6. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
What is the Government doing to ensure that social responsibilities are taken seriously by electricity companies?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
Legislation introduced today by the Labour-led Government will increase the threshold for eligibility for the low fixed-charge from 8,000 kilowatt-hours to 9,000 kilowatt-hours per year for domestic consumers from Christchurch to Bluff, excluding the West Coast. Increasing the threshold for colder parts of the South Island makes the scheme fairer, and it means that tens of thousands of families will be better off.
Can the Minister please inform the House how the Government is going to ensure that the interests of vulnerable customers are further protected?
Procedures for electricity companies are being strengthened to ensure that the electricity of vulnerable consumers like the Muliaga family is not wrongly cut off. The bill being introduced today will ensure that the Government can regulate to impose those rules if retailers do not adhere to them voluntarily.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
When the Minister received a Ministry of Economic Development report in March last year on progressive pricing, whereby a basic block of power is sold to each household at a low price with higher consumption costing more, was he satisfied with the advice in the report that although basic needs would be more affordable and we would be likely to have more conservation of energy, progressive pricing was not recommended because, and I quote the report, “this is not compatible with competitive market arrangements”?
I do recall the report, and I do agree with the advice that progressive pricing, although on its face apparently appealing, is so problematic as to be impossible to implement fairly. The main reason for that is that progressive pricing does not properly cater for the differing circumstances of large families compared with small families. The effect of progressive pricing would be to make power cheaper for a dual-income, high-income family living in an Auckland apartment, and more expensive for a low-income family of five living in South Auckland.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question related specifically to whether the Minister was happy with the advice that progressive pricing should not proceed because it was not compatible with competitive market arrangements. The Minister did not address that issue
Madam SPEAKERI am quite happy to reinforce the point that the reason I did not proceed further with progressive pricing was that it would be unfair to a large, low-income family compared with a small, high-income family—a problem that cannot be overcome. The Government is implementing measures to increase the efficiency of use of electricity by all consumers, which is a more appropriate way to address the issue.
Peter BrownNoting the Minister’s answers to the principal question and to the first supplementary question, will he give the House an assurance that if a contractor who walks into a house to turn the power off sees somebody on a life-support system, the contractor will have the common sense and the compassion to at least check with somebody? There is a limited time frame to take any positive action, and we want to ensure that the circumstances that occurred a few weeks ago do not occur again. Will the Minister guarantee that they will not happen again?
Yes, the rules will say that. I would also say, though, that we should not need rules for that to happen; basic human decency, I would have thought, would cause that checking to occur, irrespective of the rules. I am hopeful that the electricity companies will agree to do it voluntarily and we will not need to use these regulatory powers, but if we need to use them we will.