JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is particularly timely that this bill has its first reading today, as after 2 days the largest international conference on climate change that New Zealand has ever seen ends today at Te Papa in Wellington. The conference comprises some 400 people with a whole raft of prestigious international speakers, and we have heard over and over again from those at the conference that the science of climate change is no longer in doubt. At least, there is no longer debate about whether climate change is happening, about whether it is serious and urgent, and about whether it is humans who are causing it. The debate now is about how fast it is going and how much time we have to turn it round. The climate doubters have essentially been silenced, and we need to move together as humanity to take some action.

We have heard about the much faster than predicted melting of the polar ice caps. We have heard about the faster warming of the ocean. We have heard that the ocean is getting more acidic, and that that is attacking the ability of organisms at the base of the marine food chain to form calcium carbonate for their shells. We have heard about the slowing of the Gulf Stream that keeps Western Europe habitable and prevents it from freezing over. We have heard about the loss of biodiversity that will occur as climates warm and species have nowhere else to go. This is the most serious matter facing humanity at the moment.

We have also heard speaker after speaker, including the Rt Hon Simon Upton, who used to be Minister for the Environment, say that a carbon charge would be the simplest, the most effective, and the fairest way of putting a price signal on carbon in order to change behaviour. But we are not going to have a carbon tax in the near future.

Therefore, I am bringing forward this very simple amendment to the Resource Management Act. It repeals a 2004 amendment that took away the power of regional councils to consider the effects of an activity on climate change when granting consents or setting rules in plans. The reason at the time was that a carbon charge was proposed as the centrepiece of the Government’s 2002 climate change package to control carbon emissions at a national level. Everyone agreed at the time that having a national economic instrument was the best way to do that, and therefore the select committee agreed with those changes.

A carbon charge would have set a price for carbon across the whole economy. It would have made energy efficiency and renewable energy more cost-effective, and it would have provided a disincentive to burn fossil fuels and to use energy inefficiently when there were alternatives. It would have encouraged wind, it would have encouraged wood and other forms of biomass, and it would have encouraged insulation of homes, solar water heating, and all the rest.

However, in December the proposal for a carbon tax was abandoned. The effect is that we now have a policy vacuum, so there is nowhere the climate-changing effects of burning fossil fuels in a new power station, for example, can be considered. It is very difficult now to consider carbon emissions from a new coal or gas-burning plant, at all. That is a gaping hole in climate policy, and it must be filled.

I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee when it considered the amendment bill in 2003 and 2004. I strongly supported the fact that the bill inserted into section 7 of the principal Act, as matters to which decision makers had to have particular regard, the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. That was the primary purpose of the amendment, and I supported it. So I will now be referring this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee again, although I am no longer a member of that committee, to consider—given that we have no carbon charge—whether that decision should be reversed.

I had concern at the time that the removal of the powers of regional councils should be linked to the coming into force of the carbon charge itself. I could see, even then, that there were a number of situations in which the carbon charge might never happen. One situation would have been if the Kyoto Protocol had not been ratified. At that stage we were still waiting to see whether Russia would ratify, and without Russia we were not going to have a treaty. Another situation would have been that Labour might not have won the election, in which case we were told that the carbon charge policy would be reversed. The third one, which I did not think about much at the time, was that Labour itself might change its decision to have a carbon charge—and that of course is what happened.

I was sufficiently concerned about that in the Committee stage to move an amendment to clause 2, that new sections 70A and 104E should come into force on the day that a national carbon charge, carbon-trading regime, or national environmental standard to control the discharge of greenhouse gases came into force. That amendment was defeated in the Committee.

Unlike most amendments to the Resource Management Act, we know exactly what the effects of this amendment will be, because it will simply take us back to the way the Act was before 2004, and we have had a few examples of what happens in practice. In 1993 there was an application for a Taranaki combined-cycle power plant, which would burn natural gas and produce considerable greenhouse gas emissions. The Rt Hon Simon Upton, the Minister for the Environment at the time, used his call-in powers under the Resource Management Act and called in the proposal. The application was heard by a board of inquiry, which imposed carbon mitigation obligations on that plant. It was a very complex formula and the trigger for the formula was never met, but the intention of the conditions was that the owners of that plant would have to plant trees to absorb the carbon the plant emitted. That was one effect of the Resource Management Act as it stood at that time. In 2001 Genesis Power was granted consent for a new Huntly combined-cycle, gas-fired power station on the same site as its current coal-fired power station, which is old, on the condition—and this was the result of submissions made at the time—that carbon dioxide emissions from the old and new stations combined did not exceed a certain level. That meant, effectively, that the new station had, to some extent, to back out an older, less efficient, and dirtier station.

