Young Jonathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):This does take me back this bill—thank you Moana.Groundhog Day —The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will use the member’s full name or title.JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you. Ms Mackey this takes me back to December 2008. The very first speech that I gave in Parliament was a speech on the repeal—Chris Hipkins: I’ve forgotten it already.JONATHAN YOUNG: You have not forgotten it—I cannot call you Chris can I?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No.JONATHAN YOUNG: So it isGroundhog Day . Here we are trying to put into place a piece of proposed legislation that was repealed by this Government—in fact it was the very first piece of legislation that we repealed—because we knew of the damage it was doing.I do not understand why this legislation the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill is before us because I know right now that in terms of renewable energy generation there is something like 3500 megawatts already consented. It is not as if you have to encourage the industry. What it sounds like to me is that you are creating a disincentive for thermal generation. You say “baseload”. I talked to my colleagues and we are trying to think of who at the moment is creating thermal baseload generation. We know there is an increase inpeaker generation happening. We know that just recently Nova Energy opened a plant in North Taranaki; I went and saw that opening. But I am just really struggling to find the relevancy of this proposed legislation.Is it propping up a failing carbon market? Is that what it is designed to do? Is it trying to create a disincentive for thermal generation so renewables get a fair go? We know there has been a huge development of renewable energy and there is a huge number of projects already consented. We also know that we have in terms of the nations of the world the third-highest proportion of renewable energy generation. We are No. 3 in the world. So I do not know what you are trying to do because we are already doing a lot. We are already doing a lot that is active in this market.In fact just last week your colleague down there Gareth Hughes on your side of the House made a comment at a symposium at Victoria University that there is too much tinkering around this space. This is what is happening: you are tinkering again. You are talking about this creating—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am not tinkering with anything.JONATHAN YOUNG: Sorry yes I am not referring to you Mr Assistant Speaker. The member is talking about creating certainty out there for the renewable sector. This creates uncertainty for the energy sector. In fact that is what the sector said about this piece of legislation when it first came in back in 2008.Moana Mackey: Name them.JONATHAN YOUNG: Todd Energy for a start. That is what it said when you first put this proposed moratorium into place with your emissions trading scheme back in 2008. In fact what it said back then was that this sort of thinking and tinkering actually will increase the price of electricity. I know that you are very concerned about that. Go back and read the statements. Go back and read the newspaper articles—all of those things. If the member remembers my speech back in that particular point in time you know that Contact Energy in collusion with Genesis Energy because of moratoriums like this was going to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and was going to set up an LNG plant in New Plymouth. All of that was going to bring in LNG to be used in the consumption of energy forMethanex and different companies and also the generation of power. When you start putting in disincentives and when you start controlling by regulation that you—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JONATHAN YOUNG: Mr Assistant Speaker I understand what you are saying.Iain Lees-Galloway: He’s a new member; he’s still learning!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes and I would ask him to look at Speaker’s ruling 27/5(1). The member may continue. You have brought me into the debate far too often tonight.JONATHAN YOUNG: Oh I am sure you are enjoying the debate Mr Assistant Speaker but we will leave you out if you like.What I am saying is that the tinkering around policies around whether it should be thermal or renewable is actually an out-of-date argument. When the member thinks about what is happening in the United States with shale gas and how that now has been utilised for thermal generation it has reduced their carbon footprint in the States quite considerably because they have moved away from coal.Moana Mackey: Are you saying that shale gas is better than geothermal for greenhouse gas emissions?JONATHAN YOUNG: What I am saying to the member is that we as a nation already have a very significant level of renewable geothermal and wind generation and we are just unsure of what the member is trying to achieve with this legislation. What we have seen over the last number of years is that a huge number of renewable projectshas been consented. As the market continues those assets will be built and as they are competitive those assets will be put in place as the investors in those assets deem fit.What this is all about is manipulating the regulations around the source of energy for electricity generation which I think is tinkering. It isGroundhog Day . It is not achieving anything that I think the member hopes to achieve. In a sense it is trying to—I think in her own words—wait until the carbon market becomes strong. So it is to support that. It is to support the continual building of renewables. They are already there going. They are already there waiting. I do not know what you are trying to achieve. I think that this piece of legislation is unnecessary in this House.