Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill in this second reading. I said at the time when we moved into urgency for the first reading that we on this side of the House don't think this should have come to the House under urgency. The Minister was advised in plenty of time last year to put a bill up and get it through first reading prior to Christmas allowing adequate time for industry and interested parties to put well-thought-out submissions together on the bill and give the select committee adequate time to consider those. Unfortunately that hasn't happened and we're here again under urgency going through the second reading and through to the end of this process.This is probably one of the most complex things this Government or in fact any Government does is to run an emissions trading scheme (ETS). It has far-reaching consequences it's complex in nature and there are lots of opportunities for mistakes—mistakes that we will do our best to try and rectify before they happen through the legislative process but given the short period of time we can't fully be confident that we have ironed all of those potential errors out. Actually I'm sure that we will find there's an error in this bill somewhere along the line but that doesn't mean we shouldn't necessarily support it. But it is an issue and it's something that this Government must stop doing. You've got to get your act together and line your ducks up and get this legislation going through proper processes. These processes have been set out for a very long time for a very good reason: because mistakes happen. It even happens when we've got a really good process but this is incredibly complex and we've opened ourselves up to all sorts of problems.The other thing I think that's important to note here is that actually the Labour Party and the Green Party have always been keen on a carbon tax. And actually what we have is an ETS—they're quite different beasts—and my concern and in fact the National Party's concern with this bill and other amendments that are being snuck into the process is we are moving the ETS more and more towards a carbon tax. And just to explore that a bit further a carbon tax puts a price on carbon and it's obviously aimed at changing behaviour by that price. In contrast an emissions trading scheme puts a cap on emissions and the price will be found by the market. They're quite different approaches but what we're ending up with with all these changes is I fear some sort of hybrid which is going to end up in the middle and not doing much. We support an ETS and in fact we have done for 20 years. It's a very important and I think very good tool. In fact the climate commission's work in the report that's just been released recently shows that we can get to 85 percent to net zero by having a carbon price of $35 a tonne—we're at $40 now. At $50 a tonne we get all the way to net zero. That's really important but what we don't want is policies coming in over the top of the ETS which will blow the cost out needlessly. In fact the Climate Change Commission's own work shows that they believe the New Zealand unit price will be $250 at the end of it—five times what it needs to be because of the expensive policies they are recommending. So it's important we get this auction system right; it's important that it works well. But policies like the oil and gas ban for example have simply caused a constraint on the ETS' operation because now we're burning—well we imported a million tonnes of coal last year because we don't have the gas resources. In other countries emissions trading schemes have led a swap-out from coal or a substitution with gas—half the emissions; that's what the ETS actually does. It works really well but we have to think about all these policies that we bring in and ensure that they don't work against the ETS and foist needless costs on New Zealanders. And if anyone's been checking the spot prices recently in the electricity market it's up to $500 a megawatt hour. That is the market working but it's being pushed that way because of needless policies that have very little basis in fact—it's virtue signalling with an A+ which is something the Government's very good at. What we want is real positive policies that achieve what they set out to do.The process—limited as it was—was useful. We had some good submissions on the bill. In fact I think the committee worked very constructively to try and get to the best place with this bill. And the changes that were made were minor but important changes I think like requiring the Minister to not only consult with the Minister of Finance but also to consult with the auction operator.I'm going to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which will require the Minister to consult with the leaders of the parties not in Government. In the spirit of how the zero carbon bill came into being in that it was a cross-party united approach to what is a very long-term problem and it is a very long-term issue that should not be one Government's baby; it should be owned by everyone. This is an attempt to do that because I believe actually this is pretty close to setting a tax. And going right back to our bill of rights it's Parliament that sets taxes not Ministers. It should therefore be that the Minister should consult with the leaders of the parties not in Government and that would maintain the confidentiality of the reserve price and it would also maintain the spirit in which the zero carbon bill was originally passed and all of the climate legislation that has been supported across the House.And I know that the Minister—his raison d'etre really is to make sure that this endures. I'm appealing to the Minister to support my SOP which will ensure that that does endure past a single Government because this is going to get tough. Make no mistake about it we will be putting prices and costs on Kiwis that they don't expect that will be coming as a result of this. We have to lower emissions—I accept that—but to do that we have to be sure that we are doing the best by them. We're not forcing costs on them that they don't need. We're not forcing costs on them that are unnecessary. And we have to have the confidence across this House that the Minister is doing that and that this Parliament is right behind him not divided behind him. And that is the purpose of my SOP. So I'm sure that you'll give that very good consideration Minister. Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity prior to speaking on this bill to run that past you. It's been quite—we are in urgency after all. And so I thought I would raise it now but I will come and discuss it with you shortly but I would be very surprised if other parties actually opposed that SOP. And if they do I'd be very interested to hear what their arguments are because I can't see a sound one from where I'm standing. Anyway maybe I would say that.But the bill I think is in pretty good shape but we also have an SOP coming from my colleague Erica Stanford which is a very good one as well. We have been constructive on this all the way through the process and I'd also like to thank Eugenie Sage the chair of the select committee who I think did a very good job chairing and shepherding that through under what was a lot of time pressure actually and a good demonstration of why we should not do this unless we absolutely have to. So I appeal to the Minister for future reference because I'm sure we will have more climate-related bills in the future that we have far more warning and that we can work collaboratively ahead of time rather than things being foisted on us as we are today. So with that we support this bill through the second reading and look forward to the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you.