Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Energy—Project Aqua Cancellation 
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Energy—Project Aqua Cancellation 
[Volume:616;Page:12054] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. I move that motion because Meridian Energy’s bombshell announcement yesterday that it will not be proceeding with Project Aqua creates new and significant risks for the New Zealand economy and in consequence for all New Zealanders and their households. A cheap and secure electricity supply is critical to all businesses and households in this country. I saw a graph presented to me last year that indicated that New Zealand could face a significant primary energy gap from around 2007 now just 3 years away—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the House grants leave for an urgent debate to take place that indicates the matter is important. I am talking to Mr Mallard. I know that some members have to attend select committees but I want to hear this speech in silence apart from the usual sorts of comments. There can be the odd interjection but there is too much noise. I have not deducted time from the member’s address. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was making the very vital point that I was presented with a graph last year that indicated New Zealand could face a significant primary energy gap from around 2007 now just 3 years away because of the rundown in gas from the Maui field and the problems associated with the use of Waikato coal for electricity generation. The graph presented to me was truly frightening. It illustrated that without Project Aqua a gap between electricity supply and demand may begin in 2007 and rise to a massive 11000 gigawatts by 2017. That forecast should be of concern to all New Zealanders because it clearly indicates that unless we can bring additional generating capacity on stream within the next 3 years we will face an electricity shortage. 
Simply stated the cancellation of Project Aqua is an issue of very critical importance to New Zealand businesses going forward. We have a “wall of wood” to process and many new irrigation schemes coming on stream. We have new roads to build in Auckland and growth in the dairying industry. All those situations and all the other plans for expansion in the next few years of other New Zealand businesses—thus to grow the economy—are dependent upon electricity for that to happen. That is why I say this issue is of critical importance to our economy. Along with security of supply—that is electricity being available when needed businesses need cheap electricity. New Zealand is a long way from its markets and at the moment by world standards we have a comparative competitive advantage from being able to use not just electricity but cheap electricity. The switch that I think we are now forced to make from renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity to energy sources such as coal—a switch that seems inevitable given the decision taken yesterday—means that we will not only go to something less environmentally friendly but also to something significantly more expensive. That has the capacity to erode New Zealand’s competitive economic position with regard to the rest of the world. My own vision however for the New Zealand economy is that it should grow and grow quickly so that we can deliver to New Zealanders and their households the material well-being and the good health and educational services we all desire going forward. 
I want at this point to address a few comments to Meridian Energy itself. I do so as a shareholder in that company for all New Zealanders are shareholders in Meridian Energy. I ask the company to be open to the possibility of seeing at least a residual hydro scheme proceed on the Waitaki River. I ask the company at least to work through the new water allocation framework that will come into being as a result of the passage of the Waitaki catchment legislation. It seems to me that even if Meridian Energy were not successful in obtaining the amount of water flow it would have ideally liked for Project Aqua it is still possible for it to see a smaller-scale project go ahead. If Meridian Energy is not willing to do that I think other major electricity generators in New Zealand should step into its shoes and look at that possibility. At the end of the day the situation that faces us as a nation is so critical that we cannot afford to say no to any significant low-cost way of generating electricity. 
I will also address some comments to the Government itself. I hope it will take heed of this development and ensure that there are now no ideological or regulatory barriers to allowing hydroelectricity schemes in New Zealand of all shapes and sizes together with schemes using steam wind coal or whatever else to proceed and proceed quickly so that we can have some of them on stream in time for the projected electricity shortage from about 2007 onwards. I specifically ask the Government to look again at the Dobson hydro scheme on the West Coast of the South Island. The Government’s position on that scheme is that it should not proceed because it will do damage to the conservation estate of this country. The Government says that the scheme will reduce the area of the conservation estate. My response is that the people of Greymouth have offered the Government Mount Buckley by way of exchange—a larger area—so in actual fact the conservation estate would increase not decrease if the scheme went ahead. 
