Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider this bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018 and that the committee has authority to meet at any time, except during oral questions, during every evening on a day where there is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the Minister. The wording is not quite as I have it here.

Right. OK.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m happy to share the wording that I have.

OK. No, I’ll—no, I have it here too.

I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.

—except during oral questions, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I am incredibly proud to rise to speak on this bill today. This bill is about having the courage and a vision as a Government to lift our eyes above the three-year electoral cycle and to think about the next 10 years, the next 20 years, the next 30 years, and the next 40 years. In April, the Prime Minister announced that this Government would not be granting any new offshore oil and gas exploration permits but that we would be protecting existing permits and the rights associated with them. With this bill we make good on that commitment. With this bill we are taking the first steps on a 30-year to 40-year journey: a planned, measured, just transition towards a low-carbon economy. The bill contains amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 that will give effect to the Government’s policy announcement on the future of offshore petroleum permitting.

The long-term picture is this: the world is changing, climate change is happening, and with that change our planet and our economies are changing. The world is racing to adapt and to stop its most damaging effects. This means that the same old ways of doing things don’t work anymore. We cannot expect to rely on fossil fuels for our jobs and prosperity for ever. The world is moving away from them, and we, as a country, have to be ready. If we don’t change, if we keep relying on these fuels, we’re going to be left behind.

We’re setting ourselves up for economic shocks. We’ve seen this happen before when the economy changes over night without a plan. We saw it in the UK in the 1980s when coalmines closed overnight and, with it, the devastation of communities. We saw it here in the 1980s in New Zealand with the radical reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. I saw it in my own community, growing up in south Christchurch. Parents of my friends lost their jobs at the Addington rail yards. With that they lost their hope and their dignity. I will not be part of a Government that refuses to put in place the long-term planning to ensure New Zealanders never have to endure that again.

When economies undergo rapid changes without a plan, businesses suffer, communities get hurt, and people are left on the scrap heap. We won’t let that happen again. This Government will not allow New Zealand to become a place that pulls the rug out from under workers and businesses and communities because we don’t have the foresight or the courage to plan ahead. And that’s why we are acting here tonight. We are planning a long-term, managed transition over the next 30 years to 40 years towards home-grown clean energy that will create jobs. That will ensure that regions and communities which currently rely on fossil fuels for their prosperity have a path to prosperity for decades to come.

This bill is an important part of that plan. It gives legal effect to the Government’s 12 April decision. It will limit new petroleum prospecting, exploration, and mining permits to the onshore Taranaki region only, and it guarantees the protection of existing permits, as we promised to do—permits that cover over a hundred thousand square kilometres of existing acreage. If a discovery is made that is commercially viable, existing permit holders will still be able to apply for a subsequent petroleum mining permit in accordance with the Crown Minerals Act as it was prior to this bill coming into force. Existing rights and existing privileges under the existing Crown Minerals Act will be preserved. Preserving the rights and privileges of permit holders provides certainty to the industry around the Government’s managed transition. Under this bill, new onshore petroleum exploration permit holders will have their access to conservation land restricted to minimum impact activities. Permit holders will still be able to carry out activities below the surface of such land and in accordance with section 57 of the Crown Minerals Act.

I want to thank New Zealand First and the Green Party for the support of the policy that underpins this bill. This coalition Government has found a pathway that protects existing permit holders while signalling a long-term transition away from the exploration and production of fossil fuels. To assist that pathway, the Government has established a just transitions unit within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to help prepare New Zealand for a future that will look different than it does today. Alongside this, our support of the regions includes the $3 billion investment through the Provincial Growth Fund for new jobs and opportunities, obviously being well shepherded through by the Hon Shane Jones. We’re also supporting investment in smart low-carbon industries through the Green Investment Fund. With a Government kick-start investment of $100 million, it aims to stimulate up to a billion dollars of new investments in innovative, low-emission industries, and that is work that the Hon James Shaw is leading.

We’re already seeing this plan pay dividends for our regions. The Provincial Growth Fund has already earmarked more than $21 million in funding for Taranaki, including support for developing hydrogen as a zero-emission hydrogen fuel and transitional economy general manager.

We know the same old arguments that will be rolled out from those who refuse to accept that the world is changing. The Opposition and the oil industries, they roll out the tired 20th century arguments as we are well into the 21st century. They will tell us that New Zealand doesn’t have to be a leader on climate change. They will say we can bury our head in the sand and lower our sights and just keep on doing the same things together. They will ask us to ignore the opportunities that come from a low-carbon economy, like the fact that renewable energy is some of the cheapest in the world to produce and where the economic opportunities of the 21st century lie. They will tell us taking action will only drive production offshore, asking us to pretend that the rest of world is standing still. Well, the truth is that countries around the world are racing to tackle climate change.

But on this side of the House we are not wedded to the tired arguments of the past. We know there is a better way. This is a Government with a long-term economic plan, a plan for inclusive sustainable growth in the decades to come. The bill is an historic first step in helping move our economy towards 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 and to a net zero economy by 2050.

I will remember how proud I felt as an 11½-year-old in 1985 watching Prime Minister David Lange on the world stage arguing for the power of humanity over the power of nuclear weapons. As our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has said, climate change is this generation’s nuclear-free moment, our opportunity to once again lead the world, to follow in this proud tradition of New Zealand as a bold visionary and progressive country, and to begin the transition to a low-carbon economy that will create jobs and ensure prosperity.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Thank you. Your time has expired.

It gives me little pleasure to speak on this bill, because this bill is actually a retrograde step for the climate goals of this country. Not only will they ban offshore but they’ll ban outside of Taranaki, and do you know what they’re banning? They’re banning innovation. They’re banning ideas that come through the hydrocarbon industry. We hear that there is $1.2 billion of investment lost that would reduce emissions in Taranaki. We hear that overseas there are developments of natural gas power peaker plants, which Transpower say we need five to six more of in order to keep the lights on in New Zealand. This peaker power station has zero emissions, and suddenly this Government knows better. They say, “We’ve made a plan for 30 years.”

At least James Shaw talked to Todd Muller. I would say the Minister has never ever picked up the phone to talk to me about whether we can be part of a 30-year transition. I’ll tell you why: because they will be there for three years. They will be there for three years. They may take the first step, but not the second or the third. You know, what’s happened through this whole process is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have come up with, actually, some brilliant ideas. They’ve found a spot that could work in this Parliament, in this Government, and in this country, but this Government over here has completely rejected it, because they are hard-wiring in a ban.

And when I say “a ban”, it is not just a ban on activity; it’s a ban on an idea and on innovation. They have thought that they have attacked a problem, but they are attacking people who understand hydrocarbon. They’re attacking the people who have innovation ideas, some of the best hydrocarbon chemists in the country, and they’re basically saying, “Your industry has an end date.” And guess what’s happening? We are seeing people leave the country who have got the intellectual know-how and background to understand this industry. We are exporting our knowledge, and we’re going to become recipients in time to importation of gas—four to five times the cost, and 40 percent higher greenhouse gases. That’s what’s going to happen. That’s what’s going to happen.

Let me tell you something about this bill. This bill has come before this House under the intent to give effect to the Government’s policy announcement on 12 April to ban new offshore exploration, but what they are bringing into this bill are two unexpected provisions. They are saying the bill includes a provision that will prohibit a permit holder from accessing conservation land except to undertake minimum-impact activities, which is not drilling and which is not seismic. So, you know, oil and gas explorers—you’re off that part of the land.

Also, they’re bringing in a provision that will ban the giving of onshore permits outside of Taranaki.

You told us, Minister—you gave us, Minister—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: The Speaker didn’t tell you.

—I understand—a three-year moratorium on onshore permits and a review. James Shaw, of course, came back and said that actually that three-year moratorium is actually a phase-out of onshore. And suddenly we find in this bill that every other part of New Zealand’s terrestrial territory is now off the board. So that’s a Northland. That’s an East Coast. They’re gone. We see in Taranaki the region that has the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand. The Taranaki region has the highest average wage of any region. The oil and gas sector generates 4,600 jobs in Taranaki, and supports 11,000 indirectly. And so this Government is saying to Northland, to East Coast, “Sorry, we are not going to allow those benefits ever to come your way.” Some of those regions are the regions with the highest levels of deprivation, where they could see huge industries developed, huge skills, huge opportunities for people to come to be employed. I think that that is a real disappointment and a travesty.

There are many significant failings of this Government, and none so significant as in this decision to ban new offshore exploration permits. There’s been a thorough—thorough—lack of process. What is most galling is the Government claims to have consulted industry, except everyone they said they’d talked to denies they’d ever had a conversation. And we are seeing this happening right now. We are seeing this very short, truncated select committee process taking place. You know, I would come back to what the Minister said as a general final statement to the petroleum conference in March in Wellington this year. She said this, and we took her words in good faith: “We are a Government that listens, then acts. That consults widely, thinks through issues deeply and seeks to forge consensus on how we can take New Zealand forward together.”—a great statement.

That is a statement that I think any Government would be proud and pleased to make. However, in the regulatory impact analysis released by MBIE this week, it stated this: “Consultation with the public and the petroleum sector has not [taken place] due to the preferred approach of Cabinet and the Government,”. I am very disappointed at that. I’m disappointed because the good people not only of Taranaki but right around this country have got a contribution to make, and, yes, you give a four-week process, but, you know, I think it would have been far better if you had talked all along the way than been very selective—been very selective—in your process. It’s not only the petroleum sector who are wanting to be consulted.

The regulatory analysis went on to say, “major consumers of natural gas such as Methanex and Ballance Agri-Nutrients, electricity generators, the Port of Taranaki, engineering and service firms in Taranaki,” and the local government in Taranaki are “stakeholders directly affected by the proposed changes.” MBIE has not been directed to undertake consultation with these groups on the Government’s final policy decision. “All … these groups have expressed concerns about the decision itself, the impact on investment certainty, future gas supply and jobs, and the ability of firms that have invested to be able to fully benefit from those investments.” And so this is a systemic disregard of people in the region that I love and am proud of, and I am disappointed—very disappointed. I hear the Minister talking about a plan—a 21st century plan. Well, the Mayor of New Plymouth said yesterday the Government has no plan—no plan—to see what’s going to happen in Taranaki in a post - oil and gas world.

The interesting thing is that in that oil and gas world we are seeing far more innovation and ideas come through that reduce emissions. The other side of it is that only about 50 percent of oil ever ends up as a liquid fuel that gives emissions. The rest ends up, for example, in asphalt, in the roads that we drive on. It ends up in all sorts of products—household products. Methanex, who use 45 percent of New Zealand’s natural gas and make methanol, is becoming a liquid fuel of choice in the marine industry because of its zero sulphur emissions and low oxides. It’s a very, very clean fuel. There are huge advantages. You know, we see that the United States of America, the country that has brought emissions lower, percentage wise, than any other country in the world has done it without regulation. They’ve done it because they’ve used natural gas to replace coal. And I think that, you know, there are examples around the world that show innovation and progress that will see the emissions that people are concerned about reduce in our world.

