Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Why is the Government making changes to the ETS which Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright says will make “taxpayers subsidise the cost of pollution indefinitely” and which she has described as “a very poor way” of subsidising jobs? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The Government is seeking to make changes to the emissions trading scheme because its overarching objective is to strengthen the recovery in a very fragile international economic situation. We did not therefore consider it a stellar time to increase charges and taxes on households and the firms that employ New Zealanders. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! I say to both front benches that Dr Kennedy Graham is raising a point of order. David Cunliffe will respect that. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Minister’s Cabinet paper on the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. Table 1 shows the net fiscal impact of proposed policy changes on an itemised basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In light of the Cabinet paper just tabled which shows net fiscal costs of $328 million of the total proposed changes including $14 million for the extension of free carbon credit allocations and $266 million for retaining the two-for-one surrender obligation how can he describe these two items in particular as anything other than subsidies? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well from memory I think there are some legitimate fiscal costs associated with the package—I think some $3.4 million is to be spent on updating emissions projections to take account of the new global warming potentials. But the vast proportion of that figure amounts to a case of counting your fiscal chicks before your political eggs have been hatched. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Why has the Government cut support for jobs-rich cleantech businesses while continuing expensive subsidies for businesses that are contributing to climate change? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: We do not consider these subsidies. This word is used—thrown around loosely—by people who have no understanding of the international jurisprudence around this or any concept of materiality on subsidies. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Having clarified to the House’s satisfaction the matter of subsidies in light of tabling the document and to put it in another way that is comprehensible to the Minister why is it fair that taxpayers pay for 95 percent of the cost of large greenhouse gas emitters’ pollution? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well our households are paying their share of the emissions trading scheme as are all New Zealanders including farmers. The reality is that we are on track to meet our commitments and probably to have a surplus so we will not end up subsidising anybody. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: If greenhouse gas emitters do not themselves pay for the costs of the pollution now who does? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well provided they are part of the covered scheme an industrial polluter—which includes processed food producers—will be paying their share of the costs of the scheme.