Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:950] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Right through this debate there has been one argument that the National Government could have put in favour of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill but has not. The idea came up in this stage of the debate: the former Minister of Energy the Hon David Parker put his finger on it. One way of describing the argument that the Government should have come up with in support of this legislation but has failed to goes like this: why would one bother to have a moratorium on fossil fuel generation when the emissions trading scheme is coming? Why would one do that when the electricity system is to face a marginal charge for carbon dioxide? What would be the point of having a moratorium in addition to that? 
Right through this debate the National Government has not adduced that argument; it has simply not thought it through. If I were in the Government I would argue in favour of the legislation that is before members by saying that it is belt and braces. Why would one need both? When it comes to the commencement clause we need the belt at one point and braces thereafter—or if you like braces at one point and the belt thereafter. Sooner or later the stationary engine sector will come into the emissions trading scheme; it is scheduled to come in on— 
Hon David Parker 
: 2010. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —1 January 2010. That is 12½ months from now. Maybe the commencement date should be 1 January 2010 or—just to be a little more careful because a high-level select committee is going on and some people in this Chamber think that that means there is a lot of time to do not very much at all—we could have a commencement date of “1 January 2010 or at the inclusion of the stationary engine sector into the emissions trading scheme whichever comes later”. One could do it that way. 
I wonder whether the Minister would like to take a call and pick up the thoroughly good bit of logic put forward by my colleague the Hon David Parker. I wonder whether he would like to take a bit of help from the Opposition—which has finally come up with a good reason why one might want this legislation—and use the belt and braces argument. He could use the commencement clause to ensure that we have one and then the other but never both. I wonder whether the Minister is tempted to rise from the chair and take a call to explain whether he thinks that logic has any fault in it. 
It seems to me that there is no intellectual grunt behind the Government’s position. We are offering it some. I will do so again. One does not need both belt and braces. Let us have the belt for the moment and braces thereafter. Why do we not do that through the commencement clause? Why cannot the commencement clause read: “will come into law on 1 January 2010 or at the arrival of the stationary engine sector into the emissions trading scheme whichever comes later.”? Then if the Government needs a bit of extra time with its high-level select committee nothing is lost—the moratorium remains in place until it is replaced by the marginal cost of electricity generation inclusive of the cost of carbon dioxide. 
There is a certain magic to that idea—certainly we think there is—and we wonder whether the Minister if he can stop yawning long enough would like to get to his feet and tell us what he thinks might be wrong with it. Did he get it or shall I go though it a third time?