Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I am proud to rise in support of this bill, which makes a strong statement and a transition away from a reliance on fossil fuels, and towards affordable, renewable electricity and energy. But, first, I would like to acknowledge the Environment Committee for its consideration of this legislation. I thank the members for considering more than 7,000 submissions that were lodged, and I would like to thank those who took the time to lodge a submission and those who appeared before the committee. The submissions came from a wide range of sources: from those in the oil and gas industry, from environmental groups, from community groups, from iwi, from students, from businesses, and from everyday New Zealanders. The vast majority of those submissions were either in favour of the bill or felt that it did not go far enough.

Those submissions sent a very clear signal. New Zealanders want to see a future for their country where we take action on climate change, where we have a long-term economic plan for our country, and where we have the courage to look beyond the three-year political cycle and plan for the next 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. That is the time frame we are talking about for the changes that this legislation will bring.

This bill will not end oil and gas exploration overnight, nor will it halt existing production. Existing rights and existing privileges for permit holders are being explicitly preserved within this legislation. This preservation of rights is about ensuring a managed transition to a low-emissions economy and easing the impact on affected businesses, communities, and workers. There are 100,000 square kilometres of permits out there for exploration. That’s about the size of the North Island. Indeed, there are a number of exploration wells due to be drilled in the coming years, and one is currently being drilled. If they are successful, those permit holders will have the same rights and privileges that they do before this legislation comes into force.

I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by submitters during the select committee process and highlight some of the changes subsequently made in the final form of the bill. The first of those was clause 4, the interpretation clause. The issue was raised about the definition of the “onshore Taranaki region”—in particular, that this area follows the political boundary of the Taranaki region rather than the geological boundary of the Taranaki sedimentary basin. I would like to make two points in response to that. The first is that the area in the bill catches all areas of current onshore petroleum production. The second is that the intention around allowing exploration to continue in onshore Taranaki is to support a transition, which includes the potential for new discoveries to make use of existing production and transmission infrastructure.

Clause 6A—the grant of a permit—was also something that received a great deal of attention from submitters, and I’d like to highlight one of the changes recommended by the Environment Committee. Clause 6A has been inserted into the bill, which would prevent the Minister from granting new permits outside of the onshore Taranaki region. It eliminates the scenario where an application is made inside the onshore Taranaki boundary, but a future Minister might, in considering where the petroleum resources are likely to be located, decide to grant a permit that extends beyond this boundary. This change reflects a belt and braces approach, and I support it and thank the select committee for their work on this issue.

Clause 8—restricted access to conservation land—was also an area in this bill that received some attention. A number of submitters raised concerns around the provisions that will apply to access to conservation land for new permits inside the onshore Taranaki region. Some considered that these provisions might decrease the protection from mining activities that applies to Egmont National Park or other high-value conservation land. This is not the case. The bill does not make it easier to obtain access to conservation land for activities associated with a petroleum permit; it will only make it more restrictive for some kinds of conservation land which do not already have a high level of restricted access. Egmont National Park itself is already excluded from any petroleum permitting.

The Environment Committee made a number of technical changes to the new clauses 22 and 23 in new Part 2 of schedule 1, to be inserted by the schedule. These changes clarify the Government’s policy position that the changes in the bill are only intended to apply to new petroleum permits and not to existing permits. The policy intention of the bill is to ensure that those with existing petroleum permits, subsequent permits to those existing permits, and applications relating to either, are unaffected by this bill. As such, new clause 23 was amended and new clauses 23A and 23B were inserted to make sure that that was made crystal clear. That is important, because this bill does preserve the rights and privileges of existing permit holders.

The passage of this bill today will be a proud day for New Zealand. It continues our long progressive history of leading on the world stage. New Zealand has shown time and time again through the years that it’s not afraid to make the hard decisions, to raise our sights, and to do what is right. This is what this bill does.

It helps to set us on a new path. It doesn’t say, “It’s too hard. Therefore, we should not try.” It’s a path towards a low-emissions economy, where future generations will have the chance of inheriting an environment that hasn’t been wrecked by the decisions that our generation refused to make. We are taking action right now to help move New Zealand’s economy in the right direction. The just transitions unit has been established within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to help prepare for a future that will look different from the world we live in today. We’ve already invested in the Taranaki region. The Provincial Growth Fund has already earmarked more than $21 million in funding for that region, including almost $1 million in support for developing hydrogen as a zero-emissions fuel and storage facility, as well as support for other clean-energy technology projects.

As our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has said, climate change is this generation’s nuclear-free moment—our chance to make a stand, draw a line in the sand, and lead the world once again. It’s our chance to raise our sights as a country, to chart a new course for our economy, and to do our bit to protect our planet. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Well, I think we have heard there the driving impetus behind this bill: that we want to lead on the world stage. In fact, as I look at this bill and I look at the intent of this bill and its general principles, as I sum up the effects of this bill for Taranaki and New Zealand, and as I look at what the alternative approach would be that we would initiate, I see a huge, huge gap between these two sides of the House.

The intent of this bill is, in fact, quite varied. Frankly, it’s confusing. The commentary on the bill says that the bill is “one of several initiatives that seek to aid New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy”. Well, I think that we would support that. That’s one of the guiding principles of this bill. The regulatory impact analysis’ opening statement says, “The Government has stated that it is committed to acting on climate change. It has said that it wants to show global leadership”, and the Minister has reiterated that this afternoon. Yesterday, recorded on the Hansard, the Minister also said that the underlying principle of this bill is that “we cannot afford an economic shock in this country.”, and she refers to making hard decisions.

Well, I doubt very much whether this Minister will have to pay a high price for her decision. The people of Taranaki will pay a high price for her decision, and I do find that those words do not give any comfort.

I believe that this bill will not achieve a transition to a low-carbon economy. When the Minister was asked for evidence, for research, she was unable to present it to public commentary. Wanting to show global leadership? Well, honestly, it’s hard to get one’s head around that—it really is—because I don’t see us being able to offer global leadership.

