Connell Brian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15856] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thought that clear-thinking people could not possibly stand up and defend this clause but after listening to the United Future member I have to say that I think anything is possible. 
Rodney Hide 
: It wasn’t clear thinking. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I stand corrected—the member was not a clear thinker and he has just confirmed that. I knew the Green members would support this legislation because they are the people who dumped on Dobson even though they said they wanted regional development across this country. But for a United Future member to stand up and try to defend Part 4 and this clause in particular is I think beyond reason. 
Let us talk about what is being suggested here. The Minister of Energy Pete Hodgson took a call and said that if organisations invest hundreds of millions of dollars in finding gas and if they put up the risk capital to do that then he expects others will have the right through him to annex that part of their operation in the public interest. The annexing of private property is a theme that is running through the current Government at the moment in a way that should alarm people. I was with a senior Minister of the Crown in Timaru last week and at a public meeting he said that annexing a private property in the public interest can be justified. Here we have another example of that. 
The Minister said these organisations may cooperate. Of course they may cooperate—that is what commercial practice is all about. If one wants something that the other guy wants then one forms a contract and does it. The Minister went on to say that if they could not form a contract then he as the Minister would decide. I ask any clear-thinking person in this Chamber—and that now excludes the United Future and Green members—why organisations would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in finding gas put in place the infrastructure to process that gas and then run the risk of the Crown coming along and annexing that. Will that drive foreign capital into this country? I see that the United Future member’s head is down now. Will that drive foreign capital into this country? Will that drive exploration of the gas industry in this country? The answer is clearly no. That is why the United Future member cannot answer—he knows I am right. 
I ask members to listen to what is being proposed. I turn to clause 45 which inserts new section 43P(1)(a) which states: “the facilitation and promotion of the ongoing supply of gas to meet New Zealand’s energy needs by providing access to essential infrastructure and competitive market arrangements:”. That all sounds good until the Minister stands up and says that what he actually means by that is that the Government will hold a gun to the head of Shell or whatever other organisation has run the risk and say: “You must share these facilities otherwise the State will move in and take them.” That is the worst type of centralised model I can think of. That is the type of thing that was happening in the Eastern bloc in the 1960s and 1970s and that is the best idea this Minister can come up with to correct the problem in this country—which is a power crisis not an energy crisis. 
We have lots of energy in this country if we are prepared to harness it. But we cannot harness it because this Minister through this Government keeps putting blockages in place. This clause is just another classic example of that. I know that it concerns Mr Brown because he said so at the Commerce Committee. I am sure he will take a call have the courage of his convictions right here and now and say that he said so at the select committee that he is still opposed to the clause and that his party cannot support this component. United Future is having its report card marked over this issue as well. Clear-thinking people who have supported that party as a free-market policy party cannot believe what they are hearing now. That party is saying that it believes the State can annex private property in what it considers to be the public good. If that is not an attack on private property rights I do not know what is.