Can I say in my last couple of minutes that there are some great opportunities to actually see an industry that has brought great benefit and wealth and progress to nations around the world to handle this in a more finessed and careful way. The Minister says that this is a bygone era, yet the International Energy Agency, which New Zealand pays $150,000 a year to for membership, tells us that natural gas is going to increase by 40 percent by 2050, and is going to become the fuel of choice. And so what we have said, or what this Government says, in this country is that we see an end to gas.

We have some big, big concerns about energy security. MBIE raised those matters—big concerns about whether we can have the capacity to keep electricity cheap and keep it secure. At the moment, gas provides 15 percent, and Transpower tell us that our electricity generation needs to more than double by 2050. You know, we need to have solutions to these sorts of things. It’s not good enough—

I apologise to the member; your time has expired.

This is a short, short bill; just five pages. It’s simple; it expresses some really simple ideas. It is short, it is simple—it is huge. It is a huge bill because it is a bill about keeping promises, about keeping promises and commitments to ourselves, to our children, and to our children’s children to leave them a better world. That is what this bill is about. We are keeping the promise we have made to take climate change seriously, to take action with respect to climate change, to make a start on dealing with the nuclear-free moment of our time: climate change.

You see, the problem of climate change is real. It is absolutely real and it is imminent. In a study which was written about in The Guardian just this week, we found repeating science, that has been peer-reviewed and published in a journal, that talks about the likely outcomes from climate models, and the really wretched thing is we are on track for 3.4 percent warming by 2100 if we do not change our ways. We are burning our world up, and the people on that side of the House want to keep on doing it. They should be ashamed of themselves. Climate change is real, it’s happening, and we need to make a start on addressing it, and that is what this bill does.

I guess the only thing is it is the smallest of steps, but it is a start. All it is doing is saying that we will not issue more exploration permits—we will not issue more. The existing permits remain in place—an area the size of the North Island remains available for exploration offshore. We can continue to do onshore exploration in Taranaki. So there is real continuation for business. Business has plenty of time to plan, business has plenty of time to restructure, and this caring Government on this side of the House is in there helping to them to do it. It will walk with the people of Taranaki and with the people in the industry to ensure that they are able to transition to new jobs, new employment, and new ways of earning a living, but what we will not continue to do is burn the world up.

We are serious about our just transition, and I can tell you why: we remember the 1980s and the 1990s when there was a shocking transition forced upon, in particular, the rural sector, where there were suicides, where people lost jobs overnight, and where the changes were absolutely wretched. So this Government has given a long, clear signal well in advance—plenty of time to plan, plenty of time to make those transitions, and we’re in there supporting it on the way. That’s what our Provincial Growth Fund is about. It is what our Green Investment Fund is about. It is about making that just transition to give people time, and we have consulted widely about that just transition. Part of our major plan with respect to this bill is to consult widely about how we engage in that just transition, exactly what we can do to help people, how we help people to manage. We are committed to that, and we will continue to be committed to it.

As for the fossilised arguments from the other side of the House—the fossilised arguments—the demanded ongoing commitment to fossil fuels, it’s extraordinary how committed they are to “drill, baby, drill”.

Let’s talk about some of the claims—the claims that perhaps we should be pursuing natural gas. Look, one of the reasons why the rest of the world pursues natural gas is that it’s less bad than coal. It’s not good; it’s just less bad than coal. Of course, the fossil fuel industry wants to persist with natural gas, but let’s look at what respected business commentator Rod Oram has said. Respected business commentator Rod Oram says, “our gas sector keeps doubling down on its claims it can help us and other countries drastically cut carbon emissions in the decades ahead, while deriving great GDP benefits on the way.”, and then he goes on to say, “None of those claims stack up on economic or environmental grounds.” That’s what Rod Oram tells us, and he has a detailed analysis showing how none of those claims stack up. So, yes, natural gas is part of a transition to a zero-carbon world, but that’s all it is, and it’s there because it is less bad than coal. It can help us on the transition, but it is not the end product and it’s not where we want to end up. We’ve got some worries. We do have ongoing use of gas. We will continue to be committed to using gas because it is there and it is available to us, but we are simply shutting down the exploration of this.

One of the things I really want to challenge the Opposition benches on is just on how blue-green they really are. You know, the Opposition have been telling us and telling the people of New Zealand that they are committed to the environment, that they want to take action with respect to climate change, and that we should consider voting for them because, after all, they will look after the environment too. Where is the evidence? This first simple step—they cannot even go that far. I say that calling themselves blue-green is an utter charade, and they should just stick to their knitting and promote “Business, business, business; drill, drill, drill—we don’t care about the future.”

We’ve heard from the Opposition that we are not running a decent process. I tell you, I will run the best select committee process I can. It will be open, we will consult widely, and we will take as many submissions as we can get. We will hear from them all, we will take them seriously, and we will take them seriously from all parts of the community, from people who are committed to the environment to people who are part of the fossil fuel industry. We want to hear from them all, and I invite those people to please send their submissions in. We want to hear from them, and we will respond to them sincerely, honestly, and openly, because that’s kind of select committee I run. As part of that, Ministers will be meeting with people in Taranaki; our Prime Minister will visit Taranaki. We are committed to consulting widely and making sure that we run a decent process.

Just to bring to a close my speech on this insightful, excellent piece of legislation, presented to us by a Minister who cares, I just want to go back to something that the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, said. He said that on this side of the House we have a systematic disregard for people. He accused us—this side of the House; a caring Government that generally sets out to help people and is committed to kindness—of a systematic disregard for people. I say again: the party in this House which has a systematic disregard of people is the party that wants to burn the Earth. I reject those arguments, and I support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. That truly was an extraordinary speech from the previous speaker, Deborah Russell. I think every New Zealander who’s driving home in their car this evening has just been maligned by that member as somehow being an evil person who wants to burn the Earth, when most people just want to go home to their family and to their loved ones and have their dinner, but not according to that member.

The most simple thing that any New Zealander can expect from their Government is that when that Government makes a major decision that affects their lives and their ability to earn a living and has big consequences for the economy, which sustains jobs, the ability to afford healthcare and welfare for those in need, the education system—decisions of major economic consequence—the only thing that people can expect from their Government is that that Government will take those decisions seriously and will ask for basic advice about what we are going to get as a benefit, as a result of that change, and how much it is going to cost the economy. That’s the most basic thing that New Zealanders can expect from their Government, and on this bill this Government has failed all New Zealanders by that measure. This bill is an act of economic vandalism by a Government that cares only about what the Prime Minister will look like in a global photo opportunity. We have often wondered how much Jacinda Ardern is prepared to pay for a global photo opportunity, and we now know what the answer to that is $8 billion. That is what she is prepared to pay for her global media opportunity.

Let’s go through the risks and the things that you would expect the Government to be asking their officials to quantify and work out. They made the announcement, they said they were going to do it, the week before the Prime Minister went offshore, and now we have legislation that is implementing that decision that they’ve announced. They didn’t take it through Cabinet at the time they announced it, when they committed to it. The previous speaker talked about keeping promises; well, there was no promise during the election that they were going to do this. The New Zealand First Party, which is part of the coalition—it’s not the leader of the coalition but it’s part of the coalition—certainly said anything but that they were going to cut down oil and gas. So there are no promises being kept here in this legislation; it’s something that’s been dreamt up.

What are the things that they need to check? Well, there’s the opportunity cost to the Crown in terms of forgone royalties. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials went away after the decision was made and had to go and do a regulatory impact statement to work out these costs. It’s very hard to determine the exact figure, but the middle range is about $7.9 billion lost over the next 30 years in terms of Crown revenue. OK, so that’s not insignificant, I would have thought—quite a significant sum. Secondly, there’s, obviously, the cost to the petroleum producers in terms of their forgone profits, and I suppose the Government doesn’t care anything about them. Then, thirdly, there’s the cost to national and regional economies in terms of the economic contribution of the petroleum sector. We’ve heard of the thousands and thousands of jobs—good paying jobs—that are sustained by this sector, and they are being put at risk.

Time and time again, we hear from the Government “Oh no, there’s nothing to worry about here. There’s still all this area that is open for exploration, and we’re only talking about the new areas that we’re not going to do.” But they surely don’t believe that, because what has happened with this decision is that a signal has been sent—a very powerful signal from this Government—that they do not want oil and gas. We’ve heard from the speeches on the other side that this is all about burning the Earth and that fossil fuels are evil and we’re not going to support them. So any prospective driller or prospector for oil and gas based throughout the world—they’re global companies; they’re looking about where to invest their next dollar, and there are many places that they can do that—looks at New Zealand and sees a difficult geology miles away from anywhere. They were prepared to make that investment when they had a Government that was predictable and supportive of the industry and reasonable, but they see this Government and they see anything but that. They see no process, they see a rabid Government which is only concerned about virtue signalling, and they think, “Well, why on earth would we make any extra investment in this area when we don’t know, even if we find any oil, the next decision-making process? It’s opaque and vague and cannot be trusted.” So that has a real chilling effect on future investment in this sector.

Of course, you’ll hear from some of the players that are invested in the industry right here, right now. They’re not going to turn around and say that the world’s going to come to an end, because they need to keep working and they need to keep maintaining the investment they’ve already made. But make no doubt: this will have massive consequences for the Taranaki economy, particularly. I’m staggered and shocked to see the New Zealand First members in the House supporting this bill. We hear Shane Jones trumpeting around the provinces like an elephant, as he does, claiming to be the champion of the regions and thinking that handing out $50,000 here and $100,000 there to look at hydrogen is somehow going to make up for the millions and millions of dollars that have been sucked out of the Taranaki region and put at risk by this decision making—this decision making that they supported only in return for the waka-jumping bill, that we’ve had the shambles of today, to be carried through this House, another dirty deal in this Government.

Then we have to deal with the question of security and affordability of supply. Every New Zealander who struggles right now to pay their electricity and gas bills and to get through the long winter and figure out how to make ends meet has to be aware that this decision right here, right now—this bill—will undoubtedly make their energy bills higher in the years to come, because it reduces the potential—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: What a load of rubbish!

It’s not a load of rubbish. So the Minister of Health, who goes on about people’s health and well-being, is supporting a bill which will make it more expensive for frail and struggling New Zealanders in their homes to keep their homes warm.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: What rot!

