CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Good one, because that’s what we’re on.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed! But I believe the legislation is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Before I begin the substantive part of my speech, let me place on record that I consider climate change to be a huge consideration, both globally and nationally, that we have to take account of.

I believe that human activities can have a negative effect on climate change, but I am not a scientist. The extent of my scientific knowledge most recently, I guess, comes from having read Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything, but the scientists I met at GNS Science told me that reading that book is a very, very good start. I am pleased to say that I have read it twice; I found it very, very interesting. It tells us that the climate has been warming since the 14th century, which is when we had the last mini - ice age, so of course global warming is a consideration and a reality.

Human activities during the industrial revolution will have caused a steep increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases, which certainly appears to be having a detrimental effect on the planet. All countries, I feel, must make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is something that we in the National Party take very seriously. That is why the new Government has set up a special select committee to review climate change policy. This was in part a response to the record of the Labour Government, which oversaw emissions rising at a rate of—and this is quite a figure—over 1 million tonnes per year.

Climate change policy is something that we as a Government need to put a lot of work into getting right. This bill will not do that. It is not the way to go. First of all, the very nature of the bill runs contrary to what we are trying to achieve with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which I have been privileged to spend quite a bit of time being involved with as it goes through its processes. The bill we have before us has the potential to build extra layers of bureaucracy within our regional councils. At the very least, it will give extra work to those regional councils. Very recently, we have seen how well or otherwise they are performing against expectations, and it does not make very good reading. So the consequence of giving the councils extra work would be an increase in the unnecessary delays and costs, which the other bill, the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, is doing its very best to reduce.

What this bill would do in general is make applications for resource consents more onerous, more time consuming, more costly, and significantly more restrictive. Were this legislation to produce better decision-making, there may be a valid argument that it would be worth it. However, I would suggest that it will do nothing of the sort. Instead, it will make decision making more problematic and more time consuming, and it will produce massive inconsistencies throughout the regional councils of the country. We already have the most devolved system of environmental planning in the world. That is why we are having to pull together the activities under the Resource Management Act to try to introduce some efficiencies and consistencies. I am sure that, as well-intentioned as this legislation may be, the Green Party would not seriously want to introduce a bill whose effect would be to allow an ad hoc approach by regional councils to resource consents. That would have a very serious consequence to the economy.

If this bill were passed into law, it would have some very serious and unfortunate consequences—some of them unintended, I am sure. Let me quote from the explanatory note of the bill: “Clause 5 repeals Section 70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 in order to allow regional councils”—here is the bit—“to control discharges to air of greenhouse gases on the basis of their effects on climate change.” If these decisions were left to the discretion of the regional councils and their ideas on the extent to which differing amounts of greenhouse gases have an effect on climate change—and that would put them in a very, very hard decision-making basket—then we would see different regional councils making different decisions, and we would have inconsistency. It would be a mishmash. It would be incoherent, a reprehensible muddle, and a regurgitated dog’s breakfast of outcomes. It would not be pretty.

To ensure that different councils have the expertise to make the judgments—which, by the very nature of this legislation, would be inconsistent throughout New Zealand—more work and more effort is required. The consequences of this bill would be one giant mess—albeit well-intentioned. The issue of climate change surely requires a national rather than a regional approach. National approaches, by definition, provide consistency throughout New Zealand and avoid the sort of scenario whereby a regional council, in acting on its discretion, will not be prevented from developing its own resources and setting low standards, all for the sake of improving its own economic standing. That is one of the problems that can occur, and my good friend and colleague Eric Roy mentioned it during the first reading debate.

Climate change must be dealt with on a national basis. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill sets up an environmental protection authority that allows a framework for a nationwide approach that will enable national consistency, and that is the kind of approach that is called for here.

Hon Maurice Williamson: That’s right.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am glad that a Minister sitting with me agrees with that.

The very essence of what the proponents of this bill want to do is made clear in clause 4, the purpose clause. I quote it in its entirety: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure regional councils are able to take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, including when—(a) considering applications for air discharge consents: (b) developing rules in regional plans.” The second part of that clause, paragraph (b), highlights my argument—and, indeed, the theme of my speech—about the fundamentally flawed nature of the bill, and that is that the bill would enable regional plans to develop rules surrounding climate change issues.

