Smith Nick: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:960] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The first point I make in this debate on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill 
is that there are some really important issues on which there is agreement across the House. The first of those is that climate change is the biggest and most important issue facing us the second is that greenhouse gases need to be constrained and the third is that we need to increase the amount of renewable energy we are generating in New Zealand. You see the real argument here is not about the objectives but about how to get there. Where members disagree is that members on the Government side of the House favour price instruments and reform of the Resource Management Act rather than the very crude and blunt regulatory instrument that we are repealing. 
We have heard all sorts of extravagant claims from members opposite. Let me just go through their record during the last 9 years. Let us be fair here. Labour was in charge of climate change policy for 9 years and National has not had 9 weeks. Before members opposite get on their hind legs and lecture us about successful climate change policy I remind them what has actually occurred over the last 9 years. Emissions have increased from 68 million tonnes to 78 million tonnes. They have gone up by over 1 million tonnes per year. In terms of renewable energy the record of the last decade shows that 75 percent of new generation that was built during the course of the last Government was thermal generation. 
When we look back over the record of the last Labour Government and compare it with that of the previous National Government the Lange-Douglas Government prior to that the Muldoon Government prior to that the Norm Kirk Government prior to that and the Holyoake Government prior to that—and we can actually go all the way back to when the lights first went on in Reefton—we see that a greater proportion of thermal generation took place under the previous Labour Government than under any of those previous Governments. 
Regarding international comparisons the part I find most extraordinary about Labour’s contribution to this debate is that its members have said that Labour’s record of world leadership is being compromised by this legislation. Let me remind members opposite that I have here the record of the United Nations on increased emissions. Our records only go up to 2006 but my officials advise me that the record for 2007 and through to the end of 2008 is likely to be even worse. Let me compare the records where we have data. To the end of 2006 New Zealand’s emissions grew by 12 percent. Over the same period emissions in Australia grew by 8 percent and emissions in the United States grew by 1 percent. Again let me put the record straight. The record of the last Government on the increase in emissions was 12 times worse than that of the US under George W Bush. In the United Kingdom emissions went down by 3 percent. In Germany they went down by 2 percent. 
The only thing Labour led during its period of Government was an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: So you would want an incentive for renewables? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Cunliffe who was a member of the Cabinet for that period that we on this side of the House think a new approach is required. What is that new approach about? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What is it? It is promoting fossil fuel burning. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Cunliffe why 75 percent of the generation built under Labour was thermal. I ask whether any member opposite can tell me why 75 percent of new generation built while David Cunliffe and Steve Chadwick were Ministers was thermal. 
Let me answer the member’s question about what this Government thinks is a logical approach to this challenge. One of the biggest challenges for renewable energies is getting resource consents. Let me give members an example from this very city. Meridian Energy applied for a consent to build a major wind farm here in Wellington and it took over 2½ years to get consent for that wind farm to be built. I think members on both sides of the House think that that wind farm would be a good thing and that we need to bring it on stream. The truth is that by taking so long to get through the resource consent process the previous Government had to build a lot of thermal generation to keep the lights on in the interim. This Government says it is time for a new approach. We will be bringing amendments to the Resource Management Act to streamline the process for the construction of new renewable energy because that is the logical approach by which we can deal with emissions. 
The question to ask is where we will provide the incentive. The part that is extraordinary about this Act we are repealing is that we could build the Huntly power station under it. I will tell members why. When the Huntly power station—the biggest single contributor of greenhouse gas emissions—was built it was very clear that it was built as a peak-load station. I ask what sort of Act allows a Government to build a massive coal-fired power station as a peak-load station. How does this Act that we are repealing in any way protect the environment when someone could build a massive 1200 megawatt coal-fired power station say it was a peak-load station and get that station exempt? I ask whether a single member of the House really believes that that is logical. 
The last important point I make is that the one area I must say the previous Government did some good work was in developing a pricing instrument. The real way forward is to ensure that in every hour of every day every electricity generator has a clear financial incentive for renewable power over thermal—not when it is built but in every single hour of every single day. That is why I say as the incoming Minister for Climate Change Issues that getting a pricing instrument is a very important priority if we are to do better as a country in this important area of climate change.