Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:909] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 To take up the point of the previous member when he asked what all the fuss was about I thought I would go back to the purpose of the Electricity Act 1992 we are repealing here today and talk a little about that. The purpose of Part 6A of the Act as stated in section 62A “is to reduce the impact of fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation on climate change by creating a preference for renewable electricity generation through the implementation of a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation capacity except where an exemption is appropriate (for example to ensure security of supply).” 
Let us run through that for a moment and just consider some of those things: “to reduce the impact … on climate change”; well I think surely members on this side think that that is a good idea. We have always believed in human-induced climate change. We do not take the “balanced” approach of National members who believe that it is a hoax one day and believable the next and who then come back and repeal all of the climate change legislation. They have a balanced approach on the same day in fact; they change their minds as they go along. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Same speech different day. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is a different day—that is right. Mr Brownlee says it is a different day a different position. 
The Act created a preference for renewable electricity generation; I am staggered as to know what the problem with that is. What is the problem with creating a preference for renewable electricity generation? Surely that is something that we must agree on. What on earth is wrong with a preference for renewable electricity generation? But the Minister does not seem to be all that interested in engaging in this kind of discussion or argument. 
The Act also put in a restriction on baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation. It was saying that our core energy suppliers were expanding our core energy supply. This was not the peak stuff. This was not the stuff we need only in times of really high demand. This was the stuff that basically added to the baseload and the Act was saying that that should not come from thermal electricity except when it was needed to secure supply. What is wrong with that? There does not seem to be anything wrong with that. But no—the Government is going to railroad this repeal bill through without allowing members of the public to have any say on it. 
I take up two other points that Mr Auchinvole raised in his speech. First of all he said that thermal generation was expensive and there would be no clamour to build more thermal generators. It was a very interesting point because then he went on to say that the removal of this restriction would lower power prices. With that kind of logic I am staggered he is not in the new National Cabinet. I am absolutely staggered. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Didn’t Max Bradford say the same thing about power prices? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right; Max Bradford said a very similar thing did he not? He said that the reforms were going to lower power prices for consumers. Did they result in lower power prices for consumers? No they did not—not in any way. So once again it is another day and there is another bill from this Government denying that climate change is a reality. Government members think that it will all be OK if we just stick our heads in the sand for a little longer. Everything will be fine; ignorance is bliss. 
The Government has failed to answer some of the most basic questions. Do those members actually believe in human-induced climate change? Because anybody listening to this will be totally confused about what the Government’s position is. Do they support renewable energy or not? 
Paul Quinn 
: Yes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They do! But with the second bill in a row they are doing away with provisions in legislation that support renewable— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: So wrong! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is so wrong! That is right I say to Mr Brownlee; it is so wrong. So why is the Government doing it? If it is so wrong why is the Government doing it? Renewable energy is integral to New Zealand’s future. It is part of our international reputation as a clean green country. It is something we are all proud of when we go overseas. We come from a clean green country where most of our electricity is produced from renewable sources. That is something I was incredibly proud of when I went around the world. But how on earth can New Zealanders be proud of their country when they are out in the world talking about their clean green status when the Government back home is doing away with all the legislation that has been put in place to really enhance that? 
Our international delegations when they go off to climate change conferences overseas are not up the front any more talking about all of the wonderful things that New Zealand is doing. They are down the back hiding behind the conference sign and hoping that no one will notice them because they are so embarrassed to be representing New Zealand and this Government. The international community has noticed. Has it not noticed? What did Gordon Brown do on John Key’s very first visit to the UK? He introduced a departure charge on flights coming to New Zealand. John Key popped in to visit and oh up popped that departure charge which will penalise and punish the New Zealand tourism industry. It will have a major impact on the Kiwi economy and a major impact on our own airline of course—which we own thanks to the good previous Labour Government. That charge was John Key’s “reward”; I bet that a lot of businesses in New Zealand are hoping that John Key stays home a little more. If that is the kind of response we get when John Key goes off overseas then I think they will be hoping he stays home a little more do members not think? I do not think we need any more of that. 
