STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I'd like to start by thanking all those submitters that took their time to come to the Environment Committee and help us with that process. We had a wide range of submitters who really helped inform our decision making.
There is a close relationship between emissions reductions and the increasing life expectancy—they actually correlate perfectly. The graphs, those curves, they match exactly. So it behoves us to be very careful when we lower emissions, because that will have an impact on life expectancy—a direct impact, there's no doubt about that. So that doesn't mean we can't do it; we can, but we have to be careful. And the National Party supports net zero by 2050 and we support the emissions budgets.
However, we have some serious issues with the emissions reduction plan. Now, while the Government talks a big game on carbon emissions and climate change, actually emissions are up under this Government. Even despite a lockdown—two serious lockdowns—emissions are up under this Government. There's a lot more to this than talking a big game. This is a really important issue that we are grappling with.
I fear there's too much focus, actually, on gross emissions. I think that's a really important thing to focus on, but it is net zero, not gross zero, and, unfortunately, I think a number of the policies seem to be more gross-focused than net. We have heard a little bit about the emissions trading scheme today and, actually, I became quite convinced throughout the process on the select committee that the Government members do not understand the emissions trading scheme. They certainly don't understand the waterbed effect, which I think the ACT member Simon Court alluded to. As emissions are taken down by things like those pet projects that they have, it simply makes it cheaper for emitters elsewhere in the economy because the number of certificates are fixed. If they want to lower emissions more quickly, they reduce the number of emissions certificates—it's a very simple marker and it works really well.
The reason I think we have to be careful about how we approach this is the technologies that will allow us to get to net zero more easily are still being developed as we speak. I'm a Tesla owner, and I'll tell you now, I have to drive that Tesla for 100,000 kilometres before the lifetime emissions of that are less than a diesel equivalent, so buying a Tesla doesn't save the planet. I think it's great technology—that's why I bought it. Incidentally, for your information, I did not get a discount.
Rachel Brooking: Why not?
STUART SMITH: Because it didn't qualify. Our biggest issue is industrial heat, as was alluded to earlier, and that is point-source emissions of carbon dioxide. And yet, you would think this Government would have a whole lot of regulatory and legal framework for carbon capture and storage. However, they don't—they do not. However, there is one bill in the members' ballot that is addressing it; it should be the Government doing it, but I've got a bill in the ballot that actually addresses carbon capture and storage regulatory gaps. It should be done by the Government—that's a great way to lower emissions.
The Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund is a $600 million—it's more than that, actually—vanity project by the Minister of Energy and Resources. And what we found when we looked at additionality, we uncovered—well, actually, the New Zealand Initiative uncovered—a report that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority had commissioned from Concept Consulting which found out, actually, there was no additionality. The companies that received the funding would have spent the money anyway, but they took it for free—and why wouldn't they? I've got nothing against the Heineken family. They've got plenty of money; they could have paid for their own electrode boiler. They didn't need the taxpayer to fund it.
We can get there in much better ways. The "reverse Robin Hood tax", as my colleague referred to it earlier in the day, is absolutely something that we should be getting rid of. We don't need that. People will buy cars that are more efficient for the right reasons, rather than taking money off people that have no choice, that can't have an electric alternative. And now, of course, to beat it all, we had the biofuels mandate, which is another vanity project that we simply don't think is necessary. If people want to use biofuels, by all means, do, but Governments shouldn't be mandating it. Unfortunately, this is a very disappointing emissions reduction plan.