Hereora Dave: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15456] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I take this opportunity to stand in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I will start with a couple of comments particularly to the previous speaker Allan Peachey around his question of whether it is necessary to regulate. I honestly think that in the absence of in this case the electricity retailers observing a sense of social responsibility it is our responsibility to give serious consideration to regulation. My colleague Luamanuvao Winnie Laban spoke previously of the loss of the Muliaga family. None of us wanted to witness or experience that situation. But at the end of the day we needed to ask ourselves the question of who was responsible—who would take that responsibility. Is it the responsibility of the electricity retailers? Or is it indeed our responsibility in our role as members of Parliament to ensure that we have some protections in place particularly for those families that are in need? So I think the answer to my friend’s question is “Yes it is necessary to regulate particularly for that reason.” 
I have also learnt when working in the community of Mangere which now has Su’a William Sio of the difficulties surrounding some of the families in that community over this issue. I can assure them that we will continue to monitor and offer assistance wherever we can. But there is another scam—well I do not know whether it is a scam but there is another situation—occurring within the industry. I refer to the meter-powered boxes in some of these houses. It is a “pay as you use” card top-up system. I do not know whether members have heard of it. People roll up to the garages or retailers that have these boxes and top up their cards. It can be guaranteed that on benefit night there are queues of people trying to top up their cards. It is that group of people the beneficiaries who are using these cards. 
I understand that the system has changed to being a top-up on the telephone. That is nice and easy. That is all very well; people do not have to queue up. But if they top up on the telephone then they have to pay an extra $5 levy on top of what they are applying for for their power. People can go on to the Internet which costs nothing but how many within that group of people have a computer? So there are ongoing issues within that industry that we need to be mindful of to ensure that we are at least giving the right consideration in the right places. 
I do think that this bill strengthens the regulation-making powers in the Act and as I said earlier it responds to recent concerns about the disconnection practices of electricity retailers. It also ensures that we as the Government have the opportunity to regulate the content of the disconnection guidelines that have recently been developed. We heard from the Minister earlier that the voluntary aspect within the industry is working and working well but there is a need for the Government to be associated with ensuring that we regulate the content of those guidelines if necessary. The bill also raises the threshold of lower fixed charges under the Act from 8000 kilowatts per year to 9000 kilowatts per year for domestic consumers particularly in Christchurch and south of that city. 
I want to reflect on two parts of the bill. The first is the low fixed charges where we are targeting around the regulations for the low fixed-charge tariff options for domestic consumers. The low fixed-charge regulations that were introduced had the purpose of assisting low-use domestic consumers and encouraging energy efficiency. Prior to their introduction low-use consumers in many areas faced unreasonably high fixed daily charges for their limited or low electricity usage. The introduction of the regulations provided these low-use consumers with a tariff option that was more equitable for low-energy usage and more compatible with the Government’s energy efficiency objectives. At present these regulations require networks and retailers to make available a low fixed-charge tariff option to all domestic consumers that they service who have consumption at their primary dwelling of less than 8000 kilowatts per annum. The same 8000 kilowatt threshold is used across the entire country despite the reality that in colder parts of the South Island average power use is higher in large part because of the climate—it is colder—and there is little gas in that area. 
The second change in the bill that I want to refer to is the extension to the Minister’s powers to grant exemptions from the application of the regulations to electricity distributors and retailers. We must have that opportunity to ensure that there is some monitoring and therefore disciplines applicable to those regulations. In particular in some small isolated networks the cost of servicing consumers can be far higher than is normal for grid-connected networks particularly in circumstances where the compliance requirements and business costs of administering the low fixed-charge tariff can be excessive. 
So those are the two aspects of the bill that I wanted to raise but in particular I wanted to reiterate the moral argument surrounding the purpose of this bill particularly in relation to the question raised by the previous speaker. Yes I do think it is absolutely necessary particularly with regard to an industry that had lost its way in terms of the problem at hand. So bearing in mind that the changes in the bill will require electricity retailers to observe a sense of social responsibility in respect of those in financial difficulty I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.