Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island

The third application is from the Hon Dr Nick Smith relating to the power shortage that occurred yesterday affecting the upper North Island. This is also a case of particular occurrence involving a ministerial or administrative responsibility of the Government, and, given the nature of the incidence, I think it is important enough to warrant the attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I therefore accept that application and call on the Hon Dr Nick Smith to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The scale, and the cost, of yesterday’s power failure was enormous. Over 700,000 people—25,000 businesses, 380 schools, 300 sets of traffic lights, eight hospitals and rest homes, and two universities—were affected. Critical hospital operations were cancelled, dozens of people were trapped in lifts for hours, and hundreds of thousands of people were grossly inconvenienced. The tragedy is that it did not need to happen. The direct losses will top over $70 million. The damage to Auckland’s confidence and respect will be far more.

This is Third World stuff, and it is a disgrace for this Government. It is just not credible for the Prime Minister to blame the weather, as she did this morning. This was not a major storm event in Auckland. The winds were high, but they were not extreme. Not a single roof in Auckland was lost, yet our power infrastructure was so poor that it was brought to a halt. It simply is not acceptable.

The technical explanation for the blackout is that a single overhead earth wire broke. It fell on to Transpower’s 110-kilovolt switching equipment, bringing the whole system down. No doubt there will be technical questions to resolve over why the wire failed, whether the wire was properly maintained, and whether the design was appropriate. But the real question that we must get to the bottom of is why Auckland’s power was so fragile that the failure of a single wire was sufficient to bring the economic capital of New Zealand to its knees. And that is a political question for which this Government must be held accountable. On taking up the role, the Minister of Energy said: “I do recognise it is my responsibility to ensure that the lights don’t go out in New Zealand.”

💬 Hon Member: What did he say?

He said that it was his responsibility to ensure the lights do not go out in New Zealand. Well, I say to Mr Parker that they did, and he has failed. The tragedy in all this is that Labour has to take responsibility for the situation, because it has been warned so often.

Engineers have repeatedly said that our creaking electricity infrastructure is just not up to the grade. Last year—over 16 months ago—Dr Keith Turner, who has a PhD in electricity transmission and happens to be the chief executive of New Zealand’s largest electricity company, stated: “New Zealand’s electricity grid is so overworked that some lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing.” That situation is just unheard of in the Western World. At the Commerce Committee National asked Dr Turner what lines he was referring to and he said, quite specifically, they were the lines at Ōtāhuhu that service Auckland. What did the Government do about it? It did absolutely nothing. But that is not all that was said.

On Campbell Live Dr Turner said: “We are running just too close to the wind in this country, particularly on transmission.” We could not have had more prophetic words. And what was Minister Parker’s response to those concerns from Keith Turner? He said: “The problem is not as bad as the member and others believe.” Well, I ask the Minister, how bad is it when 700,000 people lose their power? Then we had warnings in the briefings to the incoming Government from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development. Both specifically mentioned concerns about transmission. We had the Commerce Committee report from last year, which stated that lines could not be serviced because transmission was right at the limits of capacity, and again Auckland was specifically mentioned. So we have a paper trail from State-owned enterprises, from select committees, and from independent commentators all warning the Government that it had a problem—and it did nothing.

Today we should also scrutinise what the Minister’s response has been in the last few hours. On TV3, Mr Parker said that the Ōtāhuhu to Pakuranga and Penrose upgrade was not only under consideration but was also approved. Well, was it approved? No, it was not. That Minister misled. The very specific words he used last night were: “That line has been approved.” It was not. There is no budget for it. There is not even a Resource Management Act application for it.

The Minister went on to say—as reported in the New Zealand Herald this morning—that he had asked Transpower to investigate separating out parts of the Ōtāhuhu station under its plan to upgrade transmission into Auckland after 2013. Are the people of Auckland prepared to wait around until 2013 to fix this problem? Let me make it very plain that National does not believe that we can wait until 2013 to fix this problem. As Keith Turner said last year, National wants “all black” to refer to who takes the Rugby World Cup, not the state of the city of Auckland. Nor is it sufficient for the Minister to try to explain himself by saying that the Government is committing tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the transmission system. The reality is that the Government has taken over $2 billion in profits from electricity companies and has spent less than one-tenth of that sum on new investment.

Yesterday’s power failure also exposes the failure of the Government’s whole energy policy. Pete Hodgson should be in the House today. In 2001 he said—with all the bells, whistles, and spin—that we needed his flash new National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. The Government said it was better to spend money on reducing electricity demand than on transmission or new generation. It spent $100 million on that energy efficiency strategy. Do members know how much has been achieved—how much has been saved? Well, in the March review this year the Government showed that the “improved” energy efficiency since it brought in the energy efficiency strategy and spent the $100 million was worse than energy efficiency was when we did not have a strategy. The Government was banking on a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency, so it did not bother spending money on new generation or new transmission, which is why we are so deeply in a pickle today. The reason is that the Government’s whole energy policy approach has been a failure.

Let us go through it and see how badly Labour’s energy policy has delivered. Over the last 6 years we have seen a 40 percent increase in the average price of power. At the same time—

💬 Hon Annette King: So deregulation works, does it?

Annette King chips in. I tell her that when the Government introduced its energy reforms in 2002 it said the policy had three aims. The first was keeping the price of electricity as low as possible. The price has since gone up by 40 percent. The second objective was to use more renewable energy. The Government has failed on that front, because the amount of renewable energy we are using has actually been in decline. The Government’s third aim, in relation to its electricity reforms, was to improve the security of supply. It has not done that—as 700,000 people in Auckland found out yesterday. And today the Prime Minister said that this issue is not damaging New Zealand’s investment reputation. That is garbage! Dick Hubbard was absolutely correct to say that the power cut was “very, very damaging”.

The key question is what National would do to get our electricity system right. National says that the very first thing to do is to invest in our infrastructure. We should be investing in roads and investing properly in electricity.

The second key thing, we say, is to reform the Resource Management Act. The Government puts its head in the sand and pretends that the Act will enable us to build the infrastructure our country so desperately needs. It will not. Transpower has said—in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005—that it cannot maintain and upgrade the grid without reform of the Resource Management Act. I say to David Parker and the Prime Minister, who have refused to reform the Resource Management Act, that they are signing New Zealand up to more blackouts like the one we had yesterday.

