Cosgrove Clayton: Urgent Debates — Mercury Energy—Disconnection of Electricity Supply 
Cosgrove Clayton: Urgent Debates — Mercury Energy—Disconnection of Electricity Supply 
[Volume:639;Page:9754] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 This is indeed a solemn occasion and a solemn debate and like the previous speaker and others my heart goes out to the Muliaga family to the late mother and to family members who are mourning her passing as we speak. This indeed was and is a tragedy. 
I think Mr Dunne spoke well when he spoke of our egalitarian spirit. In his own way he talked about the outpouring of grief for the family putting his own interpretation on it—an interpretation that I respect but in some ways disagree with. I say to Mr Dunne and to others that that is done in different ways and people can interpret it as they will. I just wonder though what the media response would have been what the country’s response would have been and what in a sad political sense Parliament’s and this House’s response would have been had the Prime Minister and the Government not taken the view they did and described what happened in the terms they did—that is as a tragedy. What would have been the response had the Prime Minister not acted in the way she did—had she not attended the funeral at the invitation of the family and had she not spoken at the funeral at the invitation of the family? What statements would have been made in this House in those circumstances? 
I note Mr Brownlee’s comments. Without getting political I do note the fact that at the end of his 5-minute speech he said that he was not going to trawl over the family’s grief at this time after he had spent 5 minutes in doing so—questioning of course whether the family was receiving Working for Families assistance and the family’s financial state. I will not comment on that behaviour but leave it to the people to judge. 
But I do wonder what this House would have done if there had been a different response from the Government and the Prime Minister. I think I know what it would have done in its own petty political way. There would have been members who said that the Prime Minister had not reacted and that the Government had not expressed grief. They would have asked whose responsibility the tragedy was and said that as a State-owned enterprise an organ of the State was involved the Government should step up to the plate. And I think they would have been right to make that judgment. 
It is a bit difficult to win in politics sometimes but I think that the outpouring of emotion from Parliament from the Prime Minister and from the Government to share in the family’s grief and to lend the family support in its time of need after such a tragic passing as all Kiwis would do is appropriate. In fact it is very Kiwi to do that. It is not Kiwi to stand aside to do nothing to posture from the sidelines to talk about it and to blow the debate from one about the simple but tragic circumstance of an error of judgment into a debate about whether we have enough electricity supply about the price of electricity or about who did what to whom 10 years ago when the industry was deregulated or whatever else. I do not think that in its essence adds to the mana of this Parliament or of the speakers or adds to this debate. 
Here are the facts. A tragedy has occurred and a family has lost a mother. There were those in the community who chose to lend support; others chose to do that in other ways. It is a fact that a State-owned enterprise through a contractor visited the house and saw a piece of apparatus attached to the mum. The mum or the family was behind by less than $200 in paying the power bills and a judgment was made. I suspect that the person who cut the power off is owed a little sympathy—and the family members themselves have shown sympathy to that person. I cannot imagine what that individual is feeling. It is interesting that in that wonderful Kiwi - Pacific Island way the family that was impacted on by the loss of a mum and a wife has shown that wonderful Kiwi spirit and compassion and has extended the olive branch to the contractor and ultimately to the company. I commend them for that. I do not know whether I would have had the grit or the guts had I been in that situation to be as generous as that family has been. 
But an error of judgment was made and the question is how to address that. The Government has taken the view—and I endorse the views of Mr Dunne Peter Brown and some of the other speakers who have spoken—that it is not acceptable in this day and age that under the most tawdry stressful or vulnerable circumstances the basic human need of electricity should be withdrawn because a paltry sum owed on a power bill cannot be paid at a given time. The sum was $168 I believe or less than $200. Surely there is a better way as the Government has said to manage that. I have worked in the private sector. I believe in free markets actually. I believe one has to pay one’s bills but I also believe as most Kiwis do that there has to be a degree of social responsibility. 
The Government responded in I think a reasonably logical way. We would have been pilloried had we rushed in and decided to legislate or called the House back to ram through a bill or do whatever else as some who were trying to politicise the show said we should do. What we did was to look at the guidelines—and that is what they are; guidelines. The guidelines recommend that a State-owned enterprise should provide information to victims if they are in the mire and cannot pay their bills. The record I am told shows that over the 5 to 7 years that this family had some problems that basic information—that recommendation—was not taken up and the information may not have been passed on. The Government has moved to say that it will strengthen the guidelines. Instead of insisting that it is recommended to State-owned enterprises that they provide information we have simply done this. We have said they must advise consumers who may have difficulty paying their bills of the assistance available from Government agencies and community service providers. 
In essence actually State-owned enterprises are to do what most companies in the private sector that are good corporate citizens do anyway—that is talk to their customers. They want to be paid and the way to be paid is to talk to customers and work through the proposition not to pull the pin or flick the switch. But we have deemed it appropriate to ensure there are some compulsory safeguards in place so it will be a requirement that that information is furnished to those people. We say that retailers must take steps to identify vulnerable consumers who are having difficulty in paying their bills and must consult with the Ministry of Social Development before disconnecting power from any vulnerable consumer. At no time during that process we say can a retailer disconnect power from a vulnerable consumer. 
I would have thought that is a pretty good package to put in place. It goes from a recommendation to a requirement. It states that once people are identified as being vulnerable—and of course I am sure the Opposition and others will say there will be those who will try to pull the wool and abuse the system but it is better to have that than to have a repeat of the tragedy we are debating today—there is a default position of referring them to our social agencies which can then hopefully do a deal and assist those people. The power keeps flowing the budget advice goes in or whatever else is needed the power company is paid and by doing that firstly everybody stays alive and secondly the problem is resolved. 
Mr Brownlee has said to me on air that there is too much regulation. Well I think that this is actually a very logical and common-sense proposition. Many companies that I have worked for in the private sector actually exhibit social responsibility and do members know why? It is because it makes damn good business sense to treat one’s customers well. It ensures that they pay their bills it ensures that the company receives the money and it gives the company a good name as a decent corporate citizen. Social responsibility makes sense. It is not some sort of PC kaftans-and-sandals type of concept that wanders around the ether. It makes corporate sense to look after and communicate with customers and to go the extra mile sometimes to ensure that customers are looked after so that they pay their bills. This is a logical commercial business proposition. 
I just conclude by saying that history will judge those who have participated in this debate and it will judge them on the way they acted publicly. I share the grief of the family. As I say I do not know whether I would have had the generosity of spirit that its members have shown in a terrible time of tragedy. I suspect I would not have had it; to be honest I probably would not have had it. But they have shown a generosity of spirit. The Prime Minister and the Government have tried to move to that space and resolve a problem swiftly so that we do not have another tragedy like this one which should have never happened and should never happen again. I think that is a position of logic and of compassion and at the end of the day Kiwis will judge it as such.