When I look at countries around the world, I would say Norway offers global leadership. They’re a country that is 100 percent renewable. In fact, they have such an excess of electricity, they send it into Europe. We have about six to eight weeks of storage in our lakes; they have three to four years. They have a trillion-dollar sovereign fund generated out of the hydrocarbon industry, which they are using to invest in education and development and innovation around renewable activities. They are investing into massive offshore wind farms. Yes, they are involved in the development of hydrogen, but they are doing it as one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. They have the highest level of drivers of electric vehicles, and they have been able to afford it because they have not made their country poorer by decisions like this.

When this Government considered taking their steps, they did not seek analytical advice or information around the cost of it. They did not seek environmental evidence. They did not seek any consultation with the industry. I think that if we were wanting to not create economic shocks in our nation, then going more slowly and being more considered, taking further advice, and getting analysis would be an important step to take. All of the advice and the analysis has come after the fact of the decision, and it’s an embarrassment of how process works.

I think that’s a damaging part of what’s happened here, because offshore investment and investors have looked at New Zealand and they have lost their confidence in us, not just in the hydrocarbon sector and not just those businesses that want to invest in that sector but IT businesses, people who want to come here to this country who have been shocked by the process, by the suddenness, and by the lack of consultation. So when it comes to a driving principle of this bill—which the Minister spoke of last night—of averting an economic shock in this country, I think that the process has created its own economic shock, and I think that’s a particular issue.

I struggle to see how New Zealand can show global leadership. I think my colleague Todd Muller has often said that the problem about what’s happening in this sphere is that we want to be first, fast, and famous. I don’t know whether this is a small-country syndrome, but I think that we should be fast followers. We should not be reckless leaders. I think that we ought to learn from countries that have innovation and R & D that is well ahead of us and adopt their discoveries, adopt their principles. Yes, we have got the ability to maximise our renewable resources, and I am not saying that we should not do that—we should—but what we are seeing here through this bill is a loss of revenue to the Crown, a loss of revenue and economic impact to a region, and potential for an unemployment increase.

Venture Taranaki said that there are 7,000 jobs at risk. No, it may not be today—although, I do note that today it has been announced that TAG Oil are exiting the country. I do know other companies that have closed down, and I do know of people who have lost their jobs, and I know people who have sought to get finance for house purchases and have been pushed back. So to say that the effect of this is going to be in 20 or 30 or 40 years’ time is not true. I think that if the Government had taken their time and consulted, had said, “This is where we want to go. We want to aim for a low-carbon future.”, you know, we would have supported that. But let’s do it in a way that doesn’t create harm but actually becomes part of a transition that is well planned. I think that we are missing that.

I want to talk about—just in the few minutes left—Taranaki being a focus of this bill, because it is. The bill focuses on the onshore Taranaki region as the only area available now for block offers. The counterfactual is that this now excludes any new permits anywhere else. So what it does is it denies opportunities for regions that have potential, such as Northland, such as the East Coast. There’s a very good reason why Taranaki has the highest average wage of any region in the country: it is because of this industry. It is because there is investment coming in. Now, for the Minister of Energy and Resources to say, “Don’t worry, that will continue on.”—I know that when companies come to invest in New Zealand, they want to look more broadly than just in one specific region, because they certainly want to look more broadly across the whole country. That has now been denied.

When we’ve lost TAG Oil for New Zealand, we have got to understand that some of the rationale—well, in fact, maybe, if not all the rationale—has been because of the initiative and the speed and haste with which this Government has driven this bill through. If I could quote Max Murray, he said the Government’s April announcement of restrictions on future exploration activity would discourage foreign investment. TAG Oil is a company that comes from Canada. He said the policy created uncertainty for overseas jobs. I know they apply. They sought to get senior managers into positions in New Zealand, and the people that they approached said, “We don’t know how long our jobs will last in your country.”, and they declined the offer. So they are some of the issues that are there.

We know that New Zealand Oil and Gas, an excellent company, are finding it particularly challenging to find joint-venture partners for their work in offshore Canterbury—a prospect, if it was successful, that would create 3,000 jobs in the South Island. This bill has created uncertainty. The Government has said that they’ve wanted to create certainty. They’ve created uncertainty—certainly for the short term, certainly for the medium term—and I think it’s tragic.

Well, the alternative we offer—let me first say that we will reverse the Government’s decision to ban new offshore explorations. We believe it is poorly planned. It will not achieve emission reductions but will potentially increase them. Just a final couple of comments: we will consult with the sector to see a planned, effective, and smooth reduction of emissions to agreed levels that is technology-led and, I believe, evidence-based and scientifically based. We would want to make a decision and bring leadership in such a way that the New Zealand people would have confidence. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just as I begin my remarks on this third stage of the bill, may I thank the members of my select committee, the Environment Committee, who worked very hard to hear from all the submitters who wanted to be heard. I appreciate the effort they made to do that.

I want to start by quoting something that my colleague Clare Curran said in the House the other day. She said, “If not now, when? If not us, who?” I submit it does need to be us. Over on the other side of the House, we have heard that the other side supports moving to a low-carbon economy. But if not this, what? It doesn’t seem that there is any plan other than being what is called a “fast follower”. But it turns out, if you listen to what speakers on the other side of the House, or what the one speaker so far, Jonathan Young, has said, they’ve said that they would reverse this policy—they would reverse this policy. So where is the commitment to at least making a start towards a low-carbon economy? I submit that there are fine words on the other side of the House but no action. This bill, the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, represents a start—a start that is being made by this transformational Government to get under way with the work of mitigating climate change.

