Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I rise to commend to the committee Supplementary Order Paper 406 a really simple amendment in my name but I will try and persuade the committee quite an important one. It replaces new section 5W set out in clause 8 in this bill and just to give background new section 5W currently says that as far as possible reductions in overall carbon emissions must be met from New Zealand credits or removals. It says as far as possible" with no question as to what the cost might be. Now actually it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where it is not possible to remove or reduce emissions from New Zealand; it's just a question of what price or sacrifice New Zealanders are prepared to make. So what we have in this bill is a requirement that New Zealanders are prepared to pay any price to ensure that they reduce or remove carbon emissions from domestic sources. One of the impacts of that—we've already heard from Erica Stanford—is that we might get land-use change that wasn't really an intention of this bill. We might see whole areas of New Zealand planted out in a monoculture of forestry that is actually environmentally damaging. But a more likely outcome is that New Zealanders pay more than their international competitors perhaps in the same industry. So an ironic outcome of requiring the use of New Zealand carbon credits and New Zealand reductions is actually carbon leakage. What does that mean? It means that actually emitting activities that emit carbon dioxide or equivalents end up getting done outside New Zealand because the requirement to use New Zealand credits makes it more expensive to do here in so far as carbon credits are an important cost than doing it overseas. There's another principle at stake here I would have thought. The objective of this bill should be for New Zealanders to be able to meet their obligations to reduce their contribution to the climate at the lowest possible cost or put another way for a given financial cost New Zealanders are prepared to pay they should be able to make a maximum reduction in their contribution to carbon dioxide - equivalent emissions. That sounds like a good goal. Given that this is a global issue—because last time I checked the sky is all connected all the way around the world—surely it makes no difference if the reduction in emissions occurs in New Zealand or elsewhere because if things get a little bit unbalanced maybe the wind will blow. It seems to me that we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this bill by requiring New Zealand reductions only. So what does this amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 406 do? Well it says that emissions are to be met through domestic emissions reductions and domestic removals or offshore mitigation. The next thing people say is—and we heard it in the House from Shane Jones at question time; he said there might be "dodgy Ukrainian credits". First he goes after the Indians now the Ukrainians. Where will he stop? Well the fact of the matter is we should be focusing on the quality of the credits not where they come from. So I've said in this amendment that the Government by Order in Council can stipulate what a quality credit is but it must be neutral in its origin. That's the kind of values I would expect the Green Party and the Labour Party even if not New Zealand First to stand for—that it's not your origin or your nationality that matters but actually the quality of the credits.So I hope that the committee will support my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 406 to make this scheme more efficient to make it less discriminatory to make New Zealand economically competitive and to ensure that New Zealanders can meet their climate change policy obligations at the least cost or meet them as well as possible for a given cost. And if it was to be done then who knows? With a few more amendments the ACT Party might even support this bill. Thank you Mr Chair."