Clendon David: Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill — First Reading 
Clendon David: Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10794] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I will begin by thanking those members who have spoken in favour of the Smart Meters (Consumer Choice) Bill particularly the Labour and Maori Party spokespeople; that demonstrates the forward-thinking and progressive nature of those two parties. It must be said of some of the opposition comments that members have shown damned good “faint praise” in recognising that many of the benefits we are proposing for the installation of smart meters are in fact very real. Nevertheless they are choosing to vote against offering choice to consumers. 
There seems to be a strange phenomenon around electricity prices. In years when the hydro lakes are dry we are told the power price must go up but in years when they are full the power price must still go up. We bring in more renewables and electricity prices go up. When we fire up the old coal burning stations there seems to be some strange economic alchemy that demands that electricity prices must continue to rise. This bill would not be the entire solution to electricity pricing and to managing that but it would be one significant and very positive step towards giving consumers the ability to manage their usage and cut their costs. It is a great shame that the Government tonight is demonstrating its failure to protect householders from rising electricity prices by voting against this very sensible and very timely bill. It is ironic that the two political parties that pride themselves on being advocates for choice will be voting against a proposal that would enhance choice and offer consumers even more choice in this very critical area of energy in the household. 
Consumers are indeed paying for the new meters that are currently being rolled out so consumers are stuck with paying for a technology from which they cannot benefit. That to me seems to be at odds with at least the professed beliefs of the two parties that are so far opposing this bill. We have heard much objection that the legislation has come too soon and that we must not get ahead of the game in terms of putting the technology in place before it is certain. In fact that belies the reality. This is not new technology; it is well-proven technology. In fact it is mandated in Victoria the state of Australia and in parts of the United States. 
We are told that we must catch up with Australia. But suddenly the Government seems entirely reluctant to adopt the technology that is proving its worth in Australia and that has been adopted there for all the reasons we are proposing that it would be appropriate to adopt it here. For a Government that speaks a great deal about innovation and the advancement of New Zealand’s economy it seems to have a remarkable reluctance to innovate—not even to take a risk but simply to display some leadership—and to demonstrate a willingness to accept that time has moved on. 
I must thank Mr Chauvel for his very appropriate comments that this is the iPod generation. We no longer content ourselves with just 78 records but that is what this Government seems satisfied to do. There has been some mention of smart appliances. One spokesperson hoped that in his or her lifetime smart appliances would be seen. I am not putting words in the mouth of Fisher and Paykel Appliances; I am not suggesting that that company is coming out in support of this bill necessarily. But I spoke a few days ago to one of its technical people who assured me that technically in terms of electronic design and development it could have smart appliances on the market within 18 months. All the company requires is confidence and the surety of the standard. Essentially all it needs to light the fuse to make New Zealand - manufactured smart appliances available is an assurance of a standard. That is a very very slight—minor—regulatory step but that is what we see the Government unwilling to adopt tonight. Eighteen months is a very short time in the scheme of things and that is how long it would take—not 10 years not a lifetime. 
Overall the objections from the Government have been in effect quite niggling objections—that the bill is too soon and that the bill is imperfect. Of course it is imperfect; I doubt whether a member’s bill has ever come to this House that could not have been improved by appropriate attention from a select committee. It is very disappointing that this Government will not allow that process to proceed. What will come out of this debate though is that New Zealanders will note which parties were willing to stand up and support the best interests of consumers and which parties were not there to support consumers’ interests. Kia ora koutou.