Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11331] 
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.