Garrett David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11785] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 In a very short call on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill I will start by saying that contrary to the picture painted of us by the party of the previous speaker Kennedy Graham and other parties we in the ACT Party are in favour of green solutions to problems. But we are in favour of smart green solutions to problems. 
An example of how complicated the position can be is biofuels. Five or 6 or not many more years ago biofuels were the greatest thing since sliced bread—almost literally. Here we are 5 or 6 years later having discovered that first-generation biofuels led to starvation or at least very severe food shortages because food crops were being used to generate them. So the first green solution that comes along is not always the smartest. We will always be in favour of the smartest solution. 
There is no doubt as other speakers on both sides of the House have said that there is great potential in this country for tidal generation wind generation and geothermal power. But sadly the nimby syndrome is seen in all of those alternatives. I live not far from the shores of the Kaipara Harbour coincidentally very near the proposed thermal power station and a little bit further from the proposed tidal generation station at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour. There are nimbies in both areas. Those living on the land object to the power station because it will be lit up like a Christmas tree make noise and emit greenhouse gases supposedly and those opposed to the—one would have thought—benign environmentally friendly tidal power station say that it will interfere with snapper-spawning grounds and what have you. So there are always complications. It is never as simple as we would like it to appear. 
But I have always found it amusing that the one thing the Green Party members here never discuss—and they are unique in the green political world so far as I am aware—is their attitude to nuclear power. In my far distant youth I demonstrated against nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion being brought into this country and I think I might do so again but it has come to the stage 25 years later that I realise that maybe just maybe we will have to look at it. The Greens in Europe are enthusiastic advocates of nuclear power. The Greens in New Zealand— 
Charles Chauvel 
: So is the King of Tonga. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes a small island nation not far from us is also apparently dabbling with the idea apparently oblivious to the cost of the fuel and other problems. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And what to do with the waste. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: And what to do with the waste as Mr Chauvel says. But the European Greens—and I am glad to see Dr Graham nodding his head—are all in favour of nuclear power as the greenest solution of the lot. I would not go as far as that but I think we will have to examine it because clearly our energy demand will increase and unlike the Greens ACT members do not advocate Luddite solutions and we do not advocate Stalinist-type bans which this measure seems to be. 
I think there is some comfort to be had from looking at past technology. In closing I will mention that a century and a half ago coal gas was the greatest thing on Earth. It lit homes and lit streets. If we turned a switch on and lit a match we could cook dinner rather than relying on a fire. A century later it was gone replaced by electricity. Nowadays in 2010 we are stuck I believe with oil and gas generation for a while yet. 
I will go on record on behalf of the ACT Party and say that we in this country have received a stark lesson from the Gulf of Mexico in recent days. I think I can safely assume I am the only member of the House who has worked in the Gulf of Mexico. I would have ridiculed the Greens 6 months ago for their concerns about oil exploration but we have seen just how dangerous it can be. Oil exploration—an industry in which I spent 10 years of my life—off our coasts is far far more likely to damage our environment than any emissions from thermal power plants. I will put on record again just to underline it that ACT stands for the protection of the environment. No amount of oil is worth despoiling our environment as is happening in Louisiana but we are not in favour of heavy-handed Luddite solutions as this measure appears to be. Thank you.