It’s true. It is absolutely true, because if you are determined to withdraw, over time, gas from the production of electricity in this country, then where will it come from? Are we going to build more dams? I’d be interested to see how that’s going to get past the Greens. Are we going to build more dams? We might have a bit more geothermal electricity but that’s not going to fill the void. You might have a whole lot of wind turbines on every hill in the country, but that doesn’t help you when the wind’s not blowing, does it? So how on earth are we going to get the electricity? Well, you have to massively overbuild electricity generating capacity.

We could perhaps cope with all this if there was an overwhelming benefit to the economy. I started off by saying that what you would expect from any half-respectable Government, before they made a major decision like this, is that they would get decent analysis working out what the cost is going to be, which they haven’t, but at least they’d also have some decent analysis working out what the benefits would be. And what are the benefits? Well, none—none whatsoever for the environment. What we see is that it’s more likely to lead to more global emissions. Why is that? If you’re concerned about reducing New Zealand’s impact on the environment, then you focus on the demand side. You want to reduce the demand from New Zealanders for fossil fuels, and that’s what you would focus on if you were trying to reduce New Zealand’s impact, but that’s not what this bill is about. It’s trying to squeeze the supply.

Well, if New Zealanders still want to drive their cars and they still want to use their electricity based on gas and they still want to cook their dinners based on gas, the only consequence is that we’ll have to import that gas from offshore. And that will lead to more emissions as all that gas is carried at great expense across the Tasman from Australia or wherever. And then, if we can’t produce the methanol, which has created many, many jobs, well, then it will be produced somewhere else based on gas. So the analysis that was done—a pretty short analysis; it should have been done before the decision was made—shows that it will have a negative effect on the environment.

So what have we got? We’ve got a bill that is going to cost New Zealanders billions and billions of dollars, remove opportunities from New Zealand families to get ahead, make it more expensive for them to live their ordinary lives, and with no decent environmental outcome. I cannot understand why anybody on that side of the House would vote for this bill, and if they do—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak this evening. I also thank the member Paul Goldsmith for his contribution, because his compatriots who were speaking before him were on message, online, and, to be fair, they were making me angry. But then Mr Goldsmith got up and he just took the wind out of the entire side of the argument on that side of the House. That member, Mr Goldsmith, spoke about vandalism. Well, the only vandalism that I can speak to and attest to, of any member in this House, is Mr Goldsmith’s vandalism of his own hoardings in not the last election but the election before. That’s the only vandalism we have on record in this House, so it is a bit rich for the member to use those particular words.

💬 Brett Hudson: Yeah, selling out the regions by New Zealand First.

Yeah, well, they use the words “selling out”.

What I do have to say this evening is congratulations to the National members on the other side of the House, because their fearmongering has been incredibly effective. I have been into New Plymouth and Taranaki many times, before and after the announcement from the Prime Minister, and the engagement has been fantastic and the conversations have been incredibly positive.

So let me put this in perspective for the members of the New Zealand public who would actually like to hear the actual situation. So, for the benefit of those members opposite, the announcement was made to enable a transition period from gas and oil. This is a transition strategy that will more than likely take 30 years—30 years-plus. Yet what we’ve done here is, as a Government, said and acknowledged that we cannot rely on this source of energy long term. Let’s acknowledge that, let’s discuss that now, and let’s develop a legislative strategy going forward. This is a generational solution where we transition, and that seems to be lost on the members opposite.

Since the announcement, for example, there has been more than $100 million invested in Taranaki and the oil and gas industry by the oil and gas industry of Taranaki. They have invested in oil and gas, in the gas solution, because they know, like we do, that gas is a transitional energy that we need to take advantage of, as the member Mr Young himself pointed out in his contribution. Yet the members opposite seem to close their eyes to the fact that this is not the book closing now; this is merely a turning of a page, where we will continue to work on this for the next 30 years. Thankfully, New Zealand businesses—and overseas business, actually—have invested more than $100 million in Taranaki post the announcement from the Government, because they agree with us: this is a transition energy and we need to make sure that we take advantage of it.

The fearmongering of gas prices for cars is abhorrent. This Government is also working on solutions for alternative energy vehicles. We’re looking at the electric vehicles. I’m personally doing a lot of work in the foreign affairs space. I’m trying to engage overseas investment in hydrogen, so that we can look at hydrogen as a solution for large vehicles or transit vehicles in New Zealand. Already, there are examples of that around the world, whereas those members opposite seem to close their eyes to the fact that China themselves, India themselves, have declared openly that they cannot and will not continue to rely on oil and gas and coal as their energy solutions. They themselves have said they are making rapid progress towards their own low-carbon futures. They themselves, who those members opposite seem to insinuate we’re going to source our energy from, have made those brave decisions about what the future of energy looks like.

💬 Jonathan Young: You were already doing it before you made this decision.

So this—yeah, we’re already doing it. Good on you. Yes. Yeah, we’ve got an acknowledgment from the other side of the House that we are already doing it and we are on the road to transition.

I would like to add to that that this is not the end of anything. As the member from the area knows all too well, I have been into his electorate many times, and the conversations with those big exploration companies—and they know it: if it’s there, go and get it, go and get it, and if it’s as big as Māui, if we’ve got 30 years out of it or 50 years out of it, long may that continue. But the industry knows that we, this Government, will support that exploration. We are giving them years to have confidence and make that investment, and I have heard that first-hand from those who would make those critical decisions to gamble those tens of millions of dollars.

It is a very big gamble for those companies, and I appreciate that. It is their money that they are gambling with, so this side of the House says, “We will give you the time you need to make those decisions, to invest, to take the gamble, and, by goodness, you will make some money out of it.” And fair enough, because it’s a risky business and we want them to do well in it, as long as New Zealand is benefiting from it and as long as they do it safely, sustainably, and comply with our environmental laws—and all the while, security of supply and solutions for the transition from oil and gas.

Actually, just to use a couple of minutes up, there are examples around New Zealand already of industry that were, as of a year ago, looking at gas as their main sources of energy. I won’t go into who it is and what they are doing—it might be confidential and I don’t want to give anything away; they gave me a briefing. They themselves, before there was any question about this announcement or any of this—I don’t know how to describe it politely—nonsense from the other side of the House, were making their own decisions to say, actually, even gas probably isn’t the transition fuel for them, that they needed, themselves, to look at alternative energy solutions for their operations. We’re talking tens of megawatt operations, and they are going to move away from gas. The Government didn’t ask them to; the Government didn’t say they had to. They, as good citizens of the world, have said, “As big business, we need to go beyond this now.”

So New Zealand First, as a party to this coalition Government, stands in full support of this legislation. Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think someone should get some help for the previous speaker, Mr Tabuteau, because I think, right now, that Mr Tabuteau is probably choking on the big dead rat that he had to swallow. What I will say for Fletcher Tabuteau is that at least Fletcher Tabuteau stood up in this House and talked about some of the other options that may be available on transition, and that’s something that I’ve heard from that member that I’ve not heard from any other speakers that have got up tonight. We’ve heard about burning the earth and all this scaremongering stuff that’s going on, and Fletcher Tabuteau’s contribution was much more constructive than that. I would imagine that if Fletcher Tabuteau was in Cabinet and not an under-secretary, then maybe Cabinet might have paid a bit more interest in this decision.

We have actually witnessed something that has been disastrous for Taranaki. We have witnessed it being disastrous for New Zealand. It is disastrous for climate change, and we didn’t even get the opportunity for Cabinet to debate it, let alone any consultation along the way.

Now, everyone talks about the oil and gas industry and how this Government’s going to transition it. Doesn’t this Government actually think that the people with the knowledge to do the transition might be in the oil and gas industry? We’ve got a whole oversupply of sudden experts over here, who know so much about the oil and gas industry that they’ve decided that this is not going to be a transition; this is going to be the big bang theory. New Zealand is closed for business, and they can talk about the 30 years and the permits and all of this other stuff that they bang on and rattle on about as members on the other side, but, actually, when you put up a sign that says “Closed for business”, people start looking elsewhere.

Transition actually means that we have to start from where we are today, and we have to end up going to some other place, and you don’t do that by announcing the stopping of what we’re doing now. As a knowledgable member on this topic, Jonathan Young, said, you’re actually banning innovation. You are banning innovation. You are attacking—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I just want to encourage—please.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

The Government is banning innovation by attacking the very people who have the ability to make a transition. And guess what: there will be no one more interested in a smooth transition to renewable energy than the people who are in the industry of energy. Because, guess what: if they don’t, they will have a dead business, and this is exactly what this Government is doing to them.

I think it’s rather rich that the Prime Minister made this announcement and then travelled off overseas on jet fuel—travelling off overseas again on jet fuel—and it is all about making an announcement on the global stage about how good New Zealand is and how great we are and how we’re going to deal to climate change. Well, guess what: every piece of advice on this has been ignored around climate change.

You can talk about this being a climate change issue—an environmental issue. Well, apart from being an economic disaster and a job-loss disaster, this actually is likely to be the thing that’s going to reverse the climate change. And then guess what, Ms Russell: the earth will actually start to warm up. So watch out.

It’s been a very bad process. This is a Government that has 153 working groups, I think I counted last time; it may be more than that now. And this major, major, major decision was not even put through Cabinet. One person I will commend within the Labour Government was the Hon Andrew Little, because Andrew Little is the only person in the Labour Party that has made the effort to front up to Taranaki. We heard before about the Prime Minister coming to Taranaki. Well, it was a closed meeting not a public meeting, so what does that say? How proud is the Prime Minister about that announcement when she can go and stand on a global stage and make a big noise about how wonderful this Government is and she can’t even come and front up to the people of Taranaki? So I do commend Andrew Little for that. At least he stood in that seat a couple of times. At least he’s committed to Taranaki. Ms Russell hails from Taranaki as well, so she might want to come back and actually come and explain why there was no consultation process with this whole announcement.

So I wonder what this Government’s going to do when the lights go out, because when the natural gas doesn’t flow from this country any more, we will have to import some, because we are in transition. But what happens when we’ve got a whole country of electric cars? How many more dams do we need to build?

💬 Jonathan Young: Twenty-two Clydes.

Oh, about 22 Clyde Dams we’re going to have to build to drive a country full of electric cars. Has the Government thought about whose backyard these dams are going to be built in? We all know the story about water storage. We all know the story about irrigation. We all know that nobody wants anything like that in their backyard. So what’s going to happen when these electric cars won’t go, and what’s going to happen when the lights don’t go on? This decision has been based on paper-thin evidence, because all of the evidence that’s been offered by officials to this Cabinet and this Government has been ignored. It’s been done against the advice of the officials, and our mayor, Neil Holdom, did say publicly on television a couple of days ago—and he has said it before—that “The Government has no plan.” A transition involves a plan, and this Government has no plan.

