Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:909] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 I guess anyone listening to the discussion we have been having would wonder what the fuss is about. Earlier we heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons who I thought spoke extremely well when she described the original legislation as toothless from the very beginning. She thought that it would never work and that it was pointless to have it. In that case surely we are meeting the requirements for getting rid of it. The previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta whom I have considerable respect for talked about how important it was to have that legislation. But it does not actually do anything. The reality is that the costs of thermal generation are quite high. I cannot imagine a generator thinking “Oh goody let’s rush into it.” That is not the way it works. 
This is a Government that keeps its word and delivers on its promises. The Opposition sadly needs to get used to that; we will give those members a little bit of time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 2 years 10 months 2½ weeks! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I was thinking more of a 5-year term. I can understand the Opposition being upset at seeing legislation being reversed but let us face it: the fact is that it is mostly rhetoric that is being reversed. The last two bills are good examples of that. As Jeanette Fitzsimons said they are “a bit of fiction” “a bit of a wet paint sign” and “symbolism”. Those were the expressions she used. 
One of the features of the Labour Government was the astonishing increases not only in carbon emissions and the use of thermal power that occurred during those 9 years but also in the prices of domestic power—I believe those price increases were 48 percent. What does the renewable preference that is being repealed actually do? It provides a political cover for a situation that I think the Labour Government did not really wish to admit to. The renewable preference has produced confused public policy. There has been a 180 percent increase in greenhouse gas in the electricity sector during the 9 years of the Labour Government. The right approach surely is to have a policy that provides security of supply. 
Let us look at the ban from a number of points of view: the ban was an unnecessary intervention from the very beginning and it was unnecessary for the electricity market; command and control systems do not work well and have not worked well; this ban puts security of supply at risk; it is thermal generation that New Zealand is reliant on; gas plants like the efficient e3p plant at Huntly can run round the clock and National will leave investment in those plants up to the industry; this legislation does not lead to environmentally sound outcomes because the ban blocks investment in new generation that could potentially be more efficient and emit less carbon than the current one; and the ban is a disincentive for oil and gas exploration because explorers will have less opportunity to offset exploration risks and costs against gas sales if New Zealand bans sales to power stations. Oil exploration is a sensitive activity and it will not take too much before we see explorers and investors going elsewhere. 
The thermal ban provisions were part of the legislation that was introduced as part of the emissions trading scheme and the ban was added at the very last minute which makes it interesting that those members talk about a lack of consultation. The provisions had not been singled out in advance and the industry was taken completely by surprise. The Government is today repealing this legislation which is an intrusion into the electricity market.