It is probable that neither of those requirements for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions would be legally possible as the Act stands today. That was tested last year with Mighty River Power’s application to convert the Marsden B old oil-fired plant—which has never run—to coal. Marsden B is a 20-year-old station. It is ancient technology, and the very best efficiency it can achieve when converted to coal is 34 percent efficiency. That is a very high level of greenhouse gas emissions for every unit of electricity generated, and submitters argued both the high carbon emissions and the effect on climate change in their submissions. But section 104E in the Act, as it stands now, states: “When considering an application … a consent authority must not have regard to the effects of such a discharge on climate change, except to the extent that the use and development of renewable energy enables a reduction in the discharge into air of greenhouse gases, …”—whatever that means.

So the 2004 amendment Act prevented the council from having regard to the effects of greenhouse gas discharges on climate change, except to the extent that the use and development of renewable energy would enable a reduction in the discharge of greenhouse gases. The focus on renewable energy is still there, but it is clear now that section 104E and also—for rules and plans—section 70A are too restrictive in light of the decision to drop the carbon charge.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : In the House this afternoon I want to recite the little ditty “ten green bottles, whenever they shall fall” to illustrate just how shambolic this Government’s climate change policies are. Environmentalists say it is a mess, business says it is a mess, and even Government-friendly commentators like Rod Oram say it is a mess. This week we even had Dr Kevin Patterson, a senior Government official, resigning because it is such a mess. National was tempted to support the bill because Parliament probably will have to clean up the Government’s mess, but the bill actually goes in exactly the wrong direction. Tony Blair, who was in New Zealand today, has said—quite rightly—that climate change requires a global response because it is a global issue. Yet this bill says we will make councils responsible individually for this huge issue of global change.

I want to illustrate the nonsense of the Government’s policies. People will recall that back in June 2003 the Government announced an animal emissions levy—my green bottle No. 1. It did not last 4 months. The Government was going to charge 72c for every cow, but that little green bottle did happily fall.

Then we had the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues saying we should not worry, because $500 million of carbon credits was available to us if we went ahead and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Well, we all know that that little green bottle went crashing into the deck.

Then the Government announced with great proclamation its energy efficiency target. It said that within a period of 10 years there would be a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency. It also acknowledged that, without doing anything at all, it expected improvement of between 0.5 percent and 1 percent per year. Well, we are 5 years down the road and, as the select committee found out, it has not made an iota of difference. We have seen only a 2 percent improvement in 5 years, which is less than what the Government said we would have if nothing occurred at all, and the Government has abandoned its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy of 20 percent over 10 years.

Then we had the Government’s bold renewable energy target. The Government said that under its climate change policy it would get 30 petajoules of extra renewable energy over 10 years. It also said we would get 1.5 petajoules per year by doing nothing. We are halfway down the track—and how much do we have? We have 4 petajoules, out of the 30 promised—which is less than what was to be achieved by doing business as usual—and the Government has managed to abandon that little green bottle, as well. It has gone down the tube.

Then we had the big daddy—the carbon tax. The Government announced 3 years ago that the linchpin of its climate change policy would be a carbon tax. Well, we all know that went up in a ball of flames, as well. That was No. 5 bottle down the tube.

Then we had the policy to get rid of emissions from big industrial producers. We had the negotiated greenhouse agreements, where the Government would sit down and talk with big industry players. But, of course, that policy was totally predicated on the carbon tax. Why would any industry negotiate a greenhouse agreement if it were not for the fact of a carbon tax? In fact, those that have signed the greenhouse agreements are now saying they want an out, because the Government has abandoned the carbon tax. So our sixth little green bottle, on negotiated greenhouse agreements, has gone down the tube.

Then we have the projects for reducing emissions, where the Government has tendered surplus credits so that we can encourage reduced emissions. But that policy too has had to be abandoned, because there are no surplus emissions to tender. So bottle No. 7 is down the tube.

Then we had the overall target. The Government said its overall policy goal in 2002 was that we would stabilise emissions by 2012, yet the Minister said in the House yesterday that that was quite unachievable in the overall policy goal. There is another little green bottle down the tube.

Then we have the 10 percent forestry cap. The Government said it would stop 10 percent of deforestation, which was a substantive part of the climate change argument. Now it has accepted that that goal has turned to pickle and it has abandoned its 10 percent forestry cap. Little green bottle No. 9 falls over.