I wish to continue with some of the things that have been said already. If I may start with something that Mr Young referred to in the Minister of Energy and Resources’ speech the other day about not wanting an economic shock—Mr Young has submitted, I guess, that this represents an economic shock to New Zealand. That is an odd claim, I submit. It’s a very odd claim. We remember the 1980s and 1990s and the economic shock that was administered to New Zealand at that stage, and remembering that economic shock, on this side of the House, we have opted for a slow start. We want to get there. But the slow start—we’re not shutting down oil exploration; we are not shutting down the industry. All that we are saying is that we will not open up further areas of exploration. The existing areas remain. The existing 100,000 kilometres of offshore exploration areas remain. All that is happening is that oil companies or fossil fuel companies may not ask for new areas to be opened up for exploration. This is, in fact, a very slow start.

I guess one of the things that came through in many of the submissions to this bill was that many people want it to be much, much faster. What they wanted was for all existing permits to be shut down straight away. We have chosen not to do that, because we know that the industry needs time to plan, and that’s what we have given them—plenty of time to plan, plenty of time to explore that 100,000 kilometres of offshore area that is still available. So we are taking it slowly.

Mr Young talked of the impact on Taranaki and the worry about jobs there. But there’s some interesting news out of Taranaki just today. The unemployment rate in Taranaki just today is 4 percent, only 0.1 percent above the national average. That’s a significant drop since this announcement was made, from 5.3 percent down to 4 percent—since the announcement to stop oil and gas exploration was made. There was a peak unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in Taranaki, but it is now down to 4 percent, even with this announcement.

In the quarter ending September 2018—the quarter since this announcement was made—the workforce has grown, with 2,300 jobs added in Taranaki despite this announcement. And the underutilisation rate in Taranaki has dropped from 14.4 percent down to 12 percent since this announcement was made. We’ve heard a lot of scaremongering from the other side of the House, saying that Taranaki would never survive, that it was a terrible shock, and that the region was reeling. The figures—the figures—on employment out today show that that is simply not the case. It is simply not the case.

Mr Young talked of investors having lost confidence in New Zealand. That’s simply not the case, either. There are investors queuing up to get involved in the KiwiBuild projects, investors queuing up to get involved in the infrastructure projects, and even as TAG Energy is leaving, it is being replaced by Tamarind, who seem to have no fear about coming into New Zealand.

So I suggest that, in fact, there has been no shock to business confidence. There was talk of a loss of revenue to the Crown, and wild figures have been bandied about in various statements. In fact, it has been said that our officials said there might be a loss of up to $7 billion. I submit that those figures have in fact perhaps been miscalculated. I offer you the submission from Sam Warburton, a Socratic gadfly if ever I met one, but he is someone whose numbers are relied on, and he says, “Actually, if you do the calculations correctly, we’re talking something more like about, oh—maybe about $1.8 billion.” He says that’s because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have used a super-low risk-free rate, and perhaps if you’d used a higher and more reliable discount rate then the figures would have been better.

Let me offer you Mr Warburton’s submission. In paragraph 39 he says: “According to the RIS, the oil industry does the exploration, then all the labour and capital involved in drilling”—so the oil industry is doing all the work—“[and then] takes home only 20% of the benefit with the Crown 80%.” You’d think the oil industry would be up in arms if that was really the case, but actually, they seem to still want to be here. Mr Warburton’s analysis is compelling and interesting.

May I also submit that what was compelling was the weight of submissions: over 7,000 submissions, of which 86 percent supported ceasing new offshore exploration—86 percent in favour of the bill. And even if we take out the form submissions, the submissions that were facilitated by Forest & Bird and by Greenpeace, we are left with 2:1 support in favour of this bill. That is the weight of the submissions and that was from people all over the country, including people from Taranaki. What we had from the oil and gas industry was that it was pleased to allow fossil fuel exploitation to continue, pleased to allow more carbon-heavy fuels to be burnt, and pleased to allow global warming to continue because it suits the bottom line.

I wish to refer to submissions that I have already referred to once, but I want to go back to them. From Richard Middleton is a submission that I picked out because it quotes Adam Smith—one of my favourites. He says, quoting from Adam Smith from book one of The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, that any proposal from business “ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.” He goes on in this submission, which I have not quoted previously, to say, “The task before the governments of the world is not to facilitate economic growth which we now know depends on cheap and abundant energy supplies, but to prevent the worst problems of it, and to establish an economy in which more modest lifestyles ensure our children have a future.” That is what Richard Middleton advised us.

Abbie Jury advised us to walk away from the oil and gas industry which pollutes her own home in Taranaki, and Sam Netherclift, a young person who submitted to the bill—one of the many thousands of people—said something very simple indeed. He said, “I am 18 and I think it is very unfair that my generation is inheriting a world affected by climate change because of older generations.” It is time for us to start. It is time for us to take action. This is a first step, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Governments are defined by the legislation they put forth. When you listen to the speakers on the Government side, they seek to convince New Zealand and this House that this is legislation that is leadership personified. This legislation is shambolic and it’s sanctimonious and it’s shabby, and it talks to the incompetence, in my view, that sits at the core of this Government, on this issue in particular.

Let’s step through this process. Was this commitment referenced by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne? No—no specific reference at all. Was the oil and gas industry assuming it had another block offer, as it had been signalled under that Speech from the Throne? Yes. Did the Prime Minister, without any warning, stand up and say to students of Victoria University, “We’re with you. This is a global issue. There is to be no more oil in the medium to long term in the world and, indeed, in this country. Therefore, we’re banning exploration”? Yes. Without any reference or any consultation, no Cabinet paper, no assessment of the costs to the New Zealand economy and to the Taranaki economy—nothing. Then hop on a plane and then stand beside Macron and Trudeau—who, by the way, is quite comfortable, it seems, to expand their oil and gas reserves to serve the North American market.

This is a shambolic piece of legislation and it deserves New Zealand’s rejection. Let’s just step through, because after they got to that point, they then realised that, actually, they needed to have legislation. So perhaps that was a time to reflect and ask New Zealand to come on the journey. Oh no. “We’re gonna run a shortened process. We’re going to give people two to three weeks to be able to submit. We’re going to run a two-week submission process. We’re going to give individuals five minutes to talk on something that supposedly is the most substantive issue of our time.” But the opportunity for people to actually reflect on what it means was, in my view, seriously truncated and taken away.

