Electricity and Gas Industries Bill

It is indeed ironic that we are debating clauses 1 and 2 with the current Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, in the chair, because Clauses 1 and 2 are the retrospective clauses, and of course, the Minister in the chair, Mr Duynhoven, is the retrospective Minister, in that he is in this Parliament by courtesy of this Government passing retrospective legislation so that it could keep him here and avoid going to the people, as was the right thing to do within the law at the time. Now, a change in the law is being sought retrospectively, and that is being chaired through the Committee by the retrospective Minister. What an ironic situation we find ourselves in! The man who should have gone to the people, who got the Parliament to change the law so that he could stay here, sits in the chair tonight passing laws, and will backdate them not just a few days, not even just a few weeks, but an extraordinary amount of time so that Part 2 will be deemed by the retrospective Minister to have come into force on 20 May 2003. That was 18 months ago. The Minister, who should have gone to the people but got Parliament to change the law so that he could stay here retrospectively, now wants the Parliament to pass a law that goes back to the middle of last year, which is about the same time as he should have been on his hide around New Plymouth telling voters that he messed up and to have an election to see whether they still wanted him.

The Minister finds himself in a very messy situation. We have proposed some amendments to the bill, because we do not think this is good Government. We do not think it is good to pass legislation that has a clause that will deem Part 2 to have come into force on 20 May 2003, and includes the establishment of the Electricity Commission, which is out there now. The commission is hiring people, paying people, all its rules are in place, and it is doing its job, and now a law is being passed to the effect that a whole lot of things governing it are deemed to have come into force in the middle of last year.

But worse than that is that the retrospective Minister wants to pass a law under clause 2(1) to the effect that Transpower’s pricing arrangement, all of its charging, is deemed to have come into force on 26 January this year. If Transpower has charged wrong prices or has been out of time, and there have been disputes—well, to heck with any of that! A law is being passed on 7 October 2004 that Mr Duynhoven, whose hide is in this House because of retrospective law, is deeming to have come into force on 26 January this year. That is outrageous, and National will move amendments to get rid of that retrospectivity.

I just want to make a comment on the Government’s handling of this bill, because it has been an absolute shambles, with the assistance of United Future, all the way through. This bill was introduced into the House with a great flurry on 6 November last year—11 months ago. It was referred to the Commerce Committee. Companies were told to hurry up and make their submissions because the matter was really urgent, and they had until 30 January. So the energy sector worked over the Christmas period, through November, December, and January, preparing technical submissions. The sector hired groups such as the Law and Economics Consulting Group to do a huge amount of work for it. The State-owned enterprises, as one, opposed the bill. The time for submissions closed on 30 January, because we were told the bill was so urgent and we were required to get on to it straight away. Well, we did. We met the deadlines that the House set, yet the bill has sat here for months.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Brian Connell.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not do this in any way to upset my colleague, but I just need from you some clarification, because you are the only Chairperson who does not take a second call from me, as the lead spokesperson. The other Chairpersons do, and I want an assurance from you that under the Standing Orders you are treating senior spokespersons in an even-handed and a fair manner. The Standing Orders allow a member to have two consecutive calls, so what is the point of having that Standing Order if the Chair is just going to ignore it?

I am very happy to assist the Chair by yielding my call to allow my colleague to continue—

Hon Roger Sowry: You can’t yield.

BRIAN CONNELL: —on the basis that Mr Sowry gets the call.

Please be seated. I just say to Mr Sowry that he is not correct, but if Mr Connell wants to yield to him, that is fine. I call the Hon Roger Sowry.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think you need to explain the rules of yielding, because they are quite complicated.

Brian Connell: No, I haven’t yielded.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Brian Connell has decided not to speak.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: No, he has not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): He has not?

No, I have not. I was only doing that to assist the Chair on the basis that you may have made a mistake and really wanted to call Mr Sowry. I am not yielding the call.

I will just make one thing perfectly clear. I have ruled on the point of order from Mr Sowry. He is quite wrong. He needs to go back and check Hansard, and he will see that he is quite wrong about the point of order that he raised.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I cannot ever recall a ruling from a Chairperson as being: “You are quite wrong. Sit down.” The Standing Orders allow a member to take two consecutive calls in the Committee stage, and that Standing Order has been followed by the Chairpersons Ross Robertson and the Hon Clem Simich. I want to know why you have different rules. The point is that if you are not going to allow people to take consecutive calls when the Standing Orders state that it is allowed, then I think we have every reason to ask why.

Jill Pettis: My grandmother would say that your eyes are too close together.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Madam Chair, are you going to sit and allow that? Are you going to allow that to happen, or will you pull people into control here?

The member will stand and withdraw that remark.

Jill Pettis: I am sorry. I apologise. I withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will just make this absolutely clear again to Mr Sowry. He is quite wrong in his assertion about consecutive calls and how I have called them in the past. If he goes back to check Hansard he will see that he is absolutely wrong.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.