Then we have this bill, and this bill is truly remarkable. The Government introduced and passed legislation only 2 years ago to take climate change out of the Resource Management Act, and today it is voting for a bill to put it back in again. So bottle No. 10 falls over. What is so hideous is how the Government can expect there to be any credibility for its climate change policies when it introduces and passes legislation to remove climate change policy from the Resource Management Act and, 2 years later, votes for a bill to put it back in. Is it any wonder that every commentator across the board, environmental and economic, at the conference being held less than a kilometre away is saying the Government’s policies are a mess? We on this side of the House do take climate change seriously. The Government has made a farce of that policy and it is a mess.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) : Most members of this House accept that climate change is a serious threat to the future of this planet. Obviously, after the discussions at question time today, I would want to except Dr Brash from that generalisation. But I think we would all acknowledge that what changes we will face in our future daily lives, and how they occur, are at this point unknown. This Government is no different from any other Government in its effort to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in as many effective ways as possible. It is a huge pity that the National Party of today does not show the leadership Simon Upton displayed around these vital issues in the 1990s. I also note that the discussions we are having here right now are the inevitable consequence of this Parliament failing to support a carbon charging regime.

As Minister for the Environment responsible for the Resource Management Act, it is my belief that this Government and local bodies acting under that Act play a key role in effecting useful change in this country. We would all acknowledge that climate change is a very complex issue, and I fully acknowledge, alongside the Green Party’s co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, that the roles and responsibilities given to councils can be instrumental in how we might seek to reverse the greenhouse effect. In 2004 the Government amended the Resource Management Act to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions were to be managed at a local level. That amendment removed the ability of regional councils to consider climate change effects from point sources. Then, however, there was to have been a carbon tax. As Ms Fitzsimons recently stated, this fundamental change has promoted this amendment bill, and I quote her words: “Now that the proposed carbon charge has been cancelled, it is essential to pass this bill and restore the power of local government to control pollution.”

Members of this House may be aware that the Resource Management Act already contains express provision to manage greenhouse gases. When the Government made the amendments in 2004, national environmental standards were seen as a way of dealing with greenhouse gases, and the standard for landfill gases is an example of how those standards have since been applied. However, I acknowledge that a national environmental standard of this nature would require a gestation period of some time for development. In the meantime, a number of applications could be made for greenhouse discharges, which, as Ms Fitzsimons has noted, include the likes of coal-fired power stations at Marsden Point that gain consent with there being no ability to consider effects on climate change.

As Minister for the Environment I support the continuation of the policy that provides for local authorities to play a role in decisions about this area. Nevertheless, the question for the House surrounding this issue is whether this is achieved best through a national approach or—as this bill seeks to do—by regional councils considering the effects of climate change on a case by case basis. A consistent approach as to how one regional council might set limits compared with another elsewhere in the country is, I believe, fundamental to a fair and equitable economy.

The effect of this bill will allow regional councils to consider climate change impacts when determining discharge consents in their own regions, irrespective of whether a national environmental standard has been made, and it may still be necessary that a national approach to limits is called for if disparities between regions were, in that event, to occur. This Government has recently embarked on a scoping exercise of this nature with a number of infrastructure-related topics, alongside the changes made to the Resource Management Act last year. A national approach that delivers consistency throughout the country is central to this work. I believe that the select committee will need to be mindful of the need to ensure that national consistency will occur in order to give our economic drivers some cognisance.

One thing is clear: the existing policy reflected in the Resource Management Act supports the role of local authorities, and also the role of the Government, in influencing people’s actions directly and indirectly. The Greens’ co-leader’s view that the power of local government to control pollution is one important step towards reversing climate change can be taken further. For example, how carelessly we use our private cars on our road networks within the design of our cities is just as important. At this point we do not know whether any form of carbon charge will influence how business works and how things we take for granted will change. We do not yet know what a national energy strategy may state; these matters are yet to be debated and implemented.

New Zealand’s contribution to climate change, while small in comparison with international standards, in no way absolves us of our international responsibility. This Government and the role of regional councils can have a major impact on these emissions. The policy behind this bill is not a significant shift from how the Act currently operates. The devolved system of governance in the resource consent process is an effective way of influencing actions that directly mitigate the effects of climate change, and the challenge facing councils in achieving this in a consistent manner will be ongoing.

