Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:943] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will talk to Part 2 which is a relatively small part with some consequential amendments to other parts of the principal Act beyond the repealing of Part 3. I want to address my remarks on this part to rebut some of the logic—actually logic is far too strong a word—some of the commentary that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has made throughout the debate in the first reading and in the second reading. Actually he was active during the biofuels bill too but I should not talk about that at length when we are dealing with the Committee stage of this. He was active also last week when we were setting up a select committee to look into climate change. But I really should not talk about that at great length because we must contain ourselves to the purposes of the Committee stage. But the consistent theme has been in the words of the Hon Dr Nick Smith— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2 of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. This part deals with only the consequential amendments such as the powers of the Electricity Commission to investigate issues in respect of the electricity renewable preference provisions that are being repealed. I think you should require the member to speak on that part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is right; you have made a fair point. Thank you. I think the member on his feet knows that. I just say that when it comes to closures repetition and relevance are a matter that the Chair considers. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for repeating the very words I had used. This is like being in an echo chamber not in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. The point I was about to make and now will make which is relevant to this part because this part makes some consequential amendments and therefore makes the abolition of the energy renewable preference bill complete—without it it would not be complete—is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has throughout this debate said for a day and a half now that Labour’s record on climate change was shocking and that Labour’s record on building fossil-fuelled plants has been shocking. He has been listing figures and listing power stations. He has been not taking his tablets and all the while he has been voting against any improvement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You can always tell when Labour members are in trouble with the debate; they get personal and nasty. I do not think that those sorts of statements do anything for the Committee and I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just say that we are going to have to change our habits in terms of points of order. I will make a general point first then I will respond. Members raising points of order should adhere to what the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings say—that they should be terse. The presiding officers will not tolerate barbs innuendos or imputations in points of order. We will deal with points of order in a fair and just way in the House in general. The member has just offended in that way—not in a particularly bad way but it is symptomatic of what is going on. I want to make that point very clear. We are going to change our habits as a House about that. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the member did breach what is accepted. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very good Mr Chairman. Dr Nick Smith has all this while said that the progress this country has made— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the statement that was made by Mr Hodgson was offensive and I take offence. I think the member should be required to withdraw and apologise Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I withdraw and apologise. Right through the debate the Hon Dr Nick Smith has railed against this country’s poor record but voted to make it worse. I want him to get to his feet to explain what is logical about a member apparently caring a great deal about our progress on climate change and apparently caring a great deal about emissions that occur in our electricity sector but then voting to make them worse—voting to get rid of biofuels and in the case of this legislation and this part which completes the abolition of the moratorium voting to allow the building of baseload fossil-fuelled generation. He speaks in one direction and votes in another. I want the honourable gentleman to take the call and explain himself because he has not got any logic to his logic. The gentleman says one thing and votes in the other direction. I am getting sick of it. I reckon— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are meant to be debating Part 2. It is a very narrow part and it changes very narrowly the investigative powers of the Electricity Commission. The Standing Order around the Committee stage debate is that the member needs to narrowly reflect on those issues in Part 2. I ask that he be required to comply with the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I uphold that point of order. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very good Mr Chairperson. I was simply making the point that Part 2 completes the abolition of the moratorium. Therefore by completing the abolition of the moratorium Part 2 allows the moratorium to be lifted; therefore it being lifted allows for the development of further fossil-fuelled electricity generation and therefore is not consistent with anyone who argues against that. 
The most vociferous arguments against those things have come from the Hon Dr Nick Smith who none the less votes in the other direction. I do not understand it and there are a bunch of words I cannot use to describe it so I shall not. But I do think that in the course of this part of the Committee stage of the bill the Hon Dr Nick Smith Minister for the Environment should get on his pins and describe what it is about his contribution that is remotely logical. So far it appears to me to be bereft of logic. The good gentleman has got himself a PhD from somewhere and therefore has to have a couple of brains to rub together and I would like to see that exposed. I would like to see the gentleman get to his feet and see whether he can make something resembling a coherent argument in favour of fewer emissions but somehow against a moratorium that would stop them. Thank you Mr Chairperson.