Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11317] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not support another selective amendment to the Resource Management Act. Just over a year ago this House had the opportunity to seriously review and consider the Resource Management Act and failed to do so. We now have this amendment bill and a further one yet to come to the House that is a selective amendment of an Act that requires major review. We understand that this bill that is before us gives effect to the Government’s energy and climate change policy and the elevation of energy and climate change matters as ones of environmental and sustainable management priority. 
We acknowledge the Government’s intention. We are aware of the Act of 2000 and the strategy of 2001. However our party did not and does not support New Zealand’s participation as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol unlike the two major parties in this House. New Zealand First does not support Government and legislative bias of only renewable energy sources of power generation as this bill envisages in Part 1. 
In looking at Part 1 particularly with regard to the amended new clause 3 in relation to issues of efficiency effects and benefits there strangely lacks one major definition—that is exactly what is meant by “effects”? In the commentary the committee has stated that this is a term that is in the principle Act and need not be defined here. My first question to the Minister in the chair is: “Why did the Government not given an adequate explanation of the term ‘effects’ ”? Secondly what are the benefits? Thirdly—and probably most important for those who have to administer the Act for local authorities—where is the clear direction to local authorities on the real intention of Part 1? 
In default of a national policy statement in default of any non-statutory firm guidelines where do local authorities go with regard to this Act in their energy policies? We are aware that some councils have energy policies and some have anticipated some of the terms and the concepts in this bill but very few. This bill leaves a considerable frustration in the local authority area. There is no national policy statement in view; there is no significant non-statutory guideline or guidance with regard to the bill; and most of all and probably most important for local authorities they confuse absolutely the intention with regard to clause 3(b)(i) that the planning for this effect of climate change in their region will not be one involving ratepayer cost. I do not think that sufficient thought was given to the fact that plan changes will be needed and if not plan changes then there will certainly need to be considerable research done in order to initiate the consent process that will follow from the implementation of this bill in the future. 
The background material the scientific information and the guidance are just not there. I go back to the first reading where there was a Labour statement that a national policy statement was not needed and I refute that absolutely. Without guidance at national level this bill will not be easy to administer. 
However worst than that without national guidelines and a national policy statement we will have a disconnected state of administration council by council. This is particularly so because although in clause 4 there is an interpretation for climate change and one for renewable energy there is none that covers the cost of administering the effects and benefits of this bill. New Zealand First finds this a very strange piece of legislation and almost indicative of the haste that the Government has in other legislation as well where the intention arrives here in some bill form but the practical implementation of that is left for a further day. It is not good enough but most of all for most administering authorities it will certainly cause them some considerable disquiet.