Nash Stuart: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:967] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It has been a long week but could someone please tell me what portfolio Prime Minister John Key has taken? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Tourism. 
STUART NASH 
: Tourism—oh that is right; thank you. It really has been a long week. Can someone please tell me what the main marketing line of Tourism New Zealand is again? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: “100% Pure”. 
STUART NASH 
: That is right—“100% Pure New Zealand”. Tourism New Zealand’s website says: “New Zealand’s spectacularly beautiful landscape includes vast mountain chains steaming volcanoes sweeping coastlines deeply indented fjords and lush rainforests.”— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: And Gerry Brownlee. 
STUART NASH 
: —and Gerry Brownlee. New Zealand has “a population of only 4.1 million” making it “one of the world’s least crowded countries. It is a haven for those seeking peace rejuvenation and relaxation as well as a playground for thrillseekers and adventurers.” It is funny but it does not say “Come and see our new 1950s thermal power stations polluting our countryside and atmosphere.” So let us hold on for a second—members are telling me that New Zealand markets itself internationally as a clean green country. Are they sure? Why are we marketing ourselves in this way? I will tell them. It is because the image is one of New Zealand’s major international unique selling points. People come here because we are clean and green not because we want to power our cities with thermal energy. 
The Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill is in direct contradiction to one of New Zealand’s top earners of foreign exchange our tourism sector—Mr Key’s portfolio because it is so important to New Zealand apparently. Has the honourable member Mr Brownlee actually talked to his Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism about this bill? If so what did he say? It is hard to believe really. How can we sit here and legislate for this type of non-renewable energy power generation when it is in direct contradiction to the image we want to portray of ourselves? Why would Chinese tourists come here to escape their polluted atmosphere? It makes no commercial sense from a countrywide marketing perspective. Why would we do it? There is no reason in my view as a businessman and as a person who has carried internationally and proudly the message of a clean green image. We are a country that is renowned for its stance and its leadership role in the area of “clean green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”. Let us keep this image intact. If we start building non-renewable electricity plants word will travel faster than power down a 100-kilowatt line running through the Mackenzie country. 
The Ministry for the Environment commissioned a report to quantify the extent to which particular New Zealand exports benefited from positive perceptions of our environment. The project focused on three export sectors: dairy which I think we all agree is pretty important to our economy; inbound tourism which is one of the largest earners of foreign exchange; and organic produce which is perhaps the way of the future for New Zealand. The project assessed the potential consumer reaction to an illustrated decline in New Zealand’s clean green image. The work done in this study reinforces the qualitative evidence that our clean green image is valuable and the study provided some useful insights into the size and nature of that value. The results were not definitive; no contingent valuation study can ever be so. But they strongly indicate a significant vulnerability of export value in the event of a degradation of New Zealand’s environment. 
The main findings of this study were as follows: “New Zealand’s clean green image does have a value. Environmental image is a substantial driver of the value New Zealand can derive for goods and services in the international market place. The study suggests that this image is worth at least hundreds of millions possibly billions of dollars—aggregating value elements from dairy tourism and organic produce and extrapolating to other sectors such as meat. New Zealand is relatively clean and green. This is mainly attributable to our low population density resulting in relatively benign environmental pressures. However”—and this is the important part—“there are environmental problems that are sufficient to raise questions about the sustainability of New Zealand’s exports attributable to its environmental image. There is a risk that New Zealand will lose value that is created by the current environmental image if we are not vigilant in dealing with the problems that could threaten the image.” I will say that again for the House: “There is a risk that New Zealand will lose value that is created by the current environmental image if we are not vigilant in dealing with the problems that could threaten the image.” Yet the Hon Dr Nick Smith told us last night that this was only an image—that “clean green” was only an image. I bow to the honourable member’s knowledge of New Zealand landslides but as an international marketer I can tell Dr Smith that globally image is everything. Image is perception and perception is reality. So although “clean green” may be just an image it is our competitive advantage and a unique selling point and we must protect it with all our energy—sorry that is probably the wrong word; with all our collective might—because our image is hugely important and I am sure the Prime Minister will tell the Hon Dr Smith that. 
With this in mind why are we not absolutely focusing on sources of totally renewable energy? I have heard the economic costs of production argument but I have my doubts actually; I would not mind seeing the model on that. But that aside surely the indirect economic benefits of our clean green image are huge compared with the costs and damage that will be incurred if we do not go down the path of renewable energy. Of course we need certainty of power supply. It is a fundamental premise of First World economic development that certainty of supply is simply a given. The Government should in the absence of a robust market or a sustainable alternative take the lead as Labour did. However if this is the case and the Government does take control in the absence of a competitive market which may or may not exist in a country the size of New Zealand then that same Government also has a moral responsibility to its citizens to ensure that the long-term benefits of the country its resources and its future are taken into account—as Labour did. Building a thermal power plant does not meet this test around the Government’s moral responsibility. It does not ensure the long-term sustainability of the country’s resources and it certainly does not take into account this country’s wonderful future. 
In relation to what National and Mr Brownlee are doing all I can say is that Mr Brownlee should Think Big. They say we hark back to the 1990s but goodness me this is going a hell of a lot further back than that. We are a country that leads in many areas but within 2 weeks we have gone from being a world leader in sustainability challenges and clean green growth to being the laughing stock of the developed world. I tell members that I pity Charles Chauvel. He was at a climate change conference in Belgium. I did not pity him when I first heard that he had this trip—we would love to go to Belgium—but I do now. No doubt when he found out about that trip he was rapt. He was heading overseas to represent a party that championed climate change policies and environmental sustainability—a hero. Yet by the time he arrived his face must have dropped. Mr Chauvel went from being a hero to representing a zero—gee thanks I tell Mr Brownlee. We have also heard from the Hon Steve Chadwick that she was at a conference in Viet Nam when New Zealand was the laughing stock of the international market. This is not who we are or what we represent. We are leaders not laggards. We lead; we do not as proud New Zealanders like being the laughing stock. 
For 9 years we represented all that was good and right; in 2 weeks that has gone. It went without any public submissions. I am astounded at this arrogance of passing legislation that can undermine our global reputation built over a 9-year period of consulting internationally and locally undertaking studies of best practice and setting the global standard. I ask Mr Brownlee when he last spoke to ordinary New Zealanders about how they perceive this country. Does Mr Brownlee really believe that New Zealanders want another thermal power station? Tourism New Zealand certainly does not and our exporters certainly do not. Our clean green image is worth billions of dollars to this country. No I tell Mr Brownlee: security of supply yes; thermal power plants no. As well anyone who knows anything about the global nature of the petrochemical or coal industries knows that the long-term cost of meeting such demand for thermal power stations will inevitably increase over and above the price needed to develop long-term sustainable renewable energy. We have seen crude oil prices skyrocket on the back of an international commodities boom. Now we have seen the price drop considerably as part of that commodity cycle but as sure as eggs that cycle will once again turn as it always does. The price of gas and coal will continue to rise as this is simply Economics 101: if demand is greater than supply then the price increases. We cannot see the price of wind or tidal power increasing. Can Mr Brownlee see that? Of course he cannot.