Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11052] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill for a range of reasons. But before I start on those I want to say that one of the things we learn when we are in Opposition is that if we have to get up and speak on a bill about something we do not know a lot about then we should at least try to be entertaining. What we had from both the speaker from United Future and the member for Otago—soon to be the former member for Otago—was not just non-entertaining contributions but very silly contributions. One member said: “We are going to vote in favour but we oppose almost everything that is in it.” and the other member challenged one of the previous speakers in the House on a range of issues but gave no explanation as to why he thought the way he did. 
This bill has come about as a result of socialist Governments believing they can even interfere with what happens with the climate. A Prime Minister who knows she is about to expire politically speaking goes overseas stands on a world stage and tries to find her post - prime ministerial job by signing up to ratify the Kyoto Protocol before our trading partners do thus getting herself into a bind whereby she has to come back to New Zealand and come up with a mad half-baked idea in legislation that will achieve none of the Government’s objectives. The Government had an opportunity through the reforms to the Resource Management Act to achieve most of what it wants to achieve in this bill but it completely ignored it. It did nothing. There were 12 recommended changes to the Resource Management Act in the Owen McShane report and the Government put a red pen through the whole lot. It would not adopt any of them. 
So what will this bill do? It will load on to local authorities the extra cost of consultants and a range of other experts who will be pulled in with no clarity whatsoever as to what they are trying to do because in everything that local authorities do now when it comes to issuing consent for whatever they have to take into account climate change. So what does it mean? Why does a Minister not actually stand up and explain to us in simple terms what each local authority in New Zealand—there are something like 92 when we add up the regional authorities and territorial authorities—will have to do when it comes to taking account of this legislation? They will not know. There will be huge ambiguity. They will be employing consultants and lawyers to try to wade through it and they will not be able to come up with a solution. 
It is another form of carbon tax and is just like the stupid proposal to introduce the “fart tax”. It is as mad as that and it should be voted out. That tax was pretty mad. New Zealanders saw that and walked away from it and the Government was forced to back down on it. This bill is almost in the same camp. If we go through each section of what is proposed we find out that it is about nothing more than adding a cost with absolutely no possible positive outcome to business in New Zealand. It is just another cost on all small businesses. 
If there are no clear rules and if there are no clear guidelines as to what regional and local government have to do how are they supposed to know? That is a simple question that I know the academics on the other side of the House would never want to answer because to them white can be many shades of black and vice versa. To me it is either black or white—it is that simple. 
Why does one of the members on the other side not take a call and explain to us why they think ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in the first place then introducing this legislation will actually bring about the outcome they want? How will it enhance renewable energy development? How will it do that? We had a situation recently where a hydroelectric station proposed for the South Island—in Card Creek with the Dobson dam—was turned down by a Minister on environmental grounds. That renewable energy source would have gone on generating electricity for years and years but it was turned down in the middle of an energy crisis. Now the Government has got it into its head that it needs to come up with some emergency generation and it is going to fire it with coal. How is that consistent with this legislation? How will the Government replace the Maui gasfield when it expires? It has been one of our major sources of energy over a number of years. What work is being done to find out how we will replace with renewable energy the energy that has been sourced from the Maui gasfield? 
This legislation acts as a total deterrent to any energy company that wants to develop gasfields or oil or coal. It is an absolute deterrent. Those companies will pick up this legislation and say that this Government does not want their foreign investment here that it does not want them in this country exploring options as far as energy goes and that it is going to make it hugely difficult both through the Resource Management Act and through this piece of legislation for them to achieve that goal. So why does the Government not take account of that? Why does it not say to those people overseas that it understands that they have one or two problems some of which are generated by Government regulation and that it will smooth the path so that they can invest the millions of dollars that are required by high-risk exploration for new energy sources? Why does the Government not do that? There is no answer from the other side. The reality is it does not have an answer. 
The Government has made a big mistake by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. It is time it admitted that was wrong and it is time it addressed that issue and came up with something that would be meaningful with regard to climate change. But no that would be asking for leadership from a Government that has no leadership is on the rocks and is about to expire. 
There has been a lot of talk up and down New Zealand about the discharge of greenhouse gases but nobody has been able to identify clearly exactly what is meant exactly what will be done about it and exactly how that outcome will be achieved. Nobody has been able to do that. Scientists around the world have argued about it. There is a huge amount of debate about what actually constitutes a greenhouse gas and what does not. When we start muddling around with this type of legislation—and I notice that both the ACT and National parties put in a minority report on this legislation outlining a lot of this nonsense—we have to ask ourselves—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Well when we hear that member over there the senior Government whip Mr Benson-Pope roaring away like a walrus we have to ask ourselves what that member actually knows about climate change. Obviously when we look at this legislation we can see that he knows absolutely nothing about climate change; otherwise he would stand up and make a contribution and tell us what he knows about greenhouse gas emission. The reality is he knows nothing. 
What would that member know about renewable energy? Is hydroelectricity not a renewable source of energy? It is raining on the West Coast at the moment—if the member had not noticed. If that dam had been allowed to be built it would be full. It would be spilling water in fact; the turbine would be going full bore and there would be a continual flow of renewable energy at a low cost with environmentally sound future generating capacity. But instead of accepting that the member sits there makes silly noises about other members’ contributions makes no contribution himself and presides over this legislation which is an absolute cost to those types of development. It will not achieve the outcomes it sets out to achieve it does absolutely nothing in terms of finding ways to produce renewable energy and it does nothing to assist local authorities in their roles. It just makes their lives more difficult. All it does is fund people whom that member would be opposed to—lawyers consultants. It is a “buy a new Mercedes for the consultants” piece of legislation if ever there was one. Why does that member not take a call and talk about those issues— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Because he doesn’t understand it. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is absolutely right. We need to fix the Resource Management Act. It needs to go through a major reform process. We need to bring in clear guidelines as to what local government is meant to do with regard to this issue and we need to get rid of this socialist Government to achieve it.