It’s extraordinary, the process that this Government has followed—their own advice, which they skim over. In fact, what the Government has done this afternoon is reference individual submitters who echo their own perspectives. Their own officials that say the data doesn’t support this, the cost on the New Zealand economy is anywhere between $7 billion and $23 billion dollars, it doesn’t deliver against your climate change objectives—they don’t give voice to that. Their own officials’ advice has been discarded because of their own desires to be able to stand on a certain stage and pitch New Zealand’s leadership in climate change through the lens of ending oil and gas, despite the fact that, as a country, we still use it, and despite the fact that it’s not going to have any impact on our own internal consumption. They frame this up through the lens of climate change leadership.

This is not climate change leadership—this is not climate change leadership. There is significant demand for gas, in particular, as a transitional fuel around the world—significant demand. We’ve traversed this conversation, but they are not interested in engaging in it, because it is all symbols, it is all rhetoric. The opportunity exists for New Zealand to participate in that global transition, for developing countries to move from coal to gas—and no doubt renewables is part of the mix—but they do not want New Zealand and our economy to participate in that opportunity. It is a disgrace and one that this party entirely rejects. It does not have the coherence that is needed for a policy of this substance. Because, as we have discussed before, this is not theoretical; it is impacting regions and will continue to, particularly in a Taranaki context, over the medium term.

Can I deal with this view that is expressed consistently, that somehow we have to get in front of the global move away from oil and gas and begin now because we don’t want a shock like New Zealand had in the 1980s. In the 1980s, when we went through that structural reform, there was no consultation. There was no reflection of how we actually can do this at a pace that works for New Zealand. There was none of that. It just happened. And they have done exactly the same thing. They did not speak to the people of Taranaki—they did not speak to them. This was not in your Speech from the Throne, Government members.

The Government did not signal this as a priority. The Government did not campaign on it. The Prime Minister did not say it was going to be a priority. But here we are, because of the backroom machinations between the Green Party and the Labour Party to get a certain waka-jumping bill passed between the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party. With respect, when you are dealing with the economic fortunes of 4.5 million people, you need to be more motivated than nice slogans and backroom deals with New Zealand First and the Green Party. This is the lack of authority of this Government exposed for all time. The opportunity for New Zealanders to be truly consulted about what is being discussed has been taken off the table. This view that, somehow, because existing permits have been protected, that means that normal transition resumes proves two things, actually: that, depending on who the audience is, the Government will say, “Look, we see no future for oil and gas. We are the party that hears the clamour to ban oil and gas, and we will lead.” Then, in another audience, they’ll say, “But don’t worry. We’re still going to extract domestically for the next 30 or 40 years.” You can’t be right on both of them. It doesn’t work like that—it does not work like that.

💬 Tamati Coffey: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I just seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? I’ve been in the House before when you’ve noted that stray, random folders sitting on desks by themselves aren’t allowed. Can you just confirm—is that a ruling?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is a ruling. I just warn the member that it’s not one that you would generally expect to interrupt a speech.

Well, there you go. You have a conversation around the future of New Zealand’s economic interests, and Tamati Coffey gets up and says, “Oh, by the way, there’s nobody behind a blue box.” I mean, if anything describes that disgrace of a Government—I mean, that is absolutely pathetic—absolutely pathetic. So, Taranaki, as you watch this debate unfold, be assured that the Government members have got their eyes on the prize. They want to know that there’s a National Party person behind a blue box. I mean, I ask you, if that’s the level of your intellectual rigor, I can’t wait till 2020—you’ll all be gone.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, it’s not my rigor.

I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand. I’m sure. Now, with respect to this view that, somehow, domestically we have all this opportunity in front of us, submitter after submitter who actually deploys their capital—there’s a bit of interest on the Government side for this, because they don’t really connect with companies that actually deploy capital and understand risk—turned up to the submission process and made it very clear that there was a significant impact already, in terms of their lack of appetite to pursue those opportunities. Because of the ridiculous and, in our view, unjustifiable snap decision that this Government made, now reinforced by this particular legislation, the sovereign risk is significant. As those submitters unpacked why they were going to make different capital decisions over the short and medium term, what was absolutely clear was that on the Government side they didn’t even understand what was being discussed. They didn’t understand how the oil and gas sector works. They didn’t understand the long-term capital signals that are required and the regulatory certainty. They didn’t understand that. They didn’t understand what was at stake.

That is what is hugely disappointing from our side: that as we’ve gone through this process, New Zealanders’ views were not tested, regardless of what they said. This was not a campaign issue. This was not debated by New Zealand or reflected on by New Zealand; we weren’t told. This was not in a campaign. This was not a Speech from the Throne. This came out of the blue. There was no consultation. There was no connection with those who will be affected. A significant loss of economic opportunity is taken off the table, and, worse than that, from a climate perspective, we have allowed this debate to be captured by those who talk in symbols and rhetoric and waving flags of ending big oil, as opposed to the sensible, evidence-based, slow transition that needs to happen in this economy in a way that actually protects jobs and protects people’s opportunity to contribute and actually sustains New Zealand. This is a huge fail that will come back to haunt this Government.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I’d like the opportunity to address some of the comments made by the Opposition there. I suppose, first of all, I’d like to congratulate Mr Young and Mr Muller on their impassioned contributions. They’ve kind of decided where they want to position the National Party, and they’ve stuck to their guns—

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, on the side of jobs and growth.

—and they’ve sent a message to the country. To Mr Bishop—who is doing his usual thing, but anyway—to the National Party, and to the country, I would like to say to the country, please don’t listen to those members of Parliament opposite. Please don’t hear the words that they are saying, because they are not what this Government is trying to achieve. This is not the future of New Zealand, and I hope now to outline what the future of New Zealand looks like.

