Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I do want to thank the Minister for his forthright responses to the questions that the ACT Party wanted answers to during the committee of the whole House stage but unfortunately we're not satisfied and we won't be able to support this bill proceeding any further.The Minister himself described this piece of legislation—in fact the bill of the Act that this legislation seeks to amend—as representing ugly policy. The ACT Party would contend that this Government's climate policy is being played on a playing field that's so messy no one can see where the lines are marked anymore. This Minister—this Labour Government supported by a Green climate Minister—has made so many announcements about the emissions trading scheme about the role of forestry whether pine trees are in or out whether pine trees or trees at all get the same amount of recognition for storing carbon as any other type of carbon storage that it's created confusion.It's created enormous uncertainty to the extent that the last two auctions under the emissions trading scheme where the Government tried to release carbon credits into the market to raise some revenue to fund all their other green boondoggles failed. Which means that instead of collecting the $1.4 billion that this Government relies on—that Labour relies on in order to fund its climate hogwash policies and boondoggles and handouts to big business—they don't have the money.Now the Minister responded in the Environment Committee when I asked him this question: considering this legislation what are you going to do if we don't have the money Minister? How is the Government going to fulfil its obligations all the promises it's making? He said Oh there's two more auctions to go. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." Again the Minister repeated it in the House tonight.The ACT Party does not believe that is the way to establish enduring climate policy that leads to enduring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; that provides certainty to New Zealand businesses and those who might wish to come and invest in New Zealand; that if they come to New Zealand and buy a business or establish a new business or process and they invest in decarbonising or efficiency or reducing greenhouse gas emissions that it will be worth it. None of that is clear. This bill has not made it any clearer.Worse than that New Zealand businesses that manufacture here that employ tens of thousands of people—whether it's in Taranaki or Tangiwai in the central North Island; or remanufacturing glass from recycled glass in Penrose; or making methanol from New Zealand's rich natural gas resource; or making urea fertiliser again from New Zealand's rich natural gas resource—don't know whether the costs imposed by Government under this legislation will mean that they're paying the same carbon price—or a fair carbon price—as their competitors. It is still unknown.The Minister did provide this information which was helpful that at the moment around 6.6 million carbon units are allocated to industry which means they don't have to pay the full price of their emissions—around about $60 a tonne at the moment. So it is a significant level of assistance to New Zealand industry. The downside of that is of course that that reduces the incentives on these businesses to decarbonise.But what we don't know is whatever the price these businesses are paying overall for carbon is it more or less than their competitors overseas? Does it put New Zealand jobs at risk? Does it risk de-industrialising New Zealand? Does it put our strategic position at risk? It's especially important at this time where the Government's own defence review has indicated that this Government is concerned about the risks of instability in the North Pacific—the risk to our supply lines the risk to logistics—and keeping big industries here that make things like pulp and paper and methanol and fertiliser means that we are less exposed to the risk of conflict in other countries.This legislation the impacts of this legislation are material for New Zealand's economic and social stability as well as our security in an increasingly unstable world. We have to see this bill which appears to some as impenetrable climate economics as something that if we don't get it right could lead New Zealand to lose industries. Now if the fertiliser manufacturer at Kapuni closes down—they're currently making fertiliser in a really really cool process where they turn natural gas out of the ground into ammonia gas and then into ammonia urea fertiliser. This is a plant built in the 1980s in New Zealand actually funded by Government at the time but now having been sold off—Minister Henare I know you're concerned about selling assets—sold off to the private sector. Guess what! Still manufactures fertiliser that fertiliser still goes on Kiwi farms.The alternative is—and this is where we get back to this issue of national security and resilience; supply chain resilience—fertiliser would have to be imported from other countries potentially Canada potentially China potentially Africa potentially Europe Turkey. The supply lines are a lot longer. The costs of transporting are a lot greater. And of course New Zealand has no control over the emissions in those countries and what they pay.This bill tries to solve a wicked problem. The problem is wicked. It's difficult. It's ugly as Minister Shaw said and the ACT Party would agree. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try very very hard to solve it in a way that provides transparency for New Zealand businesses. Certainty for those wishing to invest in New Zealand confidence to those workers in places like Tangiwai in the Central North Island who work in Taranaki South Auckland that the manufacturing businesses will continue and won't be subject to cost penalties that their competitors overseas don't face and which means that their jobs will be lost. That's called carbon leakage where businesses that produce carbon face a higher carbon price than they can contend with and they shut down and move to another country where the carbon price isn't so high. It's a wicked problem. But this policy is more than ugly the Minister was gilding the lily he was painting the face of this policy with some late night lipstick. It's still a pig. It's an ugly pig.So what would ACT do? Because it's important to consider what the options are. We need to consider the opportunity cost. We take one path—it seems like there's some benefits down that path—but the other path might have benefits as well. We have to weigh up the opportunity costs of every decision we make. And it's quite clear from the regulatory impact statement—that apparently triggered the feelings of some in the House—that while the officials said they're confident in the analysis they immediately go on to describe how unconfident they are. How unconfident they are how unconfident. This is a wicked problem to solve.What would ACT do? Well it's quite simple. Here's what looks like a policy that might work: we propose a realistic no-nonsense climate change policy that ties our emissions price to that of our top-five trading partners. How do you do that you say? Well it's possible. I got a report from the Parliamentary Library just yesterday updating the price of all of New Zealand's competitors who manufacture the same products that this bill will apply cost to. It's possible that if New Zealand sets a cap on our emissions at the same level as our competitors are managing to cap their emissions and reduce them year on year then it's possible—in fact likely based on the analysis that ACT has seen—that the carbon price New Zealand businesses will face will on average be equivalent to the carbon price manufacturers in other countries face. That will provide a transparent and obvious pathway with much greater certainty for those willing to invest in New Zealand. It will allow New Zealand to meet its climate commitments to fulfil our international obligations and allow consumers to choose how they pay for their emissions and how they choose to reduce them or offset them in some way. If you emit less under ACT's policy you keep more of your own money. How easy is that how cool is that? That's ACT's offer to New Zealand. It's not ugly; it's beautiful."