Baldock Larry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21323] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. United Future members would like to make it known that we are great supporters of this agency. We think it is doing a good job and that it has some very practical solutions to some of the problems the country faces. 
For 2 years now we have put in Budget bids for this agency to have increased funding and we believe that it deserves to have more funding from the Minister of Energy. We hope the Minister will continue to be an advocate for this agency. If the Government is serious about its energy conservation strategy it ought to be putting more money into this agency so it can achieve real reductions and real successes in energy efficiency rather than just this little bit of money which is a slight indication of commitment. 
It is time that the Government walked the walk in terms of the so-called effects of climate change. I see that a great deal of the money that this agency is given is actually siphoned off to deal with reports on climate change and on the effects of carbon dioxide gases rather than actually doing the things many New Zealanders believe would make a difference in our country such as increasing the use of solar water heating in our homes. We were pleased to see back in 2003-04 that funding doubled so that solar water heating could be installed in more homes but it is still so little that it is hardly going to make a dent in reducing our dependence on energy. What is needed on that front is for the industry behind solar water heating to be given a very clear signal that the Government is serious about solar water heating being installed in all new homes and seeing many of our older homes being refitted. Until the Government gives a clear signal that it really is serious about that the industry will not respond and get ready for the massive infrastructure it needs in order to meet the demand that will come. We urge the Minister to take that initiative to really deliver for the people of New Zealand in that strategy and to support the good people in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. 
We have welcomed the work that the agency has been doing with energy- efficiency ratings for homes and we are pleased to see that in the 2005-06 Budget it has been given another $0.6 million to increase the number of homes that it can rate. But again it is still too little. We would like to see United Future’s policy implemented whereby all homes will need to have energy-efficiency ratings when sold. We think that is a good way to have market measures involved in upgrading our homes to be more efficient. It is not a huge expense for a home to be given an energy-efficiency rating. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is able to deliver this service and more people would be able to be trained if the demand were increased. For a very minimal cost people could come and rate our homes find the spots where heat is leaking out and find the ways in which insulation and efficiency overall can be improved. They would consider the ways in which we light and heat our homes. There is much saving that can be made. We believe that if an energy-efficiency rating were required at the time of the sale of a home people would be motivated to get better ratings because they would be able to get better prices for their homes. The market would very much take care of this improvement. So we look forward to the Minister getting behind the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and offering it more support through Budget allocation in the years ahead so that it can do a lot more. 
We hear an awful lot about the worries of climate change and the impending effects of human-induced climate change. The Government is imposing a carbon tax on our country and our businesses. It is seeking to raise something like $300 million with that carbon tax yet it is giving less than $30 million to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority which could actually make a real difference. We do not think the carbon tax makes any sense at all and we oppose it absolutely. But perhaps the tax would make a little more sense if it was being directed to the authority so that it could make rapid progress in energy-efficiency initiatives around the country. 
Report noted.