Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I apologise to Duncan Webb; I know he always has such useful things to say.Dr Duncan Webb: Do you yield Mr Seymour?DAVID SEYMOUR: Well I could but I'll let him into a secret: what I just said wasn't sincere.Thank you to the Minister for Climate Change for trying to answer my questions. I think he in a way has brought out some of the problems with his legislation. He started out by saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the restrictions on the importation of foreign credits or using offshore mitigation measures because the legislation will allow it as much as it's necessary.It's a case of trying to eat one's cake and have it too. You know either it is the case that the legislative instruments in his bill will allow people to freely use the most competitive possible units from around the world—in which case he should support my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 406 and just say as that amendment says people can use amendments from here or overseas so long as they are of sufficient quality; if that's really his position he should support the amendment—on the other hand if the Minister in charge James Shaw believes that really the bill is going to achieve the other thing that he claimed that actually these restrictions on using offshore credits will force people to absorb costs of using domestic credits so he can achieve other policy objectives then really he may not want to support my amendment but he has completely underlined the need for us to have it.So he can't have it both ways. Either New Zealanders are going to be forced to use New Zealand credits and emission reduction initiatives at higher costs—in which case you know that's his position he's placing costs on people—or they're not. If they're not then he should support my amendment; if they are then he should be open about the fact that New Zealanders are going to pay more to achieve the same environmental outcome for frankly political reasons.The second response from the Minister I felt suffered from the same difficulties. He rather mischievously attributed my position to Rodney Hide. Well actually I don't think Rodney Hide's written a column about this particular topic. He may have been referring to Bryce Wilkinson an economist at The New Zealand Initiative—and I do think that they've done a very good analysis.But again the claim by James Shaw was that well this bill won't really give the Minister control over what industries do or how they behave. The evidence that he presents for that is that the UK has had its economy changed but none the less has grown. And then he says Actually it's really important that these clauses stay in the bill"—that they're not removed as my amendment would remove them—because he wants to have the power to control the economy. So again we're left to ask ourselves: which one is it? Does the bill give him the power that he wants to keep or is he happy for my amendment to remove those sections that he says don't give him the power? He can't have it both ways but again he's attempting to eat his cake and have it too.And of course he says "But the UK economy has grown faster compared with the rest of the G20."; well there's a range of reasons for that. At best he can claim that their carbon legislation hasn't prevented them from growing—but actually there might be a good explanation for that. In comparison with New Zealand if we look at the UK's emissions and carbon dioxide equivalents per dollar of GDP well actually they've declined but no faster than New Zealand's. So again he can't have it both ways. Either the legislation gives him these powers but they're ineffective or it doesn't give him the powers—in which case he should be happy to accept the amendments that I've put up.The Minister would love to have it both ways but he can't. The safer thing for New Zealand is to support my amendments and not give any Minister the power—because you never know a less responsible one might come along."