Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are a couple of things I want to say about this bill but if you give me 30 seconds—we have a brand that we take to the world. It is clean green 100% Pure". It is about innovation in this space that allows us to make a difference and I would just like to reiterate what Gareth Hughes and a number of my colleagues have said: we need to be innovative in this space if we really want to be seen to live the brand that is worth a substantial amount of money to our economy. I just think we could have been a whole lot more innovative in this space and I think we actually need to be not just from a pure "let's save the world" approach. I think we actually need to be innovative in this space because our brand is worth—well I know it was valued 12 years ago at $20 billion a year and if we are not seen as leaders in this then it slowly erodes our global leadership position in anything to do with clean green "100% Pure". The irony is that a former energy Minister when he announced this sort of stuff turned up in a huge big ministerial BMW that drinks diesel faster than my fire engine announced—[Interruption] that is really fast I tell you—an energy-saving method and then jumped back in his BMW and raced off again. I just think that the Government should be really walking the walk on this and not just talking the talk.But what I would like to talk about first and foremost—or secondly—is Part 2. Now we have heard a lot about electric vehicles—how it will work how it will not work—the pitfalls of this bill the advantages and disadvantages and what we could have done better but there has been something snuck in here that I think we need to just tease out a little bit more and this is about the applying of a levy and how this is going to work. Part 2 actually amends the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 and it is about charging a levy for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). Now the amendments we are told are necessary so that EECA can use its levy funding for a full range of activities. At the moment the EECA levy comes off the electricity users but what it is seeking to do is spread the levy across electricity transport fuels and gas consumers. At the moment the total amount EECA can levy is set by Cabinet and it is currently at $17.5 million. The allocation of the levy will be spread across three sources and that will be determined by the Minister based on advice from EECA.I just would not mind knowing the efficacy of this advice or what sort of advice it is going to put in front of the Minister. I mean this is a pretty big call. We all know EECA from the ads that it runs on television and by and large it does a good job I do believe. But there are some little fishhooks in here that I think we need to tease out.I am looking at new subsection (2A) inserted by clause 11—this is an amendment to section 14—and it says: "Despite subsections (1) and (2)"—this is from the primary piece of legislation—"levies recovered under sections 23 and 24 may be applied for the purpose of meeting a portion of the costs …". Now whenever I see in a bill "may" or "must" you know there is a little bit of ambiguity. "Must" is an absolute—it has to happen; OK? There is no wiggle room there; it absolutely has to happen. When I see the word "may" I know there is a little bit of ambiguity and it always raises questions. Under what circumstances will these levies be applied for the purpose of meeting a portion of those costs? Unfortunately the Minister responsible for this piece of legislation has left. I am unsure whether the Minister in the chair at the moment Scott Simpson is over this bill. I suspect he is not and I do not blame him because it is not his portfolio area. However it would be good to know under what circumstances these levies will be applied. When we talk about meeting a portion of the costs again I know that sometimes you have got to leave a little bit of wiggle room there but what portion of the costs are we talking about? There is sufficient ambiguity in this clause to actually raise some questions that it would be good to have the answers to.I go down to new section 14A inserted by clause 12 and it talks about the "Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority"—EECA—"consultation about request for appropriation". What this talks about is that before EECA submits a request to the Minister about an appropriation of money it must consult. It must consult with the people who are liable to pay the levy and it must consult with any other representatives or any other persons who EECA believes are significantly affected by the levy. Then what EECA must do when the request is submitted is "report to the Minister on the outcome of that consultation." I suppose the question this brings up is: what will the level of consultation be? The other question which I think it is very relevant is: will the Minister take account of this consultation? The reason I ask this is that what EECA is required to do here is consult with those whom it is going to take money off and my initial impression is if an agency or a body or a Minister or a Government department is going to take money off a sector then I suspect the level of consultation will go something like this: "Can we have more money?" "No go away." "Thank you very much." Now I am being a little bit glib here—of course I am—but what I am saying is that an industry body or an industry advocacy group like EECA has to build an incredibly powerful business case before key players are going to accept a body taking money from them to be used to drive efficiency in an area where they make a whole lot of money if you get my point here.So what I would really like to know—and again it is difficult with the Minister in the chair—is whether this is just consultation because we say they must consult. If so what is the Minister going to do with this consultation? If in fact the result of the consultation is that we think that EECA has enough money we think it does not need any more to deliver on its purpose and we do not want to give it any more money is the Minister then going to say: "Well I've heard that consultation it's all very well—we're now going to charge you a little bit more money." This is the concern I always have when I hear about consultation with industry. I have no doubt that EECA will approach the consultation in a proactive way. I mean it would be mad not to. I would hate to cast aspersions on EECA's credibility because I think it does a good job—I just want to put that on the table—but consulting with people you want to take money off is always a little bit fraught with difficulty and it does actually bring up conflicts of interest I suppose.I would also like to talk about gas levies. This was something that was snuck in there as well. What has happened at the moment is that gas levies are charged and what we were told by officials is that the ability to collect these levies is difficult. They believe there has been under-collection by a significant amount but the portion of levies compared with revenue is actually very very small. But it is difficult. So what they have said is: "Look there's an easier way to collect this levy." and it just means that the retailers will collect it and this bill sets out how they are going to do it.But we brought up at the select committee a concern we had and that is whenever Parliament says to an industry or a group of consumers or companies: "We are mandating you or we are requiring you to collect a levy." often a sector can use that as an excuse to increase the cost of that good or service to the consumer. What we did hear from officials is that the amount of the increase in the levy to the consumer is actually minuscule. I think we are talking about $2 million over the sector. Correct me if I am wrong but I think it is about $2 million over the sector. So it is not much at all—for every consumer it is a fraction.What we will be very concerned about—no no; "concerned" is the wrong word. What we expressed concern about and what we have said we will keep a very close eye on is whether the industry actually uses this as an excuse to increase the amount that it charges to the consumer for its gas. What we heard is there is no reason why they would do that because the amount is so little that it just would make no difference to the average bill—0.001 percent or something. If the gas companies do increase the price to the consumer then we are going to take a good hard look at that and we are going to make sure that they do not.But the interesting thing about this—and I am a little bit confused about this and I should not be because I was on the committee—is that as section 23(3) in clause 13 says: "the levy is not payable on and a return is not required to include—(a) piped gas of a prescribed type; or (b) piped gas that is to be used for a prescribed purpose." I am not too sure what a "prescribed type" is or whether what will happen is that there will be something in the schedule that will outline what a prescribed type is or what a prescribed purpose is so in fact the levies do not have to be collected. Unfortunately I did not get the main piece of legislation so perhaps it is in there. But it is always a little bit difficult.The other thing also is clause 14 which amends section 33. New subsection (1A) talks about regulations made under subsection (1). What this is talking about is formulas for calculating or methods of calculating the levy rates. I know I have got a couple of seconds and I am probably going to run out of time."