The third issue we need to address is the confusing and failed electricity policies Labour introduced in 2002. What sort of nonsense do we have when transmission decisions are made not only by Transpower but also by the Electricity Commission and the Commerce Commission? Everybody knows that those reforms are a failure. We need a clarification of the roles of those agencies. National says we need a single agency to be responsible for ensuring that the transmission system can keep the lights on.

The last point I will make is that I believe and National believes, as Don Brash suggested last year, that it is time we had a ministry of infrastructure. The Government has so neglected the infrastructure of New Zealand that—I never thought I would say it—Auckland’s electricity system is as bad as its roads, and that is a disgrace. Labour got rid of the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Energy. National’s view is that we need a ministry of infrastructure to make sure that we properly plan and provide for infrastructure.

I say again that what occurred in Auckland yesterday was a national disgrace. It was a disgrace for this country to have 700,000 people without power. It was a disgrace that we lost $70 million worth of economic activity. Responsibility for that disgrace rests fairly and squarely with the Government. It has neglected our infrastructure, neglected the legislation, ignored Transpower, and ignored multiple warnings that the system was on the blink. It relied on a vague, warm, fuzzy energy efficiency strategy that did not work. The people of New Zealand, and particularly Auckland, are paying for that.

I say to the Minister that he must accept responsibility for his mess. Last night on TV the Minister made an analogy with the state of Queensland. In the state of Queensland the power cut involved only 250,000 people, and the relevant Minister resigned. If this Minister wants to follow the example of Queensland he should tender his resignation, because he, Trevor Mallard, and Pete Hodgson have failed to listen to the proper warnings and have let New Zealand down. It is a disgrace. This country deserves better. Sadly, it will not get that until we have a change of Government.

That was the voice of the modern National Party. Don Brash is an Auckland member. Why could he not speak? The rumour is that he was so busy consulting the Business Roundtable yesterday that he did not notice that the lights went out.

That was the voice of the modern National Party, and it is one of the reasons why Ministers on this side are not even bothering to learn the names of the back-benchers opposite. When they have leadership on a serious issue like that from a member like Nick Smith, we ask why they bother. Why could they not get a competent member, or an Auckland member—one of the two—to put the letter in? Why did Nick Smith not start his speech by saying that when he was a Minister, Auckland went 35 long days without power under the reforms of the National Government and its management and governance rules for the electricity system?

Let us get the facts straight. At 8.32 yesterday morning an earthing cable broke. Why did it break? We do not know. It could have been one of two reasons, or a combination of both. It might have been wind. If Gerry Brownlee was around, it was almost certainly wind. It might have been poor maintenance. My view is that in the end the investigation will show that it was a combination of both, because even with the sorts of winds we had in Auckland yesterday, a properly maintained earthing cable should not break.

Then what happened was that the earthing cable wrapped around two lines. One part of it hit the 110 kilovolt line out of the substation, earthed that, and the other hit the 220 kilovolt line out of the same substation, damaging that, as well. That meant that power—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: How could that happen?

Actually, relatively simply. The cable broke. One bit hit the 110 kilovolt line and another bit hit—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Auckland powered by one cable!

Actually, Auckland was de-powered by one cable. The member cannot tell the difference between powering and de-powering, which is an indication of why he is the deputy leader. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I am quite happy to have their interjections. We do not need the level of protection that you are attempting here. Transpower is now investigating why that cable broke. We will have an answer to that—a report on the Minister’s desk—within 2 weeks. He has already written to Transpower requiring that, and that report will be reviewed by an expert who is independent of Transpower.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: More committees, no action.

It is not a committee, actually. It is one report and someone will review it for the facts. I want to be very careful saying this about a State-owned enterprise for which I am responsible, but I would prefer to have Transpower’s report reviewed independently than to rely totally on Transpower’s views about what happened. I think it is important that an independent expert checks the Transpower report that will be coming out in the next 2 weeks.

The next thing that has to happen is that there must be—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why are you speaking?

I just happen to be the ownership Minister for Transpower. It is something that is vaguely important.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, that old problem.

Tau Henare is chipping in. Why did they not put Tau up? I see, they wanted a sober member.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unacceptable that a Minister who is unable to give answers to the House should resort to the sort of comment that Trevor Mallard just made. I think that if he reflects on it himself he will not be objectionable and he will choose to withdraw and apologise for that most unparliamentary remark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just say, Mr Brownlee, that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is a personal reflection that is out of order. If the member himself had chosen to take exception I would have intervened. The member himself did not.

He did, and I am happy to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

It is clear why the National Opposition did not put up Tau Henare. It did not put him up because he cannot make a sober argument. National did not want Nick Smith or Tau Henare. The person who should have spoken—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Where’s Tuku’s diary?

Tuku’s diary?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That’s the one.

When is Tuku going to pay his legal bills? The member’s brother-in-law has $50,000 worth of legal bills. I am being diverted, Madam Speaker, and I will stop from being diverted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mallard.

Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Speaker.

It is important that we remember that this Government has been putting more investment into infrastructure than any other Government has in the past. I accept that in the area of electricity infrastructure we progressed at a faster rate than National, but not nearly fast enough, and that is the case here.

I do not know whether there is a systemic problem as far as Auckland’s electricity infrastructure is concerned. I know that there is in relation to the routes into Auckland—there is no doubt about that. I am not an expert and I do not know whether there is a systemic problem in Auckland. If there is, it will be fixed.

💬 Hon Members: When?

It will be fixed, depending on its size, as soon as possible and with the investment that is necessary. This Government has made it clear to Transpower that the Government’s dividend requirements do not override the important capital expenditure that it is doing.

However, one point that should be made is that this is the first grid-related blackout in Auckland since 1998. It was not a 35-day blackout of the sort that occurred then. It does not mean that we have a Third World power system. I just ask people to work—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s what Keith Turner said.

That is what who said? I think that until the member gets his voice back he had better loosen something off or just settle down somewhat. Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Mr Speaker.

Well, actually, Madam Speaker. You are acting for her. Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please desist and continue with his speech.

