to see the Government do a U-turn on something equally absurd but more insidious and less obvious to the general public; of course I am referring to the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. 
I am standing to speak on Part 1 the commencement date the purpose of the Act and the interpretation of the Act. What I find interesting about this is that the bill is presented to the Committee in order to more easily clarify section 7 of the Resource Management Act which requires efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. That is because it became apparent over the last 10 years that the Resource Management Act was inadequate in dealing with the efficient use of energy particularly from minerals. The benefits that the country the world and the atmosphere can gain through the use of renewable energy resources including that from minerals which are less often renewable unlike solar power and geothermal and so on were not dealt with so well by the Act. 
The National Party acknowledges the benefits of renewable energies. There is no argument about that. We are not extreme. We are not like the Greens. We are not going to suggest using renewable resources in the sense of putting plastic bags around the buttocks of various stock caged in our country and using that energy. We are not as extreme as that. 
Brian Connell 
: Do they say that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They say that sort of thing. But we are saying that the use of solar power tidal power geothermal power biomass wave power ocean current sources and wind power as well as hydro is very beneficial to the country. But what seems strange particularly in clause 3 “Purpose” is that local authorities in planning for businesses and industrial development for energy users whether they be residential or commercial are allowed to plan for the effects of climate change. In other words they are allowed to guess whether the use of renewables is going to be positive or negative and guess whether the use of mineral energy resources will be positive or negative. But they are not allowed as is stated in paragraph (b)(ii) of clause 3 to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into the air of greenhouse gases. They are allowed to look at the potential effects but they are not allowed to measure them and consider the actual effects of those emissions into the atmosphere. That seems absurd to me. One can measure the effects and one can see whether they are beneficial or not beneficial. If they harm the environment and people know it people should be able to use that information in their planning and not just in the granting of resource consent but also in the granting of an extension of resource consent. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven—who is sporting a broken arm because I know he was arm-wrestling David Benson-Pope to get into Cabinet and he lost—why it is that councils are able to plan for the effects of climate change but not measure it and use that information. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not support another selective amendment to the Resource Management Act. Just over a year ago this House had the opportunity to seriously review and consider the Resource Management Act and failed to do so. We now have this amendment bill and a further one yet to come to the House that is a selective amendment of an Act that requires major review. We understand that this bill that is before us gives effect to the Government’s energy and climate change policy and the elevation of energy and climate change matters as ones of environmental and sustainable management priority. 
We acknowledge the Government’s intention. We are aware of the Act of 2000 and the strategy of 2001. However our party did not and does not support New Zealand’s participation as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol unlike the two major parties in this House. New Zealand First does not support Government and legislative bias of only renewable energy sources of power generation as this bill envisages in Part 1. 
In looking at Part 1 particularly with regard to the amended new clause 3 in relation to issues of efficiency effects and benefits there strangely lacks one major definition—that is exactly what is meant by “effects”? In the commentary the committee has stated that this is a term that is in the principle Act and need not be defined here. My first question to the Minister in the chair is: “Why did the Government not given an adequate explanation of the term ‘effects’ ”? Secondly what are the benefits? Thirdly—and probably most important for those who have to administer the Act for local authorities—where is the clear direction to local authorities on the real intention of Part 1? 
In default of a national policy statement in default of any non-statutory firm guidelines where do local authorities go with regard to this Act in their energy policies? We are aware that some councils have energy policies and some have anticipated some of the terms and the concepts in this bill but very few. This bill leaves a considerable frustration in the local authority area. There is no national policy statement in view; there is no significant non-statutory guideline or guidance with regard to the bill; and most of all and probably most important for local authorities they confuse absolutely the intention with regard to clause 3(b)(i) that the planning for this effect of climate change in their region will not be one involving ratepayer cost. I do not think that sufficient thought was given to the fact that plan changes will be needed and if not plan changes then there will certainly need to be considerable research done in order to initiate the consent process that will follow from the implementation of this bill in the future. 
The background material the scientific information and the guidance are just not there. I go back to the first reading where there was a Labour statement that a national policy statement was not needed and I refute that absolutely. Without guidance at national level this bill will not be easy to administer. 
However worst than that without national guidelines and a national policy statement we will have a disconnected state of administration council by council. This is particularly so because although in clause 4 there is an interpretation for climate change and one for renewable energy there is none that covers the cost of administering the effects and benefits of this bill. New Zealand First finds this a very strange piece of legislation and almost indicative of the haste that the Government has in other legislation as well where the intention arrives here in some bill form but the practical implementation of that is left for a further day. It is not good enough but most of all for most administering authorities it will certainly cause them some considerable disquiet. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will certainly vote against this foolish legislation brought to this House by this beleaguered Labour Government. It is a result of the Labour Party’s foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. It is part of the Government’s foolish response mechanism and I can only predict that we will see more of this type of stupid foolish legislation in this House from this Labour Government. 
It seems that the Government has a fixation with renewables. I do not think that it actually understands the physics of that because no matter is created or destroyed; it is merely transformed. But somehow the Government is going to categorise what become renewables. 
I know that Mr Hodgson the Minister of Energy in this Labour Government has a fixation with wind. He believes that somehow by harnessing the wind we will solve our country’s energy woes. 
Brian Connell 
: So has Mr Benson-Pope. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes Mr Benson-Pope has a fixation with wind too but that is another matter. 
I believe that New Zealand is on the brink of an energy crisis through inaction and lack of planning and foresight by this Labour Government. At best a wind turbine generates 0.8 of a megawatt a year. Just to keep pace with our expanding energy demands we would need to build over 200 turbines every year. Just think what the landscape would look like if we were building 200 wind turbines across our landscape every year. Of course wind is intermittent and variable. I was reading figures just the other week and saw that in Denmark no power is generated for something like 37 percent of the time because the wind is not blowing. So wind power is not a reliable solution to the problem. It is certainly a contributor and I believe that it is a valuable contributor. I am not knocking wind turbines at all. They have a role to play but wind power is not the solution. 
This Government somehow thinks that tilting the Resource Management Act in favour of windmills and condemning coal will prove to be a solution for our energy woes. It will not. We know that the Maui gasfield is at the end of its commercial life—2007 will be the commercial end and it could be sooner. That is a huge problem for this country. We know there are huge deposits of lignite coal in the Southland deposits—50 Maui gasfield equivalents in the Southland lignite deposits alone. However because of this Labour Government’s mantras and foolish adherence to that flawed Kyoto Protocol coal is off. We cannot talk about coal. 
We have about 1000 years’ supply of coal deposits in this country to meet our energy demands—if we are prepared to use them. I know that the Minister in the chair Mr Duynhoven is sympathetic to that view but he has been railroaded by the rest of his colleagues. It is a shame he did not make it into Cabinet because he would have been a better Minister in Cabinet than the clod—who is the character the Government has just promoted? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not allow the use of the word the member used to describe the senior Government whip. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: What was the word? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows exactly what he said. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am sorry I cannot recall what I called him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is aware of what he called him. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: If I caused him offence then I will certainly withdraw—be that as it may. 