If this was not such a serious issue, one could take it quite light-heartedly, because we are talking about the same regional plans that five out of 85 local authorities still did not have in place in October 2008, and the same regional plans that have taken, on average, an astonishing 8.2 years to devise. I spoke to about 60 planners from councils just last week, and they acknowledged that there are real problems associated with plan development, not least of which is the cost. I cannot imagine how much longer this bill would add to the average number of years for a regional council to devise a plan, but the mind boggles. This would be far beyond the concept in which regional councils would make decisions that take climate change into account based on a national framework, which would be far better.

This bill would let the councils make the rules themselves. Different people in different regions would be making different rules if this bill progressed. We would need to employ more people to devise the rules and to ensure the required limits on discharges for greenhouse gases. Regional councils do not yet have the required scientific and economic expertise to deal with these issues. Some may, but how can we be sure they all do? I suggest that most regional councils do not have the immediate capability to deal with these scientific aspects. Experts would undoubtedly be required for each regional council if they were all to achieve a modicum of good decision-making. Again, that is a very good reason to support a national approach rather than rely on the varying expertise of regional councils. And when are different so-called experts ever on the same page?

The essence of my feeling is that the absence of a national environmental standard will result in markedly inconsistent decisions being made. This bill would make a lot more sense if there were a national environmental standard to adhere to, but even then it would still be beset by many of the problems I have mentioned thus far. The criticisms of this bill could be endless. We should not allow this bill to become law, as it is a poorer piece of legislation than it is an improving one. Instead of improving, streamlining, and speeding up applications for resources consents, it will, conversely, make it more complicated and cumbersome, for no clear gain.

I do not have an ideological opinion that opposes anything that might increase a time delay for a resource consent. But it is not something that would ever be ideal, particularly in the current economic climate in which job creation and protection is more vital than ever—even though that is ignored by people on the other side of the House. If I could be convinced by a good argument that this measure is necessary, I could be persuaded, but this bill does not even begin to persuade me.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : I first acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for putting forward this Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to rise to support the bill, because I believe this is very important legislation that we must support. This bill is basically very simple. It allows regional councils to take into account the effects on climate change of greenhouse gas emissions when considering applications for air discharge consents and developing rules for regional plans. There are really only two issues there. The bill repeals sections 70A and 104E of the Resource Management Act. I think that is very important.

Unfortunately, we have just heard a whole lot of garbage from the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole. The member accepted that he is not a scientist and does not know much about this topic; obviously somebody has written his speech for him. I, for one, can say that I am a scientist and know something about this subject. I have personally measured some of these greenhouse gases. I have measured nitrous oxide in the agricultural area, I have measured carbon dioxide. I am very familiar with the topic, so I can say with some authority that I know something about this subject.

The Government really has no policy in a number of areas—and I mean a number of areas. If we look at the forestry sector, the emerging issues in the whole carbon sector, and the biofuel industry, there is nothing there. Also, there is the area of electricity generation. The Government cancelled a whole lot of environmentally friendly plants that had been planned and it has a whole lot of new generation on hold. I am really sad to see that this Government, over time, has changed its stance on this issue.

Let me quote a couple of views from the Prime Minister. In May 2005 he stated on climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. Then he went on to state, in November 2006: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have. Like most New Zealanders I take the risks caused by climate change seriously. The scientific analysis indicates that the world is getting warmer and if this doesn’t change the results could be catastrophic for our society as well as for our environment.” Then in December 2008, last year, John Key stated: “I believe that human-induced climate change is accurate.” What a somersault, what a flip-flop!

Hon Damien O’Connor: Slow learner.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: It takes time, and it seems that since National members have become the Government, they have not really done anything at all in terms of doing something for climate change issues.