I think Mr Muller spoke about legislation defining a Government. Well, I stand up on behalf of New Zealand First, in this coalition with the Labour Party, supported by the Greens, to say I am happy to be defined by this legislation, because what we are doing—and there are so many things that need to be addressed from the other side. It kind of piles on top of one another, so forgive me if I jump around. In fact, Mr Muller himself said we were “banning exploration now”. Those were the words he used in his contribution to the House, despite the very fact that every Minister and every member on this side of the House—and the reality of the legislation is that this is that line in the sand which I spoke about in the last contribution, about a transition. It is a transition that 7,000 submitters in the Environment Committee said to this Government, “Move in that direction.”

It is a transition where I personally engaged with New Zealand Oil and Gas prior to the announcement to talk to them and ask them—[Interruption] Are you guys all right over there? What they did was—

💬 Chris Bishop: I should ask you the same question.

Well, actually, as I said, there’s so many wrongs being, kind of—[Interruption]

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just focus on the bill in front of the House?

Well, it’s hard with all the distractions. Perhaps if you keep those guys in line, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sorry.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: At their risk. It’s your speech.

Yes. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyway—

💬 Chris Bishop: Just try and make a speech. Make a point.

Yeah, good advice. Thanks, mate. They spoke of being fast followers. What I want to say is that New Zealand isn’t trying to keep up with Europe; we can’t keep up with Europe. They’re so far ahead of the curb, in terms of the transition to renewable energies.

Mr Young spoke about employment in Taranaki, and yet we had statistics enunciated in the House from one of our previous speakers: in this quarter, about two thousand more people being employed, unemployment decreasing, employment increasing, and the region itself going from 5.3 percent, I think it was, to 4 percent unemployment. That is actually what’s happening here. We are a Government that has deployed the just transitions programme. We are working incredibly hard to make sure that we transition forward in this renewable energy space. Can I actually take this opportunity to shout out to the local council there. They understand how hard this is right now for their town, and we all do, right? But it’s a 30-year transition. They are working with this Government because they know that this is the way forward. I commend them for that, because what they’re being told by those members opposite—and they certainly have a voice in that district, so, by goodness, it’s frustrating sometimes to hear what’s repeated back to us. It is a transition where we are working through this legislation on making sure that it is fair and just over time.

In fact, I think the Minister Megan Woods spoke of 10, 20, or 30 years, and I think in this House, actually, if the petroleum companies come to us and talk about a good reason to extend their permits, I think we’re talking about the opportunity to extend that even further. This is the opportunity now for New Zealand to move on. But to allay the fears of those members opposite, I want to point out the reality that what we have is an opportunity for those oil companies to drill now. I wrote down the numbers for the contribution last week: 20 wells going down now.

💬 Jonathan Young: Yeah, I know. Approved by us.

And then 31 on the books confirmed going down now. He says approved by him—

💬 Jonathan Young: Well, it’s the previous Government work.

—and yet—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, he was never a Minister.

No, no—not. But they continue, Mr Young—they continue.

💬 Jonathan Young: Business as usual.

Yeah, thank you. There, he said it himself: “Business as usual”. What an insightful observation from the member opposite.

I spoke in my previous contribution about how exciting the transition to these renewable energies is. It was only last week that I met with a big transport company who were talking about hydrogen now—now. Hydrogen, right now. They are going to generate it themselves. They’re going to deploy it within their own fleet, and they’re going to do it now. That’s the commitment that they are making. I tell you what—to have that conversation firsthand was incredible. It was an opportunity. The Minister has just returned from Japan, engaging with Ministers and big business in Japan about the transition into hydrogen. She’s also been speaking about the construction of wind farms, and I acknowledge the construction this year, Minister, of the wind farm being built now.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, it’s not her call.

So—no. I acknowledge the construction. Thanks, Mr Bishop. So we are transitioning now. It’s an exciting time. So, for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and commend this legislation to the House. Thank you very much.

It’s a shame that the last speaker could not fulfil a 10-minute slot to allay the fears—and we on this side of the House, as well as those people from the Taranaki industry who came to Wellington to submit, have not heard anything that will allay the fears of what is going on with this bill. We heard the words “Business as usual” come up. There’s a real lack of concentration if you think that this is going to be business as usual, long term. This is short-term business that’s going on. There is nothing long term about this.

I have to ask—Deborah Russell, when that member got up to speak, she said, “If not now, when?” Well, I would say when we have a real transition, and right now we don’t have a real transition. She said, “If not us, then who?” Well, the industry is more than capable of developing a transition if they are given enough time to do so.

I would like those speakers in the Government who have speeches left to come to tell us: where are the renewable resources? All we’ve heard in question time today from the Minister, and we’ve heard it again this afternoon—yes, there’s a wind farm which is going to be developed in Waverley. Well, wow! That wind farm is great in and of itself, but it is not going to keep the lights on for very long if that is the only thing that the Minister can point to in terms of a long-term transition renewable source of energy. So we would like to know from the Minister: when will there be enough alternative energy sources to cover energy security for New Zealand, and who is going to develop this?

This is not a proud day for New Zealand. It is idealism, and idealism comes with consequences. The consequences of doing this with no plan are absolutely going to come back and bite this country in the future. This lack of plan came together from a Government who is incompetent, with no plan, they had no consultation, and the submission process left much, much, much to be desired.

It denies opportunities for other regions in New Zealand, but the disappointing thing was that Jonathan Young, myself, and others worked hard to try and ask the select committee to bring the select committee process to Taranaki so that people in Taranaki could come along and have a listen, and even that was denied. So, you know, we’ve heard members get up and make bold statements about blue boxes this afternoon and try to distract from the whole conversation. Well, actually, it would be nice if—actually, they’re not going to see any other coloured boxes when they come from Taranaki, because there are none there, because no one on the Government side of the House is brave enough to come to Taranaki, other than Andrew Little, who turned up at the time of the announcement and said that there was going to be a consultation, which actually turned out not to be the case. When the Prime Minister and the Minister came, there were no open meetings. It was all behind closed doors because they didn’t want to have conversations with the public.

