Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): I would also like to touch on the points made by the honourable member Stuart Nash regarding the amendments to consultations which is clauses 3 to 6 and clauses 8 to 15. I guess it has always been a vexed issue as to what happens with levies and the ownership and governance when those levies are collected and how they are actually spent. I think we share some of the concerns around the adequate and appropriate level of consultation if it is just token.I note that in New Zealand we do not have the strong energy community advocacy groups that are so prominent overseas. In other countries they have very professional organisations that can have a statutory or even a semi-judicial function to advocate for their consumers which we do not have in New Zealand. I would note it is publicly available that there were four submitters principally opposed to the use of levies to fund the activity of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. (EECA): the Major Gas Users Group Business New Zealand the Major Electricity Users' Group and the Motor Industry Association.I guess our fear is that these professional and coordinated and organised groups could present a predominant or an overwhelming response in the consultation. We cannot just leave it up to Grey Power to advocate for energy consumers in New Zealand I guess is my main point.I would also point out to those organisations that in many respects they are the beneficiaries of the work of EECA. Every consumer big or small business or residential in New Zealand benefits when we invest in energy efficiency and conservation. Perhaps part of the problem in New Zealand—and when you look at a recent OECD report we have in fact got one of the lowest energy intensity ratings in the entire developed world because we use energy less efficiently than most other countries.It might not sound like much but effectively we are burning and throwing away billions of dollars if you listen to the former chief executive officer Mike Underhill in terms of energy that we are using or burning that we do not have to. What I would prefer is if we had a true public conversation around investing in EECA.I note the officials—in response to some of those groups that were opposed even to the idea of a levy to fund some of EECA's activities. But it only funds less than half of EECA's work. I think if these businesses were looking at some of their international peers they would be more actively engaged in supporting the work of EECA and seeing the levy not as a cost to their bottom line but as an investment that is benefiting their bottom line. With such low energy intensity New Zealand businesses are less competitive vis-à-vis other countries because we are spending more on getting oil to New Zealand burning oil less efficiently paying more for electricity than we have to and investing in equipment and plant and product that are less efficient than overseas competitors. We cannot keep competing if this is going to be the case. So I urge those organisations to get behind it.This is a huge missed opportunity over previous years but also a huge low-hanging fruit for New Zealand. I have got a true vision that we could be investing in energy efficiency and conservation—not seeing it as a nice-to-have" or a marginal benefit or a side occupation. This should be at the heart of New Zealand's energy policy because this is going to target the true energy poverty issues that we see in New Zealand.When we invest only in business-targeted approaches through the bulk of EECA's work I think it is quite legitimate as Stuart Nash questioned as to who is actually going to be dominating those consultations. What we have seen in recent years is EECA moving away from the large-scale huge benefit programmes—for example the Warm Up New Zealand scheme which insulated 300000 homes and did not have any of the problems that the Australian energy efficiency scheme had with its insulation roll-out.Move away from these mass huge benefit programmes towards more business-targeted approaches we see—for example investing in boilers which is good work but this has become the bulk of EECA's work. What I would like to see is the ability for this consultation to be true and appropriate by involving consumers. Despite having insulated 300000 homes we know there are more than say 700000 substandard homes. In New Zealand we have got 40000 trips being made by kids to hospital every year as a result of cold damp housing. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—come back.GARETH HUGHES: So when you are looking at clauses 3 to 8 it is important that the consultation is adopted appropriately."