Brown Peter: Third Readings 
Brown Peter: Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:16120] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I always enjoy following the honourable Mark Peck because I know he will put rather complex legislation in simple language so that a simple sailor like me can understand it. I thought he made some very good points and his last point should not be overlooked: this is legislation for now and more legislation will be required because this legislation does not address the problem as comprehensively as it should and could. 
In 1998 when the lines were segregated from the generation—the Bradford reforms—there was if not plenty of capacity a reasonable amount of spare capacity in electricity generation. But we knew then that it would not last forever. At that point in time there was a need to create on an annual basis a reasonably significant amount of extra electricity. There was a need for ever-increasing investment in the industry. Regrettably nothing happened. By 1999 the National Party Government knew that there had to be some regulations to tighten it up. I know that Max Bradford approached New Zealand First on more than one occasion to try to address the issue and get some regulation into the industry. New Zealand First and National got very close to doing that but we did not do it— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why not? 
PETER BROWN 
: We did not do it because of a glitch in the negotiations. We could not agree on everything. 
Brian Connell 
: Did you agree on anything? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes we agreed on quite a lot. Let me put it this way to the honourable member. Mr Bradford agreed with quite a lot of what New Zealand First wanted—not the other way round—to tidy up the 1998 situation. Then Labour came into power and we had 2 dry years. That proved without a doubt that we have not got the industry— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You should have done something. 
PETER BROWN 
: Something should have been done. Between 2001 and 2003 we had 2 dry years principally because we did not hold enough water in our lakes. Now we have this legislation and we have to ask ourselves whether it will solve the problem. I think the honourable Mark Peck has already answered that: the legislation will do something only for now. 
New Zealand First believes we have to free up the lines companies to let them have greater access to the ability to create energy generation. 
Brian Connell 
: To what extent? 
PETER BROWN 
: Probably removing the cap. We would like to have that professionally reviewed. We certainly think lifting the 25 megawatt limit to 50 is a token. It disappoints New Zealand First that United Future members sit there puffing out their chests and claiming credit for it; if they were a little bit more worldly-wise they would have supported a call for opening it up to a significant extent if not totally removing the cap. I think there is a good argument—I say this to my colleague behind me because I know he will shortly interject—to free up the lines companies to let them have free access to produce as much electricity as they are capable of doing. Our concern is that if we did that right now one of them would simply go out and buy say Contact Energy and achieve its aim in that way. What we really want is new generation. 
The second point I should raise is that there is also a very good case for freeing up the use of coal to produce electricity in this country. I know that the Greens will shudder but when we go and talk to people in Dunedin and other places further south we know that it is absolutely— 
Brian Connell 
: We agree. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now the member has got me worried. There is a strong case for using the billions of tonnes—not millions of tonnes—of coal in this country to generate more power. I think if we freed up the lines companies and allowed more effective use of coal we would solve a couple of problems. One we would make more electricity available and two it would be at a reasonable price and would stabilise at that price. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Tell that to your grandchildren when they’re drowning. 
PETER BROWN 
: I respect the member’s views on the environment but we are talking about a country that is tucked down the bottom of the South Pacific with only 4 million people. The problems with global warming are not here; the problems are in China which is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol; India which is also exempt from the Kyoto Protocol; and other places far afield. If she looks at the countries in the Western World that use coal for generating electricity she will find that New Zealand is a minor player—just 5 percent of our electricity is generated from coal. If we look at Australia we see that the figure is 76 percent; if we go to Europe we see that it is 50-plus percent. I think the member holds Germany up as the pinnacle as the most environmentally friendly country in the world but over 50 percent of Germany’s electricity is generated from coal. But I digress. 
Brian Connell 
: This is a very good National Party speech. 
PETER BROWN 
: Now the member has really got me worried! New Zealand First members asked ourselves three questions. The first was whether the legislation would address security of supply. The answer to that—and I say to Mr Shirley that we have to be fair although he might not always agree with that—is that it goes some way towards addressing security of supply. It does not go all the way but it goes some of the way. Will the legislation reduce the price of electricity or even stabilise it at a reasonable level? In general terms the answer is no. I thought that the maximum lines charge of 30c for a customer using 8000 kilowatts or less a year was a move in the right direction but after going south and talking to people who live in Dunedin and places like that I realise that it does not go far enough. The third question was whether the legislation would encourage investment in the industry. The answer to that was a firm “No”— 
Brian Connell 
: No! 
PETER BROWN 
: —as the National Party member behind me has just stated. It is essential that we encourage investment in the industry. It is hard to get investment in the industry if as Mr Peck said companies can sell everything they produce. His statement was along the lines that a generating company can make more money by not producing. That is a situation we are getting into in this country right now and we must reverse it. With three of the five major generators in public hands—owned by taxpayers—we have an opportunity. 
In summary this legislation will not do the job. That was acknowledged by Mr Peck when he said that it is good legislation for now. I do not know that it is good for now. New Zealand First is of the opinion that when one does something one should do it to one’s best ability and get it right the first time. We know that this legislation will not do that. We all make mistakes but this legislation will not solve the problems. New Zealand First will oppose it and we have made that quite clear throughout the debate. We have looked at this legislation very very seriously. We wanted to support something because we are not against regulation. We believe that there are times when regulation is appropriate and regulation of this industry is appropriate. Nevertheless we do not believe that the legislation will do the job required of it so New Zealand First will oppose it.