It beggars belief, for me, that this decision has nothing at all to do with climate change; it’s virtue signalling to the world. It’s just being out there on the world stage. It’s always nicely timed so that we can make these big global announcements, but we know that to be economically and environmentally effective, we have to run with the world—we can’t go ahead of it. What’s going to happen is we’re going to start seeing countries burning more coal. We’re probably going to have to start burning more coal ourselves. We already have to burn coal in very cold weather because we haven’t transitioned enough to get away from coal. So how are we going to effect that transition? It’s something that I’d like to hear from one of the members—at least one of the members—when they get up on the other side of the House. If we’re already, in the last winter, going back to burning coal because we’re running out of energy on cold days, how without natural gas are we going to get away from burning coal in the future? It’s just worth a thought or two. I’d also like to ask them how they’re going to go through the process of resource management when they have to build something like 22 dams.

So, look, if I look around Taranaki—and I don’t know how many of you people have been there; I know that Ms Russell came from there, and Andrew Little spends a bit of time in Taranaki—you’ve only got to go around Taranaki to know what good, social, corporate people our oil companies are. There are plaques and signs everywhere to infrastructure. They have spent a huge amount of money on infrastructure. They do have a massive social heart. They do have an interest in the environment. They do have the funding to be able affect it. I wonder how this Government is going to effect so much change with $8 billion that’s going to come out of the Government’s funds. That’s not counting the money that’s going to come out of the industry funds. It’s not counting the money that’s going to come out of job losses, out of the communities. It’s all very well to say, “Oh, yeah, you know, it’ll be fine. Business will carry on.” I can tell you that in Taranaki every little coffee shop, every little business, and every person in Taranaki that I’ve talked to is extremely worried about the future of Taranaki, and we’ve got some potential to take this future and do something with it and help the climate change on this planet.

So I would ask this Government to open their eyes, and if they really want to do something to help—

💬 Brett Hudson: And open their minds.

And their minds; thank you, Brett. If they want to do something to help climate change in this world, then they should actually reverse this decision.

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. What doom and gloom merchants the National Party are. Not content with talking down business confidence repeatedly, they are now talking down the future of our country. They are so pessimistic. They have so little faith in the ability of Aotearoa New Zealand to provide an alternative future—one that is carbon-zero; one that doesn’t rely on coal—it beggars belief. The previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, was talking about the lights going out, about the end of gas. The previous speaker doesn’t seem to recognise that Todd has got a $100 million investment in gas peaking, that Methanex is extending their gas supply into the late 2020s at least, or that Genesis Energy has recently confirmed that they are certain of gas supply into at least the 2030s. Deal with the facts, National. Have some more optimism about the future of our country.

That pessimism, and the thought too that we will need 23 dams—National obviously hasn’t heard of investments in solar, in wind, in the capability of investment in bioenergy, all of the technology development and resource consent applications for wind. And so we hear again and again from National that this bill—Mr Goldsmith said it was “an act of economic vandalism”. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, because what we are hearing from National are tired, hackneyed lines that they want to support the oil and gas industry at the expense of the climate—

💬 Matt King: And you know best, eh? You know best!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order, Mr King!

—propping up the oil and gas industry, and not thinking about—there is no point in protecting the revenues of that industry if we are going to fry the climate. You cannot have a business if climate change is inundating the world with more severe storm events. The National Party seems to have its eyes closed to the events recently in the Philippines, the more severe typhoon events. That is a consequence of a changing climate, yet National wants to continue with business as usual. Despite having signed up in Paris, it doesn’t want to make the change.

This bill is about initiating a fair transition. It’s about signalling that we have got to make significant changes in the way we do business and in the way we generate energy if we are going to get to carbon-zero by 2050 and if we are going to shift our economy on to one that protects the climate rather than undermining it by promoting further oil and gas exploration. It’s sending a very clear signal to the industry, and that’s because on this side of the House we’re about a sustainable, productive, and inclusive economy, not one that belongs in the 20th century and further back.

There have been huge cyclical changes in commodity prices in global exploration. We saw a major decline in that in 2014, after the sharp drop in oil prices. That causes job losses, and that creates uncertainty in regions like Taranaki. We want a future where people can depend on ongoing jobs. That future is in sustainable energy. That future is in diversifying our economic base. That future is in a billion trees and the economic opportunities that that provides. That future is in some of the alternatives that the Provincial Growth Fund has been investing in. Yet National is still business as usual, business as usual, not making the transition.

We heard from Mr Young about how he was concerned that the bill prohibits anything other than minimum activities on conservation land. When I have been to Taranaki—several times, recently—what I hear is enormous enthusiasm for the Taranaki Mounga Project, which is the partnership between iwi, the Department of Conservation, community organisations, and landholders around the mountain in getting rid of predators. This Government isn’t opening up conservation land to big new mining as Gerry Brownlee wanted to do under the former Government. Mr Young, I’m reminded of the 40,000-plus people who walked down Queen Street protesting about your former Government’s plans to have mining in national parks. This Government recognises that protection of our public conservation lands is about protecting the landscapes which sustain our tourism industry and is about protecting Brand New Zealand and the marketing of our primary sector and food and fibre products overseas. The public expects public conservation land to be protected, not open to oil and gas exploration, and not open to drilling and more mining.

This is a reforming Government. National is stuck in the past; it doesn’t want to make the change. This bill is about ensuring that there is a transition, that there is a smooth operation of the block offers in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and making that major change: no more deep-sea oil and gas exploration and only onshore exploration in the Taranaki region. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr King, would you not have conversations across the Chamber. I apologise.

This is the first part of changes to the Crown Minerals Act. The Green Party is looking forward to the second tranche of changes. We want a change to the purpose of the Act, because, at the moment, it gives favoured status to the minerals industry because the Act talks about promoting. It’s got a purpose of promoting prospecting and exploration of Crown-owned minerals rather than regulating the industry, so it is not a level playing field by any means. And this bill is the first stage of those changes.

It is a major achievement. It’s a major line in the sand for this Government in saying we take climate change seriously. We want to protect our country’s long-term future. We want to signal clearly to the industry “No more deep-sea oil and gas exploration.”, because there are multiple scientific reports showing that at least two-thirds of known oil and gas reserves need to stay in the ground if we are not to fry the planet. And yet the National Party seems to be in denial about that. So it’s just tired, tired lines from the Opposition—a pessimism about the future of our country, a pessimism about the enormous capacity that New Zealanders have for innovation, for change, for moving to more sustainable energy sources, and for finding different sources of employment and investment from oil and gas in Taranaki and other regions.

I commend this bill. The Green Party is very pleased to support it. There will be four weeks of submissions, and it is total nonsense of the Opposition to say that Cabinet did not discuss this bill. Legislation does not get to this Parliament unless it is agreed by Cabinet committees and Cabinet. There has been full discussion of this bill, and there will be further discussion at select committee. The myths and nonsense that the National Party is putting around are all because they are in denial. They don’t want to innovate. They belong in the past—that’s why they’re on the Opposition benches.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to join my colleagues this evening in opposing the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I oppose it not because I don’t care for our natural environment. I oppose it not because I don’t believe in climate change. I oppose it because I care about our regions and the impact on their economies.

I rise tonight with a real sense of sadness. I speak tonight on this bill, which will have such a profound impact on our regional economies. When we speak about the economy, it’s important to remember what that means. An economy isn’t some abstract theory; an economy is jobs. As we know, jobs are so important—not just for a regular pay packet, which keeps a family fed and housed and with the lights on. A job is a sense of purpose. Every study, every piece of research ever done, shows the importance of having someone in a household in work. It impacts massively on criminal offending, on truancy, on health outcomes, and on ongoing welfare dependency. As Willie Jackson and Shane Jones will be finding, it is so much harder to get a young person into work if the concept of work is foreign to that young person.

This bill has affected business confidence. It’s not just this bill, of course; it’s the compounding impact of employment law changes, of increased taxes, and of cutting $5 billion out of the State highway network. But business confidence is now at historic lows, and, despite what the members opposite say, that has had an effect. We’ve seen it already on employment. When National left Government, we were creating more than 10,000 jobs every month for more than two years. That’s dropped now, and the reason it’s dropped is because business confidence has dropped, and that will affect places like Auckland and Wellington and Christchurch. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. I have already asked the House not to have conversations across the Chamber. Members on both sides will cease and desist from doing that.

But where the impact will be felt most of all isn’t in those main centres; it’s in regional New Zealand. My colleague Jonathan Young has already spoken about the impact in Taranaki, but I urge members opposite to go to the West Coast and discuss with people there the chilling impact that this legislation has had on business confidence on the West Coast. My colleague Maureen Pugh is exactly right: they won’t do it; they won’t be seen there. Taranaki is all about oil and gas. It’s a $2.5 billion industry nationwide. It employs 11,000 people—that’s 11,000 pay packets, 11,000 families fed and housed, and 11,000 families who won’t end up on the wrong side of statistics. The majority of those 11,000 people are employed in the Taranaki region. Oil and gas accounts for 41 percent of Taranaki’s GDP—41 percent. Members opposite claim that no jobs will be lost—no jobs will be lost. Absolute rubbish.

On the day that this announcement was made to ban exploration offshore for oil and gas, Fitzroy Engineering, the largest engineering company in Taranaki, instituted a hiring freeze. They employ 400 people, but they’re not hiring any more. The industry in Taranaki will be slowly strangled over the next few years, and those 11,000 jobs will be lost.

I’m speaking, of course, about the industry now, about the jobs lost that exist now, about the GDP lost that exists now, and about the export revenue lost that exists now. I haven’t spoken about the potential. There is huge potential for other regions around New Zealand with oil and gas. In Southland, where my good friend Hamish Walker is the MP, there is massive potential with the Great South Basin; on the East Coast, where we have the hard-working MP Anne Tolley; and in Northland, where the MP is an interesting chap named Matt King.

In my electorate of Rangitata, the Barque gas development would have created 3,100 jobs—3,100 jobs. It was projected to deliver $32 billion in taxes and royalties alone. But those 3,100 jobs are the most important things that we’ve potentially lost as a result of this announcement—3,100 pay packets that would have been spent in local shops, and 3,100 families fed and housed in one of the most beautiful parts of the country. As we’ve seen in Taranaki, those are some of the most high-paying jobs that any industry can create in New Zealand—often in the range of six figures. That would have been a huge boost to Timaru and their efforts to attract more people to the town and, particularly, to encourage young families to move there.

It’s the sort of boost that we’ll never see from a Shane Jones billion-dollar fund. That was a sop to New Zealand First for all the anti-growth policies that they’re having to vote for, and it’s a drop in the bucket when you add up all the losses across all the industries that are being affected by those policies—that is, if we ever see any of it. More than 95 percent of that fund has been spent in the North Island—95 percent—and spent overwhelmingly in one region alone, which is that of Northland, the home region of Shane Jones. Not a cent—not a single cent—has been spent so far in mid-Canterbury or in South Canterbury, and for what? We ask ourselves: for what? Why is the Government passing this legislation?