A select committee of this House went down to look at Project Aqua last week. In that project we have the modification of one of the few remaining rivers in this country that is unmodified—the Lower Waitaki. If we are not going to use our coal resources and if we are going to adhere to the policy of total emphasis on renewables then the country had better be prepared that there will not be an unmodified river left in this country. That is the reality of the situation. 
When I look at some of those definitions too I see that they are equally as confusing. Clause 4 states: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources.” Now solar energy is actually nuclear energy; it is radiation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The first point I want to make is that this is not the Kyoto Protocol bill despite the constant calls from others who have spoken in the debate before me. In fact if members look through the legislation they will find that the word “Kyoto” does not even appear. It appears once in the Local Government and Environment Committee’s commentary on the bill but it does not appear in the legislation. That is why United Future is able to support Part 1 and in fact the bill. We have made it clear that we are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. I do not know why we any longer waste our breath on it because it is pretty well dead and buried. It is very unlikely that Russia will ratify it. Most people around the world are beginning to look at what they will do after the death of the Kyoto Protocol. 
Part 1 makes it very clear that local authorities are required to plan for the effects of climate change. As I said earlier it caused me some concern when I first saw that in the bill because of the huge range of effects people estimate that climate change may have on our landscape. It is clear that the Resource Management Act already requires local councils to take note of the effects and potential effects of future activity upon our landscape so this bill really only makes clear what the Resource Management Act requires councils to do. The New Zealand Climate Change Office and officials have assured us that they will give local authorities some good guidelines on what the band of climate change may be and what the effects could be. If that does not work in terms of giving clarity to local councils some national policy statements will follow. But these take time to produce and we have accepted a reasonable explanation that it is time to move forward in that regard. 
Secondly clause 3(b)(ii) requires councils “not to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into air of greenhouse gases”. I would have thought that Mr Shirley and others who have spoken in the debate before me would fully support that because that will remove any impediment to local councils being able to give consents to coal-fired plants. We in United Future rejoice in that. All we have to do right now is to change the ideology of the current Government with regard to its opposition to coal-fired generation. If that does not occur in this term perhaps the next Government to be sworn into the House will have a different opinion and will be able to move very speedily into releasing coal-fired generation across the country—because councils as a result of this legislation will not take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We consider that to be a good step in the right direction. As Mr Shirley said earlier this legislation does not condemn coal. In fact it may well make it easier— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s not listed in the renewables. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: We will discuss the renewables in just a moment. However we believe it is sensible to ask councils to take care of those things in clause 3(b)(i) and (ii) and that will result in good law for the Resource Management Act. It is crazy for us to put our heads in the sand and say that nothing is going on in respect of the climate around the world. There is some debate about whether the cause is greenhouse gas emissions and also about whether it is a cyclical thing as a result of increased heat coming from the sun. However it is caused it would be wise for councils to take into account the effects of climate change in their planning. United Future has no problem with supporting that. 
When we move to the definition of “renewable energy” we come across different terms like “solar” “wind” “hydro” “geothermal” “biomass” “tidal” “wave” and “ocean current sources”. All of those should be promoted within New Zealand to enable us to generate energy on a more sustainable and renewable basis. I agree with Mr Shirley that it is not possible for wind on its own to solve all our energy requirements. As we calculated when we were in Waitaki the other week it would take something like 5000 windmills to generate the power that Project Aqua will generate. So it is not a question of one of those things meeting all the requirements; it is a combination of all of them. In particular we hope for advancing technology in respect of tidal and wave technology that may enable us to generate electricity in a very very sustainable way. As I mentioned in my second-reading speech this is not so much about giving a leg up or giving an unfair advantage— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 National will certainly not be supporting the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting it because it undoubtedly is yet another contribution to the entangled mesh of bureaucracy that this beleaguered Labour Government has placed around the Resource Management Act. Indeed this is a desperate and beleaguered Minister—and we have evidence in the chair there; he certainly looks a sorry sight. He has been playing around undoubtedly and desperately. 
Certainly if this legislation was to bring in efficiency and was evidence-based then we would look at it. But as we go over to the purpose clause and note that it includes the requirement for local government to take notice of the effects of climate change we then have to look at the Government’s own preferred package on climate change and this is what it says about it—this is vital: “The area of climate change is uncertain. We know the world has a problem but it is unclear exactly what will happen with the climate to whom and over what time frame.” This is the Government that has put in one of the most prescriptive and onerous pieces of legislation in terms of domestic climate change policy and it will affect all New Zealanders adversely way in advance of our trading partners like Australia and America and this is the Government that is further entangling us in this mesh of bureaucracy when it admits in its own preferred policy package that absolute confusion surrounds climate change. This bill is utterly inappropriate. It is absolutely premature and it indirectly imposes all sorts of distortions on New Zealanders both at the local government level and at the national government level and it indeed is a great folly because of that. 
I think it is important to spell out to the Committee the sorts of consequences that will be imposed on ordinary New Zealanders through the Government’s preferred climate change policies. The Government has said—and it has it on its website—that petrol prices are liable to go up between 3 and 6 percent in 2008; diesel prices by 5 to 12 percent; electricity 4 to 9 percent; gas 3 to 8 percent; and coal 8 to 19 percent. That is just domestic use. Ordinary New Zealanders are simply not aware of this because the Government sort of signalled it as being in the distant future. To make it even worse the industrial costs that will be imposed on New Zealand are for electricity 6 to 16 percent; gas 9 to 24 percent; and coal 17 to 44 percent in increased charges. That will have a huge effect on the New Zealand economy. Labour has done this whilst its own preferred policy package says that confusion surrounds the whole area. It is just arrant nonsense and it is an example of a Government that is undoubtedly way out of control. In the fine electorate of Port Waikato I have two examples of where this bill will absolutely conflict in terms of sensible planning. One is New Zealand Steel. That company will go bust unless it has a negotiated Government agreement. That is a huge distortion. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is not surprising is it that the planet is in a mess when we look at the level of ignorance even among members of Parliament. It is not innocent ignorance but wilful ignorance despite the information that has been put in front of them time and time again. We heard Shane Ardern say that we have signed the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all our trading partners. It will be news to New Zealanders that we do not trade with Europe Japan and Canada any more. They do not count. People who care only about America are prepared to dismiss the rest of the world as though it does not matter. They signed the Kyoto Protocol long before us—we are playing catch up. 
Ken Shirley thinks the answer is coal. Well I guess if one does not really believe climate change is a problem at all then of course one would say to burn coal—never mind the mess it makes in every other way. The evidence for climate change is now overwhelming even if there are some uncertainties about the rate of the changes. 
It is clear now how the Minister has persuaded United Future to change its vote. It was against this legislation in the select committee and it is now for it. It is clear that United Future has been persuaded by being promised that in the next term of Parliament it can have coal just as ACT National and New Zealand First wish as well. That is a shame because it is not as Paul Hutchison said premature to get into climate-change policy; it is probably too late. It is certainly too late to prevent some of the effects and it may be too late to prevent even worse effects. 
