Williamson Maurice: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:927] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Before I begin my contribution I tell the new member Chris Hipkins that I am a very strong believer in climate change. I always have been and I always will be. I believe the climate has always changed and if it stops changing then we will be in deep shtook. 
I think the measure that we are debating tonight is very very important on one basis alone: it is something we committed to do during the election campaign. I know that does not sit well with the Labour Party and I know it would be really churlish of me to do the Michael Cullen line tonight—“We won. You lost. Eat that!”—so I will not. Nor would we want to be that churlish. But we made it very clear with regard to energy sources that the best method of determining what was right was a general market model based on all of the parameters including carbon emissions being taken into account not some artificial ban that said that as one particular mode of generation is evil we are cutting it out—even if in fact the evidence over time showed that some of the generation methods might actually replace some of the very old and very heavy carbon-emitting coal-burning methods. 
Members from the other side do not like that. They have a pre-defined position that they will stick to and control. I understand that the Greens are opposing this measure but I do not know of any of their members who do not use electricity and I do not know of any of their members who do not think that some of the modern progress society has made from the benefits of electricity is valuable. Yet they come along and try to have us all living in sackcloth and ashes because they think it is so evil and so wrong to be using some of these modes of generation. 
National’s view is very simple on this: a market model is the best way to determine outcomes. In fact best generation will be that which produces the least emissions at the best cost and at the best rate for society. This artificial ban which was put in force by the previous Labour Government was exactly that—an artificial ban. It was trying to make everybody feel good. Labour members say that this particular method is wrong and everything else is better but they know in their hearts that that is not right. Labour members know that that artificial ban is not right and that we are best to go through each of the modes. My personal preference is hydroelectricity. I still think there are options for hydroelectricity in this country and I would love to think about how it would be if 50 years ago we had taken the “We do not want hydroelectricity” position. If the Greens had had their way 50 years ago we would not even have the dams that we currently have. Yes they are intrusive but they are a hell of a lot less intrusive than some of the other methods of generation. 
In this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill we have said that we will remove the ban on thermal generation and move to a sensible balanced and focused approach to the energy needs of the nation. I want any member of this House to get up tonight and say that he or she does not care about the energy needs of the nation if we are to compete in the world of the future and be a participant on the world stage or care about what the cost of generating that energy is and that he or she will just be stuck in some myopic absolutely elementary view of the world that says: “I will not allow things that I have decided should not occur.” From my perspective that is exactly where New Zealand cannot be. 
We have to look at every mode of generation. We have to look at cost-benefit ratios of those modes. Yes I accept that in the line items of those spreadsheets there has to be the carbon cost—of course there does. But if in the end one particular mode is beneficial to this nation then having an artificial approach of “I have come to Parliament with a ban and I will stop this.” is simply a bizarre way to go. 
National saw that; it said at the election that there was not a secret agenda. We said that the ban is wrong and artificial and this legislation moves accordingly. I am very very happy to be a member of a caucus a party and even a coalition Government that wants to look at highly efficient forms of generation to look at those that contribute as little as possible to our greenhouse gases and to not put in place an artificial ban.