Jones Shane: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14142] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to add further fuel to our words of opposition to the Electricity Industry Bill. Part 2 of this bill reminds one of moving electrical deck chairs on the base of a waka that is going to sink. Despite these changes in institutional positions deep down the underlying question that every New Zealander is bedevilled by remains unanswered. This bill will not lessen the differential between what we as garden-variety Kiwis pay for power and what manufacturers and a host of other industrial users pay for power. Neither will it lessen the cost the burden that every New Zealander faces in relation to their power bills. 
The restructuring options that Mr Brownlee has brought to the Chamber began with his musings in the Commerce Committee back between 2005 and 2008. He organised a body of work to take place to find whether there was a better way to squeeze more dough and efficiencies out of the State-owned enterprises. He focused on the energy State-owned enterprises. I suffered for a short period of time with my presence on that committee whilst he was the chair. He is a jolly fellow; however he completely misunderstands the deep problem here. The problem is that we have reached a point in New Zealand at which these institutional changes of a filigree nature are not going to resolve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that the notion of competition for this essential service has not worked since the time of the 1990s. I personally look forward to the day when power is surrendered back in this direction away from the bureaucrats and away from the staff who run the State-owned enterprises who are largely beholden to no one. It is an actual fact that there is more accountability and more interest in the career of an ordinary civil servant than either responsibility or responsiveness from the people who run those companies the chief executive officers the staff members—I will not comment on the boards of directors because they have recently changed as a consequence of Mr Brownlee’s purge. I might give them an opportunity brief though I hope it is to prove themselves. But the real force blocking the types of changes that my colleagues refer to are the people who man—or should I say people—the positions inside these institutions. 
There will be no change to price. There will be no change in relation to the quality or the volume of competition which these sets of changes are based on. Will this organisation be more efficient? Will the existence of two quangos improve upon what the earlier organisation is doing? No. Why? Because broadly speaking we have always had at least two options: keeping the old model which was destroyed by Max Bradford or going far right out as the kaumatua of the House the Hon Roger Douglas whose hair has turned from grey to white over the last week or three would say—a complete sale of those assets into private hands and in that way achieving the sorts of efficiency outcomes we require. Naturally we will never agree to that. 
So the test is not so much about the effectiveness of each provision; it is about whether this rearrangement actually delivers a cheaper service. No it will not. Will it make the institutions more responsive not only to the consumers but to their proxy—this House? Unfortunately for the people of the land their interests are being mangled and mediated through the Government over there and I hope after recent events that it does not last too much longer. The push that we had which has unfortunately been marginalised in this bill was to enhance the importance of ensuring that the supply of energy and the pace at which it is used is used at a level of greater efficiency thus reducing the level of burden and impact on the sources from which we draw our energy. This is not going to change that. I repeat again that the level of interest and motivation within the bureaucracy of the various energy companies for achieving those kinds of outcomes is somewhere near zero.