As I said, this bill is a very simple bill. It clearly states that regional councils should “take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change,” when making new rules and also when considering applications for air discharge consents. Clearly, this is a major issue in New Zealand, particularly in agriculture: 50 percent of our gas emissions is from agriculture. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane are the major issues for us. This Government has really done nothing in this area to ameliorate some of the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change. Similarly, on the whole waste management area, there is nothing there.

On land management and on the crop production system, New Zealand has done quite a bit of work over the years. For example, I have been doing some research myself, including at Massey University, in measuring nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from various cropping systems and from various land management systems where there are crops and pasture, and in other plant production systems. But this Government has no strategy on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which is a major issue for us in New Zealand.

Similarly, there is no waste management strategy—particularly anything to do with the recovery or management of waste, with energy efficiency, or with regard to conservation. Again, major savings, if you like, could be made in terms of economic development if some of these issues were to be seriously considered, particularly in the agriculture area. I keep saying that I am an agriculture guy; I have been personally involved in that research. In New Zealand we have a serious issue in controlling emissions from agriculture, and this Government has done nothing in terms of promoting more sustainable agriculture, particularly in the land management area. Nothing has been done.

I am really disappointed that this Government is not taking any of these issues seriously because its members do not believe in climate change. I do not believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues actually believe in a whole lot of the issues around climate change, so there has been only lip service in this area. Labour certainly had an emissions trading scheme, and I do not believe that this Government is sincere in following the scheme. We are sure that the emissions trading scheme will be one of those useful tools that we have in New Zealand to promote more sustainable transport and agriculture.

We heard recently about the issues in Auckland over transportation. We now have the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, saying that he is concerned with what is happening in Auckland with the Auckland Council. He is another Minister who does not believe in climate change. In October 2008 Rodney Hide, the leader of the ACT Party, was speaking against the emissions trading scheme. He stated: “I think the idea that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing the globe to warm is a theory, just a theory. It’s an interesting theory. It’s been around for a long, long time and I think the evidence doesn’t support it.”

I think this Government needs to take this issue seriously. I am delighted that Jeanette Fitzsimons has taken this stand and promoted this member’s bill to ensure that our regional councils, when doing their planning in terms of consents and making rules, take into account greenhouse gas emissions. This century, I believe, is a century in which we need to make sure that we leave the resources that we have, whether land or other resources, for future generations, so that they can enjoy the benefits of those resources. If we continue as we are and keep using resources, particularly oil resources and land resources, in the way that we are, then it will be a disastrous future for our children. Having said that, I am delighted to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The Local Government and Environment Committee received a whopping 1,925 submissions from the public on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A significant majority of the submissions were in favour of the bill and an even greater number again expressed support for action on climate change. It is therefore without dispute that this bill and, more particularly, climate change has an impact on the lives of people.

At a forum held just a few months ago in New York the president of the United Nations General Assembly revealed that climate change has a specific and especial impact upon indigenous peoples. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues released a statement saying that indigenous peoples are “most directly affected by environmental degradation caused by climate change,” and are “the stewards of some of the most precious biologically diverse regions of the world,”. I am proud to advise the House that Professor Margaret Mutu and Catherine Davis, both born of the north, are currently representing Aotearoa at the 2-week United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. On this very day, Wednesday, 17 June, climate change issues are on the agenda. So it may well be that decisions we make in this House today are able to be influential on the world stage.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has concluded that there will be a particular and detrimental impact on traditional indigenous ways of life. The indigenous peoples of the Pacific, South-east Asia, the Himalayas, North America, South America, Africa, and Europe all stand to be threatened by global warming as an immediate consequence of their direct dependence on natural resources. In the Arctic region the Inuits are prevented from continuing their traditional hunting practices as the ice breaks up around them. Pasifika people are losing coral atolls beneath rising seas. The tribes in Borneo watch as their rainforests catch fire. In Tibet the people suffer as they see their medicinal alpine plants disappear before their eyes and their sacred glaciers melt. And for tangata whenua our traditional links, through Hineahuone to Papatūānuku to the land, are a consequent reminder of the full spiritual, emotional, and moral implications of climate change for our people.