Local government has been asking for this legislation. It wants to plan to avoid the sorts of floods and disasters that have been plaguing the lower North Island recently. Nobody can yet say that those floods were caused by climate change but there is no doubt that that kind of effect is consistent with what we can expect if climate change accelerates. Local government wants the tools to plan conservatively to prevent that kind of effect and the Ministry for the Environment has already produced substantial guidance. We do not need to wait for a national policy statement the work has been done it is there now and local government is able to use it. 
I want to propose an amendment to clause 2 because there is a bargain at the heart of this bill that may not be kept. The bargain at the heart of this bill is that the tools that regional councils have to take greenhouse emissions into account when they are considering air emissions are to be taken away in exchange for there being a national instrument which is a much more effective way of controlling them. That national instrument under Government policy will be a carbon charge in 2007. I have always been a bit concerned about the 3-year gap in-between but I am much more concerned now that it appears possible that the Kyoto Protocol will not be ratified at all. If the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified at all there will be no carbon charge there will be no national instrument and the only mechanism that exists to control greenhouse emissions will be what regional councils have been doing—and in a couple of cases quite successfully. 
Two very successful agreements have been negotiated on two new power stations to mitigate their greenhouse emissions. I believe that the coming into force of clauses 6 and 7 which remove the powers of regional councils ought to be linked in time with the coming into effect of a national instrument. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt the speaker but we are on Part 1 and she is talking about clauses 5 and 6 which are in Part 2. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that my amendment is to clause 2 which is in Part 1. That is where the “coming into force” is provided for. Therefore I need to speak to my amendment to Part 1 which is where clause 2 occurs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Maybe she might like to continue. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It is worth noting in view of the things that have been said about carbon charges and the higher prices that they will cause that the money raised by a carbon charge does not go into a black hole and disappear from the economy. It is available to pay back in tax reductions elsewhere. Green Party policy is that we would lower income tax by the amount we collected from the carbon charge. We would pay a bit more for our fuel we would pay a bit less at the bottom band of our income—not at the top as ACT would like to do—by whatever we collected from the carbon charge. That money is available to go into the economy and achieve other things. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to say very strongly that National does not support the passage of this legislation. We do not support it on a number of fronts. The first reason is that this legislation is very muddled. I believe it will bring great uncertainty into the energy sector and without doubt it will impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers as they try to come to grips with what this legislation is trying to signal. 
This bill requires councils to plan for climate change when there is huge uncertainty about its causes and effects. Jeanette Fitzsimons conveniently overlooks the fact—and she will know this—that there are 17000 eminent scientists in America alone who say that the theories that underpin global warming are flawed at best and complete rubbish at worst. How then are we to expect councils to deal with this problem with any authority when we cannot even agree about it at national level let alone an international level? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons went on to say that it is unlikely that this protocol will be ratified. Does that imply that the rest of the world is ignorant just because we view this issue differently from the Greens? I do agree with Ms Fitzsimons on this basis—I believe we are going through a period of global warming. What I am not convinced about however is to what extent this is a man-made phenomenon. Given that why would New Zealand buy into what is a global problem and not a problem of New Zealand’s making? 
It might interest this Committee to learn that New Zealand contributes 0.02 percent of all greenhouse emissions. Yet we went at it headlong to sign into this Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners—as Mr Ardern said. This Government was prepared to put the people of New Zealand at a significant disadvantage on the basis that it wanted to sign into this protocol simply for a photo opportunity. In a very cynical way the people who were going to be asked to pay for this were the farming community of New Zealand through the imposition of a tax on flatulence. That was the beginning of the U-turns that have characterised this Government over recent weeks. They have been the biggest U-turns since David first spied Goliath. 
In Part 1 of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill clause 3(a) deals with efficiency of the end use of energy. This to my mind is totally illogical. The message is that the Government does not really care how efficient one is in generating electricity but it is concerned about how one uses it. That is why this Government is promoting Project Aqua. It is not concerned about the best use of the resource; it is simply saying that it does not care how electricity is generated or what damage it does to one of our great national resources but in order to support its philosophical position it will have people sign on to Project Aqua. 
There seems to be a view that water in this country is an unlimited resource. I have news for those people. The recent report from Environment Canterbury makes it very clear that on the South Island’s east coast water is over-allocated. If that is seen as a renewable resource then I believe we are mistaken. We are going down a track that will leave New Zealand terribly exposed. I pick up Mr Shirley’s point—I believe we are heading towards a significant energy crisis in this country yet we are ignoring some of our best natural resources. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I would like to add my thoughts on this very important legislation. The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is legislation that National will not be supporting because it takes us backwards. Pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act mean that this Government captures opportunities for development. This legislation just adds another huge compliance cost and another hindrance to development to investment and to the growth of our country and our economy. 
I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made earlier by Mr Peters about clause 3 “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) talks about provisions relating to the efficiency of end use of energy the effects of climate change and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Of course nowhere in this bill does it articulate what those concepts mean. I would have thought that when one talked about the effects of climate change one would have to know what that means. We need to look at what the effects are. They have to be crystallised in an argument and articulated in such a way that when I read this bill it is very very clear what those effects mean. 
If there are effects there will be benefits—which is what the clause says. What are the benefits to be derived? If this legislation goes ahead I want to know what the benefits of it will be. Again nowhere does it say what those benefits are. When I look from a strategic point of view at cause and effect cost-benefit ratios and those sorts of analyses those are the questions I want answered. I ask the Minister of Energy who has not taken a call yet. This is an opportunity for the Minister to put his mind to those questions because not only am I asking them but also they have been raised by Mr Peters from New Zealand First. They are not questions that should be glossed over; they are important questions. They form the basis of the bill because they are found in clause 3 “Purpose”. 
I want also to mention the point raised by my colleagues about coal resources. There are 800 900 1000—I have heard even up to 1500—years of coal resources available that we could be using to provide energy. With new technology coal can now be burnt leaving clean air. What coal can do for us has been overlooked. In my electorate of Piako Solid Energy New Zealand which operates the coalmines at Huntly cannot because of the restrictions of the Resource Management Act supply coal to Genesis Power the power station right next door on the river. So what is happening? Coal is being brought in from Indonesia. It is being trucked in from the Port of Tauranga 24 hours a day. It is coming across the Kaimai Range into Matamata where I live and is being stored in a quarry just out of Matamata. The unloading of that ship is a 24-hour operation so that 48 hours later it can be on its way again. That coal comes from Indonesia while sitting on our doorstep in Huntly is Solid Energy coal that could be fuelling the Genesis power station. 
Not only that; there is a problem with the trucking of the coal. The neighbouring farmers up Taotaoroa Road where the quarry that stores the coal is have to deal with a continuous stream of vehicles 24 hours a day. They have problems with noise and dust and the trucking interferes with the way in which they operate and do business. The coal is taken from there during daylight hours between 6 in the morning and 7 at night. It is transported over to Huntly during those hours because of the requirements of the local authority resource consents and it is dumped for storage. On Monday I had a deputation from the area where the coal is to be dumped on an open stockpile at Solid Energy and already there are huge problems with noise and dust in the preparation of the site. 
So we will oppose this legislation. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 2 and substitute the following: 
2Commencement 
(1)New sections 70A and 104E come into force on the day that a national carbon charge carbon trading regime or national environmental standard to control the discharge of greenhouse gases comes into force. 