They’ve spoken opposite—particularly Deborah Russell, who has spoken very eloquently—about the fact that we’re burning the planet and we’re burning the environment. Well, what does the Government’s own advice tell them? I turn to the report from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—their own advice—which says that the “net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive.”—more likely to be negative than positive. They go on to say that there’s a likely increase in global greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term. So when members opposite try and lecture us on burning the planet, all they need to do is read the Government’s own advice, which says that this bill, this piece of legislation, will increase global emissions in the short to medium term.

This bill—the announcement was made several months ago, before the Prime Minister went overseas. As has been said by other members, it was done without any sort of Cabinet process. It was literally a phone call from the Prime Minister to one of her colleagues before she flew out the following day. That poor process has continued. They’re now proposing to send this bill off to select committee for just four weeks.

💬 Maureen Pugh: How many?

Four weeks. This bill will literally shut down an industry in Taranaki, and they’re proposing to take it out for consultation for just four weeks. It’s absolutely outrageous. It’s an absolute sham of a process to give people four weeks when it’s going to impact on 11,000 jobs—11,000 families. To give people just four weeks to make their feelings known, to tell this Government why it shouldn’t be passed, is absolutely outrageous. We will oppose this bill at every opportunity.

The next call is a split call.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. If there’s ever an example of the difference between the previous Government and this current Government, it’s this bill here. The previous regime, to quote their leader John Key, said the Government would be a fast follower on climate change. This Government will be a leader on climate change. We aim to take a lead. Yes, we’re a small country, but we can be an example to other countries around the world. This is about vision.

We had a briefing here by Meridian Energy recently at Parliament, and they said that if the temperature of the world increases by 3 degrees—3 degrees—then we can only sustain 1 billion people. So if we increase by 3 degrees, the population somehow has to go from 7 billion to 8 billion down to 1 billion.

Climate change is the number one issue facing our planet. It’s bigger than war and famine, which are the usual challenges we’re facing, and it’s linked to those, as well. So I’m proud to be part of a Government who are taking a lead on climate change. I’m proud of our Minister Megan Woods, who stated before in her speech that we’ve begun the 30- to 40-year journey to a zero-carbon economy. There’s a clear plan in place: a managed transition to clean energy.

We heard from Paul Goldsmith around heating costs. He said that this will increase heating costs. The reality is that if we don’t look after our planet and we’re all dead, you can’t warm a corpse, anyway. The economic benefits—there’s no economy if there’s no planet.

So this is an example of a Government taking a lead, having vision, treating climate change with the respect that it deserves, and making a difference. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I call Lee—Erica Stanford.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also answer to “Denise Lee”.

This is a Government that loves working groups—150-odd, or one every couple of days. They love them. They love spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants, bureaucrats, experts—they love spending up large on consultation. What, $1.5 million for a justice summit? The next one’s going to be much the same, and $3 million on a couple of education summits. They’re not afraid of a committee.

They’re not afraid of spending money. In fact, they love it, except when it comes to the environment—or except when it comes to this bill, in fact—except when it comes to an industry that pays really high wages, employs really skilled people, and provides us with a pathway to transition to a low-emissions future, and except when it comes to facing up to our emissions profile and making good, evidence-based decisions on the best things we can do to transition to a low-emissions economy, because when it comes to these things, this Government is woeful.

When this decision was made—when Jacinda Ardern came out and made this statement—we had not a single working group. Not a single dollar had been spent on a summit—not a single croissant, not a single report, not a single industry group consulted, not a single Cabinet paper brought, not a single cost-benefit analysis, and not a single piece of evidence about how this bill would reduce global emissions, not even our own—and we have to ask ourselves why that is.

Why is it that our environment and this bill get such a raw deal when, at the same time, this Government is spending millions of dollars consulting out there? It is spending millions of dollars on its flash online campaign when it comes to the relatively simple task of banning plastic bags, yet for something that is our nuclear-free moment of our generation, to quote our Prime Minister, proper process is not important—not important at all. Consultation—not really important. Working groups—not important. Summits—not important. Proof or evidence of emissions reduction—not important. So if these things aren’t important for this bill, what is important?

What is so important that we are willing to risk our environment by having such a substandard process—what is it? It’s quite simple, really. It can be summed up in one word: image.

It’s April 2018. Jacinda Ardern is heading to Europe to meet with Macron, Merkel, and May, and you can imagine the people in the Beehive: “We need to make her look like an eco-warrior. We need to make her look like a champion of climate change. We need something to make her live up to all that pre-election puffery. We need that photo op.” So we ended up with the infamous April 12 announcement of no new offshore oil and gas exploration, which has resulted, six months later, in this bill.

This bill and a lack of process is not only economic vandalism; I would argue that it is environmental vandalism. It’s total and utter virtue signalling, symbolic rubbish that from a policy perspective is going to be detrimental to New Zealand—from an economic and security perspective, and you’ve heard that from speakers before me—but, most importantly, for me, this is detrimental to New Zealand from an environmental perspective. Labour and the Greens are misleading New Zealanders into believing that this decision is somehow going to be a fundamental shift into benefiting our environment. The reality is that with the absence of any proper research and any proper process this Government has brought forward a bill that will not reduce a single emission—in fact, from their own officials, we get a report that says exactly the opposite.

The net effect of this bill, in fact, will be an uptick on the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point, because this Government are not focusing on what is important, which is the demand. They’re not willing to invest in vehicle efficiency. They’ve done nothing about fuel efficiency. They’ve been woefully inadequate in improving the uptake of electric vehicles—49 percent of our emissions come from vehicles. This Government should be focused on fixing the demand problem. Cutting the supply will only increase the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point. Not only that; they’re now demanding that the production is done overseas in countries that don’t have resource management Acts, don’t have exclusive economic zone Acts, and don’t have an Environmental Protection Agency. All we are doing is shifting production to where quality and environmental oversight is far worse, and the environmental outcomes are far worse.

To quote Brian Fallow, just to finish off with, “This policy is self-righteous … [virtue signalling,] environmentally pointless, economically costly … politically counter-productive to the Government’s own agenda of climate change.” But, hey, Jacinda Ardern got that photo, and I’ve heard that she’s got a speech in the UN tomorrow, so luckily we’re in urgency to complete this first reading. Thank you.

This next call is a split call. I call David Seymour.

Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about a New Zealand where this Parliament does things right, where it makes laws that will stand the test of being measured not by their intentions, which always sound good from this Government, but by their outcomes. I’d like to spell out, in the faint hope that the Government will get it, what is wrong with this bill and the policy announcement from back in April behind it—not based on its intentions but its outcomes.

We’ve heard what the intentions are—that New Zealand will be seen as a leader in the world, that New Zealand will be seen as a country that is prepared to take bold action to solve global problems, and that our esteem as a nation will increase, whilst, at the same time, we introduce legislation in this House and policy from this Government that will take us into the future, to a more technologically sophisticated future, with lower emissions. Those are the intentions: a leader on the world stage with better environmental outcomes. Sadly, the outcome, in reality, is that we look like fools on the world stage, we are viewed as a place that is dangerous to do business, and we find ourselves, if anything, ending up with higher environmental impacts from the same activities that we would have had otherwise.

Let me just explain how this works. You see, only a Government like this would ban looking for more oil and gas resources about seven or eight years before the biggest field we have runs out. It’s been said by the great economist Thomas Sowell that a lot of policy making is simply being prepared to relentlessly ask the question what happens next? So what happens next when the known reserves run out? Well, the Government says that there will be new renewable energy sources. Well, I happen to be the only trained electrical engineer in this House, and I can tell you that there is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace the need for peak load generation from gas.

The facts are that having not let anybody look for oil and gas reserves in New Zealand for the past decade or two, we will one day find ourselves in a position where our alternatives are switch out the lights—you just have to ask Australian Prime Ministers what the political implications of that are—or the implications might be to dig up something else that is readily available that we have lots of but is not so good for the climate, and it’s called coal. Or another alternative, as we’ve just heard from Erica Stanford, might be to import oil and gas resources at great expense from foreign countries where they do not have the same environmental protections that we do.

If you doubt that, you only need to consult the regulatory impact statement. I’m proud to say, as a former parliamentary under-secretary for regulatory reform, I helped design those templates, which have shown up quite how bad this Government is on this particular policy. They will tell you—and Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—that actually there won’t be environmental impacts, in a positive sense, from this policy. So let’s just get this straight. The intention is we lead the world in environmental policy. The outcome is the world thinks we’re foolish idiots in a kind of banana republic that can’t make laws in a predictable, principled, or stable way, and, at best, a whole lot of new technology will come along and make this legislation redundant, because no one will want to dig up anything they find anyway. At worst, we end up either burning coal or importing dirty oil and gas from foreign jurisdictions.

I mean, it’s actually difficult to get through to this Government quite how stupid this bill is. What a shame. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m delighted to speak at the first reading of this bill. This is a momentous piece of legislation, and this is a momentous day for our country. I want to acknowledge Minister Woods, the Minister of Energy and Resources, for taking the bold move, taking the big first step that we are doing, and upholding our commitments as a Government that we’ve laid down in introducing this bill to the House. This is so momentous for so many reasons. This bill is being lauded by many folks up and down the country but especially by Māori. I want to just use my opportunity to speak on this reading to acknowledge all of the Māori groups that have stood for kaitiakitanga, that have stood for their customary rights in the moana and on their ancestral lands, and who have been standing up against the fossil fuel industry, especially.

In the time that I have, I want to acknowledge and I want to do a big mihi out to my whanaungas up in Te Tai Tokerau, up in the North—in particular, Te Rōpū Taikaha. I acknowledge the huge mahi that they have put in over the years, in particular, Mike Smith, Hinekaa Mako—I know Hinekaa comes from a very fine whānau—and Te Wāni Ōtene. They’ve fought for many years, protesting oil exploration in the Te Reinga Basin, and I know that they will be watching and tuning into this, so I mihi to them this evening.

I want to also acknowledge the iwi of Ngāti Kuri, Ngāti Kahu, and Te Rarawa up in the Far North, up in Mr King’s territory, who have also joined in those efforts, along with Te Rōpū Taikaha.

I want to go to the Tai Rāwhiti, to the great East Coast, and acknowledge Te Whānau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou, who protested the Petrobras permit. We know the efforts that they went to, under great persecution from the previous Government too, I might add, back in 2010, when they even had the police and the navy turned on them—all for what? For standing up for their moana and activating their mana whenua, mana moana, and kaitiakitanga rights. So I mihi to our whanaunga on the East Coast—in particular, Dayle Takitimu, Adelaide Waititi, and the whole whānau of Te Whānau-a-Apanui. They are active leaders—active leaders—in this area, who brought that massive petition of 140,000 signatures to this House back in 2012. So I acknowledge them for all of their efforts.

