4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
Does he have confidence in the Electricity Commission?
Hon DAVID PARKERWhy has the Government appointed an independent board of inquiry to hear submissions on the national policy statement on electricity transmission, when the Government already has the Electricity Commission charged with overseeing its policy statement on priority investment in the national grid, and does not this new board signal a vote of no confidence in the Electricity Commission?
Absolutely not. Mr Brownlee again shows he is befuddled in his understanding of the law. Last month he was effectively calling for remote rural users to be cut off the electricity grid, and now he is showing his misunderstanding—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has just lied to the House, and I think he should apologise for doing so. I made the point that remote electricity users were likely to be cut off under this Government, not under a future National Government, and he has misrepresented that position, quite inappropriately. The question actually relates to confidence in the Electricity Commission. I am not the one who has appointed someone else, to take work off the commission; it is his Government that has done that, and he should tell us why.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
It is the member opposite who has to withdraw and apologise. He has made an unparliamentary accusation. I am afraid that the other matter he got into is a matter of some debate as he was not clear about what he said in the first place.
Madam SPEAKERThe matter is one of debate, but the member in making his point was out of order, so I would ask him to please withdraw the comment calling the Minister a liar.
I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It might help if you were able to listen to the start of the answers, because I think that, right at the start, Ministers set the tone and, particularly, indicate whether they are going to answer. We know that the trend from this Government, as set today by the Minister of Finance, is not to answer, but it might be encouraging if you were to indicate to Ministers that their resorting to personal attacks only reflects poorly on them.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
We could, of course, render this House entirely sterile by having no political content in either questions or answers, but it would have to be both-sided in that case. Question after question contains some kind of politics within it.
The point that is being made is that the rules apply equally to all sides of the House, and I think the member has raised quite usefully a point that should be noted by all members. [ Interruption] I just remind members that when I am on my feet and talking, shouting out is unacceptable. Would the Minister now please address the question.
Mr Brownlee’s befuddlement on this occasion arises from his misunderstanding of the Resource Management Act. Central government provides guidance to the councils through national policy statements and national environment standards. These are important documents because they apply across the country. So before national policy statements are finalised a board of inquiry—in this case, chaired by a retired High Court judge—considers the content of them. The board of inquiry is not in any way a commentary on the Electricity Commission; it is about a national policy statement relating to the environment.
How can the Minister have confidence in the Electricity Commission, when the Transpower proposal to rectify the security risk at the Ōtāhuhu substation, which blew out last year and cost the New Zealand and Auckland economies about $80 million, has been waiting for approval from the Electricity Commission since July 2006, and is nowhere near being granted, and is not that the reason why his Government has decided to appoint this particular board—to go round the commission, which takes far too long to reach simple decisions?
Not at all. I will not repeat the description of the law, which shows Mr Brownlee’s misunderstanding of the Resource Management Act. In respect of the Ōtāhuhu substation, the easy remedial steps were taken in the months that followed. The Electricity Commission has recently approved more than $244 million of grid expenditure. It has given draft approval for an $840 million upgrade of security of supply into Auckland, and it is considering further upgrades at the Ōtāhuhu substation.
Why does the Minister have confidence in the Electricity Commission when, for its $90 million per annum costs, it has overseen residential electricity price rises of over 48 percent since 2003, when it began?
The electricity market was inflicted upon this country by Mr Bradford and the then National Government. Since that time the rate of increase in electricity prices has ranged between 0.7 percent and 4 percent real per annum, depending on the sector.
Why is the Minister creating another Government board in the energy sector when it is clear that his Government’s energy policies are a mess, largely because of the overlapping roles of the Commerce Commission, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Electricity Commission, and now the board of inquiry into electricity transmission, and does he think he might at any point get on top of this industry’s problems, or will he just keep on creating new bureaucracies until he finds one that listens to him?
I repeat that national environment standards and national policy statements made under the Resource Management Act are required by that Act to go through an inquiry process. They work across the country. That member calls for Resource Management Act reforms, and his colleague Dr Nick Smith criticises the lack of national policy statements and national environment standards. The moment that one is proposed Gerry Brownlee misconstrues its purpose.
To the Minister—[ Interruption] I am sorry? Am I answering the questions and is Mr Benson-Pope asking them?
I called Mr Brownlee. Would members please just restrain themselves rather than cause disorder in the House.
Can we assume from the tenor of the Minister’s answers today that the Government is moving towards overarching legislation that will mean that the 400 kilovolt line into Auckland, and other transmission projects, can proceed with minimal regard for public opinion?