(2)All other sections come into force on the day this Act receives the Royal assent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act and transitional provisions 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 with the same level of opposition to it as I had to Part 1 although there is something that my colleagues on the centre-right might consider: if this part were to achieve its real objective—which is to find a new job for the Prime Minister off shore—then we might change our vote. It might be a good decision to make! If it were to achieve that result—which is what it is really intended to achieve—then we might support it. 
It is good to see the real Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven in the chair. Looking at that Minister who has his arm in a sling one can see what happens to the competition when there is a major reshuffle in the Labour caucus and the senior whip is promoted to a ministerial portfolio. Labour members know how to deal with the competition—that is for sure. It is called an honourable discharge—or “Labour Party politics” is probably a better term for it. 
Phil Heatley 
: Twisting their arm! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is called twisting their arms—that is right. Part 2 of this bill is the part that deals with the nonsensical silly approach that has been applied by this Government. Did anybody hear all the major contributions from Government members on the merits—or not—of Part 1? I did not hear them. Did anybody hear them? Nobody heard them. Not even the Minister of Energy took a call to explain the stupidity of this legislation to any members of the public who might be listening. After not having heard a single Government contribution on Part 1 we are now debating Part 2 and are hopeful that somebody will explain to us why we need this nonsensical legislation. 
Let us have a look at what it does. Clause 5(2) states: “Section 7 of the principal Act”—which is the Resource Management Act—“is amended by adding the following paragraphs: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.” Let us explore that for a moment and find out what the use of renewable energy might mean. The first things that happened under this Government’s leadership—under the leadership of both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Conservation—was there was a proposal to build a hydro dam on the West Coast of the South Island. The Minister said: “Nope we can’t do that—no can do. That is a very important piece of conservation land 200 hectares of gorse—we can’t flood it in any circumstances.” Then we had an energy crisis. The Minister said: “We’ve got the answer to that. We’ll burn coal.”! As my colleague said we are not even going to use our own coal of which we have gazillions of tonnes—1500 years’ worth somebody said. We are importing coal from Indonesia. We will burn that coal to get us out of an energy crisis. 
Then we come to this legislation which states that emphasis must be given to using renewable energy. If that is not an oxymoron somebody better take a big deep breath and explain to me what it is that I am missing because something seems to be missing in that equation. I know that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Energy is passionate about this. I have heard him talk about it. I am sure he will take a call and explain to me why I am so confused over the position the Government is taking in this legislation. It states that local government must take into consideration in its business the concept of renewable energy even though central government in a power crisis will use coal not hydro power—because we are not allowed to develop any more hydro dams and there are no more being developed that I know of. 
Let us have a look at that. I want to challenge one or two of the notions that were put forward by the Greens who of course support the Government in this nonsensical approach but who I notice voted against Part 1—and I congratulate them on that. United Future whose members have spent the entire time they have been in Parliament talking about this are now voting for the bill—nothing surprises me in politics any more—but the Greens to their credit did vote against Part 1 although I suspect it was for completely different ideological reasons from the ones I have just put forward. The Greens said that they would vote against it so I give them credit for doing that. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to spend very long on Part 2 because I think that Part 1 laid out all the issues in the bill. Part 1 also laid out the problems which are repeated in Part 2. Clause 5(1) amends section 7 of the principal Act by inserting paragraph (ba): “the efficiency of the end use of energy:” and I have tabled an amendment to add the words “where this is practicable.” The issue that New Zealand First has is that the limitations in Part 1 are also there throughout the whole of Part 2. The reason for my amendment is that although the use of the term “end use” is an improvement it disregards all sources of energy. New Zealand First’s problem is that along with the present Government’s haphazard fragmented approach to power generation—and there is no better evidence than what was seen by those of us who were down in Waitaki last Thursday and Friday—and with a lack of coherence in practical terms notwithstanding the fact there might be coherence in legal terms there is no provision in Part 2 for non-renewable sources such as coal. 
In fact the issue of the use of coal throughout the bill becomes a real problem. I took into account the submissions made by the relevant submitters—including Fonterra which now uses coal as a source of fuel—that modern better technology means for certain there are reduced discharges of greenhouse gases into the air when coal is used. But this bill precludes that expressly clause by clause in Part 2. 
The other issue I want to raise again despite what has been said by others in the Committee is that this bill in its legislative form will impose issues for councils. There is no mistake about that. It is not sufficient for us to be told that non-statutory guidelines are of help. They are not and those who are seated behind the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven know exactly that. A national policy statement has legal impact in effect; non-statutory guidelines have not. Therefore I say again that unless the issue is very quickly remedied to influence the final form of this bill councils will have problems. There will be differing interpretations despite the excellent work done by at least two regional councils with regard to the issue of emissions in their current regional plans. Nothing in Part 2—and I will be very pleased if the Minister can clarify the matter for me and tell me I am wrong—makes that issue clearer for practitioners of the legislation should it be passed so they can work with certainty. Worse than that if there is a lack of certainty on the part of those who have to adjudicate upon and work on resource consents then there will certainly be an added cost for those who lodge applications. 
Lastly this bill notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister in his introduction speech will have a cost-added impact. The worst part about that for the Minister in the chair is that that impact is unquantifiable at the present time because there is no policy statement. New Zealand First then does not give any support to Part 2 even though it may be seen by some as a laudable attempt on the part of the Government to address the issue of reduced emissions. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s alive. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Not only is he alive he is also very well. I assure Mr Ardern whom I saw on Sunday evening that I already had a broken bone in my hand at that time as he will recall so it has little to do with the events of this week. 
The key objectives of this bill—and I want specifically to address Mr Jim Peters’ point—are to give greater weight to the value of renewable energy and to clarify the fact that energy efficiency should be a consideration regardless of the energy source. These are prime factors in this bill. 
One reason the Labour Party will oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Peters is our belief that to meet the provision he proposes would add extra compliance costs for both applicants and local authorities. The test in clause 7 already incorporates an assessment equivalent so the amendment would then be a duplication add further complexity without any real benefit and result I am sure in later court cases around those issues. 
Ms Fitzsimons put forward a motion during the debate on Part 1 to do with the timing of two clauses in Part 2. The motion referred to new sections 70A and 104E. Because councils are choosing not to apply controls on greenhouse gas emissions now to delay the introduction of new sections 70A and 104E would result in little change. Such a delay would also result in ongoing uncertainty for councils with regard to consent applications and associated litigation costs and would potentially result in duplication of controls when the carbon charge is implemented. The introduction of these new sections will provide certainty about the role of councils. There is no policy gap in the interim and more climate change policy mechanisms are being implemented than just the carbon charge. 
I come now to one of the prime criticisms of the legislation which is that Russia has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. What happens internationally if the Kyoto Protocol falls over? New Zealand was not one of the first to sign the protocol as is often claimed. On Monday of this week I was with Genesis Power in the Wairarapa where we looked at the extension project to the wind farm it has there. It was really interesting. One thing discussed during that visit was that Meridian Energy had recently been engaged in negotiations with an entity from the Netherlands with regard to carbon credits. The Dutch—and I can speak with some authority on this issue—are not renown for putting up money ahead of time if they do not see a benefit. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol comes into force Europe is already progressing on that issue. Meridian Energy has been able to negotiate with and will be in the position of being able to sell carbon credits to the Netherlands. 