Madam Speaker—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just asked the Minister to desist from referring to you as “Madam Speaker”. That is a perfectly reasonable request, given that you are a bloke. Immediately the Minister got to his feet he again referred to you as “Madam Speaker”. I think you should call this Minister, who has been doing everything he can to avoid debating the issue, back to the point and to comply with your ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It was in the heat of the moment, and I understand where the member is coming from. I ask the Minister to desist and to continue with the debate in the proper manner. Thank you.

Mr Acting Deputy Assistant Speaker—is that right? Mr Speaker—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take grave exception to that Minister’s insult to the Speaker. You are the Speaker while in that Chair, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I think that insult is a grave reflection on this entire House. I believe that you would have the support of the entire House to demand that Trevor Mallard withdraw and apologise to you—and, indeed, to the entire House—unreservedly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I inform Mr Mallard that when I am in the Chair I am the Speaker. I would like him to look at Standing Order 28. I expect him to stop trifling with the Chair and to refer to me by my correct title.

Mr Deputy Speaker—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I thank the member. Mr Mallard—

I am sorry—Mr Assistant Speaker. I will get it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please be seated. I suggest to him that while I am on my feet he might like to look at Standing Order 28. For his benefit I will read out the relevant paragraph: “(2) An Assistant Speaker performs the duties and exercises the authority of the Speaker while presiding over the House.” That means that when anyone is sitting in this Chair, whether the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speaker, that person is referred to as “the Speaker”. I would expect a member with the long standing of that member, who has been a Minister for some considerable time, to know better and to show some leadership and courtesy. Thank you.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I have dealt with the issue.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think you understand the point I was trying to make. We have a situation where a senior Minister of this Government has attempted to insult and intimidate the Speaker. That is an attack on the entire House. I say to you that I take grave exception to that. I told you—and I do not think there was a murmur of dissent—that we expect you to ask Mr Mallard to withdraw and apologise to the entire House for his behaviour here this afternoon.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that I was not intimidated. I have dealt with the issue, and members cannot reopen it.

This Government is—[Interruption] No, I am making it absolutely clear to members opposite that I do not share their views on some matters. Madam Speaker—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Gutless!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I heard that. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He knows that the use of that word implies someone lacks courage, and that is out of order.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.

Of course, he was probably referring to Gerry Brownlee.

This Government is committed to investing in infrastructure. There has never been the level of investment put into transmission and into generating infrastructure over such a short period of time as is occurring right now. If one looks at the wind farms being put in and at the preparations for the Transpower cables through the Waikato, one can see that major investment is occurring.

It is clear to every member in this House that what occurred yesterday in Auckland—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Was a disgrace.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD:—was disgraceful and unacceptable. It was clearly the case of infrastructure being either not strong enough or not properly maintained. We will have a report from Transpower within 2 weeks, which will be independently reviewed and acted upon.

Let me start by alerting this House to the fact that if members want to play politics with this issue, then we are doing ourselves no good whatsoever. A number of questions were asked this afternoon that were to some degree flippant. We had allegations made against the Rt Hon Winston Peters that were totally untrue, and I would like to dispel them right now.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Prove it!

I say to Mr Henare that this is the copy of the speech that Nick Smith wanted initially to table—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How do you know?

How do I know? I know because he came across and gave it to me. That is how I know.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to ask this member to stick to the debate in front of us. The debate is an urgent debate so that Parliament might express its views on the crisis that occurred in Auckland yesterday as a result of a Transpower failure at one of its plants. For Mr Brown to get up and start reading a 1998 speech from Winston Peters, I think, stretches it in a way that makes us look silly. He has just asked us to put politics aside and to start debating the issues. I think you should invite him to do exactly that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for drawing it to my attention and suggest that under Speakers’ ruling 44/3 people are given some leeway when they first start. The member can bring that speech into the debate, providing he makes it relevant.

Mr Speaker, I can assure you it is relevant.

I want to read a couple of extracts from Winston Peters’ speech. He said: “The Government is doing all that it can in this crisis. The Minister of Energy has done all that he can in this crisis. Every alternative source of energy has been looked at, and we are still looking at alternative ways of helping the Auckland situation.” He goes on to say: “I will tell the member what our policy is.”—I remind members he is talking about a New Zealand First - National coalition Government—“We are going to have an inquiry. That is No. 1. We are going to have an inquiry because the people of Auckland want one.”

The reason I raise those statements is that they are relevant today. Nothing, really, has improved for Auckland people, in particular, since 1998, and nobody should be sitting here chastising one side or the other of the House. Collectively, we have missed the boat. As I listen to National members I can hear that they still do not have a clue on how to address the electricity problems we are facing in this country. If they listen for a little while, I will tell them exactly what needs to be done. First and foremost, we need a good deal more electricity.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

The member is nodding his head.

Secondly, we need greater investment in the industry. Thirdly, we need to be able to guarantee security of supply. Finally, we want a competitive environment so that prices are fair, reasonable, and competitive.

Auckland itself needs power from more than one route, and from more than one wire. It is not good enough to have, in the 21st century, a majority of the power coming in from one route. We need greater investment. I listened to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises with interest, and it saddened me that he got on to so many sidetracks that I thought he did himself a disservice.

Transpower pays the Government a dividend, which was $10 million last year, and $40 million the year before. New Zealand First will be encouraging the Government to forgo that dividend and reinvest it, in particular, in Auckland.

Electricity is a very important commodity for the average New Zealander and for New Zealand businesses. If we take a closer look at what happened yesterday we see that people were jammed in lifts and calling out the fire brigade, conditions were as black as pitch so that people could not see anything and did not know where they were, people were having to walk down 28 flights of stairs, it was freezing cold, and businesses were closing up and sending people home. We are told by Business New Zealand that businesses lost $50 million - plus in takings. That is how serious the problem is. That is the issue is that we have to deal with—and we have to deal with it in some urgency.

It is small satisfaction to say this was a blackout of some hours only, whilst in 1998 the blackout lasted 35 days. That is a non-issue—the blackout should not have occurred. I do not know how it occurred or exactly why it occurred. A wire snapped and entangled itself around other wires, and blew the whole of Auckland into a blackout. Frankly, that is the issue we should address with a degree of urgency, because it is not acceptable for New Zealand’s foremost city, in terms of size and population, to have a blackout just because a strong gale is blowing and a wire breaks.

