Garrett David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:922] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I am one of the two people in this House who will be directly affected by the lifting of the so-called thermal ban. The other person is the Prime Minister Mr Key who as we all know is the member for Helensville. I live in the Helensville electorate and regularly have a beer at the Kaukapakapa pub where I have to say the so-called Helensville thermal power station is not a popular cause. Both Mr Key and I will have some problems with the repeal of Part 6A of the Electricity Act but of course we are here for a wider purpose. 
Most locals are opposed to the Helensville power station but unfortunately locals oppose everything. Just a second ago I heard a laudatory statement about the latest proposed wind farm. I am not sure whether it is the same one but in the paper this morning there are the usual protests from the residents who live near the latest proposed wind turbine farm. Of course that happens everywhere. 
Unfortunately nimby-ism is alive and well in this country. Whether it is prisons or power stations nobody wants them nearby. But we all like hot showers we all like to have the lights going and we all like to have our heat pumps working. I think that even the Greens and those who live sustainably whatever that means exactly like to have hot showers and to cook their meals on an electric stove. So whether or not we like it we all need electricity. In an ideal world we all would have—and I would have too—solar panels on our roofs to supply all of our electricity needs but sadly the reality is that we just do not have the much vaunted replacements for current energy sources. 
I touched a second ago on wind power. Every time there is a proposal for a wind farm the nimbies come out. There have been complaints about the wind farm in the Manawatu; there are complaints about the wind farms proposed for the South Island. It happens everywhere. As I have said no one in my local area wants a power station to be built down the road. We see these silly billboards talking about our having Christmas trees for 365 days a year even though the thing is proposed to be built 2 kilometres off State Highway 16 where in reality no one will really notice it. But that is the way we do it. 
Tidal generation is another one. I am 50 years old and I recall tidal generation being the next big thing in the 1970s. It was going to be around within 5 years especially in a country like New Zealand which has tidal surges such as those through the entrance to the Kaipara Harbour. I have seen them when I have been out fishing. When I went out there the first time and people told me I would need a two-pound sinker I thought they must have been joking but they were not. The tide through there is tremendous. Well tidal generation is still at the experimental stage. Part of the reason of course is the Resource Management Act. God knows how long those people have been trying to get their experimental turbine in place but I believe they finally have. But 30 years on from the 1970s we are no closer to using water turbines to generate all our electricity. 
We rely heavily in this country on hydro power. I am not a conservationist or tramper—I am a getting a bit long in the tooth for it—but I know many people in the conservation movement in the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other organisations of that kind. I have not heard any of them suggest we should dam another river. As far as I am aware they all say that all the rivers that do not have major conservation values have been dammed. So there is hydro power gone. 
What about nuclear? As I said in an earlier contribution in the House the local Greens get very green when we talk about nuclear but the European Greens have said that it is a great idea and that in fact it is the most green alternative. The local Greens do not agree and funnily enough I agree with them. It is not a good idea for a number of reasons. There are intractable problems with waste and as far as I am aware there has been no sensible solution to that. I lived in Tonga for 4 years and the King of Tonga proposed that a dormant volcano be the world’s nuclear waste disposal dump. That was one of the silliest proposals but I have heard of other proposals that are almost as silly. No one has offered a good proposal for nuclear waste. 
We live in an earthquake zone. As members will know the Japanese recently suffered a major earthquake— 
John Hayes 
: Were you the court jester? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —no I was never paid enough—and there were major concerns about damage. But one of the things that very few people mention about nuclear stations is terrorist risk. People go on about the fail-safe protections of nuclear plants but they are all predicated on one thing and that is that the operators of the plants do not want them to fail so they have seven or eight fail-safe back-up mechanisms. But if we have terrorists who are prepared to die then it does not matter whether there are 27 fail-safe mechanisms they will come in and blow the rest of us up as well. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: If they want to die why don’t they just stay at home and do it? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I agree with that. 
I have gone through wind power nuclear power and hydro power. What does that leave in a country like ours? It leaves gas oil and coal. Oil is pretty dirty. 
John Hayes 
: There is hydro. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: We went through hydro. Oil is pretty dirty so that leaves gas and coal. I understand that the technology for— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Coal is even dirtier. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am told that the technology for scrubbing coal is now advancing at a great rate as it all is and that is my next point. As to gas I can remember that not that long ago liquefied petroleum gas which is the same gas we are talking about for firing gas-fired power stations was touted as the green alternative. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Different gas. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: A different gas? Oh OK. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Yes propane not methane. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: There is a big difference in emissions is there? It is still a lot cleaner than oil and it is a lot cleaner than coal. 
Paul Quinn 
: This is today’s education. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: It is good is it not? The removal of emissions from the burning of gas is a rapidly evolving technology. As I have said it is a lot cleaner than the coal alternative. 
I believe we have 1500 years’ worth of coal in New Zealand and I can see that getting burnt at some stage but not yet. The technology is still developing. Everybody realises that for a whole host of reasons it is desirable that we have alternatives to fossil fuel burning. As I said in a contribution on an earlier bill I would be delighted if we could all burn 100 percent biofuels tomorrow but the reality is that the technology is not there. I think that its time will come but that time is not now. 
Thermal generation is a very sensible alternative in the short term. The life of a power station is 20 or 30 years. We might as well burn the gas. It is sitting in the ground. It is a pretty clean alternative. It is not the cleanest but it is a pretty clean alternative. The technology is advancing. Let us take the Kaukapakapa or Helensville station—by the time it has reached the end of its natural life or probably before we will have much better technology and maybe even tidal generation will finally have come. But right now gas is a pretty good alternative. ACT supports this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill to allow us to keep on having hot showers in the meantime. Thank you.