Cunliffe David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:951] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is appropriate to be debating the title clause of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. It is hard to understand how anybody could not have a preference for renewable energy as opposed to the counterfactual—that is energy that is not renewable and energy that will not be available for our grandchildren. 
I am not a paid-up member of the Green Party but I agree with its members that we face peak oil prices at some point. Even foreshadowing constraint we live in a time when oil prices have reached US$150 a barrel. How long will it be before it is US$200 a barrel or US$400 a barrel? The long-run average trend is up and against that background that will of course drag up the price of other fossil fuels such as coal and other substitutes— 
Hon David Parker 
: Gas. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Gas. In that kind of world what is really important is that New Zealand as an energy-dependent country is well stocked with alternative energy sources. So it is absolutely vital that we create the incentives now because of the long lead times that are required to bring in this production. 
It is also the case that because of the good work of the Hon David Parker and the outgoing Government there are enough megawatts of capacity and renewable energy in store in the next few years to provide for the growth in baseload and peaking demand. That means that the renewable energy preference policy is working as it was planned and foreseen to do. But it worked only because the Labour Government had the fortitude to send a clear signal to the market and the market cannot internalise that which the participants do not personally bear. The market cannot internalise the benefit to society of having a long-term plan for energy that is sustainable and protects our security. The market can only take to book the benefits that are relevant to each individual company. 
Therefore it follows that clear Government leadership is required and therefore in a fossil fuel - constrained world it follows that that policy was good which brings us to the reason why we are here. Why on earth would we do this? Why on earth would we remove a preference that makes all the sense in the world? Nick Smith is smirking. I wonder why Dr Smith is smirking. He has a PhD and he should be able to work out that this legislation is a giant act of shooting oneself in the fossil fuel foot. 
This policy does not actually have any relevance to the language in the explanatory note of the bill which conveys that the legislation is somehow related to the emissions trading scheme. Let us just stand back and think for a second about why we have an emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme allows our economy to adjust at a least-cost price path for any given level of carbon emission constraint. So at whatever level at which the Government would like to see us pumping soot into the atmosphere—whatever level Rodney Hide thinks would be OK—the cost of adjustment will be lower under tradable emissions. David Carter may laugh. The member represents the agricultural community I believe. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noted that the Minister in the chair David Carter was very keen to take a call as he interjected on the previous speaker. We are very happy for him to take a call. We note that he has not yet done so in the Committee stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order; the member knows that. I would remind the Minister that it is accepted practice not to interject from the Minister’s chair because he or she has access to a live microphone. I ask the Minister to restrain himself. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is therefore very hard to imagine why the National Party in Government would want to impose change on New Zealand that at any given level of emission reduction would cost our economy more when tomorrow it will announce significant increases to Government debt a forecast track for higher unemployment a forecast track for more difficult— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s your legacy. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No no. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are doing a great job as the Chair. I do not believe that anything the previous Government has done is “your” legacy. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to the member by saying that that is not a point of order because the interjector does not have the call. It is the speaker with the call who should not bring the Chair into the debate. The only reason that that interjector is now in the debate is that the member has made mention of him. Had the member ignored the interjection the person would not be in the record. The member has 59 seconds to continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Is it not interesting that that member is still smirking? He is smirking about an international environment that is getting worse by the day. I understand the latest projections are for Chinese growth in the coming year to fall as low as 2 percent. And David Carter smirks. That member purports to represent agricultural producers whose livelihoods will be negatively affected. 
I ask Mr Carter whether this is just the arrogance of new-found office—is that what it is about? He is a member from a sector that is characterised by high emissions of methane of nitrous oxide and of other greenhouse gases that will be hugely affected if this bill goes through. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Have you got any solutions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes we have solutions. One of those solutions is to ensure that we are able to have renewable energy flows which means that we can adjust with the least disruption to our economy.