Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise in support of the amendment tabled by my colleague. It's really important that the emissions trading scheme—which is currently not fully functioning. It's malformed. It's a bit twisted but it has potential—well maybe with a bit of genetic engineering an injection a vaccine of some kind. The enduring solution needs to have the confidence not just of different parties in the House but of all New Zealanders. By offering the other leaders an opportunity to review the methodology to review the process by which the Government the Minister responsible sets the criteria for the auction that's how you do build confidence and it does take time. To some extent the confidence that participants in the market have about the emissions trading scheme and the auction process has been undermined by these late amendments and by the rush to achieve this regulatory change in the days—well potentially just a few days—before the first auction on 17 March.The Regulations Review Committee also looked at the safeguards on power to make regulations such as the methodology and they expressed concern that there was insufficient safeguard on that power to make regulations. Their recommendation to the Environment Committee was that we consider whether the Minister's decision should be subject to greater safeguards or independence and the ACT Party view is that Stuart Smith's amendment to new regulation 15A proposing a new subclause (3)(aa) that the leader of each party that is not in Government or in coalition with the Government" should have full scrutiny over the methodology—we think that is an appropriate mechanism to address the risks that have been brought to the attention of the committee and that were not adequately addressed by the officials and in subsequent amendments. So for that reason the ACT Party supports that position and we'd like to hear more of an explanation as to why this fundamentally sound amendment cannot be incorporated and accepted by the House as this Part 2 passes through committee stage towards final stages.The problem we're trying to solve here through an emissions trading scheme is not just a problem for this House or this Parliament to solve; it's an environmental problem that is a global problem and our obligations as a nation while we might disagree on the volume or the timing or the cost of those obligations—we must have a nationally agreed approach. Thinking about the type of coalition that would be ideal in that nationally agreed approach it would have to involve the businesses who are most exposed to the price of carbon and those businesses are doing a social good. They are providing fuel. They're providing energy. They're providing jobs in the regions and those jobs support communities which in some regions of New Zealand have very few other opportunities for employment and for social mobility. So it's really really important that any mechanism that the Government uses to set a price for carbon or establish a confidential reserve price at auction has the buy-in of not just political party leaders but those communities and those sectors of the economy which are most impacted by it and which would have the most to lose as well as potentially some gain.So what the ACT Party would like to hear from the Minister is an explanation as to how the risks identified by the Regulations Review Committee have been addressed because we don't believe they have and whether the tabled amendment to new regulation 15A inserting new subclause (3)(aa) is an appropriate way to do that and if it's not what other mechanism would the Minister suggest is appropriate? Thank you."