Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:928] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Under normal circumstances the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill would have gone to a select committee and we would have had submissions from the public. Views opinions and evidence would have been canvassed more information would have been gathered and there would have been time for honourable members to consider the evidence and the information to prepare a report and to bring it back to this House so that we could have an informed debate on the issues we are now addressing in the House. We cannot do that so we are forced under urgency to have a discussion and a debate on some very serious issues. 
I heard the member Maurice Williamson say that he like us supports the pursuit of renewable energy sources. We can all agree on that—the question is about the methods we use to get there. For that same member then to say we were closing our eyes to our reliance on electricity or putting a ban on thermal energy only and closing our eyes to the real opportunity there—which is greater demand in the electricity market—is I think very myopic in itself. I say to Mr Williamson that we know we have to shift the frame. That is what the future of energy reliance will look like in a new generation. But the member might not understand that; when we look at members sitting in the House proportionally we see that the new generation view of what the future vision of electricity supply might look like is probably coming from the views represented in the Opposition. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I am making a very serious point. When members opposite talk about other forms of electricity generation and about looking at renewable generation we would agree on those. But we differ on the method and in terms of the ban we are saying that putting a ban on thermal generation just highlights the fact that thermal generation is a higher carbon emitter than other sources of energy generation. That is quite a simple point. 
For anybody listening to this debate and probably trying to work out what is really being said I point out that only the Labour Opposition and members of the Green Party are taking this issue seriously are putting a comprehensive and coherent range of tools at the front and centre of tackling the issues of climate change and are providing the types of sustained arguments that we have provided over the last 2 weeks. That is an important point because if we look at the views out there in the community on this particular move by the Government we see that the Sustainable Electricity Association New Zealand said in respect of this move by the Government: “The government will face more big power price hikes like Genesis’s 9 per cent rise unless it acts quickly to encourage more renewable generation”. That remark was made today by the chairman of the Sustainable Electricity Association Brendan Winitana. He went on to say: “Overturning the thermal power station ban is only a short term solution.” That might appeal to the supporters the big backers of the Government but it does not provide a comprehensive vision about what the Government will do and what steps it will take to tackle the very real challenge of climate change and the effects on our environment. 
Brendan Winitana went on to say: “As the Prime Minister acknowledges we need more renewable generation. That’s why he should be looking at small scale renewable generation as part of the solution. … Importantly small scale renewables will mean less thermal generation and so lower emissions. It’s a win-win for the environment and power consumers.” That is the balance that this Opposition is looking for I tell Mr Williamson not the balance the member is saying is thermal generation at all costs. Meanwhile by the way we also support looking at other renewable energy sources. It just does not add up; it is a really important point in terms of ensuring that the public have a say on this because we just cannot ignore the informed views of people out there who have long-standing reputations on issues to do with the environment. 
Let us take another view—that of the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand: “Local Government has embarked on consultative processes under both the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act allowing communities to define the objectives yet Mr Hide as Local Government Minister is likely to want to override them. ‘The communities and the environment will suffer’ said ECO spokesperson Cath Wallace. The Resource Management Act has an important role in protecting New Zealand’s threatened biodiversity improving water quality air quality and making communities more sustainable. National and ACT by putting on hold climate change action and reviewing the emissions trading regime is making New Zealand an irrelevancy in international negotiations in the lead-up to the crucial Denmark meeting on Climate Change at the end of next year 2009…”. 
So what is the Government not listening to? It is certainly not listening to the voice of the public; that is why we are under urgency. It is certainly not hearing the very serious views expressed by Opposition members in this House and Government members are certainly burying their heads in the sand on this challenge of meeting climate change. And what for? National members want to signal to their supporters that yes National has won the election and yes the ship is turning in a different direction. The ship is turning in a different direction with a new leader at the helm—Mr Key. And how have they signalled this? Their ship is turning with a new leader at the helm and what are they doing? They are turning and reversing decisions on climate change through delaying the introduction of the emissions trading scheme and through the setting up of a special select committee on climate change. What are they doing? They are removing the biofuel sales obligation that would help to reduce our reliance on petroleum oil through fostering alternative biofuel sources. What are they doing? They are repealing the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Act that places a 10-year moratorium on new fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generating capacity. Their ship is turning; that is all this is about. This is the symbolism that the National Party wants to show. 
It is just before Christmas so we have to ask ourselves what is so urgent about this legislation that National has to ram it through under urgency with no public participation and no views exhausted and with respect with very very little or limited debate. It is all about symbolism; that is all it is. I want to make that point because the Act the Government is actually seeking to repeal includes quite an interesting provision around public consultation. I heard the member Pansy Wong; I listened very carefully to her when she said: “It’s OK. Renewable projects will go through under the RMA.” But what she has not told the public is that the National Government wants to gut the Resource Management Act in order to be able to streamline a whole lot of decisions on a number of nationally identified projects that the Government will identify as important so what will probably go will be public consultation. [ 
Interruption 
] I challenge Nick Smith to say that public consultation will not go under the reforms he is proposing in the months ahead. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Absolutely. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I challenge that member to stand up in the House to say “absolutely”. Is that member going to repeal any provision relating to public consultation and the Resource Management Act? Will the member take a question? There is silence. So that is indicative that there is a strong intention to remove public consultation when National amends the Resource Management Act. We should be very concerned because this will be about National ramming through its projects for its mates so that it can show that the ship has turned in a wholly different direction and that there is a new leader at the helm. Climate change is not at the front and centre of National members’ decision making and they have proved it.