Dunne Peter: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10829] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on behalf of United Future to discuss the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. The speaker who has just resumed her seat queried towards the end of her speech whether this bill was overkill. I certainly do not think it is overkill but I am lukewarm in my support for it because mostly it merely provides for a new regulation-making power in certain areas. 
If we look at the explanatory note we see that the general policy statement states: “The purpose of this bill is to enhance the regulation-making powers in the Electricity Act 1992 in relation to the disconnection of electricity for domestic consumers; and the Low Fixed Charge … tariff options for domestic consumers.” So the bill of itself does not do anything; it merely makes possible in certain circumstances that certain steps might be taken. That is particularly so when we look at the provisions relating to what might happen with regard to disconnection procedures. It is very clear from reading the bill’s provisions in that regard—and I think it says so somewhere in the explanatory note—that this is really a measure of last resort. The capacity to make some regulations about how disconnections ought to be carried out in the interests of consumers’ protection would apply only if all other procedures had been tried and found wanting. 
It is difficult to object to this bill on the face of it because it appears to do so little under the guise of promising so much. In the wake of the recent unfortunate business relating to the Muliaga family it is certainly clear that a number of procedures that have been applied over the years by electricity companies were somewhat less than adequate. I would have thought that the primary mechanism for ensuring that vulnerable and ill people are not switched off from electricity as happened in the Muliaga case is to have some connection between the district health board as the provider of the health service to which such people are connected and the power company in order to make sure that when equipment is supplied that requires constant use of electricity that electricity is available to be used by the consumer. I would have thought that would be the area where we would want to make our prime intervention—to ensure that in those cases where a respirator or some other form of equipment is supplied to a patient off-hospital site the patient has access to electricity so that he or she can use the equipment. 
It seems to me to going a little bit back to front to say that we are to put in place a regulation-making power that will enable in certain circumstances the development of regulations to require certain protections to be applied. That is useful to have as a back-up but it cannot be the primary way in which we respond to these situations. I think that those who try to laud this bill as a giant step forward are somewhat deluded in that regard. It is a useful backstop measure but it is no more than that; similarly with the low fixed-charges proposal relating to the number of kilowatt-hours’ threshold for the low fixed-tariff options for South Island residents. As a South Islander by birth and by loyalty even though I now live in this very temperate part of the lower North Island I can recall on rare occasions those cold mornings that the previous speaker referred to. I can recall sometimes a wish that was expressed that maybe we should simply cut the cable and let the North Island sort out its own problems. So I can understand a measure of the member’s frustration about the increase from 8000 to 9000 kilowatt-hours per year. But again it is not actually that; it is simply a change in the regulation-making authority that the bill contains. 
It is difficult to speak for any great length of time with enthusiasm or passion about this measure and I will not endeavour to do so other than to say that we support it going to the select committee. We look forward to what the committee’s examination reveals in due course; also to its decision on whether the bill is necessary or has served its purpose simply by being introduced in this way—sending a general warning about what might happen if in fact power companies and other service providers do not get their act together with regard to vulnerable people when it comes to the supply of electrical equipment. Beyond that I think it is very hard to get too excited about this measure. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.