We support greater coordination across Government to address climate change. We have no argument about this. We just have not seen any arguments in any of this debate that go to show that climate change will be improved globally in any way, shape, or form from this decision. In fact, we’re hearing a lot of debate and a lot of good discussion points that tell us that this is probably going to have the opposite effect.

So this bill sat in the Environment Committee as a pretence that this bill has got something to do with affecting climate change and having some positive effect on the environment. Deborah Russell herself has accused National of wanting the earth to burn. It’s all been a bit dramatic, and, actually, we’re finding out from all our sources that this is probably unlikely to have any positive effect on climate change at all.

We don’t dispute, and we support, on this side of the House, having greater investment in research and development—no argument there. But who’s going to do the research and development? The people who are best placed to do the research and development are the energy industry companies themselves. No one understands energy better than the energy companies. No one has a greater interest in securing their future by finding alternative sources, because they know—they don’t need this Government to come along and tell them that the world is changing and we need to move to some more renewable sources. They know that. They are working through transition processes in their own right, and they are using the most effective fuels, such as gas, to work through this issue to allay us having to use more products such as coal or more unsustainable products. They will be working under their own steam to provide a transition to the future. They don’t need to be forced into this situation. So there’s no argument about that.

But we can be all good and virtuous here, and we can make big announcements on the world stage, as the Prime Minister did—flying on jet fuel to make her announcement. There’ll be other countries now that will be rubbing their hands together because—guess what? There are signals up that say New Zealand’s closed for business. So why would we close our own economy down at the risk of having no improvement in climate change at all? It just seems like a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

Let’s think about it for a moment. We know that from the extractive industries, particularly from the industries that we’re discussing today—a lot of the components that we use to make up electric cars come from this industry. We know that a large proportion of those components that are used to make up electric cars come from the extractive industry. So I don’t see a long-term future in terms of these idealistic goals that this Government’s putting in place. Yes, we’re all going to be driving around in electric cars. Well, guess what? If our own extractive industries are ruined in this country, someone else’s extractive industries will provide those electric cars, in due time and with the right incentive. But then how are we going to run those cars? If we go to a completely electric fleet of cars, we’re going to need 22 more Clyde Dams, I think it is, Jonathan Young. It’s the discussion around driving more energy or the equivalent. So one wind farm in Waverley, as a plan from this Government to ruin these industries, is not going to cut the mustard.

💬 Hon Member: They have no plan.

There’s absolutely no plan. I was really disappointed with the whole select committee process. The times were cut so short. There were people coming in there, really concerned about their jobs, who were refused to get the last sentence out in their five-minute submission. We spent two minutes having a debate one day about whether a submitter who was left off the order could have had an extra five-minute presentation to make his own submission. This is poor process, this is bad legislation, and this is not going to achieve anything that this current Government thinks it’s going to.

So when this National Party caucus on this side of the House is back in Government, we will reverse this Government’s decision. We will be looking to build linkages with significant countries, because we have a lot of intellectual property with our oil industries in this country. We will be looking at putting proper research and development in advanced fuels, in energy resources, and in a process that is going to make sure that this country stays in a viable state. With the help of our knowledgable climate change spokesperson, Todd Muller, we will put the right incentives in place for climate change to make sure that we do get a proper answer. We will be working to make sure that the lights stay on in this country, because, so far, from the Minister we are getting no-end answers, no answers at all about energy security in this country. It is a bad day for Taranaki. It is a bad day for New Zealand. It is a bad decision, and on this side of the House we will never support this piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution on the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill by acknowledging the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger MP, and her colleague in the Taranaki region Mr Young, who I think have advocated strongly and well for their local constituencies and their constituents, and the industries that are represented there.

So I’d like to start in that spirit, responding to a question that Ms Kuriger raised about what is the future of the energy system. I think that there are a number of things that have been conflated here. One is the present and the other is the future—those two things have been conflated. So right now there is a problem, and part of it is due to the fact that there is gas infrastructure that is damaged, and so supply is not getting through. Now, what that demonstrates, actually, is that gas infrastructure isn’t always resilient, so the answer isn’t necessarily more gas infrastructure to solve a problem of the existing infrastructure.

Ms Kuriger is absolutely correct that one new wind farm will not be able to solve our energy requirements in the year 2050. That’s right. Over the course of the next 30 years we need to build a lot more generation, as we have in the last 30 years and the 30 years before that and, actually, in the 30 years before that. Something that we tend to do when there is a requirement for more generation is we build more generation. So the fact that there is only one new wind farm announced this year is absolutely no indicator that there will be no new generation for the next 30 years. There will be plenty of new generation. Yes, as we simplify our fuel supplies towards electricity and away from fossil fuels, that will mean a lot more electricity generation is required. There are vast amounts of new energy and new investment going into this field right now.

If we were to transition our car fleet to electric vehicles—the easiest way to solve that problem is through rooftop solar and battery, the price of which is coming down enormously. So there won’t be any additional drain on the grid, because you’ll be actually generating your electricity at the point of use, which is at your carport or on your garage at home.

We do have an issue in this country, due to the unique sort of pattern that we have where we have this winter dip. It’s a very valid question: what happens during that three-month winter period? A battery isn’t going to keep us going for the three-month period. You don’t have to use fossil fuels to cover that dip. I was at an energy conference in Wellington the other day, which Mr Young was also at. One of the options that was being put around there was the idea that, actually, what you do is you massively overbuild wind—right—so that you’ve always got that baseload, even in the winter. Then you use the spare capacity in the other nine months of the year to create hydrogen, which you then export to Japan and other countries that are making a major play in hydrogen, and you turn energy into an export market in New Zealand for the first time.

At the moment we import something like $5.5 billion of fossil fuels to cover our energy needs—we import that—and that is almost exactly the same as our balance of payments deficit. We could turn that around. We could actually turn energy into an exporter, reverse out our balance of payments deficit, and actually turn energy into one of the great wealth creators for this country, entirely from renewables.