New Zealand is in the position of being able to say: “Hang on a minute. Why would countries do that?” They are doing it because they see that regardless of the cause of climate change there is climate change and a need to do something about it. That is the situation of the world we live in. We cannot prove today—at least I cannot—that climate change is a result of whatever events have occurred over the last century but we do know that climate change is definitely occurring. 
Therefore we have an obligation—and this Government recognises it—to do what we can to be part of worldwide action to ameliorate and do what we can to reduce the effects of climate change. The Dutch have recognised that and are putting their money upfront. New Zealand companies can do business with them. I am pleased to say that I sat alongside the Dutch Minister at the last International Energy Agency conference and we discussed just these matters then. The Netherlands is very serious as is Europe about this issue and I believe that the Russians will sign the protocol—but let us wait and see. In the meantime this Government is getting on with it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 certainly perpetuates the nonsense that we saw in Part 1. We heard the Minister say that climate change is happening but climate change has been happening since Adam and Eve in time immemorial as my colleague pointed out. It is of huge concern that a very intricate bureaucracy and layers of legislation are being put into the bill when this Labour Government in its preferred policy package has clearly stated that confusion surrounds the issue of climate change. I think it would be useful if the Minister took a further call—and I say good on him for taking one call—to explain to us why when the Government says that there is much confusion that the area of climate change is uncertain and that it is unclear exactly what will happen to whom and over what time frame the Government is putting in all these extraordinary things like negotiated Government agreements which distort the markets and give the wrong incentives. Why is the Government doing this when it admits that there is so little knowledge about the root cause of climate change? 
I note that in clause 5(1)(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy is referred to. Why has the Government not started doing the sort of sensible things that are being done in Europe in terms of making sure that we have efficient end use of our energy anyway—for instance with regard to motors? In Europe—the Minister has looked at what happens there—a system is in place to incentivise companies and manufacturers of motors so that if they have highly efficient motors then they get a gold star standard which is graded from levels 1 to 5. There are clear incentives to make that happen. We have an example of a company in New Zealand that has invented an energy-efficient brushless motor and is licensed to sell it in North America and all over Europe. But in New Zealand there are no incentives for companies to have that efficient end usage of energy. 
It seems absurd that the Labour Government has put into this bill an incredible framework of intricate useless bureaucracy and has not done the simple sensible things first. Instead it has forged ahead of our trading partners and we have the ridiculous situation whereby in my electorate New Zealand Steel which employs 1200 people directly and 5000 indirectly may well have to close down if the Government imposes the carbon credits that it is planning to impose. 
 Instead New Zealand Steel will get a negotiated Government agreement. That is fine. Then that company tells me that one of the most useful ways it could run its highly important plant—highly important to New Zealand—would be to use coal. The company is very prepared to use the most contemporary technology that there is but it would have no hope of getting a resource consent to do so—absolutely no hope. That is an indictment on the difficulty that this Government has put us into. On the other hand Genesis Power is planning and applying for a wind farm. Wind farms are great—absolutely great. I can see the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven with his genetic propensity—being a Dutchman—has great enthusiasm for windmills and wind farms. That is splendid. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to Paul Hutchison call for incentives for less polluting motors. Every incentive that has ever been proposed—whether it be a financial incentive through carbon charges making clean fuel more cost effective an environmental standard or whatever else it was—the National Party always opposes. So there we go; there are the incentives. That is how far we will get with them. 
It is pretty clear from what a number of members have said—and the latest is Mr Peters—that the coal industry has been doing a fantastic public relations job recently. The coal industry has been around the country persuading people there is something called clean coal and telling them it has the technology to not emit carbon dioxide. That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the world has anyone proved that coal can be burnt without ever releasing the carbon dioxide. It can be tied up for a wee while; it can be put down an oil well until it eventually bubbles out again but in terms of the long-term effects on the climate we do not yet have any way of burning coal without releasing all the carbon in the coal as carbon dioxide. We may have a way of doing that one day. When we do coal can be added to the list of clean technologies. At the moment we do not so let us forget coal and get on with what we do have. 
It is disappointing and quite worrying that the Government was not prepared to vote for my amendment to link the removal of the regional council powers with a national economic instrument. That was the genesis of the idea. The whole purpose of taking away those Resource Management Act powers was that greenhouse emissions are better controlled at the national level. That shows that the Government itself is very much in doubt now as to whether it will impose a carbon charge. It is now over 10 years since that was first tried by an environment Minister and he was knocked back in Cabinet. Simon Upton wanted to do that in the early 1990s and he could not get it through Cabinet. It remains to be seen whether anybody will ever get a carbon tax through a Cabinet. But in removing those regional council powers and putting nothing in their place we are left with nothing. 
It may be that councils are no longer looking at putting controls on greenhouse emissions but the Environment Court might well have done so. We have had three really important cases in the past. The first one was when Simon Upton called in the application for the Stratford power station and imposed carbon mitigation requirements on that power station. The fact that the then Government was kind of fooled and the requirements were written in such a way that they have not come into effect is a secondary issue. The second important case was when Greenpeace negotiated a side agreement with Contact Energy over its new gas-fired Otahuhu power station. That station has not been built but the consent is there. Greenpeace negotiated an agreement that it would not oppose the building of a new relatively clean gas-fired station if a certain amount of the very old very dirty and very inefficient New Plymouth station was closed down. That was a fair deal which had benefits for the climate. The third case was when the Environmental Defence Society had conditions put on the consent for the new Huntly gas-fired power station that effectively capped total emissions from the combination of the new and old Huntly stations so that Genesis Power could not go on saying that the new station was just to replace the less efficient old one and then continue to run both of them at full steam. So we have had three cases where the Resource Management Act has been used admittedly not as effectively as a national instrument could be used to try to control greenhouse emissions. We are now throwing that out and there is no commitment to put anything in its place. I think that is really unfortunate. 
I have seen all the arguments that the officials gave the Minister to tell the House as to why this amendment should not be supported. I saw those arguments last week and I do not agree with them. I think we can shoot holes in all of them but it is of course the Government’s right not to support the amendment. I have to ask how much longer we will take as a nation before we really do something about the biggest long-term threat to the global environment. We cannot hide behind the fact that there are still some uncertainties around how fast climate change will happen and what the exact nature of the local effects will be to avoid taking action on what is going to be a serious issue. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I know that members on the other side may think I am trying to close the debate down but I would like to make a contribution. I am supportive of the bill because contrary to the dinosaurs on the other side of the Chamber I believe that we do need to look at efficient energy. The whole South Pacific region climate change is a serious issue. I doubt that members appreciate that. We know about small island States. Most of Tuvalu a very low-lying island in the Pacific went underwater for over an hour last week. That could be attributed to the damage to our environment. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolute nonsense. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: A dinosaur like Ken Shirley wants to say “Nonsense” but the whole world acknowledges the effect of the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect on our climate as well as the pollution of the environment. The sort of air we breathe as a result of the ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide that is coming out of exhaust pipes of various kinds of traffic including thousands of cars is very damaging not only to the environment but also to the health of people. These are very important issues and this bill goes some way towards getting local authorities to acknowledge the problem. 