Mr Deputy Speaker and members of the House, the Government is supportive of any effort to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in as many effective ways as possible. In summary, we support this member’s bill going to the select committee. I look forward to the outcome of that select committee process on what is a most complex but very urgent issue.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : Unfortunately, New Zealand First members will not be able to support this member’s bill, and it is not because we are unaware of the concerns relating to climate change, or any of those sorts of things. We are looking at bill after bill, waiting for a solution to come to the fore. New Zealand First members have said on a number of occasions that we favour a regime within this country. We do not favour a carbon tax or carbon credits going to other countries. We do not think those measures would be good for our country. We share the view held by America and Australia, which is that not joining an international regime does not mean we cannot do something about climate change or carbon emissions in our own country. So, unfortunately, we will not be able to support the bill.

We have always said that New Zealand should not have signed the Kyoto Protocol ahead of its trading partners, because that puts New Zealanders at a disadvantage in the international markets—and that is unfortunate and sad. Jeanette Fitzsimons, a lady whom I admire immensely, has said that even Simon Upton was in favour of a carbon tax. I was Simon Upton’s electorate chairman for a number of years and know the man rather well. I admire his brain and his ideas, but I do not—and even Simon would know this—admire his practical application of those ideas. I think this is the problem surrounding climate change; we have not as yet come to a workable solution.

I for one am not alarmed by the number of tries Governments have had. I think there will be many more experiments, shall we say—I just hope they are not expensive—before we actually come to a solution that will make a difference internationally and that New Zealanders can latch on to, and say: “Yes, that is a sensible solution. We will sign up to that. We will obey the laws that are put in place surrounding that, and we will put our hearts and souls behind it.” That has not become apparent at this point and, as I said, we are looking forward to the day when that happens.

Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I both know that humanity has a habit of going to the edge of the cliff before it looks at other solutions. So it is with fossil fuels and all those sorts of things. I believe that the technology is out there now but that it will not be implemented until the cheaper options of fossil fuels have either run out or the day they become too expensive in the market naturally arrives. I do not believe that we should be making them falsely expensive by putting on taxes—in this case carbon taxes—or whatever else.

I cannot sit down without mentioning that we do not think it is a good idea to palm off tricky situations from central government into the hands of local government, and we see an element of that in this bill. We do not think that is fair or right, and if a solution is to be found, let it be found here in Parliament, where everybody is represented. Let us not palm it off to local bodies so that they have to pick up the responsibility for something we have shied away from.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. References to our physical world—our environment—are made in speeches on our marae throughout the country every day. For example, we say: e haunui ana i raro, e hari ana i runga, it is blowing below, but the sky above is clear; and e hoki ki tō maunga kia purea ai koe e ngā hau a Tawhirimatea, return to your mountain to be cleansed by the winds of Tawhirimatea.

The Māori Party is pleased that the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill is having its first reading in the House today, for it is one bill that, again, forces this Parliament to really come to terms with global concerns. It is an issue that tangata whenua can provide significant expertise in, given our intimate association with the world around us. Traditional Māori knowledge of weather and climate, and of associated activities such as gardening and fishing, guide us on how we understand climate variations. In the days of our tūpuna the scarcity of food resources brought about by environmental factors such as major climate changes meant that they had to define greater areas of land for crop growing. Changes in tangata whenua practices and customs that interact strongly with the climate are a key to future planning. We must build on this knowledge at both central government and local government levels if we are to act responsibly to protect and nurture Papatūanuku as she provides protection, stability, and security through whenua; tūrangawaewae for her offspring.

This bill reinstates the ability of local government to consider the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change when considering applications for air discharge consents. The Māori Party asks who better to ask about weather than the local weather watchers. The National Climate Centre in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has just completed a pilot programme that describes the expertise of local Māori weather watchers. The project describes the local environment knowledge of the weather and climates of two tribal areas, Ngāti Pare in the Coromondel, and Te Whānau-a-Apanui in my electorate in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. According to the research there are three key strands to the knowledge: the naming and classification of local weather and climate phenomena, the oral recording of weather and climate-based events and trends, and the use of environmental indicators to forecast weather and climate.

The first strand is a fascinating area—one can learn about all of the different understandings tangata whenua have developed about climatic features. Given that the sky is a little bit grey today, let us look at rain. We have ua kōwhai, spring showers; pūroro, hard-driving rain; āwhā, severe rain; ua, light rain; kohukohutere, light misty rain; and tōmairangi, dewdrop rain, to name but a few. Our people used extensive knowledge of the local climate, the wind direction, the rainfall patterns, and the seasonal patterns to help them make decisions about the timing, safety, and viability of their activities.

We are happy to support this bill through to the select committee as we believe tackling climate change requires action at all levels. We call on this House to honour the history and expertise of tangata whenua in developing strategies to achieve change. There must be active engagement with mana whenua in decision making in their rohe, and we hope that the submissions will provide clarity on this and on the ways in which the Resource Management Act can be strengthened to ensure effective representation. We all need to look critically at climate change and generate solutions that are determined by the people. Most global warming over the last 150 years is attributable to human activity—not UFOs or supernatural occurrences, but real, live people. Accordingly, real, live people will protect us with the answers.

