Or he did have a good understanding but could not express it in the language which New Zealand First wants made official?
But Christopher Luxon is apt to struggle with questions in Parliament about other policies, too – unless, of course, he is deliberately aiming to infuriate the Opposition with his bluster.
Take the liquefied natural gas import facility, for example.
Hansard records this exchange…
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, at a cost of billions of dollars, which every Kiwi household will pay through his Government’s new proposed gas tax, in light of the 50 percent spike in LNG prices just this week, following the recent drone strikes in the Middle East?
He could have said “yes”, and left it at that.
Unless he no longer stands by the decision, of course.
But he said more than that, obviously to try to score desperately needed political points.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, international commodity prices rise and fall. That’s inevitable. You don’t change your approach or strategy just because of that. What I can say is that banning oil and gas put a chilling effect on this country. The Lake Onslow project, at $17 billion—to be delivered in 2037 at $8,000 a household—and $800 megawatt per hour wholesale electricity prices means that we have a failed energy policy. We have dry-year risk, and, as a result, this has actually been a good move, because it has lowered the forward electricity prices by about $25 since we made that announcement.
He should have anticipated what came next:
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess the risk of a major supply or price disruption before committing New Zealand households to pay for an LNG import facility?
Again, the answer was “yes – or it was “no” (in which case Hipkins would have asked why not?).
But Luxon was inclined to be provocative.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question, because this is about lowering power bills by about $50 for every single household in this country. This is a backup source of energy, so that we don’t end up in the situation that the member and his Government created last time.
Oh dear. Rejecting the characterisation of a simple question is another way of saying “sorry, I don’t want to answer that one”. Or “sorry, I don’t have the answer to that one but I will get it for you and come back…”
Hipkins persisted.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess, or did it not assess, the risk of a major supply or price disruption?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a natural thing—that LNG prices go up and down as a global commodity price—but, irrespective of that, it is still the right answer to make sure we have a backup option to deliver dry-year risk, so we take the risk premium down—
The PM’s irritation became evident when Hipkins asked:
Was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrong when he said that importing LNG could leave Kiwis worse off because it would discourage investment in cheaper renewable sources of electricity generation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, he was, because, actually, we have taken a policy in our Government that we table the advice, and then we make some decisions. What we don’t do is create an $800 megawatt per hour cost that ends up shutting down mills, and low and middle income working New Zealanders lose their jobs. That’s exactly what that member did—economic vandal, arsonist, now complaining about the fire that we’re putting out that you created.
That resulted in a rebuke from the Speaker.
SPEAKER: Sorry. Just a minute. You can’t make those sorts of comments at the end of an answer. That’s going beyond a debating point, to actually being a personal insult and it cannot be done.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Point of order. The record is abysmal and you’ve got to understand context.
SPEAKER: That’s now, with all due respect, challenging the Chair and it’s not a wise thing to do, because even Prime Ministers aren’t beyond being removed from the House.
Luxon had another chance to give a straight answer to a straight question.
He blew it.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he so sure that tying the price of electricity in New Zealand to volatile international LNG markets will leave Kiwis better off, when the Government didn’t even consider any renewable energy alternative options?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the great thing is that we are experiencing a renewables boom in this country and that is because of fast-track consenting, a one-stop shop which that member—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Answer the question!
SPEAKER: No, sorry. The man is trying to answer the question. Please don’t call out with inane comments like that. Have you finished?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, yeah. I’m happy to stop—[Interruption] Well, there’s no point if I’m going to get interrupted all the time!
Saved by an interruption rather than by the bell.
Maybe his mind was on the prospect of a bad polls result.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, at a cost of billions of dollars, which every Kiwi household will pay through his Government’s new proposed gas tax, in light of the 50 percent spike in LNG prices just this week, following the recent drone strikes in the Middle East?
He could have said “yes”, and left it at that.
Unless he no longer stands by the decision, of course.
But he said more than that, obviously to try to score desperately needed political points.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, international commodity prices rise and fall. That’s inevitable. You don’t change your approach or strategy just because of that. What I can say is that banning oil and gas put a chilling effect on this country. The Lake Onslow project, at $17 billion—to be delivered in 2037 at $8,000 a household—and $800 megawatt per hour wholesale electricity prices means that we have a failed energy policy. We have dry-year risk, and, as a result, this has actually been a good move, because it has lowered the forward electricity prices by about $25 since we made that announcement.
He should have anticipated what came next:
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess the risk of a major supply or price disruption before committing New Zealand households to pay for an LNG import facility?
Again, the answer was “yes – or it was “no” (in which case Hipkins would have asked why not?).
But Luxon was inclined to be provocative.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question, because this is about lowering power bills by about $50 for every single household in this country. This is a backup source of energy, so that we don’t end up in the situation that the member and his Government created last time.
Oh dear. Rejecting the characterisation of a simple question is another way of saying “sorry, I don’t want to answer that one”. Or “sorry, I don’t have the answer to that one but I will get it for you and come back…”
Hipkins persisted.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Government assess, or did it not assess, the risk of a major supply or price disruption?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a natural thing—that LNG prices go up and down as a global commodity price—but, irrespective of that, it is still the right answer to make sure we have a backup option to deliver dry-year risk, so we take the risk premium down—
The PM’s irritation became evident when Hipkins asked:
Was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrong when he said that importing LNG could leave Kiwis worse off because it would discourage investment in cheaper renewable sources of electricity generation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, he was, because, actually, we have taken a policy in our Government that we table the advice, and then we make some decisions. What we don’t do is create an $800 megawatt per hour cost that ends up shutting down mills, and low and middle income working New Zealanders lose their jobs. That’s exactly what that member did—economic vandal, arsonist, now complaining about the fire that we’re putting out that you created.
That resulted in a rebuke from the Speaker.
SPEAKER: Sorry. Just a minute. You can’t make those sorts of comments at the end of an answer. That’s going beyond a debating point, to actually being a personal insult and it cannot be done.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Point of order. The record is abysmal and you’ve got to understand context.
SPEAKER: That’s now, with all due respect, challenging the Chair and it’s not a wise thing to do, because even Prime Ministers aren’t beyond being removed from the House.
Luxon had another chance to give a straight answer to a straight question.
He blew it.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he so sure that tying the price of electricity in New Zealand to volatile international LNG markets will leave Kiwis better off, when the Government didn’t even consider any renewable energy alternative options?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the great thing is that we are experiencing a renewables boom in this country and that is because of fast-track consenting, a one-stop shop which that member—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Answer the question!
SPEAKER: No, sorry. The man is trying to answer the question. Please don’t call out with inane comments like that. Have you finished?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, yeah. I’m happy to stop—[Interruption] Well, there’s no point if I’m going to get interrupted all the time!
Saved by an interruption rather than by the bell.
Maybe his mind was on the prospect of a bad polls result.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.