Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:15839] 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What will be the additional costs to households of the introduction of the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The regulatory impact statement that accompanies the legislation notes that once all energy sectors are in the scheme in 2011 the impact on households is between $170 and $300 a year or from 0.5 to 0.8 percent of total household expenditure. Of course if the emissions trading scheme did not proceed the total bill would be much higher and would be incurred by New Zealanders via their taxes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is it intended that New Zealand households will be compensated for those additional costs—if so how will that occur; if it is not intended that that is the case why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The intention is to have some compensation in respect of electricity and that is one of the issues the Government wishes to talk about with support parties for the legislation. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What has the Government done to ease the impact of already high oil prices on New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government is mindful of the rising costs of petrol and diesel which are already having an effect on New Zealanders’ driving habits and which have put pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates also. For these reasons the Government has proposed delaying the entry into the emissions trading system of the fuel sector from 2009 to 2011. Other measures to help New Zealanders to lower their costs and reduce emissions include fuel efficiency labelling at the point of sale and a 12-fold increase in funding for public transport. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in December: “We do not have the luxury of time. If I or this Government mistakenly delay our response to climate change that will be in the poor interests of New Zealand economically. It will leave our children a legacy of climate change. You know the Government will have failed its duty.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I absolutely do. The fundamentals of the emissions trading scheme are that we need to create a cost for increases in emissions across the whole of the economy. The emissions trading scheme fundamentals lie unchanged. By the end of 2012 the whole of the economy faces a marginal cost for increases in emissions and is rewarded for decreases in emissions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think that New Zealand’s effort to mitigate climate change is fairly spread across the community when a Sustainability Council report shows that 90 percent of the cost of the emissions trading scheme would be borne by those producing only a third of the emissions—mainly households small business and foresters; and is the basic principle of emissions trading not meant to be that the polluter pays rather than the general public paying? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I do think that the balance that is struck by the legislation is about right. It would serve no environmental purpose in terms of global emissions for New Zealand to drive this so hard that we caused energy-intensive businesses to shut in New Zealand and move to China. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the only areas in which New Zealanders can expect increased household costs are energy-related with no consequential impact in any other areas; if so is he prepared to make that a commitment to the people of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I did not say that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister now regretting that the Government listened to United Future in 2005 and abandoned its proposal for a simple fair and transparent carbon charge—as first proposed by the Greens in 1993—that by now could be helping Kiwi families to reduce their energy and fuel bills in warmer homes and to use more fuel-efficient cars and much better public transport? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The carbon tax would have been a good step at the time. We did not have the numbers for it and it was also problematic in its design in that it had too many exemptions under the negotiated greenhouse gas agreements that lay under it. The emissions trading scheme now proposed is a better instrument.