Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:970] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Another day in this House another bill from this Government denying climate change. It is another sad day for the planet as the Government turns its back on climate change. We have just seen another outrageous attempt by the Government to stifle the debate by shutting it down before members have had a chance to have their say. The Government is embarrassed by the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill and it is embarrassed by its stance on climate change. It does not want the public to have a say on the issue so it is trying to shut down the debate. 
I will run through some of the points that have been raised in the short debate that we have had on this bill. It is a shame that Government members have not felt compelled to take more calls on the bill and outline why they think it is important. One of the things we have talked about is the argument from the Government that this bill will lead to lower power prices. We will definitely be holding the Government to that and we will come back to it in 3 years’ time to assess the impact that this bill has had on power prices. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Just like you guys managed over the last 9 years! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. We know a little bit about what has caused the increase in power prices and for a little bit of a history lesson we will go back to the 1970s—when Rob Muldoon was the Prime Minister the Maui gasfield was being developed and the price of gas from the Maui gasfield was fixed. The price was kept artificially low for several decades which led to lower prices for gas. Then of course the gas started to run out and the price started to go up. But we have not heard any member of the Government engaging on that particular issue. We have heard nothing from National members on Maui and nothing from them on the prudent use of our gas. 
Of course burning gas in power plants is actually a very inefficient way to use it. It is much more efficient to burn gas at the point where it is needed rather than for it to be sent to a power station to be turned into electricity and then to be transmitted across the country where a good chunk of the energy is lost. There was not a word from the Government on that. 
This bill is not needed to shore up security of supply. There was already an exemption in the legislation that this bill repeals allowing for new thermal generation for security of supply where absolutely necessary. It would have given the Electricity Commission the ability to investigate but this bill takes away the ability of the Electricity Commission to do that. So what are some of the things that the Electricity Commission might have considered in the course of those investigations? It might have considered the security of supply impacts which is something the Government claims it is interested in—and we will come back that issue in respect of the Whirinaki power station in a moment because I heard Mr Brownlee talking about that last night. It could have considered the price impacts—what impact the price of thermal generation will have on the overall price of electricity. It seems from the discussion last night that the Government members have a real lack of understanding of how the price of electricity is determined. It is a shame that the Minister did not share with us his knowledge on the price impacts that thermal generation would have. 
The Electricity Commission might have investigated the transmission capacity and the possibility of moving any new thermal generation around the country to points where it was needed and it might have considered whether the current transmission system could have coped with that. It might have considered the transmission upgrade costs for any additional transmission upgrade that would be required through new thermal generation. It might have considered the impact on greenhouse gas reductions that any additional thermal generation might have had but we have just removed the ability of the commission to do that; this bill specifically removes the ability of the commission to investigate those things. 
To come back to the issue of security of supply I say there is already a lot of new generation under development. We have 1400 megawatts under development. How much do we need? Apparently we need about 150 to 200 megawatts per year yet we have 1400 megawatts already under development. So it is clear that this bill is completely unnecessary from a security of supply perspective. 
This bill turns back the clock. We are no longer fast-forwarding to the future; we are retro-charging—we are going backwards as fast as we possibly can. We are retro-charging—we are going back to the future. This bill turns back the clock and says that our future in this country no longer lies with renewable energy. We are going back to using non-renewable energy—environmentally unfriendly thermal generation. It is a slap in the face to the companies investing in renewable technology and in renewable electricity generation. There is significant investment currently being made in renewable generation and this Government does not seem to be the slightest bit interested in promoting that or in encouraging it. We are not turbocharging the future; we are retro-charging. 
As my colleague Stuart Nash pointed out this bill combined with the one on biofuels absolutely sabotages our reputation as a clean green country. How ironic it is that our new Prime Minister is the new Minister of Tourism when one of the first things his Government does is bring to this House two bills to undermine our clean green image and our standing in the world when it comes to issues of environmental sustainability and climate change. We are no longer even fast followers; we have turned around and we are now running the other way. We are running the other way and we are being left behind by the rest of the world. We are being absolutely left behind. We could send John Key over to the UK to argue to the UK Government that it does not need to impose the departure tax but how could he possibly do that? He could not stand up and credibly say that his Government believes in climate change and that it is committed to the environment. He could not possibly say that when two of the first bills that his Government has brought to this House go in completely the opposite direction and undo much of the progress we have been making in the last few years. 
The clean green image is vital to New Zealand. It is vital to our tourism industry which is one of our largest export industries. John Key acknowledged that fact in appointing himself Minister of Tourism. It is a shame that he does not seem to be doing anything to protect that industry or anything to enhance our reputation. The UK departure tax will have a big impact on Air New Zealand but Government members have made no mention of that. They are sitting there quietly intently reading their papers all of a sudden and they do not seem to be the slightest bit interested in having this discussion. 
I turn to the issue of the Whirinaki power station because Mr Brownlee talked about this diesel-fired power station that the Labour Government built to provide security of supply. Mr Brownlee said that Whirinaki had been running flat out. In March this year he made similar comments about Whirinaki running flat out but what did he mean by that? Did he think it was running at 100 percent? If so he would be 96 percent wrong. When Gerry Brownlee said Whirinaki was running flat out it was running at 6 percent of its maximum output. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s flat out for him! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That may well be flat out for Gerry Brownlee but 6 percent is not flat out for Whirinaki. When he was told he had made an error he said that Contact Energy was trying to put a bit of gloss on a very big turd. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No wonder he hates biofuels. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is no wonder he hates biofuels. 
This bill is being passed undemocratically. The Government is gerrymandering the legislative process so that it can ram this bill through the House and therefore not give a chance for the public environmental groups power companies and scientists to have their say. The Government does not seem to like scientists and it thinks they should not have a say on anything to do with climate change. There is no regulatory impact statement on the bill. This red tape - cutting Government along with the ACT Party and its Minister for Regulatory Reform are ramming this bill through the House under urgency. In fact none of the bills being rushed through the House has had a regulatory impact statement. Where is the Minister for Regulatory Reform? He has been remarkably silent on the lack of regulatory impact statements on any of these bills. Do we have a Minister for Regulatory Reform? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He’s “Hide-ing”. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The Minister for Regulatory Reform is “Hide-ing”. 
The New Zealand public has been hoodwinked by this Government. Before the election the National Party told the public that it believed in climate change and that it believed in New Zealand’s clean green image. It even had the blue-greens. The blue-greens popped up and were going to be the way of the future. But now it is just blue—the green bit has gone and it is completely blue. 
Yesterday Maurice Williamson said he had always believed in climate change but he did not use the words “human-induced” climate change. I notice he was very very careful not to use those words. That is such a shame. This bill is yet another example of the National Government’s failure to learn from history.