Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11048] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I listened with considerable interest to the Green Party member as one does in this House in her reflections on the doom-casters the prophets of doom. It is interesting to realise that the world has always had people who have predicted the end of the world: “The end of the world’s resources is just around the corner.” I guess the whalers did it 150 years ago when they thought about what they would use when they ran out of whale oil for goodness’ sake. Then somebody discovered that foul black substance that was totally ruining their water wells. The world then decided to get a few people alongside and find some new development—and up it came. They had a fantastic new resource and I have not the slightest doubt that in years to come—indeed it is already happening with hydrogen cells etc.—new energy sources will be found that the world has not even thought of at this time. 
In looking at this bill—and I am standing in here for my colleague Mr Ken Shirley who is on the Local Government and Environment Committee—I wondered about its curious timing. I ask the members of this House whether it could be that there is a major hydro development due somewhere in New Zealand. Oh my goodness me—there is one on the Waitaki River. Oh dear! Does anybody listening or any member in this House really believe that it is just some sort of coincidence that this huge scheme worth about $1.2 billion—or probably $1.5 billion or maybe even $2 billion by the time it is finished—is due? Does anybody really believe that this amendment bill is not before the House at this time to assist a Government State-owned enterprise Meridian Energy to get resource consent to build on that river? 
Surely this bill is all about forcing Project Aqua on to the public of this country whether or not they like it. I can just see some of the protesters down my way in Otago singing the song: “We don’t believe that we should be on the edge of destruction.” That is what will happen to the Waitaki River according to the protesters. I will not stand here and say Project Aqua is wrong or right because I do not have the technical detail but I do know there are 36 or maybe even 38 other sites in New Zealand that would be better utilised before the Waitaki site. There are sites right throughout this country from Hawke’s Bay to Northland where those opportunities could be used to generate renewable energy but that is not being done. Meridian Energy has decided on the Waitaki River and that project will proceed with the direct help of this bill. Project Aqua on the Waitaki River is a foregone conclusion because we are short of energy and when it comes to this Government the environment goes out the window. 
It is quite ironic that the Green Party member chairing the select committee—whatever recommendation they make—is on the one hand totally opposed to Project Aqua I am told but then on the other hand says: “We will just shut the people down in New Zealand. We will get them not to use energy and everything will be sweet.” That is just totally and utterly unrealistic. 
I agree with my colleague Mr Jim Peters who gave a very good speech I thought justifying the clean use of an old fuel resource—that is coal. If a country like Germany which is hugely concerned about environmental standards can have state-of-the-art coal fire power stations then surely we can have the same in New Zealand. We have 700 years’ supply of coal—gracious me! Some say it is a thousand years’ supply of coal if we continue to use it at the same rate. But it is horrendous to think we are using up energy to import coal from I think Singapore. How much energy are those ships using? How much energy will be used by the jet engine that will power the stand-by generation at a cost of $150 million just in case we might need it? 
We would be far better building coal fire power stations. There could be a small one in Otago I say to Mr Parker to fuel the energy needs of our growing regions like Wanaka and Queenstown. There are millions upon millions of tonnes of high-grade lignite in Otago. Southland has some of the best coal in the world—as has the West Coast—and that option is being totally ignored. Under this bill those options are being totally ignored. 
And there is another one—a thing called nuclear power. Now I know some members throw their hands up in horror but I think the public has moved on a lot further than the politicians. I think the hysteria that once was generated around nuclear power—or nuclear weapons of course—is still there in terms of weapons but in terms of nuclear power countries like France are in the vicinity of being 75 to 80 percent reliant on it. It is one of the cleanest fuels in that sense. With the concerns the Green Party are expressing about carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere nuclear power becomes a very viable alternative. So why will we not at least discuss it? It is not even in the ballpark and I think that is an absolute shame. 
New Zealanders will pay for this policy—not the Government not the regional councils but New Zealanders. That is superannuitants families and whoever else will pay the increased cost of electricity—and they are paying today. Many people are upset about the level of increase there has been in just relatively recent times. Not so very long ago while on a plane by chance I spoke to a representative of Delta Utility Services. I said that it seemed to me the cost of electricity in this country would double within the next 10 years and he said: “No it will not. It will treble.” That came from a representative of the electricity lines company and I think they have some idea about those sorts of cost structures. Electricity costs will probably treble according to that representative. 
So why are we going to impose on ourselves a carbon tax? I am asking a rhetorical question I guess but why impose a tax on ourselves when we do not have to? We do not have to impose a carbon tax—in fact we should never think about doing such a thing because we will lose a lot of our competitive advantage. Being 1200 miles away from Australia—just out at the end of the road and not so very far away—and having the European markets and the United States 12000 miles away there are high energy costs we will have to pay for. So why would we impose on ourselves an energy tax? This Government is like some sort of energy dominatrix who seems to think that pain and paying more and more for electricity is good for us. I say again that our competitive advantage is the rain that comes out of the sky and the coal that is in the ground. We must use that advantage. 
I finally say to the Greens and to those who believe in this concept they call global warming that nobody has ever explained what it was that caused global warming when the Vikings raped pillaged and plundered their way around the world. They called Greenland “green” because it was green. Grapes grew in the north of Scotland in the time when Robin Hood ran around Sherwood Forest in short pants—in the Middle Ages. Gracious me! Was it ICI synthetic petrol plants and the industrial revolution that caused global warming in those times? Well my history must be totally skewed. In fact it was one of the best times according to historians for human species on this Earth; it was mild and pleasant. There was global warming back in the Middle Ages. What caused it at that time? The Green Party representative does not choose to answer that. What caused drought in Southland? It is the same thing that causes drought in Otago and everywhere else every 10 or 20 years—just sunspots and a few other physical features.