Government should initiate proactive research strategies to achieve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce vehicle emissions. At the local government level we can achieve change through transport and land use planning in order to encourage reduced emissions from motor vehicles. The Māori Party is committed to assisting whānau and hapū, as tangata tiaki, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. We need to take action on all fronts—the Kyoto Protocol, carbon tax, and in our homes. To set the record straight, I say that the Government failed to formally approach the Māori Party before cancelling out on the discussion around carbon tax. We need to note that in this House today.

The climate change will impact on Māori in diverse ways. The resources most vulnerable to future climate change are likely to include coastal areas, land in eastern areas already prone to drought, some Māori lands, and indigenous species. The point of all of this is that tangata whenua can be part of the planning for the climate change, using our experiences and knowledge that we have gained through periods of time and over the generations.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I begin by congratulating Jeanette Fitzsimons on being successful in the ballot. It is always a buzz when one’s bill is drawn, particularly in this new MMP environment where a bill coming out of the ballot has the very real possibility of becoming the law of the land, if we get the various alliances right under our MMP system. It is an example of MMP at work, if one likes, and it is a great environment to be in.

I guess I have looked at this bill from the big picture point of view, rather than getting down to the minutiae. After all, this is a first reading, and it is good to look at the big picture. The first question I have asked myself is whether the Resource Management Act as it stands is rather too restrictive, or not restrictive enough. Quite clearly, in my view, the answer has to be that it is presently too restrictive. When the House was debating the previous amendment to the Resource Management Act in 2005 I remember the Hon David Benson-Pope saying that it represented a work in progress and that the Government would be prepared to revisit it as various problems emerged.

Looking at that big picture, I have to say that I believe the Act is still too restrictive. That view is reinforced by the fact that I recently had to obtain a resource consent here in Wellington to build a fence of 5.25 metres on my boundary. The resource application was as if I was building a block of flats. I had to pay 540 bucks upfront and so far my fence is only half built. One of the things that we are therefore being overprescriptive about is not giving enough scope in the Resource Management Act for people to apply common sense. Without going into details, members should believe me when I say that anyone who had come along and looked at it could have made the decision in 5 seconds that it was fine in terms of the Resource Management Act. I mean, I could have paid the city council $80 to look at what I wanted to do, and where, and it would have found it was fine. But we are stuck with this very, very tightly regulated regime.

Other members of my family have had similar experiences, as have my friends. There are literally thousands and thousands of Kiwis who have had experiences with the Resource Management Act and found the process far, far too prescriptive and sort of nanny State. There needs to be a bit more room for common sense.

The second problem I see and I think it is quite a serious problem for New Zealanders, is that we are increasingly becoming risk-averse. We are trying to create some sort of idealised society where nobody takes any risks any longer. My worry is that if we keep going down that track, eventually we will smother and even extinguish that get-up-and-go, can-do, entrepreneurial, number eight wire creative spirit, which is the very thing that made our nation great in the first place.

I could give many, many examples. However, I shall take members through one example related to coastal permits. It is possible that the bill may result in a local authority denying somebody the right to build, say, a bach on a coastal section on the basis that, as a result of climate change in a few years’ time, part of that section might be washed away. Let us say it could be in 15 years’ time, or an indefinite period; no one could say exactly when it would be. In one sense that seems reasonable, so let us not allow a person to build there. However, it is possible that the individual may say: “But actually if I get 15 years of fantastic holidays with my family in this bach, that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.” I think we should let people make those kinds of decisions, without becoming too prescriptive.

United Future will support the first reading and referral to the select committee. I say to the people of New Zealand: “Please come along to the committee and have your say.” We need to hear those views, and that is why New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee. But I signal that our support cannot be guaranteed beyond that stage. We will carefully follow the process in the committee and when that is complete we will decide about our future support of the bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I think it is important to point out, before I begin my speech proper, that this bill is not about building fences. It is not about coastal permits. It is not even about the Resource Management Act so much. This bill is simply about provision for air discharge consents. Frankly, one does not need an air charge consent when one decides to build a bach on the coast. But we appreciate the support from members in the House and from United Future.

