Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — Second Reading 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14742] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 It is apparent that that member has never read the bill. This bill is a shocking piece of work—an absolutely shocking piece of work. It is OK for United Future members to get up and waffle on about why they support this legislation but this bill does nothing at all to drive up investment in our infrastructure and electricity and lines companies to guarantee security of supply to see new generation facilities built to create a proper hedge market or to sort out problems that are now occurring with the market. What it does is establish a massive bureaucracy over our electricity industry. 
I want to bring to Government members’ attention the submissions from Dr Graham Scott. I wonder whether the Government member who spoke before me Ms Moana Mackey who got up to say this was a great bill has read those submissions. [ 
Interruption 
] No she has not. Well Dr Graham Scott on behalf of all the electricity companies all the generators and most of the lines companies— 
Moana Mackey 
: He’s biased. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh she says that he is biased. I tell the member that the lines company in the seat she wishes to stand for says—and I quote from the submission—that it has seen this legislation before “in the Eastern European nations that grew out of the Soviet Union”. That is what it thinks of this bill. 
Dr Graham Scott an eminent New Zealander who is a former Secretary to the Treasury came before the Commerce Committee and said that this legislation makes him think of legislation he has seen from the nations in Eastern Europe that came out of the old Soviet Union—and Moana Mackey stood in the House and said the bill is good and United Future members say they will support it. 
National strongly opposes this bill. We oppose the fact that the Minister can give directions to the commission so it is not independent. We oppose the fact that the commission makes the rules interprets the rules and then makes the judgment on whether an energy company has broken the rules. That is outrageous. We oppose the fact that the Minister makes decisions on what the commission must do but can then ignore the commission’s recommendations and does not have to follow them at all. We oppose the fact that under this bill Labour is corrupting the independence of the Commerce Commission by appointing members to the Commerce Commission who are joint members of the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Commission. I ask the Labour Government: who outside the Labour Party supports that? Those members should name one submission. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Everyone. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well Mr Tamihere who is about to launch his book says “everyone”. He should name one. None—he cannot name one because not one person outside the commission or the Labour Party supports cross-accreditation of the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Commission. So the Commerce Commission using its independent powers has to sit and make decisions on lines companies’ charges and the same members sit on the Electricity Commission making recommendations and taking orders from the Minister about those charges. It is a nonsense and it borders on corruption. It will not work and it will have to be repealed within 12 months. It simply will not work. 
No one in the industry is prepared to say it will work—not one company; not one of the State-owned generators. The Government appoints its own lackeys to the State-owned generators. The president of the Labour Party sits on the board of Genesis Power. 
Darren Hughes 
: Good fella! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The junior Government whip says he is a good fella. Well his company made a submission totally opposing this bill. Genesis Power is totally opposed to this bill. So did the president of the Labour Party tick off on the submission? Oh those members do not know about that. They are not sure about that. Perhaps he is not such a good bloke after all. 
Also this bill does not go far enough. The Minister wimped out about lines companies and decided not to let them enter into full generation. He kept a cap on them thereby giving the monopoly to the existing State generators. That is what the Minister has done; he has kept the monopoly with the existing State generators. 
But even worse is what this bill does to the gas industry. At a time when this nation desperately needs another gas find and desperately needs investment in gas infrastructure can members of Parliament believe that Labour and United Future are supporting a bill whereby if an explorer discovers gas brings the gas on shore builds the processing plant to process the gas and is using it and another explorer finds gas and wants access to the first processing plant but cannot negotiate it the Government will deem access to be given? 
So the bill effectively nationalises the gas infrastructure. Large gas explorers have been into this Parliament sat in Labour MPs’ offices and told them they will not invest in exploring while this legislation is on the books. Labour MPs have said: “We’ll go and see Harry Duynhoven about that. This cannot be right we’ll go and see Harry Duynhoven about it.” Well they might have seen Harry Duynhoven but he has done what he does best—not a thing! He has sat on his hands and hidden away and that is why this bill is such a disaster. 
I am very surprised that United Future support this legislation given the assurances that we were told those members had given people in the industry but it is not uncommon for that Christian-based party to give one assurance to one person and another assurance to a different person. That is something that those members have to live with themselves. 
