Robertson Grant: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:939] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am sure my colleague Clare Curran will be able to take another call and carry on with her excellent speech. 
I refer us back to Part 1 of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. Part 1 repeals Part 6A of the Electricity Act 1992. I think it is worthwhile to take just a moment to reflect on the purpose of the part that we are repealing. The purpose of Part 6A is in part to implement 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. I find it difficult to understand why the National Government would want to repeal something like that. 
This restriction is part of a wider plan in respect of our sustainability that the Labour-led Government had been working on. Yesterday in the House we heard uncertainty as to whether the emissions trading scheme has been suspended or whether it is continuing in some other form. We also know that as part of our emissions trading scheme Labour and the Greens had agreed on an insulation package we had the biofuels obligation and we had brought through this renewable preference focus. That was Labour’s plan to help address our issues of sustainability—a long-term plan to start dealing with a long-term issue like climate change. In Part 1 of this bill we see “short-termism” whereby National says that it made a promise on this issue and it is going to go through with it. It is short-term logic and it does not follow through on the importance of the issue of climate change. National does not seem to have a plan. 
Earlier today we heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee say we just had to wait—that is what he told us. Well climate change is a pretty pressing issue. We need a plan and we need to know what is going on in terms of the National Government’s overall sustainability plan. How will it address those climate change issues? It is not acceptable for National to bring a bill to this House and say that it is getting rid of the renewable preference but that it does not know what else is happening. It does not know what the rest of the plan is. It is not even sure where we are going on the whole issue of sustainability. 
This is a reckless bill. It looks backwards. It takes us backwards. It is a nail in the coffin for New Zealand internationally. I have stood on the world stage and talked about New Zealand’s environmental record and I have been proud to do that. I was proud to do that under a National Government when I was working at the United Nations in New York because Simon Upton a former Minister for the Environment stood up for New Zealand. He stood up and said that New Zealand had a record that we could be proud of. He meant what he said when he talked about sustainability. 
The Labour Government came in and tried to carry that on. In Part 1 we see the repeal of one part—one aspect—of that attempt. It repeals a part of legislation that says that we will put a restriction on baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation. There are exemptions. There will be times when we will allow that to happen. But we want to send a signal out to the world to New Zealand and to the environment that we can work with renewable generation. Somehow or other National seems to be telling us that security of supply is incompatible with renewable generation. That seems to be what it is saying. But we have heard time and time again in this debate that that is not true. 
Hon David Parker 
: New Zealand used to be 90 percent renewable. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. New Zealand used to use 90 percent renewable energy. We are working away with 1400 megawatts of new generation projects coming on stream over the next 4 years. David Parker has outlined those projects; they are meeting the demand that we need to meet. 
Why does National want to repeal Part 6A? This repeal bill sends a signal to the rest of the world that we do not take seriously our sustainability challenge. The fundamental thing that New Zealand needs to do is show the world that we are taking the sustainability challenge seriously. It is not just about the environment or the future that we want to leave for the next generations; it is about our economy because it is about how we are seen in the world. We have already seen this with the statements Gordon Brown has made and his policy—which we are looking at—that could restrict people travelling to New Zealand if cost is a factor for them. Now we will see it again and again. 
The National Government has to wake up and realise that our reputation internationally is important not just for foreign affairs officials but also for our economy and for getting our goods sold overseas. The image we are sending with this bill is that we do not want to go towards a renewable future. Everyone else in the world might be going towards a renewable future but we do not want to! We want to go backwards to more coal and more gas rather than to look ahead to our natural advantages. Part 1 repeals one of the most significant things that we could do. It is a key part of the picture yet National has decided it wants to go backwards. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve gone backwards for 9 years. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We have not gone backwards for 9 years.