We will have to bring in power from a number of sources and a number of areas, and we will have to give consideration to having more generation produced locally in Auckland. I know the Government is very keen on wind power, and New Zealand First will support an encouragement of wind power. But we are also sitting on billions of tonnes of coal in this country, so we believe we should be examining coal as an option for producing electricity at a reasonable price for New Zealanders. There is potential up north with the Marsden B power station, and there is potential elsewhere in the country.

We can all go on television or talk on the radio, and we can ratchet the issue up, but at the end of the day New Zealanders want us to address it with absolute urgency. We can ask people to write reports—we can have reports ad infinitum—but unless we actually get down to investing in our energy industries, then this problem will occur time and time again. It might not happen next year, but it could well do so—or it could even happen next week, given the way the weather is going in this country. But, ultimately, unless we get more power—particularly coming into Auckland—from a variety of sources and routes, we will face more and more problems in the future.

We should be looking at all the options of generating electricity. Hydro generation produces 60 percent - plus of our electricity, and gas something like 22 percent. Coal produces a measly 8 percent and, as I said earlier, we should be making greater use of the billions of tonnes of coal this country has at its fingertips. The wind produces a modest 2 percent of our power, yet the Government is hell-bent on developing wind energy. New Zealand First applauds that, but wind is not the only source of energy.

This is a crisis that should not have occurred; this event should have been identified as a possibility years ago.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It was—Keith Turner pointed it out.

Well, Keith Turner might have pointed it out, but Winston Peters pointed it out in 1998.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: No, he didn’t.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Winston never mentioned Transpower in ’98.

He pointed out in 1998 that we had to do something. It is no good those National members screaming their heads off, because this is an issue we have sat on in Parliament. We cannot rely just on Keith Turner’s words; we have known of the problem for some time. We knew when the Labour Government produced that electricity legislation last term that it was not going to fully address the issue. New Zealand First is on record as voting against those bills because of that very situation. We did not believe that the legislation in this country was coming to terms with the problem.

We have to take this problem seriously, and there must be moves afoot to address the issue within a relatively short time frame. I can assure the House that New Zealand First will cooperate with any willing party that wants to solve this problem to the benefit and advantage of New Zealanders, but to sit here and play politics with the issue is not the way to get things done.

On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to take a brief call to say it is really nonsense that we are having to have an urgent debate in the House today on the Auckland power cut yesterday. That is not to say that it was not a very serious situation that arose. I lived through the 1998 Auckland power crisis, trying to keep a large organisation afloat for weeks without power while providing medical services to thousands of people with a generator out on the footpath. So I am well aware of how difficult it is, and my sympathy goes out to all the people and businesses that suffered yesterday.

But I think it should be obvious to all of us in this House that it is not viable to have a power supply system that is invulnerable to freak events. To have a duplication of all systems supplying power to Auckland, much less to the rest of New Zealand, would be prohibitively expensive. All countries, even those much wealthier than us, have electricity outages at times that are caused by freak or abnormal weather events. Building a 400 kilovolt line through the Waikato, for example, would not have prevented what happened yesterday.

However, we obviously do need some urgent analysis that can identify the weak points in the system—not just the one that happened yesterday but others as well, which I feel sure exist—in order to look at how those can be strengthened and improved. Obviously, we should also look at how maintenance of the lines can be improved. From what the Minister has said just now, I understand that a report is expected very urgently from Transpower—within 2 weeks—and that there will be a review by an independent expert. I also understand from the Government that, on its part, urgent action will be taken.

Transpower must ensure that its lines are maintained properly, and that they are adequate for the large loads they are carrying into our largest city. There should be more buffers in the system, where possible.

We accept that the Government has taken urgent action and is going as fast as it can to ensure the reliability of Auckland’s supply. I also think that those of us in the House—all of us here as MPs—and others, should accept that we are ordinary mortals, and that we cannot control the weather. We have to accept that at times weather events happen that are completely out of our control.

I say, from the outset, that I was a victim yesterday. My electorate office was plunged into darkness at 8:30 a.m., and my staff and I sat in the dark trying to work anything we could with a pen and paper until about 1 o’clock.

But the question all members of the adoring drive time audience stuck on Auckland roads will be asking right now—the question people right across the Auckland isthmus will be asking right now—is where is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? Where is she in a debate that is about Auckland’s power failure?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I am here.

Yes, she is in the House; I am not saying she is absent. But when will we hear from her about what she is doing, because—let us see, it was a power crisis, and it was in Auckland? Does that seem to suggest that it might involve the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? Where is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? She is here in the House, but from her there has been not a mutter, not a murmur, not a whisper.

I heard the member from New Zealand First get up and say we should not be making politics out of this issue. Well, it was Winston Peters during question time who tried to make some cheap politics. My colleague Nick Smith brought him straight back into his bottle when he suggested he read from the Minister’s speech of 1998—which I have here but which was unable to be tabled. I will quote from it, though, because Mr Peters went on about what a good job the then Government was doing. He said: “The Government is doing all that it can in this crisis. The Minister of Energy has done all that he can in this crisis.” He went on to say: “I am proud of that and so are members of the coalition.” He said: “We in this Government will not sit around making petty, lousy little political points of the type emanating from the other side.” He also said: “We will get our priorities right, unlike Labour members who, guilty as sin, stand here trying to find a political angle. The people of Auckland and the businesses of Auckland are owed better than that.”

That is what Mr Peters said back then, and let us get it clear why there is a significant difference between then and now, because Labour, in its typical blurring of the margins, has tried to say: “Oh, well, look, this was only for 5 hours; back then National caused one for 5 weeks, or whatever it was—that is right; 5 weeks; 5 times 7 is 35. Well, let us get it clear so that the adoring drive time audience knows the difference.

