Scott Lynda: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16021] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The National Party opposes this bill. It is interesting having the title debate the way we do now. I can remember many many days in this Chamber having title debates where it was to say the least very difficult to keep to the point. Usually they became quite ridiculous as members thought up different names for a title. I think that it is good that we now have the title debate at the end with a more wide-ranging debate to discuss the bill. 
The National Party does oppose this bill. We agreed with submitters because they expressed concern over the Electricity Commission’s design. This institution’s advisory operational and regulatory roles will place it at risk of serious performance failure and judicial review. There is a belief that it will fail to achieve the independence required to be an effective and credible regulator. 
We know that this country has suffered from a lack of investment in infrastructure under this Government. We have heard a great deal of rhetoric about the need to develop infrastructure to develop our roads and to have a security of electricity supply. In the Chamber today we have been talking about that. We have been talking about the fact that we have 8700 megawatts of generation and that we need so much more than that to be able to guarantee certainty of supply and price. A country cannot develop if it does not have those infrastructure situations correct and the ability to develop them. Twenty-five years ago this country had wonderful roads. Twenty-five years ago a lot of electricity was generated. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member alluded to the fact that the Standing Order in relation to clauses 1 and 2—the title of the bill and the commencement date—has been changed and that we no longer have wide-ranging debates on those clauses. I am yet to hear the member mention either clause or speak to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Standing Order has been changed to allow a more wide-ranging debate when we take those clauses at the end. Do members want it read out? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My colleague Dr Scott has taken part in previous debates in the Committee stage. She is familiar with the issues and is contributing now in the final debate which concerns the title of the bill and the commencement. As you have indicated Madam Chairperson and as members well know this is a wide-ranging debate that is like a peroration that brings together the arguments we have canvassed and articulated over the course of the Committee stage. That is the position Dr Scott is taking and she should be able to continue in that vein. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just quote for members from the review of the Standing Orders: “However we consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise”—that is really what is intended—“and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” I thank Mr Tisch. Did he want to add something more? 
Peter Brown 
: I draw to your attention the fact that the member who raised that point did not speak once to the title nor make reference to the commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not relevant because we are clarifying the point. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I am pleased to continue. We are in this Chamber talking about the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill because of the need to develop our infrastructure in that area. If United Future members who are supporting the Government on this want to take a better call and contribute for a little bit more than just 2 seconds that would be very valuable. Perhaps those members should think about doing that and have more to say on this bill. United Future did not even have anybody on the Commerce Committee so I am not too sure why that member is telling me I should be taking a narrower focus. 
To continue National has concerns about various provisions in this bill. National supports the total removal of the limits on line companies entering into generation and that is one part of the bill we have supported. At the moment when oil prices are at US$50 per barrel being able to generate electricity from gas and coal reserves and looking at more sustainable forms of electricity generation as well from wind and solar power has to be a concern for any Government in this country for the future. 
In parts of this debate we have talked about what happens when we end up being unable to invest in those sorts of structures. I am thinking about petrol and carless days and of how that affects New Zealand. If we cannot get surety of supply it will affect businesses and the competitiveness of this country. Businesses must be able to look at New Zealand and come here thinking that they can get a good price for one of the major commodities of any business—being able to give surety of electricity supply. 
I remember the spot market. I had a friend who bought a business and went on the spot market for electricity 3 years ago—the price was quite low at the time he did that. He owned a rest home and all of a sudden he went from paying $8000 per month to paying $20000 per month for his electricity supply. That nearly put him out of business. Because this Government has not increased the funding to rest homes he had no capacity to increase charges for any subsidised patients. The Minister of Health Annette King who is sitting over there will know that our rest homes need to be friendly and warm in the winter. That cost went from $8000 per month to $20000—and that was just for a small business in New Zealand. Let us look at how that affects our major businesses—overseas investors will not look at New Zealand if they cannot feel they can come here and have a surety of supply. We need to better develop our infrastructure. 
There is also concern in the National Party about proposals in the legislation covering the gas sector. That is a concern to us. National totally opposes the clauses that will allow the Government to direct the usage of infrastructure. To say that one company can develop gas fields and then to direct that those gas fields can use somebody else’s processing infrastructure because there is spare capacity will have a lot of people looking at whether they should invest here.