Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:937] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 A long time ago we were at the beginning of the second reading debate on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill and I remember the good Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee talking about the elephant in the room. I wonder whether the Minister can remember that comment. We thought it was a self-referral but the good Minister was able to put us right. He told a story in which it became apparent that the elephant in the room was the Huntly power station that great gargoyle that burns so many tonnes of coal and emits vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He said that if there was a moratorium on some new plants that would replace this great gargoyle this great monster that needs to be replaced would not be replaced that therefore we need to get rid of the existing legislation and that that is why the Government has introduced this bill. That was roughly his contribution in the second reading. We know that it was nonsense. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is very rough. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well I did it in 1 minute. The Minister spent 10 minutes but that was the essence of it. 
There are two reasons why it was nonsense. The first reason has already been outlined by Jeanette Fitzsimons and David Parker and it is that the legislation the Minister is ripping out of the statute book says if members care to read it that where there will be a significant improvement in energy efficiency then of course that plant can go ahead. You see a straw man was set up and it has been knocked over by black-letter New Zealand law. The Minister needs to forgo that argument in all parts of the Committee stage and so does Dr Paul Hutchison and anybody else who runs up that particular flag—that under the moratorium it is not possible to build a more efficient fossil fuel station and back off a less efficient one. It is possible. It is a matter as I say of black-letter law. 
The second reason is even more interesting. The Minister’s mind is in this frame: “Is it going to be gas or is it going to be coal?”. It could be in another frame altogether such as “Is it going to be renewable generation or is it going to be coal?”. I invite the Minister to make the paradigm shift from gas as a source of baseload generation to renewable generation. Of course he may be thinking “Ha ha! It doesn’t always rain.” and “Ha ha! It doesn’t always blow.” But we have an integrated electricity system and the Minister knows as well as I do that the spread of the catchments of our hydro facilities and the spread of wind generation—especially in the foreseeable future—is such that there is very good integration across the land. Of course there can be dry years. We have had a few. I hope we do not have any more any time soon and I am delighted that the lakes are at a state of considerable replenishment right now. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Yes happy Christmas Minister. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Happy Christmas to the Minister. That is where the reserve generation capacity comes from and that is the future of the Huntly plant. I ask the Minister to take out one of its driveshafts to take out 250 megawatts—or indeed to invite the Electricity Commission to consider doing so because he does not have the ability to do it; it would have to be done by the commission. Let us see whether that is a future possibility. When National fetches up paper tigers and straw men and runs red herrings up flagpoles we can pick them out pretty quickly. Fortunately there is an erudite Opposition here to point out the error of the Government’s ways. 
You see there is no particular need to scrap the existing legislation. Ideology is what is at play here. Government members claim that it is bad legislation because it was introduced by an awful horrible bygone Labour Minister in an awful horrible bygone Labour Government and that is why it has to be thrown out. It is actually quite elegant legislation. It gives a market signal in law it puts exceptions in place where exceptions may be needed it is time-limited it is designed to ensure that the base of New Zealand energy will be renewable energy and it is designed to have New Zealand heading towards 90 percent renewable energy by 2025. And 90 percent by 2025 means no more fossil fuel power stations thank you very much between now and then; otherwise those who build them will have to wreck them in order to meet the target. 
The moratorium is simply a way of signalling in law that the Government’s intention is serious. If the moratorium is going to be ripped down it seems to me that ipso facto the Government’s target which is the same—90 percent renewable energy by 2025—is one that it does not intend to keep. I put it to members opposite that I do not think that it is remotely possible for us to achieve the Government’s own target of 90 percent renewable energy by 2025 by allowing more fossil fuel generation. I do not think it is arithmetically possible. Therefore the Government should be saying: “We have told porkies and we need to change our target.” or it should get rid of the legislation before us now. It needs to do one or the other. It should change its target and say it has been telling porkies or it should get rid of the legislation before the Committee right now. 
I think those are the two options. I think they are the only honest options and the fact that the Government is not prepared to take either of them means that it is designing a future that is based on sophistry. We will catch this Government out within 3 years and we will replace it at the end of that time.