The big problem back in 1998 was a company called Mercury Energy—it has now become Vector. It was a separate company that was not owned by the Government or controlled by the Government; it was actually controlled by a consumers’ trust in Auckland. It was the failure of Mercury Energy—the lines company that was not in the Minister’s ambit, not a State-owned Enterprise, and not controlled by the Government—to invest in new lines and new equipment that actually caused the 1998 blackout. It is quite clear the Minister in charge had no say. No Minister in this House had the powers to direct a private operation that was owned by a consumers’ trust.

Well, was that the case yesterday? Is there a difference? Yes, there is. Because this tiny little wire that broke yesterday—the pathetic little strand that members can see in this picture—is part of the Government’s operation called Transpower. That is the difference. That is the way the responsibilities lie. I will never hold a Minister in this House responsible for an organisation he or she is not in charge of. The Ministers in this House are not in charge of what is now Vector—what was Mercury Energy—and never will be. But the Ministers in this House are responsible for Transpower.

What have we heard? We heard people such as Dr Keith Turner telling us in February of last year that there were serious problems with one small wire carrying everything, and the company could not do maintenance on it because it was so integral to Auckland’s supply. Dr Turner specifically identified the Ōtāhuhu substation as the problem. So it is not a case of: “Oh goodness, what happened yesterday? We didn’t know this could happen.” The Government was warned of it last year. It is a Government-owned agency, unlike in 1998 when it was not the responsibility of the Government, and I thank Winston Peters for telling us all that.

Today I saw a letter that was written just under 2 weeks’ ago by the chief executive of Vector. Let me quote this letter, which the Government should have been listening to for some time. “Without wanting to be alarmist, I think I should put on record our concerns. We think that crunch time—the point where demand can exceed peak capacity—may be closer than the Electricity Commission assumptions because the system is already under some pressure. Little new transmission has been built since the 1980s, but electricity use has been rising exponentially on the back of strong population growth, strong economic growth, and rising living standards.” The Minister has been getting that sort of advice from so many different quarters for so long that it is unacceptable for him to now come to the Parliament and say: “Oh gosh, a wire snapped and brought the economic powerhouse of this country”—the place that Dr Cullen calls a dead weight on New Zealand’s shoulders, but I do not believe that Auckland is that—“to a standstill.”

I know a number of businesses that lost a lot of money. Will they get some compensation? Will the Government tell businesses that lost money by having to pay staff to go home and take the day off that it was a Government agency’s fault—it was Transpower’s failure—and compensate them? No, of course it will not. It should, but it will not. Then the Minister had the audacity to bring up an example about Brisbane and what happened there! Well, let us look at what happened in Brisbane. Far fewer people were affected, and guess what? The Minister resigned because of it. So I think the Minister is dead right. We should take Brisbane as a good example; we should go by the letter of the Brisbane example. The Minister should tender his resignation.

I am telling this House that not having some sort of a back-up, a redundancy, or an alternative switching mechanism is simply as stupid as flying a Boeing 747 without a second set of controls—because if that set goes out of control, the captain would have to say: “Sorry passengers, we’ve only got the one steering wheel, it’s broken, and we’re going to die.” That is what is stupid about the Auckland arrangement, and it has been for some time. The Minister has been warned of that in all the advice I have seen going to him. Keith Turner was very clear. The Minister says: “Oh well, I don’t accept it, I don’t accept his advice.” He should tell that to the little restaurateur across the road from me who lost his entire day’s takings yesterday. Maybe my colleague is right. He has just passed me a note saying: “Ministers can’t actually resign twice in the same year—that might be a rule around here—so he will have to wait until next year to resign.” I say it is not acceptable for the Minister to say he did not know, because he has been briefed.

It is not acceptable to say it was a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. I tell members that the storm in Auckland yesterday was not the worst storm I have been through in Auckland by a long way. I have been through a number of storms in Auckland, and as a local member I have gone to see various houses in my electorate that have lost their roofs. Not a single roof came off yesterday. I have seen a number of trees come down. About 2 years ago a massive tree fell across the Pakuranga highway and workers had to get chainsaws to cut it up as fast as they could to get the traffic flowing again. It did not matter because the traffic was blocked up on the motorway and could not get through anyway! That is what happened in a storm 2 years ago, and 3 years ago there was a real cracker of a storm. Yesterday there were just strong winds. It was not a one in 100-year storm; it was not even a one in 20-year storm. It was probably about a one in 6-months storm. During most beginnings of winter, as the southerly swell starts and the barometer drops, we get those sorts of winds.

I tell the Minister to look at this picture. For this pathetic little shoestring wire to snap and bring Auckland to a standstill is an outrage. It is a Government responsibility—it is the responsibility of Transpower, which is owned and operated by the Government, and of the Ministers who approve capital expenditure in the Government and who have the say. It is not like 1998 when a completely separate entity, which no Government Minister had any responsibility for, had the say.

I want to know when the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues will get up and tell us what sort of Cabinet paper she will be drawing up, because we have seen a lot of coverage on the TV in the last week about Cabinet papers she draws up. We will be looking to see the Cabinet paper from the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues about what she believes. Because I do not think there is a bigger issue in Auckland. I know that transport is bigger on most days, but right now Aucklanders are saying: “Actually, we don’t worry about transport if we can’t get there.” Let me give a final warning: at the next Rugby World Cup people will not be worried about the fog blocking one’s view. If the lights are out, the games will be played in the dark! It is grossly unacceptable.

Tēnā tātou te Whare. The Māori Party rises today to speak of the outrage of our constituents in homes and businesses throughout the greater Tāmaki-makau-rau and Tainui region who were plunged into chaos yesterday through a major power blackout. A blackout caused by a failure at Transpower’s Ōtāhuhu substation caused chaos in the central business district, which affected an estimated 700,000 people.

We must make every effort to secure New Zealand’s power supply. The Māori Party has been speaking ever since its establishment about the need to develop an energy strategy for Aotearoa to ensure the best use of the available resources. We have raised our concerns about the fragility of a city’s power supply and the need to take responsibility for ensuring New Zealand’s future in a low-energy, sustainable world. There is one thing that no one can deny: weather issues will always present risks. But we do not need to take the risk of just crossing our fingers and hoping we are prepared. We need to plan for the ever-present threat.