The Government has said that the Dobson scheme would involve the loss of some kahikatea trees in the 500 hectares—and that is all we are talking about—that would be flooded by the new dam which would create a beautiful lake in a bush setting. If the Government were to ask TrustPower I believe that the company may well be prepared to buy some existing private kahikatea trees and gift them to the nation’s conservation estate. The Government says that there are birds living in the 500 hectares that would be flooded—an area by the way that is part of approximately 1.8 million hectares of conservation land on the West Coast just to put it into some sort of perspective—that need to be protected. I agree entirely with that and I say that if the Government were to speak to TrustPower it may well be that TrustPower would be prepared to cooperate with it with the Department of Conservation and with the people of Greymouth to create a bird sanctuary where our birds could flourish and increase in large numbers instead of having to compete daily for their very survival under the gaze of rather hungry stoats weasels feral cats and possums. 
The Dobson hydro scheme has strong local support. A few minutes ago in response to a question of mine the Minister of Energy said that it would provide only about 5 months’ supply for New Zealand. I think that answer misses the point of what my party has been saying in relation to those kinds of schemes. We believe there is potential for a number of hydro schemes to be developed on the conservation estate throughout New Zealand. It is time to start to think outside the box and for the Government to give away the false dichotomy that it has erected for ideological reasons between conservation on the one hand and hydroelectricity on the other hand. It is completely unnecessary. As I have pointed out there is a way through the projected electricity shortage and I was hoping very very much that Dobson would become a prototype for many other similar schemes right up and down this country that would continue to supply electricity to this nation at an affordable price using a source of energy that is renewable and sustainable in the long term. I say to the Government it is time to put aside the straitjacket. We can no longer afford the luxury of caving in to the kind of ideology that defies common sense. 
I will also bring up another point at this time—again something that I alluded to during question time—and it is the very strong submissions that the Electricity Networks Association of New Zealand has brought to my attention concerning the rules that presently prevent it from investing in new local electricity-generating projects. I think we need to give that matter very careful consideration. The situation arises from what I believe were the somewhat ill-advised reforms made by Max Bradford when the National Party was in Government. I cannot understand therefore why a Labour administration coming into that situation would be prepared to allow it to continue. The Minister makes the point and I agree with him that some new flexibility has been given. Local lines companies—and I want to stress here that those companies are owned by local communities are sensitive to local needs and are able to invest local money for the benefit of local communities within New Zealand—are saying we should take off the Max Bradford restraints let them invest in new electricity generation and give them the ability to supply that electricity directly to their customers. They want to know why they should be taken out of the retail loop and I believe that is a legitimate question. I believe that the Bradford reforms did not correctly understand competition law or the way that competition works. Allowing local lines companies to invest in new electricity generation would indeed provide the major electricity generators with some much-needed competition. Apart from that it simply makes sense. Why should we try to relay electricity all the way from Waitaki say to Whangarei with the significant loss that occurs in the transmission process when there is a lines company based in Whangarei that would love to get going and build a scheme to supply the people of Whangarei with electricity in their own backyard—with minimal loss on the way through. 
In 2002 the people of this nation by quite a significant majority elected the Labour Party and the current Government to be our Government and to provide leadership for this nation. With the cancellation of Project Aqua and given the critical issues I have outlined in my speech concerning not only the security of electricity supply but also the actual price of electricity and its importance in keeping the New Zealand economy going forward we now look to the Government to provide some real leadership in this situation. If the Resource Management Act is holding things up let us change it. If the Conservation Act is holding good schemes up let us change it. If the Max Bradford package of so-called reforms to create competition within the electricity sector is not working correctly let us change it. It will diminish the legacy of this Government in the eyes of future generations of New Zealanders and in fact of New Zealanders 3 years from now should we—and I suggest today this is a very likely scenario—encounter situations where we have to close down our factories and switch off lights in our homes which is beginning to happen. People will ask why on earth the Government did not act and act more quickly. 
 But I want to go one step further than that and make this point. We need those kinds of ideological and regulatory restraints to be removed and removed now. It is now that alternative energy projects need to be planned and it is now that decisions need to be made because of the lead time it will take to construct the new electricity projects needed in New Zealand so that we can continue to grow our economy strongly based on steady reliable cheap electricity and can provide the living standards going forward that we all expect—and indeed should expect—from this Government or any other Government.