Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11044] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 This selective small bill before us is interesting because just over a year ago some members of the House took very seriously an amendment of the Resource Management Act—unlike the Government. Today this is one of two bills before the House—one shortly to be debated—that are again selective amendments to the major Resource Management Act. Neither take into account or reconcile—and this one particularly—the purpose of the Resource Management Act and neither give the direction that the Act ought to give with regard to these matters. 
In the case of New Zealand First this particular small bill is one that we utterly reject because unlike National and Labour we do not give any assent or confidence to the Kyoto Protocol. In a day and age in which first the United States and Australia and shortly Russia are about to firmly veto any part in the Kyoto Protocol—in the words of a recent  
Time 
 article it is a “dead duck”—why is our Government pursuing some first aims: to be first in the world at high cost to our economy particularly with regard to the resolution of the energy crisis that we are about to face? We are facing an emerging shortage of electricity. We are at a very critical stage in this country. We need to have a secure and stable energy supply. The bill refers to energy conservation and energy efficiency but it is not even a mid-term—and certainly not a long-term—solution to that problem because unfortunately it misses out on a major possible solution to our problem which is the modern effective use of coal. 
Our party therefore strongly opposes the bill. We believe it is an inadequate answer to the issues before us with regard to energy supply. Our stance was supported by a number of submitters. We turn to the narrative and what does it state under “Purpose”? “The purpose of the bill is to … give effect to the Government’s climate change and energy policies”—such as they are. “The bill recognises the Government’s preference for national co-ordination of controls” and I will come back to that shortly. It further states that it requires that “persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act have particular regard to the effects of climate change the benefits of efficient energy use and the benefits of renewable energy.” 
I come back to the statements made by one of the members of the committee—and I will be interested to see United Future’s stance subsequently in the debate because I concur absolutely—that: “Given the high degree of uncertainty surrounding all projections based on the science of climate change stronger guidance from central government is needed to assist local authorities in planning for the potential effects of climate change.” Unlike what the last speaker said local authorities will do that and could do that if there is guidance. Unfortunately that has not been given at all. 
If we skim through the bill in the way that Dr Smith did we see there is a lack of real guidance to local authorities. I do not believe at all that local authorities would wish to have anything other than firm direction and I therefore suggest that the Government stop the wishy-washy approach that the Minister enunciated in his opening speech in the first reading when he said in effect that there was a case for national policy standards but that they should wait. In the course of the bill’s consideration we heard further that there were no plans to give national policy statements with regard to the matters inherent in it—not at all. So we have as Dr Smith has already said a very confused bill. It might not be confusing to the Government but I can assure members that it will be confusing to those people who unfortunately have to consider applications and more important have to consider lodging applications. There is no consistency to give them guidance. There is no purpose to give them guidance. To that degree it will not be a helpful feature in our economy. 
Who would not support the idea of more efficient energy use? With regard to the bill’s intention to give effect to the Government’s climate change and energy policies I suggest very strongly that this House ought to give further consideration to the impact of the modern technology that is available for the use of coal for generation. I cannot conceive—and I spoke recently about these matters with people involved in electrical supply authorities—why we have turned aside so quickly and so easily from serious consideration of the modern coal industry. There are numerous examples. Just over 1400 miles from here in Australia there are modern technologies where pollutants are not an issue any more. In Victoria they are almost right down to every conceivable use of the by-products of coal generation. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: CO². 
JIM PETERS 
: And that as well. This country has generous coal reserves. There is no energy crisis. But for some obtuse reason the Government and those who advise it are standing aside from any further development of our coal resource. Instead we have a haphazard piecemeal approach— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No. 
JIM PETERS 
: —it is—to the issue of energy. The upsides are no problem any more and any further development and research would show that exactly. Instead we do not give encouragement in this country to those who favour the use of coal for energy at all. So we are not likely to ever get to the state of the advanced technologies that are used in Australia and Europe which could be available here. By the way last year the future source for dealing with any likely shortage this year would have been coal. We use coal in its ancient form really when before us— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It’s imported. 
JIM PETERS 
: As the member said imported coal when before us is the ability instead to be progressive and to pick up the whole nature of coal burning in its modern sense. 
We have a small bill which is piecemeal. It is a small bill that does not incorporate I believe—and I will develop this theme further in the Committee stage—the actual reconciling of the principal Act to this minor bill that is before us. 
In conclusion New Zealand First does not support the selective amendment of the Resource Management Act which is an effects-based Act—and this bill is not. We do not support legislative and Government bias of only one or another renewable energy source and generation. We do not support what will be a costly impost upon the community as we look to this and other energy sources as constrained and limited by the bill. We believe very strongly that there must be if this bill is to work a national policy statement. We do not want some loose ideas that will give to local authorities the very result that Dr Smith envisages could happen. Instead we need firm and consistent guidelines for all applicants—as I said earlier—for all administrators of the bill and not least for regional planning so that those can be incorporated into regional plans for the future. There is a very strong case for an affordable energy source rather than the costly one being admitted and developed in this bill. That source is coal. We do not support the further reading of this bill.