Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11325] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 with the same level of opposition to it as I had to Part 1 although there is something that my colleagues on the centre-right might consider: if this part were to achieve its real objective—which is to find a new job for the Prime Minister off shore—then we might change our vote. It might be a good decision to make! If it were to achieve that result—which is what it is really intended to achieve—then we might support it. 
It is good to see the real Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven in the chair. Looking at that Minister who has his arm in a sling one can see what happens to the competition when there is a major reshuffle in the Labour caucus and the senior whip is promoted to a ministerial portfolio. Labour members know how to deal with the competition—that is for sure. It is called an honourable discharge—or “Labour Party politics” is probably a better term for it. 
Phil Heatley 
: Twisting their arm! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is called twisting their arms—that is right. Part 2 of this bill is the part that deals with the nonsensical silly approach that has been applied by this Government. Did anybody hear all the major contributions from Government members on the merits—or not—of Part 1? I did not hear them. Did anybody hear them? Nobody heard them. Not even the Minister of Energy took a call to explain the stupidity of this legislation to any members of the public who might be listening. After not having heard a single Government contribution on Part 1 we are now debating Part 2 and are hopeful that somebody will explain to us why we need this nonsensical legislation. 
Let us have a look at what it does. Clause 5(2) states: “Section 7 of the principal Act”—which is the Resource Management Act—“is amended by adding the following paragraphs: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.” Let us explore that for a moment and find out what the use of renewable energy might mean. The first things that happened under this Government’s leadership—under the leadership of both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Conservation—was there was a proposal to build a hydro dam on the West Coast of the South Island. The Minister said: “Nope we can’t do that—no can do. That is a very important piece of conservation land 200 hectares of gorse—we can’t flood it in any circumstances.” Then we had an energy crisis. The Minister said: “We’ve got the answer to that. We’ll burn coal.”! As my colleague said we are not even going to use our own coal of which we have gazillions of tonnes—1500 years’ worth somebody said. We are importing coal from Indonesia. We will burn that coal to get us out of an energy crisis. 
Then we come to this legislation which states that emphasis must be given to using renewable energy. If that is not an oxymoron somebody better take a big deep breath and explain to me what it is that I am missing because something seems to be missing in that equation. I know that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Energy is passionate about this. I have heard him talk about it. I am sure he will take a call and explain to me why I am so confused over the position the Government is taking in this legislation. It states that local government must take into consideration in its business the concept of renewable energy even though central government in a power crisis will use coal not hydro power—because we are not allowed to develop any more hydro dams and there are no more being developed that I know of. 
Let us have a look at that. I want to challenge one or two of the notions that were put forward by the Greens who of course support the Government in this nonsensical approach but who I notice voted against Part 1—and I congratulate them on that. United Future whose members have spent the entire time they have been in Parliament talking about this are now voting for the bill—nothing surprises me in politics any more—but the Greens to their credit did vote against Part 1 although I suspect it was for completely different ideological reasons from the ones I have just put forward. The Greens said that they would vote against it so I give them credit for doing that.