Carter David: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11055] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Can I take the opportunity of assuring the Labour member Taito Phillip Field that most New Zealanders do not understand our commitments to the Kyoto Protocol. I think it is amazing that we are standing here tonight debating the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill on the very evening that the lower half of the North Island has experienced the most severe flooding in living memory. Farmers have lost livestock buildings and fences. Their very livelihoods have been destroyed. One hears scientists all around the world saying that the sorts of events we have witnessed over the last 24 hours here in New Zealand are occurring because the climate is changing. 
It is interesting to note that when the east coast of the North and South Islands experienced drought conditions through the latter part of this summer the same scientists again said that that was because of climate change. As a politician I am not sure about this climate change story. I read a huge amount of information about it. We now have credible scientists on both sides of the fence. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s not right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That man ought to study some literature and he would find that some very— 
David Benson-Pope 
: You should study some— 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I tell Mr Benson-Pope that he should do more than read comics. He would find that some very credible scientists are saying they are no longer sure of climate change and its effect. 
But regardless of that what we have seen is that New Zealand has accepted the word of some self-appointed experts in this regard and has rushed headlong and as fast as anybody else in the Southern Hemisphere into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. In fact I can think of no other country in the Southern Hemisphere that has ratified the protocol and has a commitment to reducing emissions. It is certainly not Australia our major trading partner; certainly not the United States of America our next major trading partner; and certainly not countries such as Singapore a country that is now wealthier on a per capita basis than New Zealand is—it was only in 1964 that we used to give foreign aid to countries such as Singapore—and certainly not a country such as China which is perhaps one of the most significant emitters of greenhouse gases today. Those four countries I have just named do not have any commitments at all as New Zealand rushes headlong into its commitment to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. 
As we move towards the next general election one has to place some credence on the arguments advanced as we approached the last election that Helen Clark was very keen to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In fact she had planned to ratify the protocol on the world stage in September 2002 at an international conference so that she could get maximum exposure to the world. I do not know whether she is already looking for her new job; I suspect she is. There is a suggestion that she has her eye on the job of Secretary-General to the United Nations when Mr Kofi Annan retires. But if that was her reasoning for rushing New Zealand headlong into a commitment to the protocol then I think she may well have done this country a huge disservice. 
I think back to 2001 in this House and during question time over a period of about a couple of weeks when Helen Clark regularly promised that she had a programme to lift the economic growth of this country back into the top half of the OECD within 10 years. I noticed that one or two Labour members acknowledged that that was her statement to this House. Then very quickly when she realised how hard it was to deliver the sort of economic growth to New Zealand that was required to lift us back into the top half of the OECD she abandoned that target completely. 
As we debate the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill I ask members to keep those comments in mind. I suspect that this is the sort of legislation that will create more compliance costs for our regional councils as they are now expected to consider emissions under greenhouse gas policies when granting resource consents. 
The most interesting comment I heard tonight in the debate was from Mr Baldock of United Future. He stood before this House and gave a 10-minute speech stating that United Future continued to oppose New Zealand’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol yet it would vote for this legislation. That is exactly what the United Future member said. That is exactly United Future’s policy. United Future opposes New Zealand’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol but tonight in the House the United Future member said it will vote for this particular legislation which is part of a package of legislative measures being advanced through Parliament because New Zealand has ratified the protocol. 
Stephen Franks 
: So talk is free and votes are for sale! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well that could be the case. But I just ask members to reflect on the logic of somebody coming to the House tonight to say that he or she opposes the principles behind the legislation yet intends to vote for it. 
This bill is just political correctness gone mad. It is legislation that is difficult for business to comply with. That is why the great raft of submissions before the select committee were from people who had an interest in this legislation because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of it. We recently had a press release from Don Elder the Chief Executive Officer of Solid Energy pointing out that as we face another year—another winter—when this country may well be short of energy there is a solution on the West Coast. Various estimates suggest that the coal resources there would be enough for this country’s energy requirements for 800 years. But this legislation simply eliminates the possibility of New Zealand considering the use of that energy. 
We have had two energy crises since the Labour Government has been in power. There have been no attempts at all by the Government to address those crises. It has a “hope and pray” attitude as to whether the lake reserves will be enough to get us through the next winter. That is not what governance is all about. This country will require more energy. The economy as noted in an interjection earlier from Mr Benson-Pope has grown quite well over the past 4 years. 
That growth means the energy requirements of the country have also continued to grow. We know of only one major project on the books—Project Aqua—and that is the only project that will make a significant difference to energy generation in this country over the foreseeable future. 
Sandra Goudie 
: The Dobson Dam facility. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes as Sandra Goudie correctly suggests there is the Dobson Dam facility but that has been stopped by the Minister of Conservation Chris Carter who does not want to see the destruction of another plot of gorse and broom. 
I oppose this bill for a raft of reasons as outlined tonight. The most important of those reasons is that again this legislation does absolutely nothing to advance the long-term growth rate of this country. The bill does nothing to deliver aspirations to many many New Zealanders. It may be about Helen Clark looking for her next job in the United Nations because God help us she certainly knows she needs it.