Connell Brian: Third Readings 
Connell Brian: Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:16131] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I think it is a very sad day whenever John Tamihere takes a call but it is a sadder day when a Government member namely Mark Peck gets up and says on such an important piece of legislation: “This bill is for now.” By implication he is saying: “We know it is broken we know it won’t go the distance but it is the best we can do for now.” Well is it not about time that we had in Government men and women of vision who think beyond the next election cycle and actually do things for the common good of the people of this country? That is why I am proud to be a member of the National Party. 
Let me address the issue that Mr Tamihere spoke about. Yes I said that and I am very adamant in saying that I think the National Party did get those reforms wrong. But do we beat ourselves up or do we do something about it? We are prepared as Mr Sowry outlined in March of this year to do something about it. We are not going to hide and on top of our mistake make another one—and that is where this Government is found wanting. I have to say that we do not have an energy crisis in this country. What we have is a power crisis. We have tons of energy options in this country if we allowed ourselves to use them. But this Government just will not do that. It has already been said but it is worth repeating that we have 1000-plus years of coal reserves in this country. But “Blackout Pete” is inspired by the Kyoto Protocol which in turn is inspired by the Europeans. He is being seduced by that and by his own greenie tendencies to make sure that coal is priced out of the market. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can I just remind the member that he should refer to members by their correct names. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson will be responsible for many a blackout if this type of policy is continued with. What we need is more generation but what we get instead is a bureaucratically inspired panacea called the Electricity Commission. It is a backward step. Nay it is a leap backwards by at least 30 if not 40 years. It is an old inflexible and inefficient model that has been tried before. It is the worst type of central model that could be conceived. This is the very true component of what Mr Tamihere was saying and he was correct about my views that what has been suggested now is ill conceived. It does not call for any more competition. For goodness’ sake! Any analysis at all tells us that the problem in this country is that we need more generation not less. What will happen if we do not allow this competition? Lines companies for example with very good balance sheets will simply decamp and invest in other people’s economies. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: They are already doing it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well they are doing it in some cases yes. I say to Mr Tamihere that that is an absolute tragedy for this country. The people of Rakaia in supporting me with my experience overseas knew that they needed someone with the commercial experience in this country to tell the Government that it has to think beyond the next election cycle. This is a critical issue. 
 What will happen is that those who do take the risk of investing in this country are going to ask for a much higher rate of return simply because they have to mitigate the costs that are being imposed on them by this Government. That is why the National Party is totally in support of the removal of any limits on lines companies entering into generation. Of course that is subject to oversight by the Commerce Commission. The Electricity Commission is not independent. 
Every serious submitter who came to the Commerce Committee said they were concerned about the commission’s lack of independence and the costs the Minister would impose in respect of what he is setting up. This is a huge bureaucratic model. It is a step backwards. It is akin to what we saw in Eastern Europe 40 or 50 years ago and is really inflexible to boot. Hardly one submitter supported this legislation. An array of expertise came to the committee but not one of the Government members took it seriously. The fact they dismiss that type of expertise shows the arrogance of the Government and this Minister in particular. 
I want to make it clear for the record that we are talking about some of the most senior executives in this industry so I will name some of them. I refer to people like Stephen Barrett Alan Jenkins Murray Jackson Doug Heffernan Ralph Matthes Keith Turner Steve Bolton Keith Tempest Mark Franklin and Ken Sutherland—to name just a few. They expressed very clear concerns about design. I want to pick up on some of them. They said that it will create an institution with advisory operational and regulatory roles that will place it in serious risk of performance failure and judicial review. What member of that select committee could listen to that and not think that we may have a problem? Considering the array of expertise before the committee one would think a rational sensible person would want to give it some thought. But this Minister simply dismissed those experts with a wave of the hand. 
This Minister prefers to listen to his own closeted Labour advisers. I am surprised that some of them are not skulking around the corridors as we speak. One thing that really exposed the Minister’s ignorance and arrogance was what is being proposed in the gas industry. This is truly incredible. It is clear and I think most parties will agree that investment in gas exploration is expensive and risky. But having spent let us say $50 million on exploration then striking gas and then establishing infrastructure to support that new find this Government says to whoever has been that successful company: “By the way you now have to give your competitors a leg-up.” By that I mean that this Government is legislating to say that competitors in the gas industry have to let others use their infrastructure whether or not they have contributed. I ask the House whether that will encourage investment. I ask Mr Copeland whether that will encourage foreign or domestic investment. Clearly the answer is no. Why would one want to give one’s competitors a leg-up? 
We should all have been put on notice very early in this debate when the Green Party said it was going to support this legislation. What I found a little bit more interesting was that United Future was prepared to support it. I have heard them speak both privately and publicly about their concerns regarding this legislation and in particular the component around the sharing of gas infrastructure. That is incredible and simply stupid because that will scare away investment in this country. That in itself will make sure that we do not have enough supply and that the cost of gas will soar.