And, of course, moving to the south, to my great electorate of Te Tai Tonga. I want to acknowledge all of the folks up and down the great Te Wai Pounamu who have also had their share of protest—the likes of the groups that were in New Brighton beach, braving the icy winds, last year, but also my own whanaunga down in Ngāti Kuri, down in Kaikōura. We know how special Kaikōura is, and we’ve put in special legislation to protect marine mammal sanctuaries and the beautiful taonga that they have there. And I know that they are celebrating the first reading of this bill tonight as well. Last but not least, I want to acknowledge the iwi of Te Tai Hauāuru, Taranaki, in particular Ngāti Ruanui, who have been very active in this space over many years, not only on the oil and gas but also with the seabed mining as well. So, you know, this is an opportunity they can all share in, and they can rejoice that we are bringing this legislation into the House this evening.

As we know, we are introducing a just transition to move away from oil and gas exploration. We’re not cutting it off at the knees as we speak. No, we’re not. All we’re doing is changing the settings for the next block offer, and that’s why we need to hasten the passage of this legislation—so we can bring that into effect. We will not be offering new offshore oil and gas exploration permits, but the existing permit holders will be able to run the course of their existing permits, and, likewise, we will continue block offers, but they will be limited to the onshore parts of Taranaki.

So that is a very sensible approach that we’re taking, but we are taking a leadership position. We are looking to the future, and we know that that future will be carbon-zero. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too stand tonight to speak to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I have to say that this is a sad day for us in this Parliament. To be dealing with a bill like this and the potential impacts for this country is very sobering. We’re literally rushing through yet another piece of legislation. What this bill is going to do is effect a ban on oil and gas exploration, which was announced seven months ago by the Prime Minister and the Minister, and only discussed within Cabinet two weeks ago. The effect of this bill is going to be that we are going to cost this country tens of billions of dollars in revenue, and we are also going to end up with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The reason we have this bill in the House is because if the Government had actually tried to push on with the ban under the current law, it actually would have found itself at risk of being challenged in court, because the Crown Minerals Act’s purpose is, and I quote, “to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” Well, unfortunately, those principles are being thrown out the window with this new bill. And what it’s done, in effect, already, is it has scared away the potential investment into this country, and that’s because of the uncertainty over long-term gas supplies.

The oil and gas sector in this country contributes $2.5 billion a year to our GDP figures. Now, the ban also shows the arrogance of this Government, because it has ignored the advice and it has absolutely no idea about long-term investment cycles. Now, to give you an example about the impact of this caution that is now in the sector, Ballance Agri-Nutrients—they’ve this year decided to can a billion-dollar rebuild of its Kapuni factory, and that’s a direct result of this bill. Methanex, the second major natural gas consumer, has halted its new investment, putting on hold a $100 million expansion of its Taranaki plant.

This is the kind of bill that stifles the very innovation and advances that the Productivity Commission actually says should be part of our response to climate change. It’s stifling that investment. It was well articulated before by my colleague Erica Stanford: where is R & D that actually goes into the investment into the technologies to reduce emissions? I come from the West Coast and I’m a very proud West Coaster. Over there, extractive industries are a huge part of our economy and a huge part of our history. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mining coal, mining gold, or mining oil; it’s what we do with it afterwards that causes the problems. Why not invest in the technology that actually reduces the emissions from those products?

Now, the Minister has very generously given this bill a four-week submission period—four weeks. Now, if we were going to make changes to the Dog Control Act or something quite minor, we’d actually go out to the community for six weeks, as a typical open, transparent Government would.

I’ll mention a Mr John Kidd from Woodward Partners. He was quoted in the media recently saying that the reason that this is being rushed through is so that Block Offer 2018 can proceed, but what it’s actually going to do is cause so much uncertainty. He’s actually said publicly that holding up the block offer as the reason to fast track this legislation review is, therefore, and I quote, “disingenuous and serves only to mask the true objective of seeking to minimise public discussion and critique”—this is for the most open and transparent Government ever. Now, how many times have we heard that quoted back to this Government, about the most open transparent Government? There is never a day goes by now that we don’t find a reason to criticise them for being the most open and transparent Government ever! Well, Mr Kidd went on to say that the Government should actually can Block Offer 2018 and take time to get the legislation right and then carry on with Block Offer 2019.

Now, both of the projects that I talked about before would have helped reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, but, unfortunately, this Government, in its ill-conceived ban on oil and gas exploration, is having a major impact on the innovation and technology sector. So, unfortunately, this Government doesn’t seem to get the point about the long lead-in times that some industries need and rely on. So what this Government is doing, in effect, is giving the sector cold feet. And they’re going to vote with their feet. Now, I can tell you that National will overturn this ban when it’s back in Government in 2020, and it’s going to make sure that there will be room to meet the challenges of climate change, as well.

We’ve also talked a lot about some of the other projects going on around the country, but I’d like to mention the one off the east coast of the South Island, and that’s the Barque prospect. That will be lost to New Zealand for ever if New Zealand Oil and Gas cannot find themselves a willing partner. Well, actually, who would want to? Who would want to partner now in an industry with so much uncertainty hanging over its head? I think this is going to be the demise of this country. We’re going to see the losses from these potential businesses, and when I’m talking about the Barque one—that’s actually a transformational project down there—that’s thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue. Just think about how many more schools, hospitals, social services, and how much more infrastructure we could build in this country with that kind of income.

Now, this Government is so naive and so arrogant that it’s actually turned its back on its own officials and expert advisers. It’s laughable if it wasn’t so jolly sad. How many of these profits from these companies and these potential businesses have they lost for this country? Well, we know now, from the Government’s own experts and advisers, that it’s around $8 billion lost in this particular offshore project. Those profits are only to the Government’s finances. It doesn’t include the companies’ profits, it doesn’t include the wages, and it doesn’t include all of the trickle-down businesses that support that industry.

What it’s going to do is have an impact on energy prices, as well, because we’re going to have to import them. We certainly can’t import them cheaper than we can produce them here in New Zealand, down on this little group of islands at the bottom of world, so how are we going to fill that energy void? Some of the figures that I’ve seen indicate that in about 18 months, the supply of gas in this country is going to be in decline, and those exports will be necessary then. So perhaps we’ll build more solar or perhaps we’ll build more dams, but, of course, they all take steel and concrete. Where are we going to get that from? We can’t take the coal out of the ground and we can’t get the steel, and where are we going to get the copper from to run the electricity out to all those plugs that we’re going to park our electric vehicles at and charge up? All of those things are coming from the extractive industries.

This ban is about real people. This isn’t about a just transition; this is just ruination.

If ever there was an example of the difference between the National Party and this coalition Government, we are seeing it tonight. This conservative, negative, backward approach to how we’re going to go forward in this country is evident on that side of the House. What we are seeing tonight is the attitude that this country saw when the Labour Government wanted to ban nuclear activity in this country: no nuclear war ships, no nuclear activity, making a stand on the world stage, and the National Party stood against it and said that it would ruin this country, that it would undermine our relationships with our overseas partners. Did it? Did it jot! It strengthened our place in the world, and that is exactly what this decision is going to do.

We have heard tonight that this is going to be the demise of this country. If this bill was going to be the demise of this country, I ask a very simple question: would the Opposition roll out Maureen Pugh to put forward their arguments? Absolutely not. Would the Opposition bring out Andrew Falloon to put forward their arguments? No, they wouldn’t. Where is their leadership? Where are the senior members of the National Party to put forward their argument about something that’s going to be the demise of this country? What a joke. Those members over there do not believe what they’re saying, because what they’re saying is not true. What we heard from Maureen Pugh was that investment was running away from this country because of this bill.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The suggestion that the member just made was totally inappropriate and brings this House into disrepute. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which comment?

Tim van de Molen: Well, I’m not sure that I should be repeating it, to be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker. The comment that speeches made by this side of the House—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are not telling the truth?

Tim van de Molen: —were untrue.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. You’re quite right. I will ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let’s look at the list of investments that contradict the statement that was made by Maureen Pugh. Maureen Pugh stated that investment is being driven out of this country because of this bill. Let’s have a look at this: $100 million in gas peaking confirmed by Todd after the announcement of this bill. Look at Methanex confirming a gas contract to the 2020s—after the confirmation of this bill. Now, if all that the National Party has to contradict these facts is a point of order, I think we’re going to know who’s going to come out on top of this argument. What about Genesis Energy confirming publicly that they have gas certainty until the 2030s—after the confirmation of this bill? Just last week, there was new exploration activity in Taranaki, and this is supposed to be the region that will be absolutely distraught and decimated as a result of this bill.

What this bill says to the world is that New Zealand is serious about living up to the commitments that the previous Government signed us up to—that the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party actually take those commitments seriously. When our Prime Minister goes overseas and portrays this country to the world, she’s doing it on a platform of truth. I remember John Key, the previous Prime Minister, going over to the UK and portraying New Zealand as “100% Pure”. He took on a commitment with the BBC on HARDtalk and he was absolutely humiliated, and so was the country as a result. Because at no point could he provide any example and any evidence that this country is living up to our commitments in terms of climate change and living up to our “100% Pure” image.

This bill is going a long way to us living up to that commitment. This will help rural New Zealand. It will help our primary industries to live up to the image that we portray to the world. If the National Party think that the future of this country is to try and produce more agricultural products when every other country is trying to catch up, instead of actually getting value-add and high-end products to the most discerning in the world—if we produce those products and we don’t live up to our “100% Pure” brand, no one’s going to buy them. It’s the National Party that will then blame themselves for not supporting what we have to do to actually take a leading role in climate change in this world. I have absolutely no hesitation and am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2018, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Before I accept any speakers on this, can I just advise the House—because I think it’s the first time we’ve had this—that the debate is 10-minute speeches, and it’s quite a narrow debate. I refer anyone to Standing Order 290(3).

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Deputy Speaker.

I call—oh, you’ve just—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yep—I’ll take a call, as well.

You’ve actually sat down, Minister.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh, OK.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can’t even begin, although I’m going to try, to express what an outrage this is, and I’m going to do it in reference to some recent practical experience of select committee consideration of bills under time pressure under this Government. I refer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. You see, much as with this bill, that was a bill that had to be considered, due to external time pressures, in a truncated period. In that particular case, it was due to pressure created by the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was also a bill that had been hastily put together and badly drafted, and let me tell you what transpired.