Our special relationship with the land, waterways, and other natural resources, as expressed through kaitiakitanga, also provides us with a strong foundation for making a commitment to environmental integrity by addressing climate change. So we support the intention of this bill: that climate change be addressed via local government and the Resource Management Act process. The bill is the manifestation of that old 1970s catchcry “think global, act local”, or, as the Japanese multinationals have coined it, “think ‘glocal’ ”. Acting “glocal” might mean that local government actually turns to tangata whenua to understand how our traditional knowledge has been applied in order to lessen the impact of natural disasters.

We all understand that climate change is a major threat and is already having adverse effects on the environment. As all the submissions pointed out, there is a desperate lack of action on the issue. We also know that urgent action is needed to meet Kyoto obligations. Given that knowledge, it just does not make sense that the select committee recommended that the bill not be passed. The rationale for failing to support the bill was that the committee thought that climate change should be addressed nationally, not via local government and the Resource Management Act. It should not be an either-or situation: we can take action at a local level and at a national level too.

The Māori Party has a different view. As the independent Māori voice of this Parliament, we believe that it is dangerous to delay any further, given the urgency in dealing with emissions at the regional level. Taking action to adapt to climate change, and ensuring that tangata whenua are actively involved in this action, is critical. The cost and the regulatory burden that were rejected by opponents to the bill must be seen in the wider context of urgency and the extent of the challenge posed by climate change. The bill merely seeks to reinstate one tool of regulation, while recognising that many tools will be needed to address the issue.

We thought the submission from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, was of particular relevance. The commissioner expressed qualified support for the bill, given the regulatory vacuum following the 2004 amendment to the Resource Management Act. She also recommended an amendment to the bill to ensure development of a national environmental standard to provide national guidance on effective use of resources. It was a perfect example of support for action on climate change by demonstrating a national approach and local government responsibility hand in hand. That is a holistic approach where we all recognise that we play a part in maintaining and strengthening the resilience of healthy ecosystems.

I cannot help but contrast such an approach with all the goings-on around the emissions trading scheme. The revised rules for the emissions trading scheme make it clear that big industries—the major emitters of greenhouse gases—will receive over $1 billion in subsidies and rebates for about 90 percent of the electricity price increases coming out of the scheme. That is great for the big emitters, but more doom and gloom for ordinary New Zealanders. Household consumers will pay the full price rise. The fairness test surely requires that all sectors should pay in the same proportion at each stage. There should not be blanket exemptions in some sectors, while families suffer. The emissions trading scheme reform came up with over 90 percent of the charges resulting from the new amended scheme falling on consumers, who account for just a third of the emissions.

Coming back to this bill, the original intention was that councils should be required to consider climate change when issuing consents or formulating policy, but do so in conjunction with a national policy statement or national environmental standard to provide guidance. It was literally the best of both worlds: all sectors committed to change starting at the same time. Tackling climate change requires action at a local level, as greenhouse emissions occur from a wide variety of sources. Yet what did we find when the bill came back from the select committee? It was very much the same scenario that confronted the emissions trading scheme reform. Ironically, the opposition that was attached to this bill—opposition to making climate change a local government responsibility—came from much the same sources as the opposition to the emissions trading scheme. I am referring to the submissions from business, industry groups, local government, energy generators, and some environmental and community groups. The same groups that oppose the emissions trading scheme are also opposed to supporting fair mechanisms that make positive steps towards addressing climate change.

The Māori Party’s core position is that we believe that the ability of councils to consider climate change ought to be in place at least until a national instrument is well established and shown to be effective. Why put off till tomorrow what can be achieved today? We believe that the intention of this bill was to strengthen both the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 in ways that would consider the effects of greenhouse emissions—and the discharge of contaminants on to land, and into air and water—on climate change. The existing legislation lacked teeth in both these areas, and the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill was a key means to create an opportunity for regional councils to consider such effects and impacts. We are proud to speak up, and out, for urgent action on climate change, and to declare the support of the Māori Party for this important bill.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : I do not intend to speak for long on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will not be supporting the bill, and I would like to explain why. I think the last two speeches illustrate the point very well. Rahui Katene has just explained that households—ordinary New Zealanders—will pay for the costs put on them by the emissions trading scheme; ordinary households will pay for the cost of this bill.

