Salesa Jenny; Stanford EricaPart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill. Members this stage is a chance for an examination of the detail of the bill and the effects of its provisions. It is also an opportunity for engaging in discussions with Ministers by taking short calls and asking questions.We come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on amendments to the principal Act the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The question is that Part 1 stand part.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to speak to my tabled amendment adding new clause 5A. That tabled amendment requires that the Minister after the four auctions to sell the New Zealand units establish an independent review of this confidential reserve price mechanism provided in regulations made under this Act with the review report to be delivered within six months of commissioning by the Minister and tabled in the House of Representatives.So the reason for this is because I am as we all are deeply concerned about the process that we have gone through for this bill—not only for this bill but actually for the bill last year where we set the rules around the auctioning—and also around the Minister's actions and what he knew and didn't know and when he was told that this might be an issue. We've seen in the Cabinet papers that the Minister in fact was advised that this could have potential problems and financial problems for the Crown. But he at that time early last year said that he didn't think it was a problem and nothing happened. So I guess in his response to my tabled amendment I would like for him to delve into why he didn't think that this was a problem all of last year when we went through the bill in June and then all the way to the end of the year. We are left in a situation where we are debating a bill that is making changes to an auction that's happening in just over a week as we mentioned earlier. This is highly highly complex legislation.I'm really keen to delve into what the Minister knew when he knew it and what his thinking was—especially around the very early months of last year when he stated that he didn't think that we needed to set a reserve price because clearly he had that thought for a very long time—and when did he change his mind—exactly when—and also not only when did he change his mind but when did he decide to bring this bill to the House and why did he not bring it much earlier. We're in a position now dealing with a highly complex bill that's brought up a number of questions—and some of which we'll talk about in later tabled amendments—that are highly complex in nature and that throw up all of these questions that we're now asking at the very last hour that despite what the Government speakers have said today are actually very complex and need answering. We are concerned about whether or not the Minister is in effect setting a tax. We are concerned about the fact that he is tinkering with an auction when I'm sure as I said in my last speech at the second reading he would have been told by his advisers or possibly even Treasury that it's not a good idea to tinker with the rules of an auction because you actually increase the risk. Actually I'd be quite keen to hear from the Minister as to whether or not he did receive that advice very early on last year which is in fact why he thought for such a very long time that a reserve wasn't in fact needed. What advice was he given to not make any changes until now? You know which officials and what did they tell him? And did they in fact tell him that by tinkering with the auction he was in fact going to be increasing the risk? As I said earlier the more that we tinker around with these rules the more we're going to find ourselves in difficulty which is why I have tabled this amendment which requires an independent review of exactly what we're putting in place today potentially to make sure that we are not in fact increasing the risk and we've not made mistakes and that we get this looked at comprehensively to make sure that we are actually doing the right thing.So the questions for the Minister are: why did he not make any changes until now? Why did he originally think that there was no need for a reserve price? What advice did he get from his officials or maybe even Treasury around the risks of tinkering? And why are we just fixing this at the very last minute? It would be appreciated if he would be able to respond.