Hutchison Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:930] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. I congratulate the Hon Gerry Brownlee for the elegant brevity of this bill. What a marked contrast to Labour’s emissions trading scheme legislation! How many pages was it? About 600 or 700— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That was just the amendments. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No there were something like 1863 last-minute amendments. But I was making the point that it was very good to see the elegant brevity of this bill which is 2 pages long. 
This bill repeals Part 6A of the Electricity Act 1992 which was added by the enormous tome that was Labour’s climate change legislation. It will remove a barrier to investment in new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation plant. It is very important to remember that Labour’s thermal ban allowed Huntly power station to continue burning coal. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta should be aware of this—as anyone should be. Labour had not turned the ship—or the waka as the case may be—around at all. The provisions allowed Huntly to continue burning coal. The point I want to make is that using gas is twice as efficient as coal— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Three times! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well I did some investigations this afternoon and the official figure was that it is at least twice as efficient in terms of emissions per megawatt of power generated. There is a certain madness in what the last Labour Government did. 
I quote from an article from 13 October 2008—a time when New Zealand was exposed to extraordinary seasonal weather patterns—“If it wasn’t for existing baseload gas and coal fired thermal power stations blackouts would have occurred. Rather than banning baseload thermal plant we should be encouraging more diversity for electricity generation; subject to generation investors themselves factoring in future carbon cost risks.” National has committed to an emissions trading scheme. If we go back to the 1990s we see that it was the National Government that signed up to Kyoto; we have committed to abiding by our international obligations. But we expect a rational response and not one driven by sheer ideology as in the case in question. Who in their right mind would ban an efficient method of generating power in favour of one that was over twice as inefficient? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who would? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is a good question. Who would do it? Maybe the Hon Maurice Williamson could tell us. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No I can’t. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No he cannot. Well I thought it was the Labour Government that did it. 
I quote a media release from the Major Electricity Users Group that came out on 13 October 2008 before the general election: “Ban on thermal stations a regulatory nightmare”. The quote is from Ralph Matthes. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s a lobby group that has got its way now. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The Hon Steve Chadwick says that it is a lobby group. But after all it is the Major Electricity Users Group. Surely it is a group that is concerned about consumers and not concerned about straight ideology. Even if the price of power were twice as much the Labour Government would have forged ahead and made New Zealand consumers pay for it but pragmatism has to be shown if we are to have an emissions trading scheme in this country that is to some degree realistic. 
 The point made by Ralph Matthes was that “The discussion paper is a reminder that the legislative ban on new thermal power stations is all about reducing carbon emissions no matter what the additional economic cost to New Zealanders.” Unfortunately that was the attitude taken by Minister Parker at the time. Matthes says that “The ban on new thermal power stations is over the top.” He goes on to say that “The ban on thermal has had a chilling effect on investment in petroleum exploration. The timing of the ban when capital markets world wide are struggling to attract new investment couldn’t have come at a worse time. When most other countries are happy to migrate from largely coal based to gas based power plants New Zealand’s approach of saying no to baseload gas but embracing weather dependent new hydro and wind generation is foolhardy.” 
The second article I draw members’ attention to is from the  
Independent Financial Review 
 back in April 2008: “Government has head in the sand over emissions”. The author says—and this may be unparliamentary but I am quoting it—“Sniff sniff! Can anyone smell hypocrisy? There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy to the government’s energy strategy. It seems that on many fronts the government wants to reduce carbon emissions at home but is quite happy to make money from its own state-owned enterprises exporting fossil fuels for use overseas.” 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who is the author? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I say to former Minister Hodgson that his Government was quite happy to export coal to Korea to Indonesia— 
Hon David Parker 
: Japan. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —to Japan and to China and was quite happy to do so as long as it was not responsible for the emissions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who are you quoting Paul? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am quoting a fellow by the name of John Pfahlert—I think that is how it is pronounced. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Pfahlert—we know him. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well he is a very good thinker. The point he is making is that the Government is just being—I cannot use the “h” word again— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh go on! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No I could not do that. In his words “they can clip the royalty payment ticket while conveniently overlooking the fact the gas or oil will be used to fire CO2-emmitting power stations in Japan Korea and China.” 
The very last issue I point to is that the Labour Government was great at talking the talk but the record shows that 74 percent of new generation over the last few years has been thermal. That is quite extraordinary. Now suddenly Labour members want to ban it. They want to ban it in favour of a method that is twice as inefficient. That seems to be plain barmy. Thank you.