Hutchison Paul: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7597] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party will support any vehicle that might improve the Resource Management Act. As my colleague the Hon Nick Smith said just a brief while ago the Act contains something like 240 provisions and at least 16 of those need major change. This bill is merely tinkering with the Resource Management Act and in itself is highly confused and compounds the extremely complicated situation the Labour Government has got itself into by imposing its original climate change bill on New Zealand. 
The only reason we are supporting the bill is its first stated object: “to give greater weight to the value of renewable energy and clarify that energy efficiency should be a consideration regardless of the energy source.” It goes on to state the second object: “to give greater weight to considering the effects of climate change for example addressing potential increase in flood risk a rise in average sea level and changes in typical rainfall patterns.” 
 It would be very interesting if the Minister could take a call and tell us how local government with all the scientific expertise behind it will be able to fulfil those functions of addressing potential increases in flooding risks rises in average sea level etc. I put it to the Minister that local government does not have the resources or expertise to do this and it is absolute bunkum to suggest that it might have that capacity. 
The third object of the bill states: “despite the second objective to remove climate change as a consideration when considering industrial discharges of greenhouse gases as these emissions are best addressed using a national mechanism.” What a tangled web the Labour Government has woven. It could not help itself; it has introduced the most complicated and unsound law on climate change possibly conceived by personkind. It was described by Professor Joseph as State-sanctioned trespass. New Zealand is the only country in the world that has— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: So what Professor Joseph had to say was very sound? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It was very sound but the Government has done very little about it. Just yesterday I was sent a note from a variety of owners of glasshouses in the electorate of Port Waikato. These people will be profoundly affected by the Government’s so-called national climate change mechanism and this is what they sent me: “The true impact of the proposed Kyoto initiative by the Labour Government of New Zealand.” The source of this information came from the Government website www.climatechange.govt.nz. Those people said the proposed emissions tax of $25 per tonne of carbon emissions will collect for the Government in the order of $1.2 billion in additional taxes. They say that ordinary New Zealanders will shoulder most of the new taxes simply by having to pay more for their energy. 
The Government has very cunningly got these so-called negotiated Government agreements with some of the big industries and undoubtedly some of those taxes will fall on small to medium sized businesses and the average New Zealander. I ask members to listen to what these taxes involve and these predicted figures were taken from the Government’s own website: “The tax will be collected from New Zealanders in the following increases: petrol increasing by 6 percent; diesel increasing by 12 percent; power increasing by 9 percent; gas increasing by 8 percent; and coal increasing by 19 percent.” These are the predicted taxes brought in by this Labour Government and being imposed on ordinary New Zealanders. 
Let us have a look at the increases in taxes for business. The news is far worse: “The tax will be collected as follows: petrol increasing by 6 percent; diesel increasing by 12 percent; power increasing by 16 percent; gas increasing by 24 percent; and coal increasing by a whopping 44 percent.” They go on and say—this is all based on information from the Government’s own website—that the resulting loss of competitiveness will shut down businesses both large and small throughout the country. I understand that the Minister has had something to say about that with regard to the cement industry for example. He does not seem to care. It goes on to state that cheaper imported manufactured goods sourced from non - Kyoto aligned countries like Australia USA and most of Asia will ultimately overrun those that survive the initial shock. Valuable and hard-won export markets will be lost to non-Kyoto countries. Large employers will be forced to re-evaluate and relocate to business-friendly countries like Australia. 
Only 3 weeks ago I was in Australia with the Education and Science Committee and several of the senators said to me: “Why on earth did you guys in New Zealand sign up to Kyoto?”. They said: “We are the biggest exporter of coal in the world and even if we had signed up we would still be exporting that coal to China.” In other words the emission of greenhouse gases from their activity would not have changed one iota. I understand that Genesis Power or Meridian Energy—one of them—has just negotiated an agreement to sell coal to Korea. On the one hand the Government is imposing this extraordinarily complicated system of tax gathering and on the other hand one of our companies is exporting coal to Korea. That will only add to the accumulation of greenhouse gases. It is quite an extraordinary situation. 
Let us look at what the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had to say and we see here a picture of a smiling Marian Hobbs on the front. She says: “We are also focusing on the decision-making processes for major projects and reducing time delays.” But just the other day we heard from Beca Carter that under Labour under the Resource Management Act it takes on average 8 years to plan a road. In Singapore they can do it in 2 weeks but under this Government it can take 8 years. It is getting worse. Marian Hobbs goes on to say: “On average such projects take about 24 months from the time resource consents are applied for to the Environment Court ruling.”—inevitably they end up in the Environment Court. She said that was unacceptable. We are absolutely sure it is unacceptable but she is in denial as to just how long these processes do take. 
Earlier on in the year Brian Fallow from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 quoted the Minister for the Environment Minister Marian Hobbs: “Councils will also be directed to have regard to the local effects of climate change such as rising sea levels when planning or making decisions on resource consents.” Well I want the Minister to tell us what expertise the councils have in terms of resources to be able to make rational decisions on the very effects of rising tides flood levels etc. As I understand it climate change science is extremely unpredictable. Even at best with all the mechanisms in place we are liable to get a net gain of about 3 percent but with an uncertainty of about 30 to 40 percent. That is what this Labour Government is reliant on. 
National will be looking at this bill very carefully during the select committee process but we are very concerned about the Labour Government once again compounding the difficulties that it has got New Zealand into already.