Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 25 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s policy of giving taxpayers’ money to a handful of big companies to pay for their carbon pollution?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is referring to our ensuring that there is some support for companies that face competition in export markets because they do not have an emissions trading scheme like we do then yes I support some protection for them.James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s 2014 policy of giving $5.3 million worth of taxpayer-funded carbon credits to Methanex when that company made over $100 million in after-tax profits that year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is misrepresenting the position. We have assisted industries that are competing internationally against overseas manufacturers who do not face emissions trading scheme costs. These industries still face some costs but we think that it is fair that they are on a level playing field.James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s policy in 2014 of giving $7.3 million worth of taxpayer-funded carbon credits to New Zealand Steel when its parent company made over $110 million in after-tax profits that year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that if the member wanted to join the analysis of the previous question to this question about New Zealand Steel he would be making the case that we would be giving them a lot more.James Shaw: Given that the profit margins of these companies exceed the value of the taxpayer-funded pollution credits by a factor of 15 how can he justify using taxpayers’ money to subsidise their carbon pollution?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not. Companies are in the emissions trading scheme. Some of the large companies that face international competition are put on a more level playing field but in the end they all pay some emissions trading scheme charges along the way. The question is how quickly they can transition but if we were to adopt what the member is saying these companies would simply go out of business relocate to another part of the world Kiwis would lose their jobs and it would be no better for the planet. So it is a rather neanderthal way of thinking about economics—if that is what the member wants to do.James Shaw: Given that many New Zealand households and businesses are already doing their bit to reduce their carbon emissions how does he justify using their taxpayer money to subsidise pollution from big industrial polluters?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not doing that and the “their” he talks about are the very people who work in those companies who would lose their jobs if we followed his policies.James Shaw: Given that the purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased 13 percent since he took office will he admit that his emissions trading scheme policy has failed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.