If people want to put their heads in the sand and ignore it they can do that all they like but certainly in our South Pacific region these are very serious issues that people will have to confront in the near future. We could see low-lying islands in the Pacific totally disappear as a result of the effect of greenhouse gases. The points that have been made by the Minister are very valid in relation to Europe. It is acknowledging the problem and getting ahead in developing renewable energy and greater efficiency in the way energy is used and that is a lesson we need to learn from the Europeans. I do not accept the large industrial nations’ arguments that we can for ever continue to burn fossil fuel and ignore the consequences. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is certainly opposed to this bill but I would like to rebut as part of this debate the comments we have heard from the Labour member who just resumed his seat. We all hear about rising sea levels as a result of climate change. That is where the United Nations model has most failed. There is no evidence to support its model. It keeps adjusting it down and down. We have 50 years of sea level records—oceanographic and tidal recordings—at Tuvalu at Honiara at Kiribati and all around the Pacific—and in the Tuvalu case Mr Field has just mentioned I invite him to go into the Proudman Institute’s website which shows 50 years of records and he will see there is no measured increase in mean sea level at all. Yet at every Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the head of Tuvalu says his island is disappearing under water and all the other heads of Government say it is terrible and it is because of climate change. I invite Mr Field to look at the science. It does not support it. 
 Sure there are tidal surges. There have been tidal surges around the Pacific for ever and small islands sometimes suffer those tidal surges. As he knows on Niue there was a hurricane where the ocean surged 35 metres upwards and smashed the hospital—which was about 200 metres inshore—to pieces off the cliff face. Those are the sorts of surges we can have. But members should not say there are sea-level rises because the evidence is not there to support it. 
I would like now to address the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven and ask him to comment on these issues. The Government did a U-turn on the “fart tax” which is related to this climate change issue—a complete flip-flop on that—when it came under pressure. It was going to close all the schools and has now announced a 5-year moratorium. A big U-turn has been done on that issue this week. The Government’s closing the gaps and race-based policies have had a big big U-turn. They are now styled “needs-based” policies even though just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that that was a racist thing to do. She is now quite happy to go down that path. 
When the Government is on the trot with all those U-turns why does it not drop the nonsense associated with this climate change legislation? It should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. It is not too late. The mantra is foolish that the Government is pursuing on that and it is trying to impose it on local government in this legislation. That will never work yet the Government persists with it. 
For goodness’ sake the Government should realise that it is down the wrong track and do another U-turn. After all it is on a roll and getting pretty good at U-turns now. So why should the Minister not go back to Cabinet? Another few Ministers have joined the Minister in the chair at Cabinet. Surely they realise that this legislation is a loser for the Government so they should do another U-turn. The country is getting used to that. We are expecting a few more U-turns now. It is getting to the stage that there is a new U-turn every day. Well this issue must be the next one on the Government’s list of U-turns. 
I urge the Government to pull out of the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. We should have never ratified it in the first place and this legislation is a consequence of that foolish adherence to that fundamentally flawed protocol. I am particularly worried about what is happening in the energy sector in this country. We should all be concerned about it. We have already heard from others in this debate about the price that is to be placed on coal—and in this legislation we are having all sorts of fast-track measures put in for the so-called renewables—but what concerns me most is the actual nationalisation occurring in the energy sector. 
One classic nonsense while legislation like this which is trying to promote renewables is brought to the House is that the Minister of Energy recently approved—and it is under construction right now—a temporary generator at Whirinaki. Thrown at that was $150 million of taxpayers’ money. It is a single-cycle gas turbine. It is actually a 747 jet engine that is fuelled on imported diesel. The idea is that $150 million of taxpayers’ money is thrown at it with the hope that it never has to be used—so that it sits idle and rusts—but if it is does ever have to be used it is the most inefficient and clumsy generation that we could ever have. 
But the Government panicked: “Oh we don’t want to go into election year facing an energy crisis so let’s do something. It doesn’t matter what. Just grab the taxpayers’ money and throw it at it.” It is a dreadful waste that is appearing at Whirinaki. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The ACT member who spoke before me loves to rail on about the Kyoto Protocol and how we need to pull out of it but he seems to be missing what is happening around him. Normally he is very aware of what is going on in the world. Even the member sitting next to him Jeanette Fitzsimons admitted in her speech earlier that the Kyoto Protocol is dead. It is very very unlikely that Russia will ratify the protocol. Therefore even though our Government has ratified it it is very unlikely it will come into force internationally and many people are already rethinking and addressing the issue of what they will do post the death of the Kyoto Protocol. I was very encouraged to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons admit that because it has taken her a long long time to come to terms with that reality. 
However apart from Kyoto it is still important for us to address the issues of the potential for climate change as I said earlier and also to not leave it up to individual councils to have to deal with greenhouse gas emissions when they come to issuing consents. United Future members are thrilled this bill actually removes the responsibility of regional councils to deal with that. It is much better handled centrally and it will enable the Government—when it gets the policy right on energy generation—to be able to cope with it on a national level instead of leaving it up to individual councils to have different things going on in different areas. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward an amendment to this bill and earlier in her speech she indicated that maybe United Future had been tricked into supporting the bill on the basis that it would ultimately become quite a pro-coal bill. But we have never had a change of mind during this process. We supported the bill in its first reading and during the select committee stage we had some concerns as we often do with legislation. We were then able to make some constructive changes to the legislation so we are now able to continue to support it. That is the function we play in this Parliament. 
But Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward her amendment and I have to say to her and to the Government really that if her amendment were to be agreed to in this bill then United Future would have to make a U-turn because it is exactly the thing we do not want to see contained within this legislation. A requirement for a national carbon charge is the very thing we do not want to see come in in New Zealand because it is anti-business. It would add costs to our businesses so United Future has always indicated that it is opposed to the imposition of any national carbon charge. 
In the absence of that carbon charge—and I think it is time perhaps that the Green member realised the wool might be getting pulled over her eyes—regional councils are no longer required to take into account greenhouse gas emissions and the field is wide open for generation of all kinds. It is true we must have generation of all kinds in New Zealand. It does not make sense for us to take one kind of generation over another. It does not make sense in this country that we import fossil fuel while we sit on a huge coal reserve that could be generating energy for us at a much cheaper cost. 
What is the effect upon our balance of payments when we import fuel to generate electricity but could be using our own resources in that regard? I have been down to the Waitaki River with the select committee recently and seen what the impact of Project Aqua could be on that river. Part of that project is driven by the ideology that will not allow other types of generation to be developed around the country so we tend to try to maximise every drop of water out of our rivers—therefore perhaps potentially doing them some serious damage. It does not make sense that we will not allow the Dobson scheme to go ahead for the sake of a small area of kahikatea at Dobson. It is a very sensible hydro scheme which we have been pushing for ever since we came into this Chamber and we will continue to do so in order for that scheme to deliver power for the West Coast a region very much in need. People pay very high prices on the West Coast for their power and transmission lines into the coast are not very reliable so it would be much better for us to generate power there. 
