Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:906] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Members on this side of the House treat the challenge of tackling climate change very seriously because if anyone heard the contribution by the Hon Nick Smith Minister for the Environment they would have had their strongest inclination confirmed that a National-led Government does not believe in a coherent approach to tackle the defining issue of this generation—climate change. We have heard members from all over this House say how important climate change is. We have heard members from across this House say we need to do more for future generations of young New Zealanders. But what we hear from the Government is something that should concern young New Zealanders. It is a signal that I think does not provide leadership and does not lift aspiration to the possibilities of how this country could operate in terms of where it sources its energy. 
The mere fact that we are speaking to the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill shows that the Government will do anything to get energy no matter where it comes from. That is a real concern because the Minister for the Environment made light of the serious challenge confronting our country to reduce greenhouse emissions to better regulate our reliance on new thermal generation and provide and incentivise the landscape to explore and realise renewable energy generation. Instead the Minister claims that by lifting the moratorium on new thermal electricity generation the National-led Government’s commitment to tackle the effects of climate change remains on track. 
I say no. In support of the earlier contribution of my colleague David Parker I say that this bill will do nothing to encourage a coherent step towards a sustainable future. I absolutely agree with statements made by the Maori Party on Maori wanting to take leadership on this issue. The example that she raises with Tuaropaki—and I have talked to the people there and I have seen that they have an absolute commitment in renewable energy—reinforces the view that I present in this House. I know too that in the area of wind generation across the west coast from the north down to the south there are iwi who are looking at how they can better engage in renewable energy generation. 
In the first 2 weeks of this Government we have seen a delay in the introduction of the emissions trading scheme by establishing a special select committee that serves no other purpose than to placate the confidence and supply agreement with ACT. I again draw members’ attention to the contribution made by the leader of the ACT Party. A good 50 percent of his speech was a distraction to many members of the House and to those who were listening to the debate in a very serious way. 
We have also seen the dismissal of the intent of the biofuels sales obligation—putting at risk private sector investment and local jobs in small communities. If this is the Government’s leadership in this area then I will have nothing of it. I know that many more people feel the same way. 
The third thing we have seen in the last 2 weeks is the ramping up of thermal generation; a message that says we should be ramping up thermal generation through the introduction of this bill. There has been much talk in this House about great leadership a brighter future and lifting aspiration. For those words to have real meaning courageous steps in climate change have to be taken; action has to take place. Instead the National-led Government wants to be a fast follower. That is right—a fast follower. Surely we should do more to encourage investment in renewable energy to ramp up our effort in energy conservation and to promote new technology to reduce carbon emissions. There is no sign of this happening under the Government. Instead it chooses to walk quickly into the past forgetting about a sustainable future forgetting about what people think and how this bill might affect them. After all we are here under urgency limiting opportunities for members of the public to hold this Government to account. 
Comments were made earlier—again by the ACT leader—about the issue of the regulatory impact statement. There is nothing of that nature with this bill. The public have had no opportunity for this bill to be heard at a select committee where they can raise their concerns. More important people in the Prime Minister’s own electorate have taken to writing letters to the editor to be able to express their very serious concern of not being able to present this issue to their local member of Parliament. We should be concerned. A local resident in Helensville says: “Local residents and lobby groups like my own have had the brush-off from Mr Key’s electorate office when requesting a meeting to discuss local issues before the election. These include energy and climate change policy relating to the Genesis energy proposal to build a non-renewable energy gas-fired power station at Kaukapakapa. After the election it is too late; the hearing is next month.” His own residents have taken to writing letters to the editor when a simple hearing would do. 
So we should not be surprised that this bill is being put forward under urgency not going to a select committee not enabling local people to have their say not enabling those people whom we purport to represent to share their view on what I think is part of a range of measures that the members of the public deserve to have a say on. Surely a bill with such an impact on the Government’s overall approach to reducing greenhouse emissions should go to a select committee but sadly it will not. That will be the legacy and track record of this National-led Government’s attempt to meet its sustainability challenge. That will be a very sad face. 
Earlier this year in the Prime Minister’s own electorate in Helensville a number of members in his local community just wanted to meet him and that did not happen. Even during the election campaign Mr Key took a balanced approach by sitting on the fence saying one thing to residents and possibly another to his caucus who were busy dealing with the detail of this policy after the election—only after the election. We can only surmise that because this bill is being rushed through in urgency at a time when it deserves public scrutiny. 
MPs come to this House and have the privilege of representing their constituencies and their communities. Sadly for his own constituency the Prime Minister cannot do this; this is the legacy of how the National Government will run the Treasury benches over the next 3 years. We will be back here revisiting National legislation because it has failed this country and the challenge to seriously deal with climate change. 
We cannot have leadership that denies some inevitability about the state of our environment. We cannot be fast followers; we have to be leaders. We cannot be deniers; we have to take responsibility and action. I am a Huntly girl at heart and I was raised there for most of my life. We used to jokingly say that we had the largest light bulb in the country: the Huntly power station. In this House there is no one who would like more than me to see the retiring of the Huntly power station in favour of renewable energy but that decision would need to ensure that communities are better prepared to absorb the impact of meeting new employment opportunities and I hope that that may come through the clean-up of the Waikato River. 
I think this bill does very little to lift aspiration in our country’s efforts and it requires a whole-of-Parliament approach to say that we accept that climate change is an urgent matter that we all must agree to do something on. The lack of leadership provided by the Government is of concern and we need only look to the changes that have been achieved over the last 2 weeks. Gains under Labour were more than aspirational. We took active steps to tackle climate change through recognising the important contribution of renewable energy to supply the energy sector strengthening an energy-efficiency campaign and supporting Green Party initiatives like retrofitting homes and encouraging solar water heating greater investment in public transport introducing a biofuels sales obligation supporting smart procurement initiatives introducing market tools like the emissions trading scheme and encouraging support for new technologies through research and development tax credits. These are just a few of the real steps taken by the Labour-led approach and sadly in only 2 weeks all of them have been abolished and reversed by the National-led Government. Its members are not offering leadership when it matters most to the future of New Zealand.