The next question that was raised was: what about the idea of gas as a transition fuel? I have to say, at the energy conference—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, to the member, but we are actually speaking to a particular piece of legislation. Just because issues are raised, we’re still focused on the third reading of this bill. So if the member would then relate all that back to the bill in front of us, that would be extremely helpful.

Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. So one of the questions that was raised in the debate prior to me taking the floor was the question: will this bill prevent gas from being used as a transition fuel? So the question is: what does that transition look like?

One of the points that we have made a number of times—so many times, I’ve lost count—is that we actually, over the course of the next 30 years, still have a huge amount of exploration and extraction of fossil fuels in this country. There are 100,000 square kilometres of existing permits that are being explored. Onshore exploration is still open. If any of the existing exploration permits come up with a find, then those can turn into new extraction, which is in addition to the current extraction, and that could go out for decades—decades and decades, well beyond 2050, and well beyond, I might say, when the world will be wanting it.

So when the National Party says that we need to keep exploring on the basis that we need to use this as a transition fuel—if you think about it as a transition, a transition has an end point. And my question to the National Party is: when were you planning to stop exploring and extracting fossil fuels? What year did you have in mind for when we were going to stop that?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, first of all, you’re using “you” and you’re bringing the Speaker into the debate. And, second of all, I refer you to Speakers’ rulings 121/6 and 121/7. The third reading is the summary of the bill. We are summarising the bill on the floor of the House—not what another party might do in place of that, but the bill on the floor of the House. I’ve given you six minutes and I really would like you to discuss the third reading of the bill in front of the House.

Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point about gas as a transition—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don’t argue with me. Would you please comply with what I’m asking of you.

My point about gas as a transition fuel is that this bill actually starts the transition. It actually says, “We need to make that transition.” It actually gives an incentive to companies to start doing things other than what they were doing last year.

I have to say, at the energy conference over the course of the last few days, it was extraordinary the number of proposals that were floating around for liquid biofuels, for new hydrogen exploration, for a number of different ways that we can solve this problem—the point being that all of those things can come on stream over the course of the next decade or two while we phase out the use of fossil fuels, which is the whole point of this bill.

I have to say, one of the other criticisms that’s been levelled at this bill is the idea that New Zealand should be a fast follower rather than a leader. I have to say that we are a fast follower. France went first, and they, actually, have gone further than New Zealand. We are following them, fairly quickly, so we are by definition a fast follower. France’s version of this legislation is not just to phase out exploration but also to phase out extraction by the year 2040. We’ve actually put no end date on when extraction would finish. What we’re saying is that we need to start this transition simply by not looking for more fuel.

One of the other criticisms that’s been levelled at this bill is the idea that it somehow does nothing about climate change. The question has been asked a number of times: do you know how much this is going to change global temperatures? I can tell you this: 100 percent of the fossil fuels that you do not burn will not add to global warming, and 100 percent of the fossil fuels that you do burn will add to global warming. That is the nature of fossil fuels.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report into where the world was at in relation to our target of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees said that we literally have 10 years to turn this around, and the fastest thing that we need to bring down is fossil fuel use. That is what we have to do in the next 10 years. That is a shorter time frame than what this bill envisages. You cannot burn something like 80 percent of the world’s existing reserves of fossil fuels and remain anywhere close to within the temperature goal that we have set of between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees of global warming. The idea that you want to supplement those existing reserves by going and looking for new reserves when you cannot burn all of the existing reserves—and we know that. It is absurd to actually consider that you would say, “Actually, it’s a good idea to go and add to those reserves, on the off chance.”

I have to say, some of the submissions talked a lot about the risk of stranded assets. I’m really worried about the risk of stranded assets, because we know that we cannot burn our existing reserves and remain under 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees of global warming. We cannot. What that means is that those assets are already stranded, and the idea of adding to that asset base, contributing to it, and saying we’re going to expand the pool of stranded assets—that is the most economically absurd idea and argument that I’ve yet heard.

So I have to say that I understand the concerns that have been well represented—

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

This Government’s number one environmental announcement to date is a complete sham. This bill is a complete sham. Jacinda Ardern’s nuclear-free moment is “greenwashing” at its absolute worst.

James Shaw comes up here today and tells us that 100 percent of what you don’t burn doesn’t create emissions, and it all sounds very good, but the problem is we’re not dealing with demand, and he knows it very well. All we are doing is cutting supply. We’re doing nothing to stop demand. He knows that. We will be burning exactly the same amount; it just won’t be produced by us. It’ll be produced by someone overseas with a far worse environmental record. We will be shipping it here, creating more emissions, and doing nothing. That is why this bill is complete and utter “greenwashing”.

As much as members opposite want to paint us as some kind of ecoterrorists for opposing this bill, they know full well there is not a single shred of evidence that has been produced to date to show that global emissions will be reduced by this bill. I sat on the Environment Committee, and there was not a single report that we were presented with that showed a reduction in global emissions—not a single one. In fact, the Government’s own eventual advice showed that the intent of the bill, to reduce global emissions, would actually not be the case. And yet here we are at third reading.

The Prime Minister, in her overwhelming desire to be seen as some kind of eco - warrior princess on the world stage, announced this policy to a bunch of university students in Wellington—we know, without any scientific advice or reports and without a cost-benefit analysis. She didn’t consult with the region, with industry, or with experts. She didn’t go there. There wasn’t a single working group, which we know they love so very much because there are 170 of them.

💬 Matt King: 80.

180. Oh my gosh! There have been 10 more since I wrote this speech. Education, Justice: millions of dollars spent, fancy croissants; here, absolutely nothing. All we have is puffery. Virtue signalling—“If not us, who?”! “If not now, when?”!—for goodness’ sake!