We had 220 submissions, almost all of them from the business community, almost all of them substantive and intelligent submissions about the effect that this bill would have on their industries. I think, for that reason, that the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill is a very useful benchmark for what might be a reasonable expectation for a select committee to hear about a major regulatory initiative that affects long-term investment in industry in New Zealand, particularly foreign investment, and so I’d like to tell you a little bit more about it.

You see, sometimes things sound simple, but once you get into the detail, they are not simple at all. The basic intention of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill was simply to prevent foreigners buying residential property, just as, in the case of this particular bill, it sounds simple enough: it’s to ban future exploration for oil and gas. What transpired was there were all sorts of difficulties. For instance, what defines a foreign person who might invest in a residential property, and what defines a residential property? Well, it turned out that the definition the Government had chosen in its drafting was a 25 percent offshore stake in ownership, and it turned out that a whole lot of companies that weren’t even considered by most New Zealanders to be foreign met that criteria. And so the committee had to hear from a much wider range of people who were affected than they ever could have anticipated.

I put to the House that the range of people who are affected by this legislation will be much broader than currently anticipated, just as it was with the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill just a few short months ago. I’d put it to you that the nature of the oil and gas industry, ironically enough, is that it is an ecosystem. There is upstream; there’s downstream. There’s the service industry around it. There are the suppliers. There are the people that process the products, not only for energy but into a range of other products. The range of people that will want to have a submission on this particular piece of legislation will be vastly wider than even the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Remember, we heard 220 substantial submissions on that bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. So that’s the first point: the range of people likely to be affected by this bill will be completely impractical to hear within four weeks. It is an outrage.

But secondly, the complexity of issues that get created will be much greater than what is anticipated by the Government as it goes into these legislative processes, again because we’re mainly dealing in unknown unknowns. We don’t know what the complexity will be with this bill, but let me tell you a bit more about what happened with the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Just a few short months—same issue: major regulatory initiative, overseas investment involved, very tight time frames, Government trying to legislate at haste and repent at leisure, and what happened was that we on the committee discovered there were all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, who would have thought that telecommunications companies have to buy residential land in order to put up cell towers every time there’s a new subdivision? So as a result the committee had to consider that, and we ended up exempting registered telecommunications companies from the bill.

But it gets worse. Of course, all of the same arguments, it turned out, applied to electricity distributors. Then we found that, actually, one of the biggest, I guess, safety valves on the demand for housing, or the pressure on the supply of housing, was actually older people in the community moving into retirement villages. Well, as it turns out, all of the big retirement village operators have more than 25 percent foreign ownership. So the Government had inadvertently banned the development of residential property by retirement villages, even though most of those brands—Ryman Healthcare, Metlifecare, etc.—would be considered by most New Zealanders to be New Zealand companies.

This is the kind of complexity that we are going to have once we start to examine this bill. I defy anybody to hear that level of complexity from that number of submitters—which I think will, if anything, be greater and more complex than the nearest equivalent we have to compare this bill with this year. It will not just take more than four weeks; it probably would be reasonable for it to take more than the usual six months.

Here’s the other reason why this House might want to extend the sitting—actually, the last time I had a bill in this House I recommended nine months, and I recommend that nine months would be the right amount of time for this bill if it’s going to advance at all.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Will it get 35,000 submissions?

Well, you never know. It just might. Maybe, if the churches are opposed to this bill, it just might. But the fact of the matter is that one of the things that we are responsible for in this House is that we are custodians of New Zealand’s international reputation. The basic view in the oil and gas industry around the world is that New Zealand is pretty hard yakka when it comes to the amount of reserves and the accessibility of them. It would be easier to go to a place like, say, Venezuela, where it basically bubbles out of the ground and you don’t have to do much.

But one thing New Zealand does have, unlike most oil-rich places in the world, is a stable set of institutions and laws, so people know that if they make an investment in New Zealand, it’s not going to be whipped away from them Hugo Chávez Venezuelan style. That is one of the most important capital assets that this country has in the world: it is trust. I’d invite the House to reflect carefully on the impact that we’re going to have if we decide tonight that we don’t want to have any practical opportunity for a highly complex industry—an ecosystem of businesses—to be heard on a highly complex matter, such as what the lead times are and what happens when all of a sudden an important stage in the business cycle for this industry is no longer there.

There are people in Taranaki who have things to say. I visited Fitzroy Engineering, just to give an example, a few months ago when the Government made this initial announcement. Those guys have to think very carefully about whether they invest and upgrade their plant with multi-decade time frames in order that they can continue to be maintainers of assets in the oil and gas sector. Now, what message are we sending to the rest of the world when we say we are this tinpot little country where Parliament doesn’t even understand basic things like that—that people have to invest in the long term in order to accumulate capital assets and raise our standard of living?

I put it to you that people in the business community around the world are looking at New Zealand and they’re thinking, “What on earth are those guys doing? Are they in a state of transition? Are they going from being a First World, sophisticated country that is a democracy, that listens to people, and follows due process, and turning into, sort of, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? What are they up to?” Well, this House has the opportunity to send a signal tonight that we’re still a proper open democracy by giving nine months for submissions on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s proper, during this debate, that the House hear the reasoning from the Government for the early report back that is proposed in this motion. The reason why the Government is seeking this early report back is to ensure that the changes in the Act can be made to allow for the 2018 block offer consultation process to be completed before the end of this year. The shorter-than-usual select committee process will allow the public and the industry to have their say on the proposed changes to the Act and will ensure that tender documents for the block offer can be made available in early 2019.

As the Minister of Energy and Resources said during her speech, this bill will give effect to the new offshore petroleum exploration permitting policy while preserving the rights of existing permit holders. It will also ensure the block offer for onshore blocks will take place in Taranaki. The bill will also prohibit access to conservation land as part of this block offer process, except for minimum-impact activities.

I take a call in this debate because I am horrified at the fact that we’ve had a truncated process imposed on us with the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Whilst I realise the debate is very narrow, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you referred earlier to Standing Order 290(3), the particular part I want to object to is the fact that the Government is giving an instruction for this to be reported back by 29 October, just over a month away. On a day when I think we’ve seen one of the saddest days in this New Zealand Parliament, when we’ve passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, which is an absolutely disgraceful piece of legislation supported by the Green Party, now we have this piece of legislation before Parliament tonight in which the Minister herself gave the perfunctory speech of the night around the date of 29 October and the instruction that select committee could meet at times outside normal—and I don’t object to that part. The part I object to is 29 October, and let me explain why, because the Minister herself, the Hon Megan Woods, was not prepared to do so.

The announcement of this legislation was made on 12 April this year. It has taken this Government six months to get the legislation into this House, and we know that, when they made the announcement on 12 April this year, industry had not been consulted at all. Industry had not even been consulted. It was a huge shock to the petroleum industry, and I know that many of the people involved in that industry want the opportunity to make a submission to the select committee. It is worth us noting tonight in the House that tomorrow we go into a two-week recess; many members of Parliament have made their plans to return to their constituencies for the next two weeks and work hard amongst their constituents, both Government members and Opposition members. What we have, effectively, with the instruction in this House is that the select committee will call for submissions and have the opportunity to hear them for approximately two weeks. I think that is a complete degradation of the responsibility by this Parliament, led by the Labour-led Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I will shortly return to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. I know you’ll be aware that I’m travelling there, and I know that when I was last there New Zealand’s democracy was held in the highest regard, but I know that when I go back there this time it’ll be with examples like this, where the Government’s deliberately truncating the chance for industry to have a say on some of the most dramatic and some of the most important legislation to the petroleum industry that we’ve seen in this Parliament in the time that I’ve been here.

I noted the speech from Kieran McAnulty. He compares this legislation to Labour’s nuclear-free legislation in 1980.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

That’s what he said. He said this is as important as New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, which I supported the Labour Government doing in the 1980s. But would they have done it in the 1980s, Kieran McAnulty, and not have been prepared to have a reasonable select committee process? No, they would not, and Kieran McAnulty holds his head in shame. He knows how outrageous it is, and the fact that he was prepared to compare it to the nuclear-free legislation of the 1980s shows that this legislation deserves a reasonable chance.

He talked, in his contribution, about Genesis Energy, about Methanex, and about Ballance Agri-Nutrients having a vested interest—an extreme interest—in the ramifications of this legislation. So I say to Kieran McAnulty and I say to Dr Megan Woods and I say to Iain Lees-Galloway, who then gave the perfunctory speech that Dr Megan Woods wasn’t prepared to give: those companies deserve a chance to have a say before a select committee. They’ll need more than two weeks to have a say, and I will guarantee to Kieran McAnulty that there will be a large number of submissions. I think there’ll be a submission from the Mayor of New Plymouth. He’s been very vocal lately about the effect this will have on the economy of New Plymouth and on Taranaki. What chance will all these submitters have of having a fair hearing before a select committee when, effectively, it will run for two weeks? So I say to Kieran McAnulty: if he’s so, so proud of what a former Labour Government did with the nuclear-free legislation, why won’t he allow people to have a say—a reasonable say—on this?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, they’ll have plenty of time.

He says they’ll have plenty of time. Today is 26 September, and the Government has demanded a report back by 29 October. Is that plenty of time for a piece of legislation that is as dramatic and as significant as the nuclear-free legislation, Kieran McAnulty? I don’t think it is. I don’t think it is, and I don’t really believe that Kieran McAnulty thinks it is.

This is a truncated process. It’s an unnecessarily truncated process, because this announcement was made in April. Why couldn’t the legislation have been introduced after the announcement by Jacinda Ardern, or was it rushed because of her appearance in Paris? Well, that’s what the media said, and I’m inclined, on this occasion, to agree with them. But, having made the announcement in April, on 12 April, get the legislation into this House, give the people of New Zealand a chance to fairly submit. Instead of that, we are having this very rushed process. And do you know what really amazes me? It is the money potentially involved. We had a Treasury report saying that the cost to New Zealand is, at a minimum, $7.9 billion but potentially in excess of $23 billion. And Kieran McAnulty says that deserves about 30-odd days of parliamentary consideration. It is wrong, and the member over there on the other side of the House knows it is.

I’ll give him one last reason why it’s wrong: the very reason the Government claims this legislation’s been introduced into the House is to cut greenhouse gas emissions internationally. And what we now have is clear evidence—a clear dispute to that claim—that this will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions. So I say that this legislation—

💬 Raymond Huo: What’s your evidence?

Raymond Huo finally interjects. We’ve heard from him! We’ve heard from him and he says, “What evidence?” I don’t have any evidence tonight, Mr Huo, but that’s the process of a select committee inquiry. That’s why you send it to a select committee, Mr Huo, so you that can collect the evidence and you can make a rational decision about the effect of this legislation long term on the interests of the New Zealand economy. That’s the purpose of a select committee.

