Dalziel Lianne: Electricity Industry Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Electricity Industry Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8582] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Electricity Industry Bill but I wish to speak against it. I did not support its introduction. That is because although I agree with the overall aim of the bill I do not think it achieves the aims that have been established for it. As I understand it the first aim is to improve the governance arrangements for the electricity industry. I agree with that but unfortunately the bill does not do that. Secondly it aims to provide for specific regulatory improvements to be made. The word “improvements” is a bit of a barrier. The third aim is to make improvements to the overall structure of the electricity sector. My view is that fixing what is wrong with the sector is a bit like unscrambling eggs and I do not know anyone who has the recipe for unscrambling eggs. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: I’m working on that! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well that is very nice for the member. This bill proves that the Government does not have a recipe for unscrambling eggs either. 
I found it quite intriguing that a National member stood in this House and invoked the name of Max Bradford in support of this bill. I do not think that that name should be invoked in this House in support of anything other than a mea culpa on that side of the House for the destruction of what was an excellent electricity service in this country under a previous National Government and under Labour Governments before that. It seems to me that that is actually where things went horribly horribly wrong and there is really nothing that the Government can do other than admit that it got it horribly wrong and say that we have to find other ways of addressing the real problems that we are faced with in this particular sector. 
As I said Labour does not support the bill for a lot of reasons. The main reason we have for not supporting this bill is the cruel hoax that was played on the people of New Zealand during the last election campaign when National said that a National Government would stop increases in electricity prices. I recall that. In fact I recall hearing the Minister of Energy and Resources when he was an Opposition spokesperson walking the length and breadth of this country saying that a National Government would make sure that electricity prices did not increase. This bill really fails to deliver on that promise. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I never said it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He certainly was very open in his criticism of the previous Government in terms of increases in prices and he said that a National Government would bring those increases to an end. 
National promised it would do everything it could to take the sharp edges off the recession and help struggling Kiwi families. We have heard National members say that since the election but unfortunately the Government’s electricity market review and this bill clearly miss the point. Nowhere does the overview of the bill even mention constraining or reducing prices. Gerry Brownlee will not offer to resign if power prices continue to go up because he knows that they will continue to do so. 
I am concerned that the Government does not have a big-picture vision. I think that the priorities are quite wrong in respect of the approach it has adopted here. Any reforms of the electricity sector need to deliver on the three priorities of sustainability security of supply and affordability and predictability of pricing. Those are the three absolute essentials. The Government might say that that is what the bill is intended to address but in fact it does not address it. These reforms do not address and deal with these priorities nor do they give us any clue as to how to balance the competing considerations at stake. 
Transferring assets between power companies and reshuffling the bureaucracy is really just smoke and mirrors and does not guarantee any immediate relief for Kiwi power users. It has been interesting to hear Government members say that part of what they are trying to achieve here is to encourage a bit of shifting between different retailers. They are going to encourage consumers to shop around particularly through an annual $5 million contestable fund levy-funded to facilitate switching between retailers. I had to ask somebody recently what retailer I would be with if I had never changed since Southpower stopped selling electricity in Christchurch. They said that I would be with Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy is my power company because I like most New Zealanders am the target of any sort of programme that requires people to do nothing. That is what most people do. I know that the Government wants to encourage contestability but a lot of people out there would prefer to stick with what they have. 
One of the reasons why I am very happy with Meridian Energy as my retailer is that it has made a real effort in terms of its responsibility in terms of its carbon footprint. Yet now it is being told to go directly to jail to not pass go and to not collect $200 and it will be given a little gas-fired—or rather diesel-fired power station. We will have that included in my retailer’s— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You don’t know where your electricity comes from; don’t be silly. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am making the point that my retailer has certain ownership of certain assets and now they are being swapped. I do not agree with that. I do not get any say in what my retailer is or is not able to do. I do not agree with the transfer of assets occurring. I do not agree that the Government should be shifting them on the board as it is at the moment. 
It seems to me that there is only one reason for these asset swaps to be occurring and that is making certain electricity assets or certain State-owned enterprises more appealing for privatisation in the medium term. John Key said during the last election campaign that there would be no sales of State assets in the first term. I think now that we are at the end of the first year of the first—and I hope the only—term the public will start to click that everything that is being done at the moment is being done to build that foundation for the future sale of State assets. That is exactly why this is being done. 
I turn to the regulatory impact statement. Normally I can pick up a regulatory impact statement and read all of the particular issues that have been debated and consulted on all the different options that have been considered all of the risk benefits the cost-benefit analysis and the risk and opportunity analysis as well. I cannot find that in this bill any more because of a decision that the Government made with a new Minister for Regulatory Reform in the shape of Rodney Hide. It has been decided that bills will no longer contain the full regulatory impact statement; they will contain the executive summary and links. I have not had a chance to go back to my office and click on the link so that I can pull off the full regulatory impact statement. All I have is the short executive summary. It does not give me the level of detail that I require in order to have a proper debate in the House on this subject. When the bill goes to the select committee obviously we will have a copy of the regulatory impact statement. We will question officials about the detail around the process that has been gone through we will look at the cost-benefit analysis we will look at the risks and opportunities and we will assess as a committee whether it comes up to scratch. But I make the point in dealing with this bill tonight that this new process a so-called better process for regulatory assessment and regulatory impact analysis is just not good enough. I should be able to pick up the bill off the Table of the House and read what that analysis says and I cannot do that. I am afraid the Labour Opposition will be opposing this bill.