Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's ironic—deeply ironic—that we are here under urgency just a week or two away from the first auction to take place under the principal Act and we're amending that principal Act under urgency. I find it somewhat bizarre that this amendment legislation will come into effect on 15 March just two days ahead of the first scheduled auction on 17 March. I can remember in my first reading speech advising the Minister to beware of the ides of March—beware of the ides of March—because actually we shouldn't be here doing this under urgency in the way that we have been. In a largely uncharacteristic way this Minister who is usually across the detail of his portfolio area has let this relatively minor but quite important stopgap safety-net measure slip through his scrutiny.This legislation the primary legislation first was debated by this House a year or more ago and then back in March of 2020 a full year ago the Minister took a paper to a Cabinet committee and advised his Cabinet colleagues that the risk was minimal—a risk did exist; it was minimal—and that no action need be taken at this stage. That Cabinet committee actually approved the prospect and the process for making an amendment but only when the primary Act is to be next fully amended. They didn't anticipate an under-urgency piece of sticking-plaster legislation like this that would have to be rammed through the House under urgency literally a few days before the first auction.Then something changed because that recommendation having been made—the Minister having said that there was a risk but it was a low risk and they had identified it and nothing urgent needed to be done—we find ourselves in the first sitting weeks of this calendar year suddenly thrust into urgency and now the risk is sufficiently high that a change needs to be made. So a truncated shortened select committee process occurred. There were only 10 submissions. A couple of them were—and I don't mean to be insulting to the submitters but a couple of them were quite wide of the mark in terms of the scope of the bill. They were interesting submissions but they didn't really go to the heart of the bill. The other eight or so submissions were well considered and they came from businesses and players in the market place who have an interest in seeing the system operate properly and freely and openly in the way that it is designed to do.The problem that really came before the select committee was that there was I think a general consensus that the legislation was required. Nobody could really understand why it hadn't been attended to previously. There was some consideration—and in fact the Minister made it clear in a media comment to Newsroom that it arose because of some kind of drafting error. He said that Cabinet agreed to the confidential reserve price but for some reason—and he says I wouldn't want to put anyone wrong with the specifics but I think there was an omission in the way that the drafting instructions got to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). I don't think PCO made an error in drafting it because they were drafting according to the instructions that they had received but there was something missing there."So the problem that really arose was something slipped through the process the scrutiny process in terms of giving instructions to Parliamentary Counsel Office. We know as members of this House that the good people in Parliamentary Counsel Office do a superb job a remarkable job but they only do the job that they are instructed to do. If a Minister gives them instructions that are not full and complete and detailed well they don't have extra-sensory perception they don't know what's in the Minister's mind and they draft that legislation according to the instructions that have been presented and given to them. In this case it's very clear now that a Minister who is normally across the detail of his portfolio in this case let something slip through and that's why we are in urgency this afternoon and have had a truncated shortened and well-chaired select committee process but still a difficult one in terms of trying to get everything all in place.One of the issues that became clear as this legislation was going through its first reading—there was a section when the Minister gave instructions to the select committee in terms of what they were to consider and their timetable and all those sorts of things. Then he let something slip which worried me greatly and I made mention of it at the time but I want to raise it again having had the select committee process because I think it's important that it be acknowledged and recorded in the House. In his instruction to the committee the Minister James Shaw said amongst other things this. He said that and I quote "These changes were first signalled to market participants more than seven weeks ago."What that means is that there were a group of people organisations businesses that were privy to this legislation coming to the House prior to the general public and prior to this House being aware of it. They were tipped off. They were given prior notice they were given advance notice in a way that I don't think was appropriate. Then at select committee when I asked officials to provide a list of who the Minister may have been referring to in his speech when he said that these changes were first signalled to market participants more than seven weeks ago—and these remember would have been people who had time to prepare submissions who had advance notice time to get themselves ready and notice that other ordinary New Zealand citizens didn't have. I don't think that's good enough.What we found was that when officials were questioned and the Minister was questioned at select committee we found actually that a list was not going to be made available. But somehow readers and subscribers to a very credible and worthy publication called Carbon News—but it is a niche publication and very much focused on the intricacies and the weeds of the day-to-day operation of our emissions trading scheme system of climate change matters and what have you. As I say it's a credible and worthy publication but a niche publication none the less. The readers of that publication were the ones who were given notice. So if you weren't a reader of Carbon News you didn't have notice that this legislation was coming to the House. For people who may have wanted to have a say and have a participatory role in this select committee process they were excluded until the time that the legislation came to the House under urgency. I simply don't think that that in terms of process is good or right or correct. As I say this is a black mark against a Minister who normally is much better than that in terms of process and respect for the process of this House and also for the process of select committees. At select committee there were a couple of changes made and I think they were good changes. One of them was to do with the way that the methodology for setting the confidential reserve price is made. The National Party supports the changes that were made at select committee and the Minister will be now required to—instead of just consulting with the Minister of Finance the Minister will also have to consult with the auction monitor to provide a much greater level of independence when it comes to setting the confidential reserve price. Effectively it is a secret price known only to the Minister. That is I think a good step. I think that enhances the legislation and I think that is helpful.My colleague Stuart Smith has already indicated that we are supporting this legislation through its second reading. We've got a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that we will want to debate and have discussed and hopefully supported when the committee of the whole House considers this legislation in the not-too-distant future. At that stage we will have a think about where we've landed and what we've got and where we go from here. So thank you very much for the opportunity to participate so far Madam Speaker."