Smith Nick: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16745] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National understands the frustration that the Green Party has with the lack of progress on the huge issue of climate change over the last 9 years. I remind the Labour members that when they were elected in 1999 they promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. But when the records came out for 2005 far from Labour reducing emissions by even 1 or 2 percent we found emissions had in fact gone up by 15 percent. But not to be outdone by Labour’s promise of a 20 percent reduction in emissions Helen Clark said the Government would go for a 100 percent reduction in emissions and said the Government’s programme was for there to be carbon neutrality. Yet in every area of climate change policy over the last 9 years we have seen one policy debacle after another. 
We had the energy efficiency strategy that was launched with great bells and whistles in 2001. Not only did that $100 million programme fail but the energy efficiency gains were less than those achieved in the previous 5 years when we did not have a strategy. Then there was the debacle over the animal emissions levy and the projects to reduce emissions. Another big announcement from the Government was that it would support projects that reduced emissions by tendering carbon credits but it shut that scheme down. We then had the policy initiative of a carbon tax which the Government subsequently abandoned. There was an announcement around Switch on the Sunshine where the Government was going to provide a programme to support the installation of solar water heaters but within 12 months we saw the first drop in the number of solar water heaters being installed. 
So National says to the Green Party that we understand its frustration. There has been one policy debacle after another and emissions are going through the roof as never before. Interestingly the rate at which emissions are going up by is even faster than the rate that they were going up by in the 1990s. They were going up by about 700000 tonnes a year throughout the late 1990s; on average they have been going up by over 1000000 tonnes a year in the term of this Government. 
If we take our record internationally we see that the Prime Minister is saying New Zealand is going to be a world leader on climate change. Well I went to a conference in Bali and numbers were tabled there on how much countries had increased their emissions by. Out of the 42 developed countries that had commitments under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand’s numbers were the 38th worst—the 38th worst out of 42 countries. I say to members opposite that talking about Labour being a world leader on climate change is like saying that we are going to go to the Olympics and win gold medals when we have come last in the heats right across the board in policy terms. 
Let us take another area. Labour says that we will have 90 percent renewables. Well let us look at Labour’s 9-year record. We see that 75 percent of the new electricity generation built during the term of this Labour Government has been thermal generation. In fact what is worse the Government has actually intervened in the market to build thermal stations. It put an electricity levy on every consumer of electricity in order to build a new diesel power plant at Whirinaki which is currently running at full bore. When it came to Genesis Power the Government offered to provide a Government guarantee so that the company would build a new gas-fired power station the biggest new thermal power station built since Huntly was born—the e3p. So National says that Labour's climate change record is awful and we understand why the Greens wanted to introduce this bill. 
However understanding that is one thing but making sure the legislation will work is another. Will putting provisions into the Resource Management Act—an Act that has already caused great difficulties for those who want to build new power stations—make a difference? Will it provide the sort of clear policy direction that is needed from this Parliament? National says the intent of the Greens is good but this is not the right outcome. Let me explain why that is the case. If someone wants to have another car on the road is it necessary to get a resource consent under the Resource Management Act? No. If a farmer wants to buy another cow to put on the farm thank goodness the farmer does not need to go through the bureaucracy of getting a new resource consent yet that animal adds to emissions. If somebody wants to put a gas burner in his or her home it is not necessary to get a resource consent. So why would we say that in order to manage climate change we will use the blunt and arbitrary tool of the Resource Management Act? 
What is more the reality is that this was the law from 1999-2004. So between 1991 and 2004 when what is in this bill was the law of the land did it help us to address climate change? No. It only created confusion. All that it did for the Environment Court or a commissioner when considering a consent of some sort was to leave the decision makers scratching their heads as to how they could possibly deal with an issue as big and as challenging as global warming and the huge amount of emissions. For instance if an application is made for a new dairy plant and part of it is a drier and it includes the burning of natural gas to dry the milk should the decision makers give it a tick or a cross as a consequence of making them take into account the effects of climate change? The reality of the milk plant is that the teeny-weeny amount of carbon dioxide it puts into the atmosphere would in global terms have a very minimal effect albeit that globally we do need to address the issue of climate change. So National says this bill is an arbitrary unfair provision in terms of the way we address climate change. It will have perverse effects. It did not work when this measure was there in the Resource Management Act and it is the wrong policy instrument. 
The right policy instrument for dealing with climate change—as they have in Europe as they are currently debating in many states of the United States as the Government in Australia has decided and as we have decided in New Zealand—is a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme. That is why National when the emissions trading bill was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee had several cracks at trying to advance the development of an emissions trading scheme. Why is that a better instrument? The first thing is that the core concept of a well-balanced emissions trading scheme is that it would treat emissions equally. Whether they come from a car a power station a milk-processing facility or a timber-processing facility it would treat them equally which this bill would not do. Furthermore it is our view that if we can get an emissions trading system right then it is the least-cost way to deal with the climate change issue. 
We are frustrated that for 8 years the Government opposed an emissions trading scheme and in the last year in a moment of panic it is now trying to rush through Parliament an emissions trading system that has some key flaws. The record of climate change policy shows that this work is hard. It is difficult and by rushing things we keep getting it wrong and we go backwards. That is why National says—as we said in our 10-page minority report on the emissions trading bill—that on the issue of the emissions trading scheme yes we back it but by goodness we need to take the time and the care to get it right. That is why National says that that the emissions trading legislation needs to be amended. It needs to go back to the select committee. We need to address the major concerns that have quite legitimately been raised by a number of key sectors of the New Zealand economy because with a well-balanced and well-designed emissions trading scheme we have the right framework to deal with the enormous challenge of climate change. 
This Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill is a signal of frustration from the Greens but it is not the right policy instrument for dealing with such a complex issue as climate change.