Court Simon; Dean JacquiSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. If our nation aspires to be carbon neutral by 2050 then these emissions reduction budgets are the worst possible way we could do that. These budgets are nothing more than a fashion parade of green policy which will cost New Zealand families and businesses billions. But they won't do anything to reduce emissions any faster than the emissions trading scheme (ETS) already allows us to do. That's why ACT opposed the zero carbon Act and why we oppose these totally unnecessary budgets. In fact ACT was the only party in this Parliament to oppose the zero carbon Act. Every other party in this House believes that a Minister of climate change should have the right to direct your family as to what fuel they use to heat their home what kind of car they should drive how many cows or sheep you should be allowed on your farm and what you should be allowed to do with your land. These policies have the potential to wipe out jobs entire sectors in regions that depend on energy to support our economy. Yet this Minister claims his policies will create new jobs and lower your heating bills. Well I can see the Tui billboard now: Zero carbon Act equals lower prices. Yeah right."There is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will allow us to grow a healthy economy and develop thriving communities. Don't believe the Minister when he tells you how hard it is to reduce emissions. He only says that to his green fan base and to keep the Prime Minister onside with his policies. It's not that hard and I will tell you why—there is already a way to reduce emissions and that's the cap under the emissions trading scheme. This Minister could say "I'm reducing the cap" but he's chosen not to. The emissions trading scheme puts a price on the emissions of every sector in New Zealand that uses carbon. For truckies like the operator of a Kenworth logging truck which uses around 500 litres of diesel a day it means that at 20c a litre which is what the ETS is currently costing them that's a hundred bucks a day they're paying to mitigate emissions. If that truck works 300 days a year that's $30000 a year they're paying to combat climate change and mitigate emissions. So whether you're running a family car or a logging truck or a business there's never been a better incentive to reduce your emissions under the existing emissions trading scheme. It's a simple system. The incentives are clear. The costs are clear. That's why ACT says that no other system is necessary.But ACT has found a way to make it even better. The first thing we'd do is share the enormous revenues collected from New Zealand businesses and consumers under the emissions trading scheme with New Zealanders. We would give them a carbon tax refund out of the emissions trading scheme rather than spend it on vanity projects like climate Ministers. Between the last election and March of this year the tax on a 50-litre tank of petrol went up by around $20. Much of that is caused by price rises under the emissions trading scheme. During a cost of living crisis it's pretty rich for a Government to lecture us about emissions when actually it's stashing the cash from the ETS in its back pocket to use on vanity projects. ACT believes that Kiwis would have far more confidence in climate policy if they were materially benefiting from it. The second thing is we'd ditch the zero carbon Act. That's the Act that allows climate Ministers and other Government Ministers to hand out money to pet projects. I give you an example. A few weeks ago Fullers ferries in Auckland invested in a new hybrid ferry that can range around the Hauraki Gulf. Days later another Government Minister announced they were going to spend $24 million on two competing electric ferries and hand them over the Auckland Council to run in competition. Completely unnecessary; won't reduce emissions. We would end those schemes.The third thing we'd do is we'd allow New Zealand businesses to mitigate their emissions offshore. If a New Zealand company wants to invest in restoring the rain forest in Indonesia under an accredited scheme we say they should be allowed to do that. If they can mitigate their emissions cheaper offshore than they can here ACT believes they should be allowed to do it. That's why we oppose these budgets.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—a five-minute call."