are in Government and we might have are in Government and we might have
to fix u what you've
are in Government and we might have
up what you've started. We stand against this bill with everything
in our being. I call the Hon David
our being. I call the Hon David
Parker. I rise to
support the comments of the
minister of energy, Megan Woods, and to thank her
for bringing this legislation
to the House. I have been around this place
for 16 years now
and those speeches that we just heard from
the Opposition, I've got to say, I've
Opposition, I've got to say, I've
heard it all before. I was
minister of energy from 2005 to 2008. I
arrived at a time when New Zealand's
renewable electricity
renewable electricity was decreasing, was down to
renewable electricity was
and it was decreasing. We turned that around by a
range of measures that led to investment certainty
for the generation sector. We prized
emissions, National opposed that.
Well, actually, on this occasion, it is actually us, Mr Creble
Well, actually, on this occasion, it
We authorised the necessary investments in the grid to
bring distant renewables to market
to bring investment security.
We brought forward new forms
of generation, at that time wind, and
we encouraged the
generators to invest in renewables. We had a
ban on base load generation
from thermal, which the sub Government
repealed.
thermal, which the sub Government thermal,
thermal, which the sub Government repealed. At the time the
spokesperson for the Nairn on
energy was the Hon
Crown Entities Act. He, for those who want to look at
this
want to Google this online Google 60 coal Brownlee. He put up a blog
called sexy coal.
coal Brownlee. He put up a blog called sexy coal. He said
coal Brownlee. He put up a blog
New Zealand, if we turned or back on coal would face an energy This is a
slide from the clip still
there and he has this growing wedge
of energy insecurity in New Zealand
that he predicted that can only be
filled with thermal coal and gas. Order!
I'm sorry to interrupt the member
but a second reading is
actually supposed to focus on the main
purpose and
purpose and the contents of the bill. And Speaker's
purpose and the contents of the bill. And Speaker's ruling
108, 2, 3, 4, 5 all deal with that so I'd
ask the member to relate
the history to the contents
and the principles of the bill in front of the
House, please. Thank you. I
considered those rulings before I took my
call and Speaker's ruling 3 says that the
broad principles are a
proper subject of discussion it is
relevant to. That's right. I'm responding
to the comments of
the energy spokesman from the National Party... I would
like you to
actually focus on the broad principles of the bill
in front of the house House. The broad
principle of this bill is we need to
have a
have a transition away from fossil fuels. The argument that the member
opposite has been making, and I'm in
debate now, I'm not making a point
of order, I haven't been
making a point of order, is that we can't do
that because security of supply
will be at risk. I'm saying that is
note correct. This is the
same document correct. This is the same document
that is always run
by the National Party whenever we move along
this transition away from fossil fuels.
transition away from fossil fuels. In simple terms you
cannot start a transition without
transition without starting a transition. It has
already started! After this legislation goes
through, 100,000kms approximately of
prospective territory already
permitted for exploration,
which can be taken to conclusion. That is the
most prospective 100,000 square
kilometres that New Zealand has,
which is why it was offered first.
That is the equivalent of the area
of the North Island.