If Labour had been in Government and Helen Clark had been Prime Minister she could have gone to the UK sat down with Gordon Brown talked about all the wonderful things we are doing and put forward a very compelling case for that departure charge not to be raised. Can John Key do that? No he cannot. He will stand there and say that the Government is not really sure about this climate change thing and that his Government is going to repeal all of the legislation put in place by the previous Government to deal with it but that he does not want that tax to be put on us. But who on earth will take any notice of that? Perhaps he would be better off staying at home and coming to grips with the real issues here. Perhaps Mr Key and his Government would be better off letting the public of New Zealand have a say on this bill rather than trying to ram it through under parliamentary urgency. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s not going to a select committee. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No apparently it is not going to a select committee. 
Hon Member 
: Another one? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Another one—I know. How many of those have we been dealing with in this House? 
Moana Mackey 
: Doesn’t that make it all of them? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I think that would make it all of the bills we have been dealing with. This Government has not sent a single bill to a select committee—not one single bill. What have we had? We have had the “Ninety-day Fire at Will Bill” and there was an inadequate regulatory impact statement on that bill so the ACT Party is doing very well. There was an education bill that said in the regulatory impact statement that the bill was unnecessary there was a biofuel bill with no regulatory impact statement and now we have this bill with no regulatory impact statement. So we are really really good with our regulatory responsibilities! I think the Government has a Minister for regulatory responsibilities. He is doing pretty well so far is he not? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where is he? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Where is he? He is doing a very good job so far. 
Obviously the public of New Zealand have not had a chance to have a say on this bill so I thought maybe we should give voice to some of the people who have concerns about this legislation because they will not get to come to this Parliament and have a say on it. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand—ECO—said: “It is a surprise that National is putting the ETS on hold when it claimed it was their idea to have an emission trading system and that they take climate change seriously.” But I think that that was before the election though was it not? That was one of the things National said before it became the Government. It has changed its mind now. That organisation went on to say: “New Zealand has had reviews nearly every year on climate change policy from 1992 to 1997 until the emissions trading regime was decided on. The ETS combined with the moratorium on large new thermal generation would have for the first time placed a price on carbon and have provided investors in cleaner technology with some degree of certainty.” I thought National was in favour of certainty for business. 
Moana Mackey 
: In theory. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh that is another one of the things that National said before the election. It all sounded very good before the election but it is not so good once National got into Government. It is very inconvenient is it not? 
What about the Bluegreens? Whatever happened to the Bluegreens? I am sure they had some views on this. In fact they got Greenpeace to come along and speak to their conference on it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Bluegreens are dead! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh they have disappeared. But what did Greenpeace tell them? It said: “the fact is the ETS will not be enough in itself to prevent inappropriate thermal projects at least in the medium term so we need the disincentive of the Renewables Preference to prevent new emitting investment from being ‘locked in’.” That statement came from the Bluegreens’ conference. Oh but that is another thing; that was before the election. I forgot—how foolish of me to forget. That was one of those things National said before the election; then it became the Government and now it is just doing whatever it likes. It does not have to worry about those pesky members of the public anymore because it can just ram legislation through under urgency without having to worry about any of that public consultation stuff. That is not so important to this Government; it really does not mind about that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s the Tolley principle. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right—that is the Tolley principle. 
This bill will not lower power prices regardless of the Government’s rhetoric on the issue. It will result in an increased reliance on thermal power which will push up power prices because as Mr Auchinvole said thermal power is expensive. Let us be honest about it—this bill will result in higher power prices. The era of cheap non-renewable energy sources is gone. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s been a great couple of weeks for the planet. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. Has it not been a great couple of weeks for the planet thanks to this Government here—the climate-change deniers on the opposite side of the House? That is why National is trying to ram this through under urgency and why it does not want the public to have a say because then the public would know that National really does not care about New Zealand’s clean green image it really does not care about renewable energy and it does not care about the state of the planet.