Before my colleague Rahui Katene spoke, we heard from Mr Choudhary. He described the emissions trading scheme as a “useful tool” to provide sustainable transport. But it is more than a useful tool; it is actually a tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses and, more important, on consumers. It is a tax felt at the lowest end of the income scale, by the people who have no alternative but to buy energy, buy food, and buy things that the emissions trading scheme would impose costs on.

Mr Choudhary cast doubt on the Prime Minister’s comments in regard to climate change. Let us be quite open and honest: the ACT Party does not oppose the concept of climate change; we acknowledge that climate change is happening. The Prime Minister acknowledges that the climate is changing all the time. In fact, the scientific evidence is that the climate has changed over generations and generations, over centuries and centuries, over millennia. The temperature of Earth has warmed and cooled over many, many millennia. The issue is whether it has warmed and cooled because of human inducement or human change; whether human activity has contributed to that change. Although it is very easy to say that the science is settled, the reality is that the science is not settled. I have had the privilege of sitting on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as a substitute for Rodney Hide on occasions over the last couple of months. Evidence was produced that the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled since 2002, and that it has not risen since 1998. There was no evidence that I saw or heard that discredited that fact—none whatsoever.

Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Unite trade union. It was a function that my colleague Melissa Lee also attended, and one of its purposes was to launch the campaign for an increase in the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15. The Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and the Labour candidate were both very anxious to sign the pledge: “Let’s sign up. Let’s increase the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15.” But I said to the people of the Unite union that it is not a question of gross income earned; it is a question of living standards. It is a question of what is actually earned after tax. It is a question of what is earned after living expenses have been met. The emissions trading scheme imposes a cost on the community, and it imposes a cost on households, as Rahui Katene has just said. Yes, it is very easy to sign up to increasing the minimum wage, but what a trick that would be. We need to look at reducing people’s taxes in order to reduce the cost of living and to increase the standard of living.

So the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill; it will be opposing this bill. ACT has championed a review of the emissions trading scheme, and we are very proud to have done that. Countries around the world—not least of which was Australia in the last 2 months—have moved in the last 6 months to defer the introduction of their own emissions trading schemes. I believe that the role the ACT Party has played in forcing a review of that bill will go down as one of the most significant achievements in this parliamentary term. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : The discussion in the House this afternoon has been very interesting. I thank Dr Ashraf Choudhary for his comments, and I assure him that we respect his knowledge of science, particularly his knowledge of agricultural science. I also thank Rahui Katene for her comments, and for pointing out how important dealing with climate change is for indigenous people. We all agree that there is a need to do something about climate change, but the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment bill is not the right way to do it.

This bill is a member’s bill introduced by Jeanette Fitzsimons, and first read in March 2006. I sympathise with Jeanette Fitzsimons, because since the 1980s she has been well aware of climate change, and has been actively calling for policy to deal with this issue. Her pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears. This bill was an attempt by Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens to do something, but it is a last resort, and a very poor one at that. The bill was born out of frustration. It was an attempt to get some traction—any traction and any legislative provision—to tackle climate change.

The House must remember that back in 2005-06 when the member mooted this bill, there was absolutely no legislative instrument to deal with climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, because in 2004 Labour had removed the only piece of legislation that dealt at all with climate change or gas emissions. In 2004 Labour amended the Resource Management Act to remove the ability of local government to consider the effects of emissions on greenhouse gases or climate change, when making rules on regional plans and determining discharge consents. It was a provision of the Resource Management Act that had been used quite successfully in the past—for example, in 1993 in the consenting of the Taranaki combined-cycle power plant, and in 2001 when Genesis Power was granted its consent for the new Huntly plant.

