Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister would you care to explain whether the Supplementary Order Paper making changes to clause 2 3 14 the Schedule—I mean there's cross-referencing errors in all of this. That's what it's designed to correct. And this is errors to a formula of process which was only tabled a few days before the select committee wrapped up.Minister even in the regulatory impact assessment—I've got it here somewhere. It says—oh here we go Minister here we go. Problem identified: Under current legislative policy eligibility to receive industrial allocations is contingent upon two tests emissions intensity and trade exposure." How on earth are New Zealand businesses supposed to be confident that allocations under this proposal—that a carbon price in totality that a business which benefits from free allocations might pay—will be equivalent to that of a competitor overseas? Minister we don't know and you still haven't responded to that question. Now in the regulatory impact assessment it's quite clear although amusing: "We are confident in the analysis in this regulatory impact statement; however we're unable to predict the impact at firm level for the subset of activities carried out by a relatively large number of participants. This limits our ability to consider regional impacts at a granular level. We won't know the eligibility thresholds" and so on and so forth.Minister each major industry is unique. I mean I think I've heard you say that it's almost like New Zealand has five or six factories that this really applies to. And yet there's no clarity here this evening whether a New Zealand business competing with imported products—whether it's precast concrete products made from New Zealand - made cement that are going to be supplied to New Zealand construction projects made by New Zealanders supplied to New Zealand jobs—will pay the same carbon price as concrete products manufactured in another jurisdiction not subject to the same regime.Minister I have no clarity; people listening at home will have no clarity. That's the fundamental test: will this bill result in emissions leakage? In other words businesses leave and make the same stuff overseas but with more carbon emissions than if they'd stayed here. Will this bill—Hon Peeni Henare: All hypothetical. SIMON COURT: Absolutely hypothetical the Hon Peeni Henare. This is what this bill is designed to address Mr Henare and the Minister's failed to address it.So will New Zealand businesses remain competitive? Will they receive an allocation that means they pay the same carbon price as their competitors? Because if they don't what's the point in all of this? We're going to have to go back to the drawing board—aren't we Mr Cameron?—should ACT form part of a future Government because we can't rely on officials who say that they're confident in their analysis but then they're not confident in the information.Rachel Boyack: Point of order. I just want to refer to Speaker's rulings which I understand mean that you can't criticise officials who are in the Chamber.SIMON COURT: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'm taking the point of order. That is actually correct. Can the member withdraw and apologise.SIMON COURT: I'm afraid I'm not aware of any criticism I've levelled at officials. So while the member has made that statement I'd have to look at Hansard but I certainly haven't intended to criticise any officials and I don't believe I have.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I believe you did in terms of their calculations.SIMON COURT: No I'm simply reading from the regulatory impact statement—I'm reading it. I'm not criticising them; I'm reading what they've said. That's OK. I just will proceed. I don't think that's a matter that needs to be litigated. Hon Peeni Henare: Then just withdraw and apologise and carry on.SIMON COURT: Why? It's here.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Does the member want to continue his call? If he does he will withdraw and apologise; then he can continue.SIMON COURT: Sorry; it's contingent on me withdrawing and apologising is it?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes.SIMON COURT: Well I withdraw and apologise. And I certainly didn't mean any offence to officials in the Chamber but it is clear from page 5 of the regulatory impact statement that there is a conflict of confidence and that officials wrote that.Minister can you give us confidence here in the House tonight—people listening at home the businesses that came to select committee and were really concerned that their business activities their investments might be undermined by these changes—that they will pay a carbon price equivalent to their competitors overseas?"