Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10802] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill and in keeping with the advice already given by Gerry Brownlee I add that National supports this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee. There are two aspects of this bill the first being the disconnection of electricity and the second being the low fixed-charge tariff options for consumers. 
The Minister has just told us that this bill does not really alter the Electricity Act 1992; it just introduces more regulations. Well well well! What a surprise; more regulations from a Labour Government! What a surprise! How do Labour members really imagine that this will make a difference? 
Maryan Street 
: Don’t lose sight of the purpose. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Indeed let us look at the purpose. The bill ensures that the Government can regulate the content of voluntary disconnection guidelines that the Electricity Commission has recently developed in response to the sad tragic and avoidable death of Mrs Muliaga. These guidelines include the requirement for the following: regular communication to all consumers on their payment options—is that not something that should already be built in to standard commercial treatment—arranging debt recovery in time frames that are suitable for the retailer and that minimise hardship to the consumer; ensuring that consumers enter into the most appropriate contracts for their needs; providing consumers with the opportunity to identify themselves as potentially vulnerable; consultation with the Ministry of Social Development to assist vulnerable consumers who are unable to pay; a visit to a consumer’s home before the final disconnection takes place; and the fact that consumers who require electricity for critical medical support will not be disconnected for non-payment. 
One would be forgiven for saying that they look like sensible points and that surely they are built into current practice. But do they really need to be put into legislation? Are electricity companies so far removed from reality that they have to be told every minutiae of detail? Are we simply trying to impose liability? Is this not a little like so many of the other regulations this Government loves to make? 
Darren Hughes 
: Sit down and vote against it then. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no—let us look at it. It is like microchipping dogs. How will that stop a dog from biting someone? It is like so many of the regulations that Labour members live by and stand by to give the appearance of doing something. 
Darren Hughes 
: Vote it down if it’s so hopeless. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Voting it down is not quite the point. I guess the member would prefer that. He would much prefer that because that is his style: vote it down do not discuss it and do not debate it; this is it take it or leave it. I think that that is what will happen now with the proposed legislation on changing the electoral law. We have already had an example of that. It will be rammed through. It will be a case of: “Let’s not discuss it and let’s not criticise it.” Well that is not my experience of working on the consumer— 
Darren Hughes 
: Experience! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no on the Commerce Committee. It has a remarkably good record for picking up Labour’s legislation and turning it into something meaningful. I could illustrate that point with the bill about the drainlayers plumbers and electricians— 
Darren Hughes 
: Gasfitters I think you’ll find. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Gasfitters—that is the one. I think we have even had a Minister say the Commerce Committee changed that bill into something meaningful and that was done mostly at the instigation of National members. So I say that the member should stand by because we might be able to do something with this one as well. 
But what background are we operating against? Can we have confidence in this Minister’s administration? I really do not know. [ 
Interruption 
] Did someone say no? Oh Bob Clarkson did and I think he is quite right. 
 Let us look at it. The energy policy is tied up with the shambolic climate change policy resulting in uncertainty and investment delays. Why can people not pay their bills? I speak as someone who was brought up by a widow. Paying electricity bills was a big problem. We have seen the difficulty that can occur in a domestic situation. But—here we go—residential power prices have gone up by 48 percent in 5 years from 2003 to 2007 compared with an increase of only 25 percent for industrial and commercial users. A further rise of 2.5c or 3c a kilowatt hour is required in order to deliver the steeply falling emissions profile that Labour’s Energy Strategy outlined as a trade-off between security of supply and reduced emissions. That is stark. 
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has had $110 million in funding since its inception in 2001 yet the 2006 review of its energy efficiency strategy of 2001 concluded that a 0.4 percent gain in efficiency was less than the gain of 0.7 percent when there was no strategy. This is the background we are looking at in terms of this legislation being introduced and it is not a very satisfactory background. 
Will the regulations work? The power in this case is being given to the Minister. In other words it is something at the bottom of the cliff because how will he know he should enact these regulations until it is too jolly late? Surely the State-owned enterprises can be expected to provide monitoring and acceptance of these regulatory provisions on a voluntary basis and have it as part of their commercial practice. But that would not suit the profile of the present Government. 
Let us look at the eligibility threshold for the domestic low-fixed charge. I would have to say coming from the West Coast of the South Island that the telephones have been running hot in my little blue office with questions about why the West Coast has not been included in this strategy. Well having had a look at it—having put the ruler across it—I guess that the West Coast should be delighted that it has not been included because the strategy will not work at the present rate. Indeed I think the Minister is on record as saying he would speak to power companies and others to explain how it should work. 
It would appear from the Minister’s spin that the scheme will address inequality but let us remember that it does not talk about discounts or amounts; it talks about margins. Yet although lower-use consumers who have not yet signed up to the low-fixed charge scheme might get a slightly lower power bill—perhaps $20 a year—everyone else including people who are already on the scheme will probably pay more as the power companies simply raise tariffs across the board to make up the lost revenue. I understand that economists call this the “waterbed effect”. Meanwhile residential power prices are up compared with the industrial ones which have risen by only half as much. So people should be entitled to wonder what the hang is going on. Increasing the threshold for the lower South Island may not actually be needed given this Government’s inaction over climate change its mismanagement of deforestation and the amount of carbon dioxide the State-owned enterprises power stations keep pumping out. 
The industry is in a bad shape. It was interesting to attend as one of its members the Commerce Committee when questions were raised about Roy Hemmingway’s suitability. Roy Hemmingway addressed the committee. He talked about our limited reservoirs for electricity about our limited capacity and about the perilous state of the transmission lines. I understand that 75 percent of power transmitted to the upper half of the South Island including the West Coast is generated outside of the region and has to be pumped into the region and that there is a 30 percent loss in transmission. That is frightful. Yet does this Government permit localisation of generation? Does it hang! 
Darren Hughes 
: Where did the member get that 30 percent figure from? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The 30 percent? 
Darren Hughes 
: Where did he get that figure from? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I got it from the power companies I deal with. They brought it to me as a complaint over the loss of transmission that occurs in the lines. If that figure is not correct then I would like to hear from members opposite what the figure really is and just how good the transmission supply lines are. I think they will find that they are living again in a state of denial. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.