Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill. I thought that the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw started his speech very well when he said the objective of climate change policy should be to ensure that carbon emissions are priced at the cost they will impose on future generations. He might have added a couple of other details. One is that it should be done in the most administratively simple way possible. Another is that it should be done using market-based mechanisms so that consumers—households families—have choices about how they spend and producers—farms factories—have choices about how they produce. And another thing he might have said is that this legislation has to ensure that New Zealand does not shoot itself in the foot and penalise itself by exceeding the ambition of other countries who dominate the climate. That's what he should have said: an administratively simple market-based mechanism that allows New Zealanders to do their bit freely and with choice but that doesn't penalise New Zealand by needlessly getting ahead of our competitors around the world".The problem with this bill—well let's start with the administrative simplicity. It's 400 pages with a Supplementary Order Paper that's 300 pages. That's 300 pages of notes to fix up all the problems that have been found with it since the bill was introduced just a few months ago. If that is simplicity I hate to think what it's going to be like for those producers and consumers trying to do business under this bill. And it gets worse because it doesn't achieve the things that the Minister said. It's not a market-based mechanism; it allows the Government to decide how much carbon dioxide should be emitted by New Zealanders. Then it's allowed to decide how much by each sector. And then it says "Wait wait—that sounds a bit harsh." It then has—what are they calling it?—a "cost-containment reserve". In other words so that they can contain the costs for favoured industries. This is a big Government bill that introduces enormous bureaucracy enormous discrimination into the way that climate change is managed in New Zealand. And that is a step backwards particularly at the current time.Need I remind the House—and the people listening at home certainly know—this is a country that has just had its Reserve Bank embark on $90 billion of virtual money printing; that has just undertaken to borrow 30 percent of GDP; and that has a net external indebtedness that means that if people overseas lose confidence in New Zealand's economy we will find ourselves deeply indebted trying to pay back the rest of the world with a currency that has gone through the tank. That's the situation in which this Government is introducing new costs and new bureaucracy that have no connection to what the rest of the world is prepared to do on to the productive sector. It is a recipe for disaster. Which leaves the question: what should they have done?Well it's not actually that complicated. What they should have done is say that New Zealanders who wish to emit carbon dioxide must buy emissions units at a price set by the world market of a quality specified by the New Zealand Government. That way New Zealanders would be paying no more and no less than our overseas competitors. Under this bill we face scenarios where our competitors for our farms or our factories are buying cheaper units overseas and the New Zealand Government says "Oh no New Zealanders can't buy them." That's how simple it could have been but instead we have 700 pages of bureaucracy at a time when the New Zealand economy has never been more fragile. This is a disaster for climate change response a disaster for the economy and a bill that I am proud to oppose on behalf of ACT. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Dr Liz Craig—five minutes."