Hutchison Paul: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2317] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note the Greens were talking about how they just need action. What they do not need is chaotic action. In opposing Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill I wish to make it crystal clear that the National Party takes climate change extremely seriously. The National Party however is absolutely of the view that the legislative framework around climate change should be evidence-based should be nationally consistent and should be relevant to global efforts to diminish the anthropogenic changes that have occurred with our climate over the last few hundred years. 
Sadly the Greens and Ms Fitzsimons live in an unrealistic fantasy world. This bill is the very sort of legislation that will make the legislative framework around climate change in New Zealand which the Government has put in place even more chaotic and more of a shambles than it has already proven to be. This bill is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving meaningful nationally consistent measures in greenhouse emissions nor does it have any requirement that measures taken are evidence-based. I hope Ms Fitzsimons takes note of that. 
In 2004 the Labour Government removed the abilities of local governments to consider the effect of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases on climate change when making rules or regional plans or determining air discharge consents. The rationale was that it would be dealt with at the national level. One of the obvious reasons that it was inappropriate for local governments—of which we have about 79 or certainly over 70 in this country—to be given the powers to approve carbon dioxide emissions was that they simply do not have the resources to be able to make meaningful changes which are evidence-based to this extremely complex question of climate change. I challenge Ms Fitzsimons to name any local governments in New Zealand that really do have the resources to bring out meaningful local body changes that are going to have a global effect and are consistent with what New Zealanders as a whole do. 
The problem with the prescription of this bill is that local governments and there are over 70 of them around New Zealand are going to be doing all sorts of different things and that is entirely unrealistic. I think of my own electorate Port Waikato. I do not think it is fair that the Franklin District Council should be expected to make rules regarding New Zealand Steel which is a major employer with over 10000 jobs. That organisation is also a major energy emitter but it has been proactive in diminishing greenhouse gases and has used world’s best-practice to bring about meaningful changes to its energy emissions. I also think it is hugely unfair on any local district council like Franklin for instance to make rules about glasshouses. That industry is burgeoning and uses carbon dioxide but it is hugely important for the local economy. 
The Labour Government has proved its inability to manage climate change and Minister Hodgson has presided undoubtedly over the biggest fiscal mistake in New Zealand’s history—the billion-dollar mistake. It is highly relevant that Dr Kevin Patterson a senior scientist in the Ministry of Economic Development has spoken about this Labour Government’s chaotic policy in climate change and science. 
This bill from Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens will only add to the legislative chaos the Labour Government has laid down around climate change. It is absolutely inappropriate for this House to send the bill to the select committee. We need nationally consistent evidence-based policies that are relevant to a global effort to diminish the anthropogenic emissions that have occurred over the last 100 years.