Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is an interesting bill to be discussing in its second reading given the post-COVID environment that we find ourselves in. I want to acknowledge Minister James Shaw for a typically thoughtful and considered speech and we appreciate that from the Opposition benches because as became apparent during the passing of the zero carbon Act I think that there is broad consensus across this parliamentary Chamber on the direction of travel in terms of climate change initiatives and climate change direction.There was as the Minister said unanimity on the passing of that zero carbon Act but this is the bill that is the doing" piece. The zero carbon Act was the Act that set up the framework. It's this piece of legislation the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill that is the doing piece of the formula. This is the piece of legislation that makes the levers of climate change policy effective and cutting in terms of changing the way things are done ultimately on our pathway towards a zero carbon future. And as the Minister said we have collectively—across Government and this Parliament—made commitments internationally first at Paris and then subsequently at various Conferences of Parties since. We as a Parliament take those commitments seriously and I think it's important that business the community and New Zealanders understand that that commitment is a cross-party commitment.However just as it is with many other aspects of shared general consensus in policy direction we reserve the right as the Opposition to argue the detail the fine points of the legislation that's presented to us in this House. And there are a number of working pieces in this piece of legislation. For most New Zealanders the intricate details of this emissions trading scheme bill will actually be something that they choose not to try and get their heads around because actually it is complicated. It does deal with concepts that in many cases are foreign and unusual and unfamiliar to New Zealanders as individuals as family members as community members and certainly sometimes as business people. But what effectively this bill does is give power to the levers that are required to initiate the change that will be required from now on and in years to come to achieve those international commitments that we've made and the commitments that we've made to ourselves and to future generations.Now that all said the National Party is going to oppose this legislation at second reading not necessarily because we are opposed to every aspect of the detail of the legislation simply put because we don't think now is the appropriate and right time to be introducing legislation that is effectively a further impost on the cost of living on the way that New Zealanders do business in a post-COVID recovery environment. It's our view that notwithstanding the contents of this piece of legislation actually a 12-month postponement would be the appropriate sensible and right thing to do as New Zealand and other nations around the world look to a pathway beyond COVID because it will be our primary productive export-led industries and sectors that ultimately lead us out of the position that we find ourselves in through no fault of anyone's in New Zealand. It's a challenging environment and it's an environment where further costs further handbrakes on doing business both domestically and internationally just aren't appropriate right now.So we're not saying that this bill is a bad bill. We're not saying that this bill is a bill that should not ultimately proceed. We're not saying that we agree or disagree with every aspect of the fine detail in the bill. But what we are saying is that a responsible caring thoughtful kind Government would actually understand that the needs of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses right at the moment is actually an ability to keep trading to be in business to recoup and re-stabilise business and enterprise and ultimately to continue making our way collectively in a competitive international market place where the last thing we need right now is a further impost of handbrakes and hurdles that are going to make our export sector less competitive internationally in a very competitive international market place—probably far more competitive now and in the next year or two than it has been in previous times.There are a couple of aspects in the bill that I do want to draw attention to as we proceed and my colleagues on this side as this debate continues through this evening will raise other aspects. But I particularly want to focus on the impact of the reduction in what's sometimes referred to as the "free allocation" and that raises the prospect of what's referred to as "carbon leakage". In New Zealand we are fortunate in many respects to be at the bottom of the South Pacific surrounded by the largest moat in the world and that brings both advantages and disadvantages. But in a period by 2050 I can't imagine a New Zealand that's not for instance going to want to have access to steel to glass to fertilisers to aluminium to all kinds of products that if not manufactured here competitively will have to be imported arguably from less emissions-efficient countries than our own. And so for organisations such as Methanex for instance there are some very real concerns about the future viability of that business and the contribution it makes to our economy both in terms of the products produced and the people employed.Similarly at New Zealand Steel same sorts of issues and at O-I Glass in South Auckland—same sorts of issues. Our cement works in Northland the aluminium smelter at Bluff and fertiliser companies around the country. And then perhaps most scary when we start talking about carbon reducing legislation such as this that is proposed under this emissions trading scheme bill is the impact potentially on the New Zealand Refining Company at Marsden Point. I had an opportunity to visit there during the summer recess and hear some of the particular issues that they have. I was reminded that until the mid-1960s New Zealand imported refined fuel from overseas and that we didn't do our own—we actually imported it ourselves. And the real risk is that if we aren't careful and if we haven't got these measures right in this piece of legislation the potential commercial ramifications for businesses like the New Zealand Refining Company are potentially devastating.I can't imagine even with the best will in the world as I drive merrily around in my 100 percent electric vehicle that any time soon we're not going to need at least some refined fossil fuel to fuel the New Zealand economy through the transition over the next few decades. That will be a requirement. I can't imagine a situation where we would want to put at risk New Zealand's capacity New Zealand's financial security and economic security of having our own refinery capacity by our tinkering in a bill like this that potentially puts it all at risk. I don't think that that is smart or wise.I do want to just conclude my comments at this point in thanking the large number of submitters who presented on this bill largely under the cover of COVID I have to say. We as an Opposition felt that a piece of legislation that was as important as this should not have been progressed at the haste and pace that it was by Zoom meetings around the countryside. Now Zoom meetings go so far but this is important legislation. It's important that New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses had an opportunity to be heard respectfully and in an unhurried way. The Government's had nearly three years to bring this legislation to the House and they are now in the final throes of their term bringing it with a rush and a bustle that I think is unbecoming of legislation that is as important to the future generations of New Zealanders and the actual transition that I think most of us if not all of us want to see in terms of a decarbonised economy for the future.So I want to reiterate that the National Party will be opposing this legislation on the basis that the timing is wrong. Now is not the right time and we will oppose it."