Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations, and State Enterprises — Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. I want to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly in this Crown entity, but first I would like to acknowledge former Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. In 2000 it was Jeanette’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, a member’s bill, which passed into law the first ever piece of legislation in our country’s history to explicitly address climate change. Although we are having huge debates across the country about electricity production, what we often forget is that the most effective way we could be reducing the need for electricity production is simply to use the electricity we have already, just more efficiently. We would like to acknowledge all the hard work done by those Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority officials.

I will begin with the good. It is good to be working with the Government through a memorandum of understanding on the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme. This $347 million budget has recently been extended, increasing the amount of homes we are going to insulate to 230,000. This is actually massive. It is making a real difference to New Zealand families, a real difference to kids’ health, and a real difference to the economy. I note that the economic benefits have recently been estimated at $1.2 billion. From those 150,000 homes that have been done to date, if you laid the batt end on end across the country it would stretch from Auckland to Invercargill, back to Auckland, and then some. So it is a huge victory. It is good to be working with the Government.

But now I guess it is important to touch on the bad in this Crown entity as well. In Budget 2012 we saw two very important Budget lines cut under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. The first was the biofuel subsidies. This Government drastically changed the good mandate scheme that the Labour Government formerly had, and put in a woefully inadequate subsidy, in the Biodiesel Grants Scheme, of 50c. It was absolutely inadequate. The take-up was pitifully poor, and now the Government has scrapped it. We can only hope that the Government now returns to a mandatory scheme, if it actually wants to see biofuels being used in New Zealand. It is a huge issue, because, look, we are importing $8 billion in oil from some pretty unsavoury countries around the world. It is a huge strategic economic risk, but the Government is not doing anything about it. It is scrapping the biofuel grant. It is not doing enough to promote electric vehicles. It is definitely not doing enough for public transport. New Zealand could actually be self-sustainable in liquid fuels and other transport fuels, using sustainable biofuels from wood waste, other agricultural by-products, electric vehicles, and a greater investment in public transport.

The other bad in the Budget was the scrapping of the solar hot-water grants scheme—again, a scheme that was doing a pretty good job. We would have liked to actually see it enhanced. We should have seen the scheme enhanced to include photovoltaic solar panels. They have dropped about 50 percent in price in the last 18 months. We could be producing a huge amount of electricity from the energy wastage just hitting our roofs, if the Government support included maybe a grants scheme, supported with low-interest loans, and maybe helped facilitate a council rates payback scheme, which has worked pretty effectively in Nelson.

And then you have got the ugly. We have seen the good, we have seen the bad, and now the ugly. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is struggling, because the Government’s entire focus when it comes to energy issues—and you just need to look at the Energy Strategy—is to “drill it, mine it, frack it”. It is the only plan the Government has got. In fact, the Minister for Climate Change Issues last week, in response to my questions, said deliberately he wants to stimulate the risky, deep-sea oil industry, despite what we know. There are going to be hardly any jobs for New Zealanders, hardly any taxes, hardly any royalties, and the profits are going to go offshore. So instead of a Crown petroleum and minerals agency, why does this Government not consider a Crown renewable energy agency, maybe under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Agency—it is doing some pretty good work in conservation. Why do we not have a Government department that is actually focusing on rolling out renewable energy? We could be building tens of thousands of green jobs. We could actually be boosting the economy in a sustainable fashion. We could actually be leveraging our advantages. Just look at the Pure Advantage report about a $6 trillion dollar industry.

💬 Hon Chris Tremain: We’ve got the second-most amount of renewable energy levels in the world.

Yep, we are getting there, but what we are seeing under this Government is all the focus not on getting it to 90 percent—which is its target. It is another one of the National Government’s targets, but it is one that it is doing nothing about achieving. Instead, it is sitting on its hands, subsidising the oil industry, subsidising the carbon polluters—$1.5 billion in the emissions trading scheme in the last financial year. So we see this Government sitting on its hands, but actively promoting risky deep-sea drilling. The sad thing is we are missing that green race, which Pure Advantage pointed to. We could be doing so much better—not only making our kids healthier through a good insulation scheme but also providing prosperity and lifting them out of poverty. Kia ora.

Report noted.

Commerce Commission