But if you’re a Labour Government member and you’re concerned that the evidence may debunk the very reason for this legislation, what you do is you truncate the process, and that’s what’s happening here tonight and that’s why I think there should be a strong debate. I’m particularly wounded by the fact that it’s happening on the same day that we have passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and I’ve got to go to Geneva shortly and try and explain to other international colleagues why New Zealand is suddenly having so little regard for democratic process under the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government. Tonight’s motion is a disgrace.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that when the Rt Hon David Carter goes to Geneva he extends his memory back to 2010. He’s calling this an abuse of democracy. There was an abuse of democracy back in 2010 with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That went through this House and removed elected councillors at Environment Canterbury without even going to a select committee. The National Party doth protest too much. That bill removed democratic representation. It put the kibosh on Cantabrians electing their councillors for years. It was done under urgency—no opportunity for submissions. This bill is going to a select committee for four weeks.

The National Party is also being hypocritical because over and over again it talks about providing investment certainty—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! First of all, you can’t make that—it’s not a use of parliamentary language.

I apologise.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Secondly, I did start this debate by pointing members to Standing Order 290(3). It is a very focused debate on the process; not the bill itself, not the principles of the bill, and certainly not the history of voting in this House. As long as it’s related to the actual process around this bill, I will allow it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the “hypocritical” remark.

The four weeks that are being allowed for submissions on this bill, given the short, small size of the bill, will be adequate. They will enable submitters in the industry to make submissions, and when others say that investment certainty is needed for industry, that is what the bill is doing and signalling, and ensuring that the 2018 block offer can be conducted. If it’s going to be conducted, this bill needs to pass the Parliament. If it’s going to pass the Parliament, it needs to have a shortened select committee submission period. There is still—in four weeks—time to make submissions, so I think the National Party doth protest too much.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your directions to the last speaker that the debate should be contained, but recognise also that there was a minute and 50 seconds of onslaught on matters that apparently pertain and were allowed to be listened to. What I just want to tell that member is that the hordes and masses in Canterbury were overwhelmed by this decisive nature of the canning of Environment Canterbury using properly the urgent process in this Parliament. Twenty years—20 years—that council had, to bring down a water plan for Canterbury, and they hadn’t got around to it. The most important thing for the region—the water resource—and all the well-meaning greenies and environmentalists on the regional council, over all those 20 years, could not bring down a water plan. That’s when urgency needs to be used, not on something like this—not on something like this.

What’s worse, I notice that in the motion moved by the Hon Megan Woods—who did not speak to her motion, did not want to defend her motion, and decided that she would just allow the House to have a discussion about it and then imperiously expect that the House would vote it through—that motion does not require a select committee to meet during the recess. Now, it would be, I think, a reasonable expectation, given that the Government has tried to make a case that this legislation needs to move through very, very quickly, that the select committee might take more than two of the four weeks to hear submissions. What we’ve got is the usual sort of Labour Party approach to it, as is now the way of the Labour-led Government: let’s all have a holiday at the end of the exhausting four weeks of House activity, and then we’ll cram everything into two weeks and report it back to the House. Well, that shows scant regard for the value of this activity to the New Zealand economy and, frankly, to the goals that this country has for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions.

I can’t see anything on the horizon that, in any time necessary to reduce those emissions in a large way, is an alternative to oil and gas. We are going to be importing oil and gas into New Zealand at huge cost, and if people think $2.50 at the pump is outrageous today, well, let’s just see where it gets to in two years’ time. The essence of this motion is that this legislation is going to progress at such a pace that those unwitting consumers out there have no time to put their case—no time at all. So I am asking for the Minister to take the opportunity—or anyone from the Government. I thank the Hon Eugenie Sage for making her comments, her veiled attack—no, actually, it wasn’t even a veiled attack—on the Opposition, supposedly in defence, saying “We’re doing it because you did.” That’s always a great defence, isn’t it? But no one else from the Government appears to want to justify—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I did.

—what they’re doing here. Oh, Iain Lees-Galloway has said that he’ll take a speech. Well, I’ll tell you what—it’ll be one of the usual speeches that we get with him, and it will probably be five words long: “I move that the question be now put.” That’ll be all he says. That’s all he’ll say, because they don’t have a lot of respect for process. If they did, they wouldn’t be asking the House to approve this arrangement today.

I think it’s worth, just for a minute, considering what a select committee does with a bill. The first thing is the committee takes a lot of advice from those officials of the State who have been, I suppose, most engaged in the area that’s under discussion in the particular bit of legislation. In this case, it will be the Crown Minerals people or minerals New Zealand inside the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. We know already that the advice that they’re going to give that committee is, “This bill isn’t too good for us. This bill doesn’t look good.”

There will be advice that’s sought from the Ministry for the Environment. Now, they’ll be conflicted—very conflicted. They’ll say, as everyone agrees, “If fossil fuel emissions were to fall, then that would have a positive effect on greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” But what they’ll also recognise is that if we haven’t got an alternative—and there is nothing on the horizon. Don’t talk about electric cars or hydrogen fuel or anything else; it’s not there in the numbers or volume necessary for not only the transport application but also all the industrial applications, the home heating applications, and, frankly, still, a large chunk of electricity generation as well. So they will make a case that, yes, it’s not a bad idea, but don’t go too quickly, because if we end up importing gas, importing more fuel than we net export at the moment, then we’ll be in a worse position.

So those are two pieces of advice that we know a select committee should consider. But in this environment, where it’s all being done so quickly, there’ll probably also be quite a bit of activity from the chair of the select committee, containing the way in which officials are able to advise on the bill, and funnelling it, as we are seeing more and more from this Government, through the Minister’s office for a departmental report that reflects much more on the policy desires of the Government rather than the good of New Zealand. So we’re seeing, I think, just the start of a Government that does not want to have ordinary New Zealanders, or New Zealanders who have some expertise in this area, having an opportunity to represent their position to a select committee.

Then I think that bringing a motion that’s got all those fine words in it—“the committee may meet during the sitting of the House, during any hours except on a Friday, or even on a Friday when the House is sitting”—tends to hide the fact that the House is about to go into two weeks of recess. So during that time, this motion actually excludes the select committee from sitting. So even if it were to be referred in the next day, the particular select committee, theoretically, can’t get to it in a meeting until 17 October. That means that this is not a four-week process at all; this is around about an eight-day process. And that, I think, also tends to indicate the sort of deception that the current Government is prepared to perpetuate in the name of, apparently, being transparent, open, and honest. Well, this—don’t make any mistake about it—is a procedural motion designed to hide the worst effects of what, ultimately, is a very bad policy.

Now, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were giving me the eye that says “Don’t stray into that policy area.”, but it was very—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: She wasn’t giving you the eye!

No, I didn’t mean it like that, honestly. We’re very old friends.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: She’s only human.

No, let’s keep it serious.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into it.

Keep it serious, because it is a serious matter. The reality is that when something as big as this, such a huge change to the way we do things, is made, and it’s just flicked to a select committee for a cursory glance, then it will lead to mistakes in that legislation, and it will lead to very significant losses to individuals who are currently involved in that industry.

One thing that a lot of people don’t know is that the exploration industry itself each year is worth several hundred million dollars to the New Zealand economy. And everyone talks about Taranaki. Apparently it’s going to be transformed, Taranaki. It’s going to become some kind of agrarian capital for the world, and it’s not going to be involved in this any more. This is a dreadful move by the Government, it is a cynical move by the Government, and it, most of all, is a hugely disrespectful move by the Government—disrespectful of an industry that’s incredibly important to the viability of the New Zealand economy, an industry that, perversely, can contribute a huge amount to the reduction of greenhouse gas in New Zealand, and an industry that is totally necessary to keep people in their homes secure, warm, and comfortable during the colder months of the year. This is not right.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say, I nearly fell out of my seat when I heard the intervention from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway in his explanation on behalf of the Government as to why a shortened report back was necessary. Quite paradoxically, I’m sure I heard him say the words that the reduced process will enable submitters to be able to be heard in a timely manner. Now, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, the track record of the Labour Government on shortened report-backs is, by any measure, a poor one. I well recall being in this House late last year when the Government moved a similar motion—David Parker was the Minister who did so—on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. It was in the dead of the year, in December, when, actually, I recall, most legal firms who would have been submitting on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill were getting ready to up sticks and go on holiday for about four weeks. That Government said that that was going to be plenty of time. I can’t remember the exact report-back date—it was sometime in late January or early February. They believed—and the words that Mr Parker used were very similar to the words that Iain Lees-Galloway has just used tonight—that that was going to satisfy the expectations of this Government for reasonable submissions to be prepared, then tabled, and then heard. But it is now a matter for the record that the Government had to come back early this year and extend the report-back date for that bill because, quite patently, it was not sufficient to be able to give those submitters time to submit and, indeed, the Government and their officials time to consider those submissions.

I suggest to you that there is a very, very strong nexus between the experience of a shortened report-back date in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill and the motion by the Government to do exactly that on this bill. So it’s for that reason, and based on that experience, that I am going to table an amendment to the motion of the Hon Dr Megan Woods that the words “29 October 2018” be replaced with the words “1 March 2019”, because I believe that is the absolute minimum that is required for this House and the select committee that will hear the submissions on this bill to give their due consideration.

I’m going to explain why that’s going to be so important to the people of the area of this country that I represent, in Dunedin and Otago. Off the coast of Otago is a massive—massive—potential field of gas, and it is a matter of record that that has been explored, through permits that have been granted by the bloc offer process, over the past few years. Now, it is also true that the life cycle of these block offers and the time that it takes to take a survey to a viable exploration, to commercial realisation of that, works in a cycle of decades—not weeks. And the fact that the Government would consider that it’s appropriate for these companies, who are affected by the decisions that this bill when passed, if passed, will impose on them, to somehow conjure up a meaningful submission to this Parliament and its select committee that will enable the Government to consider carefully what it means for them, the people that work for them, the constituents in Otago, and, ultimately, the people who will benefit from that gas exploration—because I am a firm believer, and I’m not going to sway into the policy areas, that gas is a very important transitional fuel in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally. It is very important that we consider whether or not there is merit in making this change, and the only way to do that is to extend the report back and enable the stakeholders, who are, in my view, negatively—very seriously negatively—affected by the impacts of this bill, to be able to consider carefully and articulate clearly to the select committee what those impacts are.

It behoves us in this House to make sure that we have a robust process to enable that to happen, and I cannot imagine how any report-back period that is shorter than the time between now and 1 March 2019 goes anywhere near achieving that goal. And it is somewhat poignant, I think, that on a day when democracy, in my view, is under attack by the bill that was being debated for days and completed in the committee of the whole House today, we are now, once again, undermining the very important democratic process of enabling the public to have a fair say on what—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)