Brown Peter: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18555. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make it quite clear that New Zealand First supports this bill. We will support it right through the process unless something major changes during the Committee stage. But we see it as another piecemeal attempt to add to the Electricity Industry Reform Act of 1998; it is a piecemeal attempt to patch it up. National is claiming credit. In 2005 it wanted lines companies to get involved in generation. We suggested that to Max Bradford in 1998. We said he should not close the door completely on the lines companies. And what did he do? He closed the door completely on them. Let us face it the Max Bradford reforms worked at the time simply for one reason only: we had more capacity than there was demand for electricity. It set up four State-owned generators. Contact Energy was independent but owned by the State at that time and three new ones came on board so there were four competing with TrustPower Ltd to sell electricity to the country and they had more to sell than New Zealanders were using. So there was downward pressure on prices. But gradually bit by bit that was eroded. The demand went up and the capacity was not coming on stream. We were told at the time that we needed to bring in 150 megawatts or more per year. Lindsay Tisch told us that in the last 9 years 700 megawatts have come on stream. I do not know whether he is correct but I know it is a good deal less than 150 megawatts per year. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It is less than 700. The figure’s right. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will take the member’s word but if it is not correct it is close.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I wouldn’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: On this occasion I will because I think he is on the right side of it. I say to this House that concerns around electricity are major issues with the public. There is the issue of security of supply and the issue of price. [ 
Interruption 
] I think we are having a two-way conversation across the Chamber in the middle of the debate. Electricity is so much of an issue that New Zealand First has had more correspondence on this issue in the last few months than ever before. The price keeps going up. We are told we have a competitive market but the public are not seeing that. 
New Zealand First passed a remit at its recent convention. Our members want to investigate the feasibility of amalgamating the three State-owned generators—that is Mighty River Power Meridian Energy and Genesis Power. New Zealand First members want to give consideration to the feasibility of amalgamating those three. To answer Harry Duynhoven I say I have had more correspondence in recent times on this country having nuclear power. It is not a position New Zealand First supports but I have to say we have had more correspondence in recent times about going nuclear. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s more expensive. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is good to hear the Minister of Finance say it is more expensive. But people are concerned about the environment and the cost. That is where we measure the debate and I would take the Minister of Finance on over that. I am not advocating it. New Zealand First’s position is to stay nuclear free but I am just pointing out the concerns of the public. They want the concerns of the electricity industry addressed. This bill goes some way towards that. It allows lines companies to get involved in generation which is something we said to Max Bradford as I recall in 1996 or 1997. So it is all very well for Pansy Wong to say National had the idea in 2005. We said and I think Labour also said at the time: “Don’t cut it straight down the middle.” This bill allows the lines companies to have more generation. 
Pansy Wong 
: Tinkering. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member should read the bill if she wants to know what it says. This bill will certainly get New Zealand First’s support. 
Let me tell the House what we should be trying to achieve as politicians in terms of energy. We want an abundance of supply. We do not want to keep worrying year after year about whether the lakes are low. We want an abundance of supply. We want a reasonable price. If we have a market then we want a genuine market where companies compete and bring the prices down. That is not happening. We want an electricity supply on a sustainable basis—I think the National members agree with that and I know that my Labour colleagues agree—and of course we want it to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Hence the public concern. 
Some members of the public probably only a small minority are writing in more and more saying that we should look more closely at nuclear power. That is not my position and it is not my party’s position but we are facing realities. There are some people out there who want to take a closer look at doing that. Just to dismiss that idea and to simply say that we will amend things here in a piecemeal attempt in the Max Bradford legislation of 1998 or whenever it was is a way forward but I say that it is not the long-term way forward. We should be looking more closely at the way we supply electricity in this country and it may well be that we will have to amalgamate the three big State-owned players or to show a little bit more vision. I do not know the answer; all I know is that this bill will make an improvement. But whatever we say this is a piecemeal patch-up job. Thank you.