Brownlee Gerry: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15115] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The National Party is supporting the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill through its second reading because who could argue against the idea that vulnerable New Zealanders should be protected from the ravages and difficult times associated with having their electricity cut off? It should be very clear that the disconnection requirements or the enabling aspects of this bill are not necessarily new for any of the energy companies. 
What a lot of New Zealanders do not realise is that the Government still owns about 85 percent of the electricity industry in New Zealand—85 percent of the generating capacity of the retailing capacity and of course of the national grid or the distribution sector. The Government is a massive player here. It is worth noting that it was a Government-owned organisation that got itself in the pickle over the disconnection of the Muliaga family in Auckland midway through last year. 
No one could be more sympathetic to the situation that that family found themselves in than the people of New Zealand as a whole. But we need to be very clear that that was an event that should not have happened because the protocols for Mercury Energy the Government-owned organisation that was supplying the Muliaga family with its electricity meant that that situation should never have arisen. What has certainly happened inside the industry since that time with the considerable publicity that surrounded that event is that all the players—the contractors who are involved in the distribution industry or part of the electricity industry—are much more aware of the protocols that the companies have in place. 
I think it is very interesting to note that we are giving speeches that can last up to 10 minutes tonight. I hope not to take as much of the House’s time as that because one can actually read this bill three or four times in 10 minutes. There is just nothing in it; it is an exceptionally light little bill. It does though create some interesting opportunities for the Government to regulate the threshold at which the low fixed charge should cut in. The Government has very generously decided that although the 8000 kilowatt hours will remain in place for the vast majority of New Zealanders in the deep south where it is colder than it is elsewhere that threshold level will be raised by just 1000 kilowatt hours. That is actually not a lot when one starts to think about it. In that part of the country it is cold. It is much much colder in Southland than it is in Auckland during the deep part of the winter—there are beautiful days of course; people have sunny days there unlike the rain that falls in Auckland often during the winter. I do not wish to say anything adverse about living in Southland but there is a reality about the situations that people find themselves in with regard to electricity usage in a particular geographic location. 
There is an element in this bill of lip-service being paid—a suggestion that somehow because this bill passes there will be no unfortunate disconnections like the disconnection that happened to the Muliaga family. That risk can never be mitigated by any Act by any law or by any decree from a Government. It is to be hoped that the lessons that were learnt around that time are well understood by all the energy companies. 
I want to go back to my first assertion here this evening: that the Government remains a major player in the electricity industry. The Government is the dominant owner of generating assets in this country. So that raises the question of why electricity prices are so high. This Labour Government holds itself up all the time as the friend of the family the friend of the worker the friend of the oppressed the friend of the low-wage earner and all that sort of thing so why is it presiding over a regime that will see electricity prices rise continually for the foreseeable future? The Government has no idea of how it might increase the availability of electrical energy which in turn would lower the price. It has no idea of how to do that at all. 
I ask subsequent Government speakers to explain to the House why electricity is so expensive for domestic consumers in this country. Why after 9 years of a Labour Government has there been very little change in the industry? There has been only the addition of a massive bureaucracy called the Electricity Commission which all consumers pay for with a little extra on their electricity bill month after month. What has ever been achieved by that? I think it would be a good idea if subsequent Government speakers told us how the Government intends to lower the price of electricity for New Zealanders. 
I have to say that the Government’s record is to increase prices across the board. We need only to look across the energy sector at the moment to see that gas prices are going up. The Government says that is not caused by it but is because of international prices. But the Government has done very little about telling New Zealanders that in the coming year this country will be a very large exporter of hydrocarbon product. This year a lot of the oil that comes out of the ground will be exported. That is of no benefit to domestic consumers but of course it does make Michael Cullen’s accounts look a heck of a lot better. A Government member should also address the question of the rise in the general costs that people have to pay. It would be interesting to see whether Mr Swain is able to explain how people are so much better off under a Labour Government than they were previously when all they see is their cost of living rising day after day. 
This bill is very short but if there were a scarcity of a product then the relativity of a low price is dependent on whatever the high price is. We are on a track that has seen electricity prices rise continually over the last 9 years. The Government has come out now with a project to have New Zealand 90 percent dependent on sustainable energy by 2025. We think that is a good idea but there has not been one single initiative from the Government since it announced that project to try to facilitate the rapid development of more renewable energy in this country—not one. It is laudable that the Government is trying to put in place some encouragement for New Zealanders to look at alternative sources of energy for home hot-water heating. That is a good idea. It is marvellous that there is encouragement for people in some parts of the country to insulate their houses better but that initiative is very small and concentrated on just a few people: by and large just a few who can afford it. 
One of the ironies is that a family of four or five kids and their mum and dad low earners could escape the low fixed charge simply because they use the electricity that would obviously be used by such a large number of people in a household. They would get no relief whatsoever. This bill is more about public relations than anything else. We believe that the regulation-making capacity in the bill is useful. We look forward to having that at our disposal in Government. We do not intend to go about telling New Zealanders that we are doing a marvellous job in energy when they see their electricity prices go up day after day. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You could never pull that message off. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister for Small Business sits over there. I had to ask my colleagues before what he was Minister of. Someone told me he had been the Minister for Building and Construction and all that sort of thing. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that he would make such a sanctimonious speech as he did earlier this evening knowing that he is the man who presided over the misery that so many New Zealanders have while sitting in their damp homes this evening knowing that the only help they will get from the Government will come after they have spent $150000 of their own money on getting to some sort of resolution position. 
National will be supporting this bill—not necessarily because it is good legislation but simply because it has some interesting regulatory capacity to it and because the sentiment that those New Zealanders who are the most hard up should get a bit of a break is not unreasonable.