The next National Government will repeal this bill. This bill is a nonsense it is growing a massive bureaucracy and it is not supported by one player in the industry or by any of our major industry groups. The major energy users in this country do not support the bill. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the public? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well I tell the member that we received precisely no submissions from members of the public on this bill—not one. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s not surprising. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh she says that is not surprising. Well the public did not make submissions on this bill because it harms industry and does not provide competition. In her district her own energy company strongly opposes this bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: What do the consumers think about it? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Consumers thought that the part concerning consumer complaints—which is two clauses—was good. They thought the rest was nonsense and that it would do nothing for extra generation nothing for competition and nothing to drive prices down but that it would do everything to create a massive bureaucracy. That is why we oppose the bill. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and all I can say to that member after that contribution is: “Isn’t Hannah’s looking good?”. Today as members look at this bill and analyse it I want to tell the truth about that member because he forgets that he sat in Cabinet and said “Yes”. He was like one of those little dolls with a spring in their necks that just nod in agreement all the time. He could not wait to say “Yes” to Max Bradford’s reforms. He was led by the nose and backed them and he still backs them—although judging from some of his quotes he does not quite know what he backs. Now he has not even been reshuffled—he has been put out to grass. He has cut and run. The energy spokesperson for the National Party on the cusp of being put out to grass to wade through a few daisies suddenly finds a voice and some intestinal fortitude on energy policy. It is great that he has done that but it is a pity he could not have done it 3 or 6 years ago. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no. To assist the member I said that he did have and has found some intestinal fortitude. I did not say that he has none—that would have been unparliamentary. That member was the shadow leader of the House before he was put out to grass. He has found his voice though. 
We know that that National Party is split over its energy policy. The spokesperson on energy Mr Sowry said in a speech to the Electricity Industry Reform Conference on 31 May 2004 that he will “support lines companies being able to enter in generation with no limit on the amount of generation they may own”. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That’s right. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am glad the member confirmed that. Yet that amounts to a repeal of National’s Bradford reforms of the 1990s. The member forgot about those yet he said “That’s right.” So now he is against the Bradford reforms. His Government and he like Noddy nodded yes to Mr Bradford. Now he has undergone a “road to Damascus” experience. He has seen the light and— 
Government Member 
: Flip-flop! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He has seen the light and has flip-flopped just days weeks or months before he wanders back to a Hannah’s shoe store and asks for his old job back. 
I ask him where his credibility on this issue is. For 5 years in Opposition Mr Sowry has sat and done nothing. Now he stands up refers to the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill and tries to shed the cloak of what he was in a National Government—a yes-man. The problem is that Mr Sowry could never learn and that is why he got done like the proverbial dog’s dinner twice by my red-headed—or red-blooded—colleague Mr Darren Hughes. He was done like dog tucker because he thinks that New Zealand communities are stupid. The problem is that they are brighter than that member will ever be and they saw through him three or four times. But today he stood up and attempted to throw off the cloak of the yes-man under the Max Bradford reforms. He told people that he has changed his mind and that his Government had got it wrong. Then he poured cold water and scorn on a bill that attempts to put right the stupidity and mismanagement of the Government that he was a senior member in. 
I ask what credibility that member has. I suggest he sit there and attempt to listen to what this bill is trying to do. The purpose of the bill is to update the Electricity Act and to reflect the establishment of the Electricity Commission. The bill is interesting. It talks about regulation. Well what the Government expects out of the Electricity Commission is for it to achieve its objectives primarily through information and contracting. Regulation-making will become a last resort. 
As I conclude I say to that member that I support this bill. I suggest he go back down his hole to his office pick up his  
Hansard 
 and read some of the things he said but that he now contradicts in this House. Mr Hughes I am sure will support me in saying that Mr Sowry should go back to the people of the electorate he once represented for a short time—Otaki—and apologise to them for the disgrace he was as a Minister and as a member of Parliament over the mismanagement of the electricity sector. 
I conclude that the truth on the matter is that if we had been having this debate with that member still in Government as a Minister we would be having it under candlelight not under light bulbs. That is the situation that his mismanagement would have produced. I invite the people of Otaki and the people of New Zealand to reflect on that member’s speech and render their verdict again—as they have done two or three times already on that member—as to the level of credibility he has even to rise and take a breath in this debate.