The science is unequivocal; carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher now than they have been in the last 650,000 years. The West Antarctic ice sheet is breaking up at an unprecedented rate. The Gulf Stream—the warm current that maintains the climate of Western Europe—has weakened by 30 percent. The gradual melting of the tundra in Siberia and Canada has started to release thawed methane from the swamps. Human activity in the last 200 years will render our planet much more hostile for our whānau in the next 200 years. We can protect our children and their children if we simply choose to take action now.

There are always those who choose to run from a problem rather than face it, and the consequences are usually limited. But when political parties, and even Governments, do this, the impacts are major and affect not only the people of a nation, but the very future of that nation. Even Mr Blair thinks so. I was very disappointed to hear Nick Smith’s contribution to this debate. He simply reiterated a litany of complaints and offered not one single solution, idea, or option for what we might do in the future. I certainly hope that he looks at the Green Party document and position, and really works with other parties and with us to find better solutions to these problems.

National would be very wise to take to heart the comments of its former member and Minister, Simon Upton, who said during the Climate Change and Business Conference that a carbon tax would be the most effective tool to reduce greenhouse gases, and that all parties should review their rejection of it. Despite being a blunt tool—I am happy to accept that—the carbon tax was at least a well-thought-through measure to deal with this international crisis.

This bill today is another carefully thought through, practical measure that is absolutely necessary in our country. It is a good example of how small changes can have long-term, significant, positive effects. This bill gives local communities a little more opportunity to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions at a local level. It puts solutions in the hands of the communities. This is critical, because the only means to protect our country from the impacts of climate change is for us to establish a structural framework that encourages local communities and individuals to take personal responsibility and take personal action immediately.

My co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, has set out in detail the nature of the bill and how it will be so effective for this country. I just want to briefly discuss the Green Party document Turn Down the Heat, where we have set out over 60 separate practical measures to enable community and individual responsibility. For example, if we could introduce a “feebate” system that would link registration price to fuel efficiency in cars, people would be incentivised to purchase more fuel-efficient cars where they can. If more money was allocated to quality and timely public transport, people would not need to use their cars every day and would be able to choose sensible cost-effective alternatives.

Domestic electricity demand is rocketing in this country. The adoption of time-of-use electricity metering and smart metering would mean that citizens could better facilitate the management of their domestic energy use, helping to reduce energy demand. If we could build economies of scale to increase the affordability of solar water heating by using the Government’s ability to bulk tender, people could install solar water heating units, reducing both their electricity bills and energy demand as well. If the building code review could be sped up a little, we would enable better house insulation, damp-proofing, and efficient heating for our people today. We could upgrade the efficiency of street lighting to show and demonstrate local government’s commitment to these changes.

All of these things can be done right now. They do not need investment. They do not need research and development. They do not need more reports. They just need action. This Parliament and Government can take action and put those measures in place now. This bill will be a significant step for our country. I urge the House to support it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I note the Greens were talking about how they just need action. What they do not need is chaotic action. In opposing Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill I wish to make it crystal clear that the National Party takes climate change extremely seriously. The National Party, however, is absolutely of the view that the legislative framework around climate change should be evidence-based, should be nationally consistent, and should be relevant to global efforts to diminish the anthropogenic changes that have occurred with our climate over the last few hundred years.

Sadly, the Greens and Ms Fitzsimons live in an unrealistic fantasy world. This bill is the very sort of legislation that will make the legislative framework around climate change in New Zealand, which the Government has put in place, even more chaotic and more of a shambles than it has already proven to be. This bill is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving meaningful, nationally consistent measures in greenhouse emissions, nor does it have any requirement that measures taken are evidence-based. I hope Ms Fitzsimons takes note of that.

In 2004 the Labour Government removed the abilities of local governments to consider the effect of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases on climate change, when making rules or regional plans or determining air discharge consents. The rationale was that it would be dealt with at the national level. One of the obvious reasons that it was inappropriate for local governments—of which we have about 79, or certainly over 70, in this country—to be given the powers to approve carbon dioxide emissions was that they simply do not have the resources to be able to make meaningful changes, which are evidence-based, to this extremely complex question of climate change. I challenge Ms Fitzsimons to name any local governments in New Zealand that really do have the resources to bring out meaningful, local body changes that are going to have a global effect and are consistent with what New Zealanders, as a whole, do.

The problem with the prescription of this bill is that local governments, and there are over 70 of them around New Zealand, are going to be doing all sorts of different things, and that is entirely unrealistic. I think of my own electorate, Port Waikato. I do not think it is fair that the Franklin District Council should be expected to make rules regarding New Zealand Steel, which is a major employer with over 10,000 jobs. That organisation is also a major energy emitter, but it has been proactive in diminishing greenhouse gases and has used world’s best-practice to bring about meaningful changes to its energy emissions. I also think it is hugely unfair on any local district council, like Franklin, for instance, to make rules about glasshouses. That industry is burgeoning and uses carbon dioxide but it is hugely important for the local economy.