That is the equivalent of the area of the North Island. The
contradictions in the last speaker's
contribution are clear. On the one
hand he said that
contribution are clear. On the one
heard that it takes until about 2027 to bring on any gas from new block
offers, assuming they were drilled
rely upon the comments from the Wind Energy Association saying that if
we Energy Association saying that if we
want battery storage it won't
be here until 2026. It is far too far
out. These are long time frames. The
system has time to adjust. I
would make some predictions as to how the
system will adjust because what's
creating investment certainty for those who have to make
the generation investments that we need
over the next couple
of decades. The work that's been done by
Transpower and others that have modelled the
and others that have modelled the
extra electricity generation
that is needed to electrify transport
and take renewables ever closer to
needed to electrify transport and
of total electricity generation, and to start replacing some
industrial heat, there is roughly a doubling
of electricity
electricity generation capacity needed in the next 20 or 30
years. We want that to be
renewable. We are, by this decision, making it
clear that it must
be renewable. Who will
clear that it must be renewable. Who
make a buck out of renewables. The next argument we
hear from the National Party is that will increase
prices. We don't agree with that on
this side of the House and we point
to the fact that since
those decisions were taken by the last
Government, and they were
taken mainly by the last Government,
the investment that flowed as
a consequence lifted New Zealand's
renewables from
renewables from that declining percentage at 64 up to
renewables from that declining
a recent quarter, that's because we've created the
right investment signal for people to invest in
renewables. The last Government said
they were going to abandon the
renewables target that we'd set, in the end Mr Brownlee was moved
on and Hekia Parata had the good
sense to keep it and that ambition
was maintained and we are
close to realising that because
renewables now. It hasn't been the cause of electricity
price rises. Those electricity price rises
in rent years have been caused
by the increments and the reinforcement
of the grid that the last Government
wisely carried on with. The current
cheapest source
cheapest source of new generation are renewable, proven by
the fact that that's what those companies are
investing in, in
geothermal and
He says it is not true. Then why are they
He says it is not true. Then why are
Look, the latest investment we have had in this new wind farm
in Taranaki and they
are doing that because it is more
cost effective for them than investing in gas. That
decision was obviously under
way before this latest
decision was taken. I think that we've
got a very, very low cost transition to a
low Carbon future in New Zealand.
I think we have more
advances in doing this than any other country in
the world. The member agrees we have.
Then if New Zealand doesn't do it,
no one. If no one does it reviewin the planet. So, you
know, there really is another issue other than
the dollars and cents. I think
this will be prove to be cheaper
than the alternatives
will be prove to be cheaper than the the
alternatives anyway because which are replace our reliance on those
expensive imported fossil
fuels and rewill replace them with
hydrogen and electricity and batteries,
if New Zealand doesn't
do it, if we have the cheapest transition in the
have the cheapest transition in the
world and we don't, no
one will. If that is the of leadership that
the National Party want to
show the world I'm glad I am on this side
of the house. I believe that this is
sensible policy, I believe
that it will be sending
the right investment signal that we want industry to be
signal that we want industry to be
investing in renewables so that over
the
investing in renewables so that over
generation capacity so that we elect try fee transport,
generation capacity so that we elect try fee transport, elect
try fee industry. The one key we have
not yet cracked is hydrogen. I thank the
member for
member for thinks contribution saying that the last Government
made some efforts in that
regard and those are good. We are continuing on
and amply frying those. We have had
an agreement signed last week with
Japan, one of the world leaders
on hydrogen technology. I
have other things here. These have been shown
in the House recently, we have
hydrogen cars from highunder
day and Toyota. We have hydrogen
trucks and buses. We have hydrogen trains. The
member says they are expensive. They
are expensive. If you go back 20
or 30 years so is wind power. The
costs of
of these are being deliverin down. The Japanese
The Japanese are absolutely determined to use their point
of comparative advance in
these technologies to create
industrial opportunities for themselves and
technologies to create industrial clean up the world and we are going
to help them do it because
we are going to get
the investment signal right in New Zealand. We will
two to renewables. We will bring
forward those technologies. We did
it when last in Government getting ahead of
the curve on
wind. If we hadn't gone that
the curve on wind. If we hadn't gone renewables.
the curve on wind. If we hadn't gone that as a Government New Zealand
would have developed and burnt
more gas rather than gone
wind. That has proven to be pen official for us and
we have been able to take
advantage of the cost of wind power that
is still going down, even to this day.
I have great confidence that this
country will be one
of the first countries in the world to get
to net zero
countries in the world to get to net country
countries in the world to get to net zero in carbon dioxide and I am very
confidence that we will not only be
cleaner but wealthier
as a country because we will
avoid that imported oil bill. My
goodness, wouldn't that be good if we were a beacon of hope
in the world rather than yet another
source of despair as the other side
of the House would have
our trajectory.
of the House would have our trajectory. I call Todd Muller. One
of the significantly
consistent themes across the select committee
process and the submitters that
we heard from was
an incredible frustration and anger
heard from was an incredible