Greens plan NZ$327 mln insulation spend

Green's Metiria Turei launches policy to spend up to NZ$327 mln over three years to insulate 200,000 homes, including NZ$35 mln for Canterbury

Property

Green's Metiria Turei launches policy to spend up to NZ$327 mln over three years to insulate 200,000 homes, including NZ$35 mln for Canterbury

26th May 14, 1:05pm by Bernard Hickey

Green Party Co-Leader Metiria Turei has announced a policy to spend up to NZ$327 million over three years insulating 200,000 homes, including NZ$35 million set aside for homes in Canterbury.

A Green Government would also create a fund of NZ$25 million over two years to pay for Christchurch residents to insulate their entire homes as they rebuild, including wall insulation.

Turei announced the policy would restore the 'Warm-up New Zealand: Heat Smart' insulation scheme agreed by National and the Greens, but which was scaled down in Budget 2013.

"The Warm Up New Zealand scheme was a great success, insulating 235,000 Kiwi homes and creating NZ$1.3 billion of benefits. Unfortunately, the National Government cut the scheme when it was just getting started," Turei said in an announcement in Christchurch, before a visit to a wool insulation factory.

"The Government's massively scaled-back Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes scheme falls well short of addressing the extent of the problem of cold houses in New Zealand, with a target of insulating only 46,000 homes over three years and only around 12,000 houses insulated to date," she said.

"There are still 600,000 households across New Zealand that would benefit from insulation and clean heating."

Turei referred in the policy document (attached below) to the benefits of such spending, with NZ$4 in gains in lower health spending on asthma, circulatory diseases and respiratory illnesses for every NZ$1 spent on insulation. The document referred to October 2011 cost-benefit analysis by Motu on the Warm Up NZ: Heat Smart programme.

The original scheme subsidised one-third of the cost of insulation for general households, and 60% of the cost for low income households. In Budget 2013 the Government scaled back the renamed Healthy Homes programme so it was available only to community service card holders at risk of serious illness, and would target a further 46,000 houses at a cost of NZ$100 million over three years. Here is the EECA statement on the new programme.

Turei said a further NZ$2 million would be allocated to fund a new 'Building Back Smarter' advisory service aimed at helping Christchurch residents find the information and subsidies to rebuild their homes.

The plans for the service were developed by Beacon Pathway with MBIE and EECA.

Here is the Green policy document

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

8 Comments

by Boatman | 26th May 14, 4:17pm 1401077831

Oh for goodness sake , these peole are becoming like Labour , not a single new or original thought eminating from the Doctors rooms.

Besides this is a spending policy item , and Iam not interested in how we are going to spend money , I would like to know how we are going to earn , generate or produce wealth and income

When are thse folk going to come up with anything that generates income, produces wealth or adds to GDP?

Besides National have done all the insualtion they can without squandering the stuff .

Inshulation is so last decade , where are the fresh ideas from these people ?

by scarfie | 26th May 14, 4:58pm 1401080317

These people? As opposed to YOU people?

Jesus Boatman, our economy is housing so why not make the bastards good the live in for the bottom quartile.

by two otherguys | 26th May 14, 5:37pm 1401082659

You can and will increase GDP by bringing in more (working) migrants. Won't necessarily increase the GDP per head of population, or the wealth of the country

by steven | 26th May 14, 5:51pm 1401083478

I dont care how old the policy is, if it works its good.

regards

by notaneconomist | 27th May 14, 8:14am 1401135285

This is absolutely stupid policy and the Greens know it........a subsidy will not lower the prices of insulation it will distort it. So all the people who don't quality for the Greens insulation package will pay more for their insulation.

It is damn simple for the Greens to make claims on the benefits and savings when they only do one-side of the equation.

Did they bother doing the necessary maths for the increased costs in insulation the subsidy will cause and how many people that will affect?

by rastus1 | 27th May 14, 8:17am 1401135436

...and Iam not interested in how we are going to spend money , I would like to know how we are going to earn , generate or produce wealth and income

Reduced spend on power = less need to produce more.

by steven | 26th May 14, 6:07pm 1401084479

What about National's PPP idea? 3 decades old and a disaster everywhere its been tried.

I mean really....

regards

by fat pat | 27th May 14, 8:38am 1401136702

Benefits home occupiers, yes indeed. Reduced health burden to country as people in warm homes will less prone to illness. In that regard 300m could pay for itself indirectly. Also benefits the house owner (many of whom will be foreigners) who will increase the capital value their homes at the taxpayer expense. GDP will increase as money is spent doing the work. pluses and minus, but overall looks good to me as long as it's a highly regulated subsidy.