We will be supporting Part 2 of this bill because we believe that it provides for the things that are beneficial to New Zealand in the future. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ statements regarding the need for members of Parliament to read the facts and statistics and come to their own conclusions—simply because the Green Party is the worst party in the world for dressing down facts and spitting out spin. The Greens are very short on facts and always have been. Is it not absurd that they would have us import native timber from Fiji but not allow us to sustainably harvest our own timber from the West Coast? Is it not absurd that they would have us import coal from Indonesia burn it and send it into the lungs of our choking children but not allow us to harvest 800 years’ worth of coal in our own country? Is it not absurd that we are not allowed to use the renewable energy source of the Dobson Dam but we are allowed to put up wind turbines all over the country? They will be the first to pull them down when they are not aesthetically pleasing. 
I was amazed by the Green Party members during question time today when they were complaining about the Minister of Conservation tagging dolphins with an electronic tag that was to be picked up by satellite. In order to save the dolphin population the Department of Conservation will put a little tag into three dolphins. Sue Kedgley the Green spokesperson stood up and complained about the chainsaw that would come out of the Minister of Conservation’s boot. He was going to carve a hole in the dorsal fin of a dolphin and stick a 16-foot-long tag through the back of this fine mammal and we would track them all over the southern ocean. If we could not pick them up on the satellite we would see their blood spurt everywhere! The absurdity of it all of course is that the dolphins were to be tagged with something smaller than the size of an earring that Nandor Tanczos would wear through his belly button. It was to be picked up through the satellite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am coming to the point. Facts were not important for the Greens and facts are not important for them in this bill. Wait until there is a public outcry driven by Green Party members when they find out that the Minister of Conservation is going to electronically tag plankton. There will be a public outcry from Green Party members because they are short on facts big on fiction and they are doing that in the debate on this bill. I say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that if she really wants to protest like the protesters of old and if she really supports renewable energy she should burn her bra. That is what she should do if she really believed in it. She does not believe the spin that she puts out in this Chamber or in the community— 
Jim Peters 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was just considering the same point. I think that is quite distasteful. The member can withdraw that remark please. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Protesters of old did that all the time; there was nothing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked you to withdraw that remark. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The point is that if Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens were really sincere they would have an informed public debate. They would acknowledge the truth about global warming: the fact that much of it is immeasurable; that there is concern across all parties in this Parliament about it; and that we want an informed and practical public debate. Bringing forward legislation such as this will not fix global warming. It will not fix it in Northland in Taranaki on the West Coast in New Zealand in the South Pacific or in the rest of the world. That is why we oppose this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend clause 5(1)(ba) by adding the words “where this is practicable”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take part in the title debate. I was very pleased to see Taito Phillip Field take a call in the Committee. As I think about the title and whether it is appropriate I wonder whether for the sake of argument we can allow that his proposition is correct that global warming is a global problem. I would then put it to him that if it is a global problem surely it deserves a global solution. How can it be a global solution if the major countries around the world are not prepared to be a party to that solution? Why should New Zealand wade in and make global warming our problem when we contribute only 0.2 percent of the greenhouse emissions worldwide? 
I am thinking about the title. Maybe we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Climate Uncertainty) Bill”. I am glad to see that we have a Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven who is prepared to take a call because I have a question for him. If we allow that there are benefits to be derived from the development of renewable energy and if we really believe that the Kyoto Protocol is the solution to the problem of climate change will the cost of fixing the problem leave New Zealand better or worse off? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Better. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Will the Minister take a call and explain why he believes that? Has it been costed? Does he understand that there is a huge body of opinion that says that no matter what we do around the Kyoto Protocol—even if the whole world embraced it—it would not change the climate outcome one iota? 
 The next issue I want to put to the Minister is this: if we allow that electricity demand is growing exponentially—and it is; it is outstripping supply—what will we do when the supply has been outstripped? Would the Minister care to take a call and answer that question? What will we do when the demand outstrips the supply? That really is the issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to speak to the title. This is the title clause. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the title then should be the “Resource Management (Energy) Bill” because that really is the crux of the matter or the “Resource Management (Kyoto) Bill” because essentially that is what we are talking about. So my question to the Minister still stands. If energy is being used at a rate that outstrips supply what will we do then as a nation? Business in this country wants one thing above all else and Clayton Cosgrove knows that. The one thing that business wants more than anything else is certainty. Cost is important to business but certainty of supply is more important. That is why the title of the bill is I think a misnomer because it does not really deal with the substance or nub of that question. Would the Minister care to take a call on that? 
Maybe we can name this bill the “Resource Management (Steal Carbon Credits) Amendment Bill” because the Minister took a call—and I commend him for doing that—and waxed lyrical about some of his Dutch interests doing deals with New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not my Dutch interests—Dutch interests. I am a New Zealander. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Sorry he talked about Dutch interests doing a deal with New Zealand. I apologise to him. That was not the point I am trying to make anyway and I did not mean to offend the Minister. I am simply saying that there is a body of opinion in this country that believes that the carbon credits do not belong to the Government in the first place. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The forestry sector which Mr Cosgrove represents believes that and the farmers that he represents believe that. Maybe Mr Cosgrove should take a call and explain to them why the title of this bill is a misnomer. That issue goes to the nub of the problem. The answer that has been suggested—and again I will relate it to the title—is that maybe we should call the bill the “Resource Management (Wind) Amendment Bill”. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: That member would know. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He probably would too! The member over there on the Government benches suggests that I should know about that. Actually I do not know a lot about wind generation other than that to have a huge number of windmills dotted across the landscape of this country will not only cause huge noise pollution but will be ugly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call Mr Ardern I advise members the vote numbers were given incorrectly in the vote on Part 2. The numbers should have been Ayes 62 Noes 54. I ask that members accept that correction. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the title of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill because it is very misleading. The accurate title should be “Get Helen a New Job Overseas Bill” or “Find a Position Internationally for the Former Prime Minister of New Zealand Bill”. Another title might be the “Mislead the Public of New Zealand Then Do a U-turn Bill”. 
It was interesting to note that the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven took a call. I congratulate him on it and also the Labour member who made a contribution in the last 2½ hours as we debated the bill. Both of them are learned and both gave very sound contributions. The only problem is that nobody on this side understood what they were talking about and that absolutely says it all. 
The Minister in the chair said that through some acquaintance with some Dutch interests in energy— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No through Meridian. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —through Meridian and in discussions with some Dutch colleagues—I guess it would be fair to say—there was believed to be an opportunity for New Zealand to trade in carbon credits. I understood that is what the Minister said. The Minister is nodding so that is what he said but here is where I have a difficulty. I understood that the socialists on the other side of the House were going to nationalise the carbon credits and take them for themselves. Now I am in a huge vacuum again. Maybe the title of the bill should be “The Minority Socialist Labour Government (Once it’s Found a Job for Helen Overseas) Bill” and then the “Nationalise the Carbon Credits Bill” will trade them at the expense of Meridian or any private or State-owned company in New Zealand. That would be a much more accurate description of the bill. 
