Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:952] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is somewhat ironic to be rising to speak on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill when we have had such a lack of energy from the Minister in charge of it Gerry Brownlee. In fact I do not think he has taken a single call on this bill which is in his name—not a single call to speak on this bill. He got an exemption! Do members think he would be eligible for an exemption— 
Hon Member 
: Thermal generation! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —for thermal generation? 
I am very happy to rise and speak on the title clause of this bill and to offer other potential titles. I thought maybe we could call it the “Climate Change Denial Bill”. But then I thought maybe we could call it the “Climate Change Denial Bill No. 2”. 
Moana Mackey 
: Or No. 3. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Maybe even No. 3. The bill that we were debating immediately before this one the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill would be “Climate Change Denial Bill No. 1”; this bill would be “Climate Change Denial Bill No. 2”. 
I am a bit confused as to where Government members stand on climate change. I know that they are taking a balanced approach: on one day they say it is a hoax and on another day they say that of course they have always believed in climate change. Then they seem to come back again and say that it is a hoax. So I am a bit confused and I imagine that anybody listening at home would be a little bit confused as to the Government’s actual views on climate change. 
I notice that the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith is suddenly very quiet. Clearly he has been railroaded by the other members of his party. Maybe that is another potential title for the bill: it could be the “What Happened to the Bluegreens Bill”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was in the Bluegreens policy. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Was it in the Bluegreens policy? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it was. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Is that right? So how is that possibly—in any way shape or form—green? 
Hon Member 
: It’s blue. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is blue—it is certainly very blue—but I am not sure where the green bit comes in when those members are saying that they do not really like renewable energy and they do not really think it is all that important. It is certainly not a high priority for this Government to make renewable energy important. This is the second bill in a row where we are debating whether to wind back the clock on renewable energy. That is what National seems to think is one of its most important priorities immediately on becoming the Government. In fact it thinks it is so important that the public of New Zealand should not have their chance to have a say on its decisions at all. The Government just rams the bill through under urgency without anybody having a chance to have a say. 
We could call this the “Clean Green Image Revocation Bill” because that is actually what this is all about. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was only ever an image. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Dr Smith says that it was only ever an image so we were never a clean green country. The people of New Zealand who are very proud of our clean green image will be very very disappointed to hear that. They will be very very disappointed to hear that according to this new National Government we are not a clean green country at all. 
Hon David Parker 
: Aotearoa—the land of the long white cloud. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right—the land of the long white cloud. It is not a clean green country any more and according to National it never was anyway. So let us not worry too much about that—let us not worry about that at all! 
We could call this the “Where Has the ACT Party Gone Bill”. This is yet another bill being passed that has no regulatory impact statement. How many bills have been passed that have no regulatory impact statements or very inadequate regulatory impact statements? I wonder whether we have a Minister for Regulatory Reform now and whether he has a view on the fact that there is no regulatory impact statement on this bill and that there has been a complete absence of any form of regulatory impact assessment on the legislation that is being rammed through. We could call this the “Where Did Think Big Go Bill”. Where did Think Big go? This is the “Think Big Legacy Bill” perhaps. 
Members opposite have been talking about increased power prices but we know that in most instances thermal generation is actually more expensive than renewable generation. Why on earth does this Government want to promote more thermal generation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So why do you need to regulate it if it’s cheaper? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Perhaps the Minister for the Environment needs a little lesson on how the electricity market actually works. Maybe he could talk to the Minister of Energy and Resources but I am not entirely sure that he understands it either. I am not entirely sure that he has quite got to grips with that. 
Moana Mackey 
: He hasn’t got to that page in his colouring book. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. The picture book has not quite got up to that part yet. The cartoonists cannot quite draw it fast enough for him to keep up. 
There are many other titles for this bill. 
Hon Member 
: Hoax. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It could be the “Climate Change is a Hoax Bill”. 
Grant Robertson 
: A balanced approach. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It could be the “Balanced Approach Bill”. Again we are coming back to the balanced approach.