The Labour Government has proved its inability to manage climate change and Minister Hodgson has presided, undoubtedly, over the biggest fiscal mistake in New Zealand’s history—the billion-dollar mistake. It is highly relevant that Dr Kevin Patterson, a senior scientist in the Ministry of Economic Development, has spoken about this Labour Government’s chaotic policy in climate change and science.

This bill from Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens will only add to the legislative chaos the Labour Government has laid down around climate change. It is absolutely inappropriate for this House to send the bill to the select committee. We need nationally consistent, evidence-based policies that are relevant to a global effort to diminish the anthropogenic emissions that have occurred over the last 100 years.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : It is entirely appropriate that we are debating Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill during the week of the climate change conference. We certainly need more debate on the issues of climate change. The Local Government and Environment Committee had a briefing last week. It illustrated absolutely empirically that change is real and evident now. We all understood at the select committee that climate change is real and upon us. We looked at the emissions that are evident in our country now and having a very real impact by causing floods and other changes. Of our total emissions, our agricultural emissions make up over 49 percent, transport 18 percent, and industry 5.3 percent. We cannot ignore those gross emitters—we must do something about them.

We sit in quite an interesting state of being 55th in the world for total greenhouse gas emissions. It is not such a good place to be, but it is nothing like the big three: the United States, China, and Europe. We have to play our part, and I think New Zealand does so. I take exception to the comments of the member opposite who said we have made a giant mistake. In fact, some international experts have acknowledged the work of Minister Pete Hodgson on the international stage, so when we are negotiating international instruments we can hold our heads really high. There will be a review of the Kyoto Protocol in May of this year in Bonn.

Climate change is a very serious challenge. To have a domestic focus is not easy, and I agree that it has to be nationally consistent. We learnt there is no one single solution. We need a really broad and balanced approach to how we manage climate change, and whatever mechanism we come up with, and we will hear more about that after May of this year, has to be effective, economically and technologically feasible—and that involves science providing new solutions—fair and equitable, and cost-efficient. So we need to make progress on significant greenhouse gas reductions, and we are aiming to be on a downward path by 2012.

I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons on the bill. We need to be doing everything possible to look at how we achieve that downward trend by 2012. We also need to look at some different approaches—it is a dynamic process. The Minister announced that there will be a review. Several work programmes are under review at the moment, and those papers will be in Cabinet by June of this year. The review will involve all sectors: energy, forestry, transport, the carbon market—and which mechanisms we use for trading on the carbon market—and agriculture. We cannot sit here and do nothing, and I applaud the fact that Ms Fitzsimons has brought a bill to the House. It may not be perfect, but I really do support it going to the select committee.

We have to look at our revised position on climate change, and it is yet to be announced. But the question that arises from the bill concerns whether we do so through a national approach, as a member opposite, Dr Paul Hutchison, said—which we are attempting to do with the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality and the National Energy Strategy—or whether we allow regional councils to do so through Resource Management Act mechanisms. I think that is what we will learn when we hear submissions on the bill. I look forward to that, and I hope the bill comes to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : There is room for one more speech on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill, and I would certainly like to make a few comments. I think it does not matter who is speaking about climate change or in what forum: one needs to know what that person’s attitude is to climate change. Am I worried about climate change? No, I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it. That is my position. If we understand the absolute fragility of the atmospheric balance, and the nature of ocean currents and what is actually happening in the combustion of fossil fuels, I am terrified. That is my position. However, I am opposed to this bill, which is why I take this call. I want to clarify that stance.

This bill will not fix the problem. There is what I call the delusion and the danger of the placebo. We tell ourselves we are doing things that will fix the problem, but in actual fact they will not, and perhaps we are doing them to score brownie points internationally. I believe that Jeanette Fitzsimons is sincere and is trying to do what she can in the absence of a national and an international strategy that works. She is saying: “Let’s start here.”, but I say that that argument is fraught with mistakes.

I say the bill will not work for this reason. Let us look at the kind of effort that is going into the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. Category 1 countries are the only ones talking about doing something—and they are falling like flies—and the rest of the world, which has the greatest potential to increase greenhouse gas emissions, is not captured even by the desire to be at the table talking about the situation let alone the desire to do anything. So we have a mishmash internationally, and this bill does the same sort of thing locally.

