Smith Nick: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11041] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This confused muddled bill is nothing more than a triumph for political correctness over sound policy. I do want to acknowledge the effective job that the chair and my fellow members of the Local Government and Environment Committee did in trying to make something of this mess. But I want to set out where the Government’s policy in this area is so confused and uncertain. This bill compounds the dumb decisions that have already been made by the Government in respect of climate change. It adds to the huge uncertainty that we already have in the Resource Management Act and it dumps on to councils yet another responsibility and on to ratepayers yet another cost for no good reason. This bill is not good for the environment. It will not be of any help in dealing with the approaching energy crisis and it will damage New Zealand’s growth prospects. It is just another plank in this Government’s flawed approach to the issue of climate change. 
Most New Zealanders realise it was a huge error of the Labour Government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all of our major trading partners and that is an issue of some controversy. The Government has promised that in 2007 it is going to oppose— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Who signed the original agreement? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We did—after Canada Australia and the United States. Our position is quite consistent I tell that member. I would like him or the Minister to explain why Labour chose to take that action. Furthermore I want the Minister to explain to the House how it is in New Zealand’s interests to impose a carbon tax on all New Zealand fuel users energy users etc. when no such tax is going to be imposed on such users in the United States and Australia or by our major trading partners. That carbon tax—and I understand that Government members want to tax anything that moves plus some others—is a major threat to the growth of our nation. 
Then we bring on top of that the silly provisions that are contained in this bill. Let us go through and look at some of those. We see clause 3 will require every single council in New Zealand to plan for the effects of climate change. Well! 
Hon Members 
: Wow! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am reminded of that wonderful quote from the Minister Pete Hodgson who said it was the Government’s responsibility to provide a stable climate for the people of New Zealand. Well I bet there will be a few people in the Manawatu and Rangitikei areas who want a cash-in from Mr Hodgson—the weather has not been very stable for the last 4 weeks. The global climate has not been very stable for the last 10 years the last 100 years the last 1000 years nor the last 10000 years and I am not quite sure just why this Government believes it can somehow promise stability. We know the history of the global climate. We know for instance that in the 1700s the climate was substantially colder. There was a mini - ice age. We know that in the 1300s the climate was substantially warmer. We know there was a warm period. 
There is huge uncertainty about climate change. It is very interesting that all the information that is provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change refers to scenarios but the Government refers to predictions. The Government gives a level of certainty to the science around climate change that simply is not there—and now it is going to require all 92 of New Zealand’s local authorities up and down the country to plan for something that even the international scientists have difficulty working out. It is a dream for consultants. We all know that consultants will be employed by every council up and down New Zealand and that the costs will be passed on to the poor old ratepayer. We ask given that even scientists cannot accurately predict the effects of climate change on a global level how the poor old Rangitikei District Council or our small authorities will be able to predict and plan for it. It is a nonsense. 
I come now to the provisions in this bill about energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is one of those things like motherhood and apple pie. One has to be in favour of energy efficiency. But this bill has holes in it that we could drive a bus through. What is absolutely significant is that the bill says that people have to have energy efficiency for the end use of energy—for the end use. Let us see what that means. That means that if a person wants to build a huge coal-fired power station and applies for resource consent the council need not have any regard at all as to whether that person is efficiently using the coal—that is outside the scope of the bill. If a person wants to produce an inefficient hydro or geothermal scheme that wastes huge amounts of energy there is no problem. The Government does not seem to be concerned with that. But if one has a small business that is building a factory then the council can crawl its fingers all over that person to make sure that he or she is energy efficient because of that definition and the inclusion of the words stating that this bill will affect only “the end use of energy”. 
We all heard the Minister for Small Business John Tamihere getting stuck into business around New Zealand last week and proclaiming himself to be the great advocate for small business. Well where is that Minister? Where is he in terms of debating this bill? The provisions of this bill put an imposition on the end users of energy and those users will predominantly be small businesses. Yet the generators who are to be exempt from these energy-efficiency requirements will be mainly big businesses. That says something about the double standards of the Government the illogicality of its policy and its lack of true commitment to do anything for small business. 
Then there is the argument about the intent of what the Government is trying to achieve with this bill. I have pointed out for instance that if a person wants to get a consent for a house a farm shed or a small factory that person will now have council officials crawling all over him or her about the issue of whether that dwelling or building is energy efficient. There is an argument about energy efficiency but primarily that is for the business owner to determine. Of course a person building a house a factory or whatever other type of building will be concerned about those issues—and so he or she should be. But why have council bureaucrats crawling all over people and telling them what they think are the best ways in which people can use energy efficiently in their resource consent proposals? That is particularly anomalous when companies such as BP the Marsden Point oil refinery Contact Energy and the State’s four energy companies will be completely exempt from those requirements—that is nuts. 
National and ACT have strongly opposed this bill because there is a fundamental flaw in it: one would think that there is no such thing as a market. Under this bill one would think that there is no such thing as anybody buying electricity or paying for it. We will have a bunch of planners and stickybeak bureaucrats getting into the whole argument about efficient energy use rather than using market tools. It is National’s view that there is a very valid argument for this House to have about ensuring that the pricing of all forms of energy reflects the true costs. So it should. That is a good argument to have and we are happy to have it. What we do not want is another confused Resource Management Amendment bill that just adds to the hotchpotch and the uncertainty. That is such an important issue. 
The issues of energy the environment and the economy are absolutely pivotal for this country’s success but we will not make progress on them with these sorts of muddled ad hoc bills. We had the Resource Management Amendment Bill last year and that changed some of the rules. We have another bill—the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill—which is going to create another special set of rules in one catchment of New Zealand. And now we have another hotchpotch bill that states that energy efficiency is important for some people but not for others and we are to have a whole bunch of council bureaucrats getting into the climate change argument. 
I simply say to Government members that we need a clear policy and a comprehensive approach. We do not need more piecemeal resource management bills. I say to this House that we should reject this bill and do a comprehensive reform of the Resource Management Act so that we can get the sort of law that will provide for New Zealand’s economic development and for the proper protection of our environment.