As I said, this bill was born out of frustration. Jeanette Fitzsimons was frustrated because Labour had removed the one and only piece of relevant legislation actually in place, and Labour had not been able to make any new, nationally consistent climate change legislation stick. Back in 2005-06 Labour’s environmental policy in terms of climate change was a mess, and everybody knew it. I will give a short history. In June 2003 Labour announced the animal emissions levy. It failed. The Government then announced its energy efficiency target, aiming to get a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency within 10 years. That also failed. The Labour Government then announced a carbon tax. That was voted down. It then attempted to negotiate greenhouse agreements with big industry players, and that failed, too. Despairing at the lack of progress, Jeanette Fitzsimons produced this bill, although she, and everyone else, was well aware that a national economic instrument was a far better way to deal with the issue. Jeanette Fitzsimons introduced this bill to fill the void left by Labour’s bungles.

Well, we do not need it now. The National Government has set up the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee to review policy and the emissions trading scheme, and Jeanette Fitzsimons is a member of that committee. This bill was always recognised as a poor relation in terms of dealing with the issue, and we now have better options. A national financial instrument, like the emissions trading scheme, is the right way to deal with climate change. It is an issue that should be dealt with on a national level, not a regional level. Rules to manage greenhouse gas emissions must be consistent across the country, across the industry, and across sectors.

Councils are certainly not experienced enough or equipped well enough to deal with one of the most important global issues of our time. We do not want ad hoc, inconsistent, local applications of rules on a case by case basis. Councils are already struggling to deal with their responsibilities under the Resource Management Act, and we have seen the survey from the Ministry for the Environment just this last week that tells us that many councils are struggling. After 18 years some councils have still not got operational plans under the Resource Management Act, and many are struggling to process consents effectively and on time. We certainly do not want or need the duplication of a messy local council system running alongside the new emissions trading scheme. We do not need any further complexity in the Resource Management Act just when we are putting in place the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which is designed to simplify the Resource Management Act’s processes in order to cut costs and lengthy delays. Compliance with this bill would be both time consuming and costly for regional councils and the ratepayer, and it would have no real benefit.

In fact, no one likes this bill. Even Jeanette Fitzsimons herself has acknowledged that the idea that a member’s bill could fix global change is absurd, and that it is just an attempt to put back some controls that used to be there. Well, we have moved on, and we now have greater expectations of our legislation. Mrs Fitzsimons has said that the bill was proposed back in 2006 only because there was no carbon charge or carbon trading; it was never the instrument of first choice. Even then, Jeanette Fitzsimons admitted that a national environment standard would be better. As I said, no one really wants this bill. At the Local Government and Environment Committee, the majority of submitters on the bill favoured a national approach rather than a local government solution. The Ministry for the Environment was not supportive of the bill, and, finally, after hearing all the evidence, the select committee recommended that the bill should not be passed. The committee was dead right: this bill should not be passed into law, and I oppose it.

The National Government supports emissions trading as its preferred option for addressing climate change. The cross-party Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is in the process of debating how that legislation should perform, and Jeanette Fitzsimons is part of that process. Everyone agrees that a nationwide scheme, such as an appropriate emissions trading scheme, will be far more efficient and effective than this bill. An emissions trading scheme will mean there is far more compelling economic incentive to adopt new, cleaner technologies and processes, and to make real changes in our businesses, in our organisations, and in our personal lifestyles.

We all know that New Zealand needs to do its part in tackling climate change. We need to be an active part of the global solution, and, at the select committee table right now, we are debating just how we should do that. I tell Jeanette Fitzsimons that I understand her frustration at how long the process is taking. She has been talking climate change for decades, and I understand the motivation for this bill. But we all know that it is not the right way to make progress on this important and pressing issue. The National Government opposes the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I rise as the final speaker in this debate to call for the adoption of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. Let us briefly recall the background to the bill. In 1991 the National Government introduced the Resource Management Act, which was adopted by this House. Among other things this Act accorded the power to regional councils to consider climate change matters when issuing air discharge consents. In 2004 the Labour Government amended the Act removing those powers. Shortly thereafter, in 2004, the Green Party submitted this bill, which seeks to restore those powers. I acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for her insight and perseverance in this matter.

