Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Chair. I take offence at some of the comments that the Minister has made around the National Party and our approach to the emissions trading scheme. It's just simply not the case that the National Party puts it off and just sees it as a cost. We are here in this House working with the Green Party on many environmental bills—in the past when we were in Government and in Opposition. We don't see it as a cost. We see that there is a lot of competitive advantage too as our country transitions and that. So don't get us wrong: we're not just trying to put it in that cost element. That's the deflection the left always puts on the right to say Well that's why you're not interested in these things." That's not actually—Hon Member: That's exactly her argument.Hon DAVID BENNETT: No the point that my colleague made is that at this very point in time people are going to have lower incomes. To think that just because they've got one lower expense they can sustain that expense and it doesn't matter to them when they're actually in dire straits income-wise—is our point. It's not that it's just a cost.We had an economics lesson which was completely irrelevant and wrong and then we heard the Minister for Climate Change talk about the UK. Well the UK used to be the industrial belt of the world. They fought a war making planes and everything and now they're just into a service economy effectively. Their industrial economy went out the door over the last 50 years and they transitioned to a service economy. So of course their emissions are going to go down. Look at the Russian economy—very much the same thing. A historical basis is not a reason for him to say that suddenly they've made great strides in economic and environmental planning.I want to go back to those numbers that he talked about. The Minister was very good earlier in this piece when he went and explained the numbers around what the Hon Jacqui Dean asked about. I want him to give us that clarity around those numbers now.So you're telling us that there's $340 a week. Is that for the average family—the increase in costs at a $50 carbon price?Hon Member: $3.40.Hon DAVID BENNETT: $3.40. And for the lowest 20 percent it's $2.Hon Member: Yeah.Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. That's good for us to see because it sounded like $340 when you said it so we were a bit challenged by your numbers. Hon Member: Getting excited.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah. So when we came to Jacqui Dean's economic analysis of the beef and lamb sector against forestry you talked about the number of jobs there that are in the beef and lamb and agricultural sector. Do you want to expand on that 60000 jobs I think you talked about there—what your breakdown of that is. Also it would be really interesting if you've done a breakdown on the revenue per hectare. The effective argument that was being made was that the forestry industry in New Zealand employs 25000 people or something like that and is only a quarter of the land and yet sheep and beef is 66000 people for four times the area of land. Well let's have a look at the real economics of that. What's the revenue per hectare from those bits of land? Is the sheep and beef farm providing a revenue per hectare of $1000 a hectare and forestry $200 a hectare? What's the revenue for New Zealand that comes from those blocks of land? Do you have those numbers?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Does the Minister?"