3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
Is he satisfied that the system established with the electricity governance changes in 2003 and 2004 involving the Commerce Commission, Electricity Commission, and Transpower is the right structure to ensure the transmission grid is maintained and upgraded?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
Yes, those systems are fundamentally better than those we inherited, but there is always room for improvement.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Has the Minister read the headline of the article in today’s Dominion Post, “Power cut to keep grid on”, which tells of 6,000 Bay of Plenty households that had their power switched off because the grid was so overloaded, and whom does he hold responsible for the transmission system being so dilapidated that such cuts are necessary?
Yes, I have read that article, and I would note in response this comment from Dr Doug Heffernan, a transmission specialist and the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power, who on Monday in the Waikato Times said of Transpower: “So the issues you see now really come from decisions that were or were not taken five or 10 years ago.” The reason those decisions were not taken 5 or 10 years ago went to the Government policy statement that that member’s Government, Mrs Shipley’s Government, promulgated, which stated that, in the past, Transpower had been responsible for setting and operating grid security standards, and that under the revised Government policy statement, “Transpower is required to provide services at a level and quantity determined by its customers rather than by Transpower.” The effect of that was to deregulate and delegate to the customers of Transpower decisions as to whether and when the grid should be updated. That is why the present system is so much superior.
Judy TurnerCan the Minister give assurances to Bay of Plenty residents who last night suffered a 3-hour enforced blackout that there will be no further power cuts during the impending cold weather over the next few days?
Although I am sure a repetition of that event would be very unlikely, I cannot give that assurance. I am awaiting a report from Transpower as to what transpired.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister agree with the statement yesterday by Trevor Mallard that Transpower investments of $78 million per year were “embarrassingly low”; if so, whom in Labour does he hold responsible for the embarrassing situation in the years between 1999 and 2004?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked who was responsible in the years between 1999 and 2004. We all know that Labour was elected in 1999. I do not think the Minister made any attempt to answer that question.
Madam SPEAKERI am happy to develop on that answer. In the 1999-2000 year, $63 million of capital was spent by Transpower. This year the amount of capital being spent is $295 million. Next year it will be $360 million. The following year it will be $409 million. The following year it will be $694 million. In 2009-10 it will be $894 million. The figures speak for themselves.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why, in the answer the Minister has just given, did he decline to mention year 2000, year 2001, year 2002, year 2003, year 2004, and year 2005—in all those years the average expenditure was actually less than what it was during the 1990s—and whom does he hold responsible for the low levels of investment for each of those years?
I am sure it was an accident on the part of the member who just spoke, but he misled Parliament with those numbers. The numbers are the following: in 1999-2000 the figure was $63 million, in 2000-01 it was $61 million, in 2001-02 it was $84 million, in 2002-03 the figure had already climbed by around 50 percent to $108 million, and, of course, we are up to about $300 million now.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Who provided the incorrect advice that led the Prime Minister to say in Parliament last week: “under the current Government, Transpower has been investing, on average, around $300 million per annum in its system.”, and that led to the Minister’s own statement: “We are spending five times as much on capital works … five times as much every year”; was it a Beehive spin doctor or a ministry official—who was it?
As the Hon Trevor Mallard said yesterday, he took responsibility for the incorrect advice given to the Prime Minister last week. In terms of the selective quote that the member made in respect of my own comments, he failed to record the prior paragraph of that same interview, when I put the statement in context and was absolutely correct in my comments.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why will the Minister not simply come clean and answer who gave the false advice that led to him on National Radio misleading the country, and to the Prime Minister last week misleading this House?
Hon Bill EnglishYes, it was, but I was not here, which is why the Acting Minister of Energy took responsibility. In respect of the comments I made on National Radio, those comments were correct and were not misleading.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table the statement on National Radio, in which the Minister said: “We’re spending five times as much on capital works … five times as much every year”, when that statement is incorrect.
I seek the leave of the House to table the 1999 Government policy statement, when Transpower was directed to provide services as requested by its customers, rather than to plan them.