Neither National nor Labour denies the magnitude of the climate change problem. To quote Eric Roy: “Am I worried about climate change? No, I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it.” To quote Steve Chadwick: “Climate change is a very serious challenge.”, one in which “We have to play our part”. For its part the Māori Party was pleased that the bill was having a reading, because it was forcing Parliament to confront global concerns. Yet National opposed the bill in its first reading. Its stated reason was that regional councils would face invidious decisions in respect of their own areas, and that the problem with climate change was a global and national issue only. Members cited Franklin District Council, in whose area New Zealand Steel is located, and Southland, where a local authority might encourage coal extraction, and whose people might welcome global warming. This is a bit rich, considering that National put on indefinite hold the national instrument that was passed last year.

The Labour Government opposed the bill on the grounds that a national policy was required and it intended to introduce a carbon price. Moana Mackey expressed concern over the regional inconsistencies that could arise from leaving something as important as climate change to regional councils. Labour apparently believed that it was something that only central government should do. Labour, of course, did not have the carbon tax voted down, as the previous speaker just said, it simply dropped it and switched to an emissions trading scheme, but it delayed the emissions trading scheme so long that with the change in Government it is now subject to review. So no carbon price has been set and now Labour is changing policy and supporting the bill. I thank Labour for its unflagging commitment and consistency in our time of national need.

Of course, Labour could have legislated for its proposed carbon tax before the 2005 election when it had a majority with the Green Party—it did not. It could have legislated in 2006 with the Green and Māori parties—it did not. It could have supported this bill last year and at least restored the power of regional councils to consider carbon in air discharge consents. It did not. It is voting for the bill today in the exculpatory knowledge that it lacks the numbers to pass.

The rationale for this bill remains as strong today as in 2004. It is to restore the status quo ante when the 1991 Resource Management Act accorded regional authorities the power to consider climate change in making decisions. It is not Franklin District Council that would make such decisions but Environment Waikato. That regional council is entirely capable of taking into account the global, national, and local interest in combating climate change. No doubt if the regional council succumbed to the siren call of local global warming, the Government would be empowered to override such irresponsibility. But we should not underestimate the wisdom of our best local policymakers, especially on issues such as climate change, which threatens our children.

It should be noted that of the 1,925 submissions, a significant majority favoured the bill, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Those opposed offered three arguments. The first was the quaint logic that restrictions on industrial emitters were unfair if none were placed on vehicles or livestock. But the Resource Management Act requires air discharge consents for stationary industry, not vehicles or livestock. No one has ever to my knowledge suggested it should. The second was the misguided fear that local government lacks the scientific and economic expertise to deal with the issue. The short answer is that such expertise often does reside in regional councils, and national experts are there to assist, in any event. The select committee heard evidence that the bill would work better if the National Government put in place a national environmental standard, guiding councils on how to consider carbon in their deliberations. That would have been our preference, too. The third was a simplistic belief that action against climate change should not be a local government responsibility but a national one. Of course, as has been remarked, it is both.

We all know that throughout this country and now in this House—with the singular exception of the five erstwhile ditherers among us—we are currently failing in our struggle with climate change. We have been cognisant of climate change since the early 1980s. We commenced political action in the mid-1980s. We identified the global interest to combat it in 1992. We introduced our first weak global legislation in 2008. So a quarter of a century has passed before the global ship of State is even considering turning round. But the required 90 degree turn-round remains at the level of consideration only. In fact, the global economy remains on a fixed course to disaster. It is as if humanity is poorly attuned to the pitch of the alarm siren. Certainly, Mr Boscawen and his ACT Party cannot hear the pitch, whether it is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the majority of submissions to Parliament’s Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Over those 25 years our global emissions have risen. Yet if we are partially deaf, we are certainly not mute. We still bicker vociferously over the next critical step.

New Zealand must do everything within its power to play its part. This is not an act of altruism. We are not aspiring to be a global leader—no one would notice. It is simply in our direct national interest. We must act at the global level, the national level, and the local level. There is no inconsistency between these levels in pursuit of the common good. Each has a responsibility to act. Each must play its part. Let us adopt this bill without further delay.