This is not just a trivial matter, ripe for personality politics, as we have seen already in this debate. This was literally a case of life and death, with Auckland City Hospital and Middlemore Hospital operating for emergencies only. The Auckland District Health Board has confirmed that during the power outage, the emergency department had to turn people away. Some elective surgery was postponed due to the crisis. And what have we had here this afternoon? Accusations of alcohol use by members. Is that really how low the debate has become?

The crisis yesterday was a case of business and investment strangulation. Let me remind this House of the grim facts of yesterday. The Employers and Manufacturers Association has stated that the outage was unacceptable and Transpower must fully investigate it. The Auckland chamber of commerce said that an alternative supply line is needed. Alex Swney, from the business promotion group Heart of the City, said that uncertainty over the power supply risks Auckland’s status as an international city. There was physical, environmental, economic, and social desperation—and what has the Government been saying? It has been making allegations and accusations regarding who should speak in this debate and the legal bills of former MPs.

Many in the House have had enough of the frivolous way in which these matters are being dealt with. Less than 5 years ago the nation and, in particular, the nations of Ngāpuhi were devastated at the fires in Kaikohe and Herekino, which it appears were started from candles. Both houses involved were without electricity, and the occupants had turned to candles for alternative sources of light. In the aftermath of those tragedies, Northland Ngāpuhi leader Sonny Tau called for urgent talks with the Minister of Housing, describing the houses of hundreds of Northland people as death traps. So we have already had that fatal experience in the north whereby families had no power and lost their lives. That experience provides a solemn warning to all members when considering what could have happened as a result of yesterday’s power outage.

I absolutely agree with the honourable member who spoke earlier in the debate and urged us not to be flippant and not to play politics. It is critical that we prepare now for a pending energy crisis. We must work together as a nation, in a collaborative approach, to set up a time line for action, and we must do that in this House.

Last year the Māori Party proposed the establishment of a cross-party parliamentary commission. We believed that this commission would signal that Parliament was prepared to take a collaborative, united approach towards the most critical issue facing our future sustainability. We need to be innovative, to look at wind generation, to look at alternative sources of supply, and to work together for the good of our nation. Yesterday, when I heard the chair of the Electricity Commission, Roy Hemmingway, suggest that he will talk with Government agencies and Transpower about how to proceed with an inquiry into the power crisis, I was heartened. When we talked about the cross-party parliamentary commission, we suggested that it should have the facility to co-opt independent advisers, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, or to have representation from specialist groups, such as the Sustainable Energy Forum. We need to pull together our best brains—our most creative energy—to guarantee that the power supply can be secured throughout all of Aotearoa.

One of the brightest moments of an otherwise bleak crisis occurred when a young Auckland town planning student, responding to the desperate calls for help from senior citizens who were trying to negotiate the traffic, stepped up to the challenge, walked out into the middle of the road, and started to direct traffic. I admire his initiative and courage in trying to do what he could to assist the community—and, in particular, vulnerable members of our society—in a time of crisis.

I call today for all members of the House to rise up to that same challenge—to stride out into the storm, and to think about how we can work together to ensure that sustainable energy is generated and sustained for the future needs of all the peoples of Aotearoa.

The Helen Clark Government has failed Auckland, and, sadly, having the opportunity of an urgent debate on the chaos inflicted on Auckland yesterday, the lead Minister, Mr Trevor Mallard, never once addressed the issue. He did everything he could to talk about everything else, including bringing this House into grave disrepute. He did anything to avoid discussing the issue and what the Government’s response would be. Auckland is the only city to have its own Minister—we have a Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. That Minister has not spoken here today. The Government failed Auckland when the power crisis occurred, but it is failing Auckland and the country again by its complete failure to give an adequate response. Auckland roads are clogged, and yesterday the city was plunged into darkness.

It is bad enough that one earth wire could shut down Auckland’s power supply and shut down Auckland, but what is astonishing is that it took an entire day to restore power to large chunks of the city. I would have thought that members of a Government that cared—a Government that was actually interested in helping the country—would be here today to take the opportunity to outline what they are doing. Did we hear one thing? No. All we heard was Trevor Mallard hurling abuse at everyone—including his own colleague the Assistant Speaker—and saying that there will be an inquiry to find out what happened. The reality is that there is no surprise about what happened in Auckland yesterday. This Parliament, Ministers, select committees, and the public had been warned of this issue for months, if not years. Our infrastructure did not get into the mess it is in overnight. It takes years to run down infrastructure to the extent that ours is now run down. It is so run down that an earth wire can flip in a slight storm and blank out our largest city for a day.

The Minister of Energy has refused to accept any responsibility. The Minister of Energy has spoken in this Chamber as though the situation were a big surprise, yet he was told of the problem by experts such as Keith Turner. What was David Parker’s response back then? It was: “Oh, it’s not that bad.” That is typical of the spin from this Government. There has been a failure to deal with the facts, and a failure to deal with the issues, so Auckland and the country suffer.

We heard from Mr Peter Brown of New Zealand First about what needs to happen. That was a constructive input to this debate. We do need more energy supplies, but that means actually having a planning system—a resource management system—that allows our energy resources to be developed. Mr Brown said we needed more investment—that means having secure property rights, whereby if people invest in New Zealand, the investment is safe and will not be pinched from them, as happened in respect of this Government and Telecom, when $3 billion of shareholder value was pinched. Mr Brown said we needed security of supply. That is true; that is an issue for the Government and the people of New Zealand. Again, we have heard nothing from this Government. Mr Brown said we needed a competitive pricing system so we can afford the energy. That, too, is true. After the chaos that occurred in our largest city, would it not be nice to have Government members who were prepared to come to this House to explain what they are doing to address those issues?

I will just respond to one point that Mr Hide made. I did not disagree with Mr Turner’s comments; I disagreed with Dr Smith’s characterisation of them. Turning to the issues today, what happened yesterday has been well traversed in this debate. An earth wire broke and flipped on to the Ōtāhuhu substation. The question the Government is asking is why the wider system could not cope with that line failure. There is another question as to whether the line was properly maintained, and I am sure that will be answered in due course, but the more important question is why the system did not cope with that line failure.

