Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18597] 
2.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Is he confident that ordinary New Zealanders will not be worse off financially under the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Thanks to the support of New Zealand First and the Greens the Government will provide transitional financial support to ordinary New Zealanders to assist them with increased electricity prices. Without the emissions trading scheme ordinary New Zealanders would be paying the full cost of emissions through their taxes. Of course the liability falls on the Government under the current arrangements. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that the electricity rebate and cash payments to those on fixed incomes which were secured under negotiation between the Government and New Zealand First will be equivalent to the total increased cost to residential power consumers under the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I can. It will consist of two parts: an across-the-board payment to households plus targeted payments in relation to beneficiaries and the Working for Families credit system. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister have confidence that this critical and complex legislation is right when the Government introduced and passed 785 amendments last Tuesday when not a single member of the House can honestly say that he or she has read and understood every one of those 785 changes and when the Minister had told the House only the week before that that the bill having been reported back from the select committee with a thousand amendments was all correct? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is quite normal for there to be substantial Supplementary Order Papers on complex legislation of this sort. Of course when one is taking body counts one is counting a very large number of changes from “a” to “the” or from “the” to “a” and similar kinds of changes. The number of substantive amendments is significantly fewer than 785. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that any home receiving a package of insulation draught-stopping cylinder and pipe lagging efficient showerheads and lights and a clean heater under the billion-dollar green homes fund will be better off financially and health-wise not just for 1 year but forever than if the emissions trading scheme bill had not been passed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is quite correct. The opportunity is now being taken for a substantial upgrade and retrofit of existing New Zealand housing to bring it up to much better standards in terms of warmth and protection of health. We know very well that cold damp housing has a great impact upon people’s health standards. The long-term effect of this measure will be to save the Government money in terms of health costs. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How can the Minister be confident that ordinary New Zealanders will not be worse off under the proposed emissions trading scheme when independent analysis estimates that 22000 jobs may be lost wages will drop by the equivalent of $90 per week and almost $6 billion will be lost from the economy all by 2025; and can he tell those ordinary New Zealanders how he expects his one-off payment of $112 to compensate them for the long-term economic and social hardship ahead? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A variety of economic models are run. Most of the economic models suggest a very small impact on total GDP by that end point. That impact of course is not a contraction of GDP; it means that growth in GDP may be some very small fraction—indeed 1 percent or around that order of size—less than it otherwise would have been. In fact if New Zealand grasps the opportunity for research and development in these areas we can become exporters of technology relevant to dealing with global warming. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that doing nothing is not an option and that the potential damage to our economy from doing nothing is often overlooked by research undertaken into the potential cost of the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed some of the models—so-called independent models—that have been around seem to assume no significant adverse effects if the issue of global warming is not dealt with. That of course makes a mockery of those models. Some models assume on the contrary that other people will bear all the burden of adjustment to global warming but we in New Zealand will sit proudly doing nothing and hope that others will solve the problem for us. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Is the Minister confident that ordinary New Zealanders of Ngai Tahu whakapapa will not be worse off financially given that they stand to lose tens of millions of dollars off the value of the forestry assets they received as part of their settlement; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes in general I am. There is an issue around process and whether the Government of the day in the 1990s did not disclose full information. That process is under way. But in general terms people will be better off or no worse off as a consequence of these changes. Emissions units of course will transfer as part of the emissions trading scheme and it should not be assumed that consent will be forthcoming for all the forests in Canterbury at present to transfer to dairy farming given the absence of adequate water supplies and other difficulties. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Government now regret delaying the entry of transport into the emissions trading scheme by 2 years on the grounds that fuel prices were already too high when petrol prices have dropped by 11c a litre since that announcement and the emissions trading scheme would have added only 6c; and does the Government really think it will be easier to add 6c a litre to petrol in 2011 than it would be to do it now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government was certainly concerned about the short-term inflationary pressures over the next couple of years. And perhaps I could gently say that perhaps we took too seriously the member’s confident forecast that petrol prices will continue to rise without ever coming back down again. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with Shane Jones’ comments following the Ngai Tahu claim involving its forestry assets and the effects of the emissions trading scheme bill that “What the Ngai Tahu stoush shows is that if there is either bad faith or if there is an opportunity for game playing then you can expect some of those iwi to do that.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no reason to believe that people given opportunities will behave any differently according to their ethnic or other backgrounds.