Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7592] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I say at the outset that I had made up my mind while sitting and listening to the debate that I was not going to be drawn into the debate about farmers and the flatulence tax which has nothing to do with this bill but the member for Invercargill Mark Peck has given me a golden opportunity to stand here as one of the very few farmers in this House and lash out at the Government over it. I congratulate him on that; I intend to do so. 
When I was farming I used often to ask how far academics would go to make their theses fit the facts and if ever I needed an example of that this would be it—both the flatulence tax and the amendment in this bill. During the extensive select committee process on the resource management legislation the National Party brought forward 18 recommended changes only to have this Government rule out the whole lot. Meridian Energy a State-owned enterprise—the Government’s own energy company—brought forward 18 recommended changes to the Resource Management Act only to have all of them ruled out. We are now here in this House debating legislation that will do none of those things. The only reason the National Party is supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee is that we want those people to have an opportunity to bring forward again some of those recommendations. We have the naive hope that this time round the Government will take some notice of what those people have to say but I do not think it will. 
That brings me to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol which we have gone through in recent times. It is nothing more than an opportunity for the No. 1 academic the Prime Minister of New Zealand to stand on the world stage and promote her credentials as somebody worthy of employment post her being Prime Minister. I would go as far as to say that being Prime Minister of New Zealand no longer provides her with enough academic stimulation and she is looking for her next job which will be an international role somewhere or other. 
That brings us to the stupid situation we find ourselves in now where we have an idiotic tax on farmers being promoted. It is just a pure snatch-and-grab tax. It is put out there under the guise that it somehow will support research and development of ruminant efficiency. What an absolute lot of nonsense! Right at the moment the primary production sector of this country—and members opposite should listen to this—spends more on research and development of this very topic than anybody else does including the Government. Farmers are already funding research in this area. 
The member for Invercargill Mark Peck talked about how the polluters should pay and he is dead right; the polluters should pay and we should start right in the place where the problem exists: the city. The city of Invercargill would be a good place to start where there is total environmental devastation and more problems than— 
Mark Peck 
: This is great  
Hansard 
. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Maybe the member opposite will take a call and tell me whether the construction and expansion of cities on our rural farmland is devastation of the environment. Perhaps he can tell me that. 
In the case of the flatulence tax does the member opposite believe that polluters should pay? Yes or no? If he does believe that is he suggesting that the farmers of New Zealand and the farmers of his electorate are the polluters? If he is suggesting that he should turn up at one of those meetings—and he has thrown down the challenge to do so—and tell the farmers that they are the polluters. The very group of people who have provided this Government with the wherewithal to carry out its social engineering policies of the last 4 years are now the victims of this vindictive little tax. 
It is interesting to note that the member opposite touched on farmers having a drop in their payouts from $5.30 to $3.62 without making a whimper. That just shows how out of touch he is. He clearly has not been reading the rural newspapers—that is for sure—and he certainly has not been attending any of the meetings that Fonterra has held. If the member had been attending them he would know how much trouble this Government is going to be in as a result of that drop in farmers’ income—income that this Government has successfully taxed with its 17 new taxes. 
Let us come back to the bill for a moment. There are 16 amendments proposed by the National Party and this legislation addresses none of them. So what is it for? What will it actually achieve? Let us have a look at what is happening out there in the energy sector. We have a situation where there are a large number of proposed hydro developments—sustainable renewable energy developments—and where are they? They have been held up in the resource consent process or they are being denied the opportunity to proceed because the Minister of Conservation says that 200 hectares of gorse is of significant conservation value. The Minister of Energy says the Government is going to put emergency generation in place. Well that is an interesting concept. What will it use? My understanding is that it is going to burn coal. How does that assist in improving our greenhouse gas emission status? What will that do to decrease greenhouse gases? 
Let us have a look at what some of the major industries have to say. Methanex in the Taranaki - King Country electorate has said to me: “Apply any more of these stupid taxes on us and we will go off shore. We will go to Australia.” What will that result in in terms of the Kyoto Protocol? It is most likely that it will produce less methanol which will mean that China or some such country will meet the vacuum producing it from coal. How does that contribute to our decreasing our total emissions of greenhouse gases as a member of the world community? One of the members opposite might take a call and explain to me how that helps matters. 
The Minister might take a call and tell us whether this emergency generation capacity is going to be from coal-fired power stations from oil-fired power stations from wind power or from hydro power. I would like to know the answer to that. I bet the Minister will not answer it because I know that it will be from coal-fired power stations or some other non-renewable energy source. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: That’s right. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: There we go. The Minister has admitted that that is the case. At the end of the day how is that consistent with the Kyoto Protocol and the whole issue that this debate is about? I just ask members opposite to reflect on that. 
I also ask members opposite to reflect on the notion that somehow or other the science around methane emission from animals is robust because I have seen no evidence anywhere that it is robust. For every scientist who says that methane emission from animals provides 50 percent of the problem we have in New Zealand there are other scientists who argue that that is absolute nonsense. Maybe the member for Invercargill Mark Peck will take a call and explain to us where his facts have come from because the reality is the science is suspect. It does not stand up. There is no real evidence. 
I have a question for the Minister for Mr Peck for the member for Whanganui or for whoever wants to take a call: what is the carbon sink value of the increased pasture that we have grown over the last 12 years since the 1991 convention signing? What is the value of the carbon sinks produced by the farming sector in New Zealand from the increased pasture production that we have had in that time? Somebody could take a call and tell me that. I am sure everybody knows. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That’s why the rural sector doesn’t mind paying its way. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Do members know what stupid argument is being put up in response to that from the likes of that urban-based whip over there who would not know a farm if he fell over one? They say the pasture is grazed off every 30 days. Do we not cut down pine trees every 25 years? What is the basis for that assertion? [ 
Interruption 
] Why does the member not get up and take a call instead of bellowing out from the other side of the House like a walrus in rut? Why does the member not take a call and tell us how this is substantiated? 
The fact is the science is not robust and there is no evidence to back up this stupid claim. Farmers already invest the highest amount of anyone in research and development of ruminant efficiency. This Government’s argument has no legitimacy at all.