Roy Eric: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Eric: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6121] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am happy to make a contribution on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. National believes that this is an area where we have had considerable mixed messages and impractical solutions from the Government. We will be supporting this legislation but we give notice that we want to bring in a number of amendments at the Committee stage. Let me talk firstly about the mixed messages then I will spend some time addressing the impracticalities of the proposed solutions and then I will talk about some of the decisions that could flow from that. 
Government members say we must enact this legislation yet New Zealand’s own performance on climate change under the stewardship of the Labour-led coalition has been such that we are performing much worse than the other countries that the Government has held up to ridicule such as Australia and the USA. In fact we are doing three and four times worse than those other countries. 
Then there is our internal policy. We have a Government that says yes it buys into the issue of climate change and that it is an important and a crucial issue. I agree that climate change is an issue that we have to deal with. If members look at this bill they will see some provisions around protecting forestry rights as a way forward—and yes we all acknowledge the sequestration of greenhouse gases particularly carbon dioxide into forestry sinks. But the Government’s biggest farmer Landcorp has cleared 25000 hectares in the central North Island. The process has not stopped there. Other speculators have said there is an opportunity with the leadership the Government has given to redevelop land for dairying or other land uses. So that process does not stop just with the 25000 hectares cleared by Landcorp. That is the first big mixed message from the Government. 
Then there is the Government’s performance in renewable energy. What has it done? It has quashed the Dobson dam project Project Aqua the Tuapeka dam project and any other opportunity that has been out there. Yes there has been a little investment in wind farms but not a great lot. There has been no real promotion of other forms of renewable energy. The Government has stepped up production from coal-fired generators so we have gone into thermal energy whereby we are adding to the greenhouse gas emissions. That is the second mixed message from the Government. 
At the same time as the Government is making noises internationally that climate change is an important issue the Prime Minister came to Southland and said that New Zealand’s future needs for electricity would be met by burning lignite in Southland. Well I have news for her: I do not think that is a good idea and the people of Southland have some other ideas about what lignite can be used for in Southland as well. Again that is another indication that the Government does not have a plan that will actually deliver what it is promising to the international community. 
I have just come from a presentation by Rio Tinto Aluminium—well the Tiwai Point plant is still called New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. I just look at what that company has done. It is a working example of what can happen with the right kind of stimulus. The company has not had that from the Government; it has got it from its international connections and the need to produce a product that shows it is doing something. In the last 15 years it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. Yes the company is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases in New Zealand. I do not know what the figure is but I would suggest that it is around 15 to 18 percent of all greenhouse gases in New Zealand. So the Government will get its beady eye on that plant and say: “Ha ha! We need to close this down and then we will look good internationally.” Because we have had so many other mixed messages I do not trust the Government not to be thinking about doing that particularly because that would release some electricity to be available for other users and the Government has not had a plan for electricity. 
It is a matter of fact that out of the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point for every tonne of aluminium that is produced there are two tonnes of greenhouse gases. The Government would say that that is horrible—that it is terrible—but I ask members to wait. You see when we pick up and settle ourselves into a Kyoto agreement that excludes China India Singapore the Philippines and wherever else that is the nonsense and the mixed message this Government is giving. The Tiwai Point smelter produces 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases per tonne of aluminium produced but there are 18 or maybe now 19 smelters in China—I do not know the number because it is a growing feast—and over there nine tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced. So if we closed the aluminium smelter at Bluff an idea that I am sure has crossed the fertile mind of the Labour Government in order to look good internationally the slack will be picked up by a much dirtier less progressive smelter somewhere in China. 
We should be supporting aluminium production and I will tell members why we should. Even though two tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced for every tonne of aluminium produced at Tiwai Point the payback in the transport industry is multiplied by 20. If we put 100 kilograms of aluminium into a vehicle and reduce its weight so that in its lifetime the payback is times 20 we will get two tonnes back for every 100 kilograms. So one tonne of aluminium will give back 20 tonnes when invested in the transport industry. 
We must stop giving mixed messages to New Zealand. The year 2005 was the worst-ever year for forestry in New Zealand. The Government has been talking of sequestration into forest carbon banks and for the first time in perhaps four or five decades there has been less planting than harvesting. 
Jacqui Dean 
: 46 years. 
ERIC ROY 
: There we go—nearly 50 years. Why has that happened? It has happened because of mixed messages. The Government has said it will not give people a future they can bank on so people are out there harvesting their trees. They are cutting their trees down and there is no incentive for them to replant. I know and I accept that there is changing land use and that other viabilities are out there but the key factor has been that there is no blueprint we can hold on to. There is a mixed— 
Colin King 
: No leadership. 
ERIC ROY 
: The member for Kaikoura Colin King is absolutely right. There is no leadership. All that we are getting is mixed messages and we say that this bill gives us a variety of mixed messages. 
We had the Government look at our forests and at what members thought were our carbon credits. The Government said: “Ha ha! There are about 500 million or 600 million—terrific! That will look good on the balance sheet; that will let us buy another election; we can add that to the $11.5 billion. Oh boy what can we buy with that?”. But I say: “Ah ha—it is a billion-dollar bungle.” because in actual fact the calculation was wrong. That is another reason why buying into that Kyoto thing was a very very silly idea. 
Darren Hughes 
: Rubbish! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well absolute rubbish! The member is quite right; it was a rubbish thing to do. It was rubbish for all sorts of reasons. The member wants to create a world bureaucracy but who will get the job of counting the carbon credits in Russia? Russia said that hey it was not entering into the Kyoto Protocol then it went and recalculated its number to get 36 billion tonnes or some colossal number so that it could then go out and say that it was in credit. So of course it signed the protocol. But who is going to go and audit that process? 
We need to have clear messages about a way forward. Yes I accept and National accepts that we should be doing our part— 
Darren Hughes 
: This speech is not a clear message. 
ERIC ROY 
: I know the member is interested; I can see him paying attention. But we actually need to have a clear message. We need to have something that is not a placebo or platitude but is something that will actually deliver. Kyoto is nothing more than a talkfest. We need to take responsibility here we need to work in international forums and we need to include countries like China India Singapore and the Philippines which are not now included. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will the member answer a question? 
ERIC ROY 
: Unless the member accepts that responsibility anything we do here will shift dirty industries to countries that are not included in that protocol. 
We say that this bill is a small step but we want the Government to give some leadership on climate change. We are keen to be involved and we want to see a practical solution. We want to see some clarity around the rules that are out there and we want to see New Zealand buying into a future that is sustainable.