Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14175] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I listened very carefully to the contribution from Rahui Katene and I acknowledge that local member for Te Tai Tonga for putting forward the views of Ngai Tahu. If that were to be the case then I am sure the Maori Party would vote for the Supplementary Order Paper I am proposing. 
Supplementary Order Paper 163 delays the commencement of the asset swaps by 1 year to allow more time for a thorough cross-benefit investigation and for the types of issues that that member raised to be considered prior to the asset swaps. The Supplementary Order Paper changes clause 124(2) to ensure that that investigation can take place. I am also putting forward an amendment on the asset reconfiguration review. I propose that the Electricity Authority must undertake a review of the effect of the asset reconfiguration on retail electricity prices for consumers for much the same reasons that I raised previously in the debate. This is a key part of the bill and a fine example of where politics got in the way of a good idea. 
It seems like the Minister of Energy and Resources sat down and drew on a piece of paper that it would be nice to shift this there and that it would probably have this kind of effect. There is no real evidence to substantiate or justify that cost benefit. In fact all the submissions that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that the cost benefits are unproven. The member opposite Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga may shrug and disagree but he needs to read the submissions. Given that he did not finish his last contribution in this debate I challenge him to argue this in more depth. 
It is of great concern to us that the Minister is proposing an asset swap of this nature when the benefits of such a swap are unproven. Many submissions did not think it would deliver the gains that the Minister says it will. We have concerns about the Waitaki catchment because the way in which electricity generation occurs is part of an integrated system. The submissions raised the importance of that more eloquently than I. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Which submission? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I tell the member that the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand objected to this. If that member were to read the submissions he would see that there were a number of them that did not support the asset swap. I challenge that member to get up and explain in detail why his Government is proposing that this is such a good idea when so many submissions objected and raised concerns about its benefits. If he is shrugging and saying no then let him stand up take the next call and say why his Government is proposing that this is a good thing. I would love to hear that debate. 
I was heartened to hear the very genuine concerns of Rahui Katene the good member for Te Tai Tonga. I hope that the Maori Party supports my amendment. It would be a bit of a taihoa signal—tatari me korero ano tatou. It is the type of critical decision that needs further thought. That is the key point of my contribution on Part 5: it needs further thought. The evidence does not demonstrate that the asset swaps will deliver the gains that the Minister says they will. Many many submissions supported the argument we are putting forward today. More important my Supplementary Order Paper is a clear signal to take a breath and have another look at the information because structural reform of this kind will not deliver the gains that the Minister says it will. 
John Hayes 
: Yes it will. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: No it will not. I ask Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to take a call.