Perhaps the Minister will take another call and clear this matter up for me because clearly I am now a little perplexed about how one can trade carbon credits with Dutch interests after they have been nationalised—[ 
Interruption 
] Clearly the State can; the Government can. There is no doubt that the State can trade those carbon credits if they exist and if it can find a market for them. But how does that help private enterprise or private generation or anybody at all who is interested in investing in the energy sector other than the State? 
It might help the State but what is the State doing in the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill? I will tell members what it is doing. It is building diesel-powered generation it is building coal-powered generation and it is prohibiting the very thing that this bill stands for—renewable energy generation. If one goes down to Card Creek and looks at the Dobson Dam—200 hectares of gorse—a private entity that wants to invest and produce a hydro-power station in an area that is energy deficient and make it self-sufficient in energy on a side of the island where they have regular and reliable rainfall that is completely sustainable and could go on for 500 or 1000 years or for ever the same minority socialist Labour Government that is proposing this bill is saying: “No we’re not going to have a bar of that we’re not going to allow them to do that that is not within the precincts of what we will allow as the democratically elected Government of New Zealand”. But not for much longer; it is about to be changed. 
So the title of this bill should be the “Stop the Development of Renewable Energy Nationalise Carbon Credits and Find Helen a New Job Overseas Bill”. That would be a much more accurate description. Another title might be: “If I Can Create Enough Opportunities on the International Stage to Talk in a Whole Lot of Wiffle-waffle Socialist-type Platitudes About How I Can Save the World From all Sorts of Ills Then Somebody Overseas Might Find Me a Job Bill”. When it comes to the Prime Minister of New Zealand let us hope that comes true. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Generally I think the title of this bill is a fairly good one but I have a couple of suggestions that might make what this bill is about a little clearer. It probably could have been called the “Levelling of the Playing Field (Energy and Climate Change) Bill” because really that is what the bill attempts to do. It is not about giving a leg-up to renewable energies but rather levelling the playing field. 
It is often more difficult to get consents for renewable energy projects because they intend to be more obtrusive. They intend to have more impact upon the public and therefore there can be more objectors to them—for example windmills or wind farms. If someone is able to perfect the engineering for tidal generation it will be pretty hard to get consent for sticking something in the middle of Tauranga Harbour for example. So this bill will help to level out the playing field. 
Another title could be “It’s Definitely Not the Banning of the Coal Bill”. That is one that United Future would like because that is the truth. This bill is not about banning the opportunity for coal generation. In fact we think it might actually give some assistance to it. It could be called the “Responsible Common-sense (Energy and Climate Change) Bill”. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Before the dinner break I was just making some comments about possible alternative titles to this bill. I think I mentioned that it could have been called the “Not the Banning of Coal Bill” because clearly this bill does not restrict the use of coal as a fuel. The final suggestion I would make is that it could have been called the “Common-sense Response to Climate Change and Not the Kyoto Amendment Bill” because it is really a common-sense response to our need to take care of issues relating to climate change without going over the top and signing up to the Kyoto Protocol which is a bureaucratic nightmare. With those comments I shall end my contribution. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on behalf of New Zealand First I suggest that the bill be termed the “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill”. I wish to focus upon the words “Transitional Change” because the bill picks up on a stage when we were accustomed to traditional energy sources—when hydro coal and gas energy and more recently thermal energy were more common. In the course of recent years we have moved to more serious and concentrated thinking upon the value of wind power; we have the example of say Genesis Energy’s biogeneration plant; we have modern gas turbine stations; and particularly more recently a greater amount of thinking is taking place about the possibilities of the fossil fuel coal being used again not in its traditional sense but in a transitional way. Therefore that is an appropriate name change for the bill. 
Surely it is a transitional change bill when one takes into account the fact that alongside this bill there is—I have perhaps laboured this point but I will labour it again—no national policy statement that gives legal guidance to those who administer the Act. Until that is there this bill surely must be an incomplete answer to the energy issues and therefore it truly is a transitional change. Only when this bill in its enacted form has a national policy statement to go with it will there be some real guidance to those who would wish to operate under the bill. That includes not just councils but also those who make applications. 
I suggest that that will be even more so because with regard to this particular bill in its final form there is no established body of law. Therefore there will be uncertainty and inconsistency as to how this legislation will be applied. I strongly suggest to the Minister in the chair that until the requirements of a national policy statement are there this bill might jeopardise the ability of the Government to give effect to its energy policy. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we do not find this title helpful—particularly in 2004—with regard to the whole nature of this bill which is incomplete and transitional. We suggest that the title “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill” would be a far better title and would more completely encompass the bill’s premature stage of development. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I can say in speaking to the title that ACT opposes the title. We opposed Part 1 we opposed Part 2 we oppose the title and indeed believe it or not we will vote against and oppose the bill in its entirety. This is thoroughly bad legislation brought to this Parliament by this minority Labour-Progressive Government. It is bad legislation. 
I will not dream up fanciful names. I think the way that Parliament spends time putting up all sorts of silly titles of bills has become a bit puerile—“It’s Not the Banning of Coal Bill” which we heard from United Future and titles like that. It becomes a somewhat puerile debate and certainly beneath the dignity of an ACT MP. So I will merely address the title make the point that this is bad legislation and again call upon this Government and the Minister in the chair to do another U-turn and another flip-flop. That is becoming habitual for this Government but Mr Duynhoven would actually be doing the country a service if he were to ring up his Cabinet Ministers tonight call a special meeting of Cabinet and tell them: “No folks this is doing huge damage to the country. We’re on a loser. We should pull this bill and do a flip-flop.” 
Mr Duynhoven should also tell Cabinet Ministers that they should withdraw the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol—that fundamentally flawed nonsense that this Labour-Progressive coalition Government has committed this country to. This bill is a consequence of that. It might be dressed up with the title “Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill” but it is the first of many. We will have a raft of this sort of legislation. Local government does not know what will hit it when this bill is passed into law. It is frightful legislation. 
It is not only the climate change aspect as mentioned in the title; it is also the energy aspect as also mentioned in the title. We in this country regrettably are facing a looming energy crisis. It is just starting to dawn on many New Zealanders. I know that the business sector is hugely alarmed at the crisis that will confront this country. Possibly as early as next year—which I remind members is election year—we could be facing one of the biggest energy crises that this country has seen. If this Government is prepared to do triple backflips and U-turns when it is enjoying great economic conditions thanks to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson imagine the amount of flip-flops and U-turns it will be prepared to do when a cold draught is blowing up its majority due to bad economic conditions brownouts pensioners not being able to keep warm in winter and the power going off at 5 o’clock every night! That is the way we are heading because of foolish legislation such as this and this Government’s foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. 
The Government has already confiscated the property rights of the foresters. It has stripped them of their property rights. The Government said it wanted a trading carbon model based on the sequestration of carbon. If that were true if the Government wanted a trading mechanism it would have left the property right with the foresters so that they had something to trade; instead the Government nationalised it. Everything we see from the Government on energy is all about central control and nationalisation. That is what is leading to the crisis and it is embodied in the title of this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.