This bill sets up a variance between regions in New Zealand and all the different local authorities. I believe this move will have the converse effect to what is intended. Rather than shifting the focus on to actually doing something, the bill provides a mechanism for local authorities to exercise a discretion to opt out. I take, for example, my own local province. A bit of climate change would be quite helpful in Southland. It may well be that the local authority in a province like Southland, sitting on 4 billion tonnes of lignite, may set new standards. The local authority may say that it does not believe in this stuff, and that it will go ahead, develop its resource, and build an economic powerhouse in Southland. Southland already has the smelter, which is 15 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, so it could add to that. The local authority could set up some power stations, create some liquid fuel, generate some power, and smelt silicone—and this bill is the very bill that allows that to happen because it shifts that discretion on to local authorities.

I am not saying Southland will do that; I am using it as an example. But there will be some local authorities that might promote that alternative should this bill be passed. So I believe this bill will have the converse effect to what is intended. Of the 70-plus local authorities in New Zealand, there will be some who say: “Let’s give this a go. This is our opportunity. This is our out.” That matter concerns me seriously.

If we are to deal with this problem, it should not be with a placebo. We have to buy into a range of effects that will actually change the outcomes. Even if we buy into the category 1 stuff in the Kyoto Protocol, we are moving the same result out only about 6 percent. We have to buy into serious investment in technology. We must change the way that we think—a paradigm shift.

Fiddling around and creating a whole lot of complexities within the Resource Management Act, which does not deliver consistency now, will either stop investment because people do not understand—Whangamata revisited—or it will provide an opportunity for a local authority to thumb its nose and say: “Let’s build a resource for economic gain, and the moral issue may not be considered.” National will be voting against this bill.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I thank colleagues who have indicated their support for the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill, and I am glad that we will have the opportunity to debate it in the Local Government and Environment Committee. I acknowledge the comments of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. They recalled for me the very first climate change conference I ever went to, which was held in the late 1980s in the Waikato. I recall an amazing speech by a kuia from Hauraki, Betty Williams, who has since become a good friend of mine. She said very simply: “The atmosphere is a taonga. The climate is a taonga. They have been damaged, and in Māoridom we have a mechanism for addressing that damage. It is called rāhui tapu. We have to put a rāhui on the burning of fossil fuels, because the atmosphere has then got the capacity to recover and to heal itself.” I thought: “Yes, that is what we are trying to say, too, when we talk about curbing climate emissions.”

To the National Party I say that the legislative chaos that I am supposedly putting in place here is precisely the same legislative chaos—word for word—that the National Government introduced when it brought in the Resource Management Act in 1991. I am restoring exactly the wording of the Act as it was before 2004. I say to Dr Paul Hutchison that the Franklin District Council does not issue air discharge consents, so it will not be obliged to consider the provisions of this bill. Environment Waikato does issue air discharge consents, and before 2004 it had shown itself to be entirely capable of putting good conditions on the Huntly gas-fired station to make it mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions.

I welcome the fact that Eric Roy has understood the seriousness of this issue and is as panicked about it and the future as I am—and good on him for that. But I say to him that the Southland Regional Council can already decide to promote coal burning in order to warm its climate. There is nothing in the present legislation to stop that. What the council is prevented from doing at present is considering the climate change impacts, at all. So I do not think that argument stands, either.

Minister David Benson-Pope has outlined the main problem with this approach, which is that there can be inconsistency between councils across the country. He said that a national environmental standard would be better. Yes, it would! I tell the Minister to bring it on, and when he does we will withdraw the bill. The fact is that this House has no alternative now. There is no carbon charge. There is no carbon trading. There is no national environment standard. The only thing we can do is restore some control at local level until we have a national economic standard.

Passing this bill makes possible again some local control over climate emissions. We have no time to lose, because new, coal-fired power stations are being proposed in several places in the country—precisely, I believe, because there are now no controls over their emissions. At the conference today, it was stated very clearly that the investment decisions we make between 2005 and 2010 will determine the climate impacts in 2030. We have only a very few years to get our investment decisions right, or we will stuff up the climate for our children. We need to take that seriously. Nobody is suggesting that this bill can fix the problem. The idea that a member’s bill could fix global climate change is clearly absurd. It is one small step towards putting back some controls that used to be there.

I finish by quoting again from the conference today. One speaker said: “We are treating the earth as a business in liquidation, because it is not on anyone’s balance sheet.” That statement was not made by an environmental activist, a scientist, or a politician; it was made by IAG, which is one of the big reinsurance companies of the world. It is panicked about climate change—as are a few of us in this Chamber—because of what it is doing to its business. Let us not treat the Earth as a business in liquidation.