The Infrastructure Forum had six questions:
- How will you stop the risk of power blackouts?
- Will you privatise power generation SOEs to get more competition and lower prices?
- How will you get broadband into more homes and businesses?
- What changes will you make to the RMA?
- Do you support more protection for businesses at risk from the ETS?
- Do you support carbon credit allocation based on carbon intensity
- Energy Policy released details improvements to both security and supply. Planning for far more growth than Labour. Major consent decisions to be made within nine months
- No SOE sales
- Ran out of time
- Referred to in 1
- Not a yes/no answer but said credit allocation should be decided by a select committee process and a National ETS will do that. Gave a great example of how concrete plants in Europe will pay far less for carbon credits so just force industry offshore.
- Ran out of time
- Record investment in energy under Labour. National did not invest in the 1990s
- Broadband essential. $500 million fund next five years. WIll not favour incumbent.
- Does not accept RMA is a barrier
- One can have security by over-building capacity so it is wasted every year but the peak year. Not efficient. Better to have a standby plant. Says we had a 1 in 60 dry year. Third way is make smart adjustments to demand to reduce at times of shortage and that is what is missing.
- Will not sell SOEs. Rejects that it would lead to lower prices.
- Supported LLU. Broadband key to reducing transport. But not support large state investment.
- Most changes Gerry wants to RMA already done. Problem is implementation and no national guidelines.
- Trade-exposed businesses are already highly protected. Some businesses may end up with surplus credits without reducing emissions.
- No – an intensity basis will lead to continued emissions.
- Does not think we can rule out all the power generation methods the Greens do. Need to reduce cost of capital by lowering taxes.
- Yes would sell them. No sense in Govt owing competitive businesses. Ownign them locks up taxpayers money and limits companies ability to raise capital for investment it deems necessary.
- Broadband important but regulation stopping its rollout. Need a stronger economy to be able to afford it. Against National’s policy in this area. Investment is slowing down due to uncertainity.
- Private property rights need to be enhanced, The RMA damages these rights.
- Rejects ideology. Needs security of supply. Say question is an alarmist straw man. Currently power is an un-cordinated jigsaw (so why are we paying $90 million a year to the Electricity Commission then). Agrees we have had over supply in past – supports smaller local plants but big hydro plants.
- I think it was a no.
- RMA needs national policy guidelines. DO not throw away RMA – streamline it and keep core principles.
- Do not support further protection to at risk businesses as we do not know enough about impact.
- No does not support but is subject to how the Act works out. Reason they oppose bill is because so much is uncertain and is being rushed through purely for political gain. Wants it passed by 1 April 2009.