Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. ACT does not support the bill proceeding in its current form. But the ACT Party would be prepared to consider supporting the bill in the interests of having a more efficient effective transparent reliable and enduring emissions trading scheme and in the interests of reducing the potential liabilities that the New Zealand Government might have to face in having to cover the cost of allocating emissions credits or these allocations to industries in the future. So ACT supports the target of net zero carbon by 2050. But Minister the problem ACT would contend is with some of the announcements that you yourself have made in the name of this Government to reduce emissions—or at Glasgow a new target to reduce New Zealand emissions by 50 percent by 2050 net. The emissions reduction plans set out targets for reductions with no real understanding of what the cost of meeting them is Minister. And then having gone around the country allocating funds to different industries from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund which is supported by the emissions trading scheme revenues—there are so many parts at play. This Government's approach to reducing emissions and providing New Zealand businesses and consumers with a long-run view of what a pathway to zero carbon 2050 looks like is really confused right now.Would it be helpful if you could explain for the committee the purpose of the amendment that you have proposed in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409? Because this relates to the formula that appears in the bill which is one of the ways that emissions allocations are treated. Now the formula that appears in the bill prior to the amendment that you tabled actually was only offered to the select committee in the few days before the report was finalised. Select committee members—myself and Simon Watts of National—asked officials to please demonstrate how this formula works. Because it's not clear that the allocations that this formula would give to New Zealand industry would be sufficient so that they could remain competitive with their overseas competitors either with goods manufactured overseas that aren't subject to a carbon price or goods manufactured here that our exporters might want to send to another jurisdiction.The whole point of industrial education is so that our businesses remain competitive with overseas businesses so that New Zealanders' jobs are secure so that in the regions which depend on manufacturing jobs in order to sustain their schools and all the other things that make the regions strong and communities strong—the whole purpose of this is to prevent carbon leakage when New Zealand's carbon price is higher than that of our competitors overseas. And so New Zealand business is subject to a high carbon price such as under the emissions trading scheme or whatever other scheme this Government might dream up—a high carbon price means they will leave. They won't invest in decarbonisation; they won't invest at all. They will close the factory gates they will lay off their workers and they will leave when what we could do is encourage them to stay here in New Zealand and continue to invest.But the choice that this Government has made and in fact you've made personally is to go around the country handing out money from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund—the GIDI fund for short—which has created the sense that if businesses only wait for Minister Shaw to turn up with some of this money from the emissions trading scheme revenues then they'll be saved from this risk of having to leave New Zealand.Now Minister it's a very dangerous precedent that you've set. So I'd like you to explain how this SOP will work in terms of amending the formula. Will we know whether New Zealand businesses are getting a fair shake when it comes to a carbon price? And Minister what is your behaviour doing to undermine the ETS?