I will say another thing about that. One of the first questions on this issue that was put to me in this House was whether I recognise that it is my responsibility and the Government’s responsibility to keep the lights on. The answer is yes. I have made those comments previously, and I made them again today. That is to be contrasted with the position taken by Mr Williamson some minutes ago. Even now, after all of the events years ago when we had a 5-week power outage in Auckland, he denies there was any Government responsibility for that event. We do take responsibility for righting what has happened.

What have we done? First of all, I have required a report to be with me within 2 weeks from Transpower as to its analysis of what went wrong, and particularly as to why the wider system did not cope with the consequences of yesterday’s line failure. I have already made it clear that I am engaging another expert, probably an international expert, to provide me with expert advice on that. After taking that advice, remedial action will be taken promptly.

What are the likely avenues that we will explore? It does concern me that we are overly reliant on the Ōtāhuhu site. Transpower already had plans to separate some of the facilities on that site. The New Zealand Herald today reported me as saying that would be done after 2012. There has been a bit of a misunderstanding between myself and the journalist. What I intended to impart was the reality that already Transpower plans to separate some of those facilities by 2012. The question I am asking is twofold: firstly, should that be done sooner, and, secondly, should we have a separate substation from Ōtāhuhu in order to further give us greater capacity to survive events like this one?

I want to turn more generally to the condition of our infrastructure. Before National took the reins in the 1990s, transmission was planned in advance to keep ahead of demand growth. Staged investments were made. They were expensive but they stood us in good stead for many, many years. But in the 1990s what changed was that National restructured Transpower. National appointed its own board and pursued an ideological agenda that it could not achieve in the reform of producer co-ops, where the farmers fought back, but it could achieve in respect of Government-controlled entities. It said that the market would give us pricing signals that would tell us if and when we should invest more in transmission capacity.

Of course, history shows that that model was just bollocks. What National planned to do then really beggars belief. What it was trying to say was that the market would deliver, and that there was no need to plan. Of course, the market did not deliver; all it delivered was inadequate investment. That was not just on the transmission front but also in roading, in public transport, and in every area of infrastructure that one can find, including telecommunications. We have been left with that legacy.

What have we done to remedy that legacy? This year, in and around Auckland alone, we are spending $83 million. In the coming year $300 million will be spent on capital works, over and above maintenance. What were we left with when we inherited the system from National? About $50 million per annum was being spent. It was completely inadequate. National now cries crocodile tears. Perhaps the even greater fault of those years was not the amount that was spent; it was the fact that National was not even planning to spend more. It did not know what needed to be done, and when it needed to be done. Labour has stepped in and it is spending money on critical infrastructure. As I have said, five or six times more is being spent on transmission lines each year than National spent—a billion dollars or more over the next 3 years. It may not be enough. If it is not enough, we will spend more, but that will not be because we have some ridiculous view of the market giving pricing signals as to when and where extra money should be spent on the grid.

Dr Smith said there were three problems that the Government should remedy. He said, firstly, there should be more investment in electricity generation. That is interesting, is it not? He was a member of the National Government that, with Mr Bradford as the Minister, took those decisions from the Government and said they were for the market to make. It is interesting that Dr Smith says today that we are not getting enough new electricity generation. Obviously, the market model that he foisted upon us has failed, if he is right in that assertion.

Secondly, Dr Smith says that the Resource Management Act is the problem. He quoted those references in the Transpower reports. Dr Smith overstates the Resource Management Act problem. The problem was that no money was being spent, and there was no planning for money to be spent. There were some imperfections in the Resource Management Act. We have eased the call-in procedures, so that where there are projects that go across territorial authority boundaries, there is now a legislative vehicle that enables the likes of Transpower, or someone else who wants to put in important infrastructure, to come to the Government and say that those matters should be called in. That step has not yet been taken in respect of the Waikato project that is proposed in order to lead more power into Auckland, or indeed any other substation projects, but it may be. If such an application is made to us and we think it is appropriate, we now have the tools to enable that to happen.

Thirdly, Dr Smith says that the Electricity Commission is the problem. The OECD organisation the International Energy Agency has exactly the opposite view to Dr Smith’s, and it is right. I will read from its report this year, which came out a month ago: “The establishment of the Electricity Commission … provides much needed regulatory oversight to industries that had previously been left to self-regulation.” I do not need to say anything more than that, to demolish that point.

It is true that what happened in Auckland yesterday should not have happened. It is true that it is the responsibility of the Government to remedy it, and the Government will. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that not a single Government member from Auckland has chosen to participate in the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Yes, it is, if you will let me finish. I understand from the Clerk that there is only one further opportunity to speak, so I seek leave for a further slot of 10 minutes to be made available so that Judith Tizard—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot seek leave for another member.

It is for an extension of the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please be seated. He cannot seek leave for someone else to have an extension of time or to speak. He cannot do that on behalf of someone else.

I am seeking leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

It is my joy, and I thank the member of Parliament on the other side for giving me a chance to speak. I am delighted at his very late interest in Auckland. One of the joys of being part of the Labour-led Government is that Auckland has a third of New Zealand’s population and represents about one-sixth of its land area. This is a Government that accepts that Auckland’s infrastructure is vital, not only to Aucklanders but to all New Zealanders. That is why this Government works across the Government on Auckland issues. It is my great joy, as MP for Auckland Central and Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, to be a constant nagging adviser to all of my colleagues. I am delighted to report to the House that they give me a great deal of time. When I rang David Parker’s office yesterday, we had some discussion with his senior advisory staff. I have had a number of discussions with him. Indeed, I had a briefing from him this afternoon, as soon as I had accepted a large petition out on the steps of Parliament.

I tell the House that this Government does not think it is acceptable that the infrastructure of this country has been run down, to the point where one wire breaking puts the well-being of the whole New Zealand economy and the whole Auckland economy at risk. I say to this House that this Government has been working now for nearly 7 years to find out what the problems are, and to address them. We understand that good infrastructure is the basis of a good economy and a good society. That is what we are working towards. I am proud of what this Government has done. I am proud of what Ministers across this Government do—the time they spend in Auckland, and the number and the range of people in organisations in Auckland whom they speak to. I am delighted to say that Auckland is getting the best service it has ever had from any Government, in the whole history of this country.

