Smith Nick: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:869] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The point on which I would agree with the previous speaker is that climate change is the most challenging and important environmental issue for this country and for the world. The real test though is will the “Thermal Ban Bill” as it is called make a constructive difference? I along with the Minister of Energy and Resources put to the House that it is Clayton’s legislation that will achieve the opposite to what it is intended to achieve and that the genesis of the legislation had far more to do with politics than finding a constructive way forward for New Zealand around the challenge of climate change. 
I make no apologies for being an engineer and a bit of a pragmatist. The part in this law that is a nonsense is pretending that we can differentiate between a peak-load station and a baseload station. The nonsense of the current law is that we could build another mammoth Huntly power station and say it is a peak-load station. When Huntly was commissioned it was a peak-load station. Yet under the current law and the exemptions we could build another station of that sort despite it being the single greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. You see a peak-load station today may become a baseload station tomorrow and that is why this legislation achieves very little. 
The second thing I want to say about the Act that was passed by the previous Government is that it was all driven by politics. Let us just recite the previous Government’s record on thermal generation. When Labour came to Government in 1999 72 percent of New Zealand’s power was produced renewably. It dropped to 66 percent—a drop of 6 percent over its 9 years—and it dropped every single year Labour was in office. I asked the Parliamentary Library to go back and check whether any Government in New Zealand’s history has a worse record in terms of the drop in renewable energy. I say to my colleague from West Coast - Tasman that even if we go back to the very first lights being turned on in Reefton in the 1870s no Government has a worse record in terms of decline of renewable generation than the last Labour Government. Those members should hang their heads in shame. 
I further say how much of a nonsense it was. Do members know what the last Labour Government did? It used taxpayers’ money in 2002 to build a new diesel-fired power station at Whirinaki. Any New Zealander who picks up his or her power bill will find an electricity levy on it. That levy was to fund a new diesel-fired power station. When I hear members opposite pleading about climate change that they are somehow the great saviours of the planet why in goodness’ name were they spending compulsorily levied public money on a new diesel-fired power station? 
But it got worse. Do members know that the biggest thermal power station that has been built in the last 20 years was not private enterprise? It was the Government that provided a guarantee for the building of the e3p generator next door to Huntly. The Government said that it would not be built without a Government guarantee. The previous Government intervened in the electricity market to build a new thermal gas-fired station one year and the next year it wants to pass a bill to stop building thermal power stations. If we want confused public policy that is what we have seen over the last 9 years and that is why we have seen such an appalling emissions record around electricity. 
Again let us look at the facts of the last Labour Government’s record. We saw a 186 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Let me just say that again. The biggest increase in greenhouse gas emissions during the last 9 years has been in the electricity sector and every piece of it was owned by the Government. Every single element was State-owned enterprises building things at the direction of Cabinet. Let us just look at the actual emissions figures. 
Hon Annette King 
: Of course that’s rubbish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Annette King the deputy leader of the Labour Party says that is not correct. She should explain. 
Hon Annette King 
: Happened at the direction of Cabinet. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. I ask the deputy leader of the Labour Party whether she was in the toilet when Cabinet agreed to provide a Government guarantee for the e3p generator. Where was Annette King when Cabinet decided to build a new diesel-fired power station at Whirinaki? Where was she? The Cabinet minute is very very clear in that regard. I say to the Minister— 
Hon Annette King 
: I think you are the Minister now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise to the deputy leader and former Minister. Why is it that the biggest growth in emissions occurred in the electricity sector during the last 9 years? You see what members say on this side of the House— 
Hon David Parker 
: So your answer is to build still more thermal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I want to talk to them about that. The member opposite asks me about the policy. I think that it is very interesting to look at the record. There is only one year—only one year—in which there was a reduction in thermal greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon David Parker 
: You told us there were no years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No no—overall and every year— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Mr Parker wants to get cute. It is true that every single year when Labour was the Government greenhouse gas emissions grew. But in terms of thermal emissions it is true that if we can substitute gas for coal that is a good thing. 
Hon David Parker 
: I agree and the current Act allows you to do it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well well! The member opposite Mr Parker the man who was part of the Government with the worst record ever in respect of increased greenhouse gas emissions notes that if we can substitute coal for gas that makes good sense. That is why we call these silly regularity methods. 
Do members know the genesis of this bill? The genesis of this bill occurred when Labour went into the last election campaign with its trousers around its ankles absolutely naked on the issue of climate change because it had had 9 years of huge growth in emissions. So it dreamt up this idea of a Clayton’s ban to try to hide that nakedness. I challenge members opposite: which other countries in the world have a thermal ban of this sort—which ones? 
Hon David Parker 
: Which other country has our renewable resource? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Ah! Let us compare the record—let us actually compare the record of increased emissions. New Zealand’s emissions have grown by 12 percent over the course of the last Government Australia’s by 8 percent and the United States’ by 4 percent. The United Kingdom’s have gone down by 2 percent. None of those countries which have a better record than New Zealand has instituted this sort of silly regulatory intervention. That is why it is the view on this side of the House that the right approach is to provide a market instrument. That is the agenda that this Government will be advancing so that there is an ongoing price advantage for renewable over thermal generation. 
I commend the Minister of Energy and Resources for bringing this bill to the House and for getting rid of the silly political gesture that was made earlier. Labour’s legislation was not designed to reduce emissions it was designed purely for politics. We need an energy policy that will provide for security of supply and that will provide the right incentives for improved sustainability. The Act passed by the Labour Government was a failure and it needs to be taken off the law books. 
Debate interrupted.