The Prime Minister started out this year, as she did 6 years ago, by saying that Auckland matters; Auckland matters to New Zealand, and Auckland matters to Aucklanders, as well. We are not prepared to see Auckland bulldozed so that roads can go, willy-nilly, with no concern about local communities. We are not prepared to destroy Auckland as an environment for people to live in. We are not prepared to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the matter that we are urgently debating. It is the power failure yesterday that affected over 700,000 Auckland people. I have been listening very carefully to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. She has made absolutely no mention of the power failure yesterday. I would like the Minister to address the issue of the urgent debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I take note of it. I actually heard the member as I was coming to the Chair making reference to the topic that is being discussed. I just remind the member that during points of order there will be silence. He should stand and apologise properly.

💬 Phil Heatley: I apologise.

I am entitled to rebut the nonsense we have heard from members across this House who are abusing Auckland and this Government for what they cannot see is the mote in their own eyes. It is time this House and this Government were given the credit for recognising that Auckland’s infrastructure does matter.

💬 Phil Heatley: There were power cuts yesterday. Does the Minister know?

If the member for Whangarei would calm down for a minute, I would very happily tell him what the problem was in Auckland yesterday. I live in Ponsonby. I was out at a meeting, then I came home and put on a load of washing. It had just finished, so I put it in the drier and the power went off. So I went up to Ponsonby to see whether it was a general problem or a very local one. I rang several people around the city to find out whether their power was off, and I listened to the radio—as one is required to do in civil emergencies, generally. I discovered that it was a major problem, so I rang Wellington and asked my office to ring the Minister of Energy—actually, they could just walk across the corridor.

This Government is a good Government that in all the time it has been active has been addressing New Zealand’s infrastructure problems. Auckland is just a subset of that. This does indicate that when a storm comes through Auckland, and our infrastructure does not stand up to it, it means that Aucklanders suffer. But I want to point out to the baying people across the House that this affects all New Zealanders, and it is something we have to work on together.

I feel really sorry right now for the rural people in the South Island whose energy has been off not just for 1 day—as we in Auckland were relatively lucky to get away with—but for days. They accept that because they live in some of the most beautiful and isolated places in New Zealand, there is a risk—but they are well prepared. I say that this Government is determined to see that, in future, Auckland will be well prepared so New Zealand does not suffer.

I seek the leave of the House to table the International Energy Agency report on New Zealand that specifically identifies the issue of transmission into Auckland, stating that this was a problem ignored by the Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

The debate has finished. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. United Future is yet to have a call in this urgent debate. A little while ago I did ask the person in the Chair, Ross Robertson, whether I could take the final call in the debate, and I would like to do that, if possible.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The time for the debate has expired. All that the member can do is seek leave.

I seek leave of the House, in view of those circumstances—an obvious misunderstanding about the matter—to take a 5-minute call in the urgent debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member has sought leave for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. We will go back to the urgent debate.

Transpower has a number of questions to answer in respect of the blackout that occurred in Auckland yesterday. It is, in truth, a national embarrassment. I have spoken today to members of a number of multinational companies who have received considerable inward email correspondence in the last 24 hours, most of it making New Zealand the butt of international jokes. Those companies include some of the largest and most successful corporations in the world, and they are now beginning to assign New Zealand to Third World status when it comes to security of electricity supply. It is simply not good enough. I also mention to the House that just a little while ago we had a power cut in Bowen House, here in Wellington; we seem to be in a season of power cuts.

Questions have to be asked about why the blackout was allowed to happen. It is inescapable that there must be some accountability in our system, and that those who are responsible for this unacceptable event should be asked about it and brought to account for it.

I mention Transpower in particular because, as others have mentioned, this situation was foreshadowed for some time by Keith Turner of Meridian Energy, and by a number of other people who have come to see me in my role as United Future’s energy spokesperson. They have been saying to me for the last couple of years that there are similar problems in terms of getting power into Nelson and other parts of the country, that the job is not being done, that we have not maintained our electricity grid, that we have not done maintenance when it was needed, and that we have been gambling, as it were, with the electricity supply to both commercial and domestic consumers in this country—to my knowledge, for the last couple of years.

It gets worse, because, as we all know, the proposal for a new, 400-kilovolt line into Auckland that was put forward by Transpower was rejected by Roy Hemmingway of the Electricity Commission, because, in his view, it involved inadequate analysis of the problem and inadequate consultation with the affected people. Transpower has therefore been forced, embarrassingly, to come back with a new proposal.

I am talking about an organisation that has the highest ratio of highly paid executives of any State-owned enterprise in the country. That is to be expected, because they are professional engineers, but, notwithstanding that reality, one can look at it the other way—that it increases the level of responsibility and accountability that should apply to this organisation. We have to ask ourselves whether they are earning their pay and adequately serving the interests of New Zealand’s electricity grid. I think that on a number of things now—at least three different matters that have come up—the organisation has been seen to fail.

We really have to set right this quite unacceptable situation in terms of electricity going into Auckland. It beggars the imagination that Transpower’s planning, with all of its expertise and brainpower, could have been so inadequate that one single line going down could bring our largest city to a blackout for 5 hours. It is not good enough, and I am very pleased this matter is being debated in Parliament today, because we have got to get that message across. I say to the Minister of Energy that I think it is time some people were held accountable for what has gone on. How else do we ensure that we do not face this again somewhere else, in some other city—Wellington or elsewhere—in the near future? God forbid that it should revisit Auckland, if we have, as is forecast in some cases, further inclement weather and further weather bombs, as they are known, during this winter.

I am very, very concerned indeed about the great damage that has been done to Auckland, and also, in particular, to New Zealand’s international reputation. In my time as energy spokesperson for United Future, I have had multinationals say to me that they are moving to Queensland, because there they can enter into long-term electricity supply contracts. They pay more for electricity there than they would in New Zealand, but at least they have security of supply, which they cannot get in New Zealand. Here they cannot enter into contracts for security of electricity supply for a period of time, which would give them some payback on their initial investment. That is a disgrace.

I think the Government has to take some responsibility for what has happened, and to admit that it has got to lift its game and sort out these problems; otherwise, we will see inaction, excuses, double-ups, and bureaucracy continue to weigh down this country’s economy, and that is just not good enough.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.