This is absolute “greenwashing”, and it sets a terrifying precedent. At the whim of our “great leader”, in her quest to improve her image and nothing more, here we have thousands of high-paying jobs at risk, halted investment, and an entire region at risk of ruin, throwing away anywhere from $9 billion to $23 billion dollars of revenue. On the advice that we now have from their own officials, we will be increasing global emissions rather than reducing them, which was the whole intent of the bill.

The Prime Minister sure is putting that communications degree to good use. Communicating about the environment—she’s great at it; really good. But when it comes to actually acting to protect our environment, it’s where she fails miserably, and this bill is proof of that.

And the Greens are the worst kind of accomplices—the worst kind. They bellowed and they rode that high moral horse in Opposition, objecting at every possible opportunity about process and the erosion of democracy when the legislative process was truncated.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Sorry. You’ve done about four minutes with general principles. You actually should be talking to the principles of the bill as they were returned by the committee of the whole House.

Thank you for your wise guidance, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The fact is that the entire world, including countries like Norway that the Greens like to hold up as leaders in the green space, know well that natural gas, in the transition that this bill talks about, is a great transition fuel to move us along the energy continuum from coal—filthy coal—at one end, to renewables like hydro, solar, and wind at the other. Natural gas will reduce our reliance on coal. It will allow us to rely on a fuel that has half of the emissions of coal while we build renewable energy and while we wait for that technology to deliver us these new energy solutions, because, without gas, when the sun ain’t shining, when the lakes are low like they are now, and when the wind ain’t blowing, under this bill, we will be burning more coal.

We heard from David Seymour in question time yesterday about Genesis ordering four shipments of coal from Indonesia—120,000 tonnes of coal to be delivered between December and February. We know that we don’t have energy security with renewables alone, and this bill puts at further risk our increase of creating more emissions, because this bill will make us burn more coal.

If this Government were actually concerned about the environment and reducing emissions in their nuclear-free moment, we’d be asking them some questions. Why aren’t we dealing with coal in this bill—the dirtiest and worst form on the transition continuum? We haven’t heard a peep from them about coal. Why isn’t coal included in this bill? Why are we concentrating on gas? That’s got half the emissions of coal. Why aren’t they dealing with coal?

And, secondly, why are they not dealing with demand? There’s nothing in the bill as reported back to deal with demand. As I said earlier about James Shaw’s contribution, logic tells us that simply stopping a fuel source but not changing the behaviour will mean only one thing. We don’t change any of our emissions. We import more oil and gas from countries with far lower environmental standards; we ship it here. All this bill is going to mean is an uptick of fuel tankers into Marsden Point. And hey, for all we know, maybe that was the deal that was done with New Zealand First to increase economic activity up in Northland.

Carbon leakage is a serious question that we have asked so many times at select committee and in this House. All it is is a transfer of emissions from one country with far lower environmental standards. This Government are not willing to look at things in this bill like vehicle efficiency. They’ve done nothing about the increase of electric vehicles or infrastructure in the bill. Of our emissions, 49 percent come from vehicles, and this Government should be focused on fixing the demand problem. Cutting off New Zealand’s supply in this bill—cutting off supply—will only increase, as I said, the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point. So what this Government are doing is saying they’re not going to fix consumption, they’re not going to worry about New Zealanders’ use of oil and gas, they’re just going to cut off the supply, and that’s what this bill does. It just transfers the importing of those fuels into New Zealand.

One of the worst things about this bill was the process, and it started with Megan Woods at the conference earlier this year, where she indicated to the parties who were at the conference that she would be consulting with the industry, that she would be consulting with the region, and that she would go the greatest lengths to make sure that happened—and they believed her.

A month later, we had the announcement and everybody was taken by surprise. Many people complained about the fact that, in coming up with this bill, the industry and the region weren’t consulted. So not only were they not consulted before they made a decision but they weren’t consulted before this bill was brought to the House.

Then we had this truncated process, where we sat in select committee and heard from submitters who only had five minutes and who’d travelled a really long way because we refused to go to Taranaki.

💬 Matt King: They wouldn’t let them.

Wouldn’t go there. We tried our very best to make this as democratic a process as we possibly could, and we were stopped from doing that. Every other bill that we’re looking at—we’re going to be travelling the West Coast, we’re going to be travelling to Canterbury, and here we are with one of the biggest decisions that this Government can possibly make, and we wouldn’t travel to Taranaki. I apologise to the people of Taranaki, because this is going to ruin your economy and ruin your region. And I’m sorry that we couldn’t go. We tried—we did our very best—but Government members refused. And then they cut speakers off—to the second. We had CEOs of major companies of industries who were cut off to the second.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Everyone treated the same.

They were all treated the same and they were all treated extremely unfairly. A massive decision that is going to affect our economy and a huge region, and they were all treated extremely unfairly.

This bill is about virtue-signalling, “greenwashing”, and image-building for a Prime Minister who cares more about how she’s viewed on the world stage than anything that will improve our environment. This bill is pure and simply environmental vandalism and we will not support it.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to stand and take an opportunity to speak to this, the third reading of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill and, I have to say, such passion—such passion from the Opposition today. If only we’d seen so much passion from them in the last nine years. But, anyway, I digress. I will get on to talking about this bill.

We had Todd Muller speak before. He said, “Governments are defined by the legislation they create.” Well, I tell you what, I am proud of all the legislation that we’ve created—passed and created—but, boy, am I especially proud to be a part of a Government defined by this legislation. It is bold. It is forward-thinking. It is future-focused, and we are focused on making things better for our future generations, for our children, our children’s children, our great-grandchildren, and the environment.

We heard also from Barbara Kuriger, who talked about all the things that they would do when they were back in Government around this space. But my question around that is: why didn’t you do anything in this space in the last nine years? [Interruption] Anyway, that’s just my question to you. I didn’t hear anything previously. She also passed the comment that we haven’t seen anyone in Taranaki. Well, I’m pretty sure—but I’m happy to be corrected—the Minister and the Prime Minister have both visited Taranaki. But that’s OK, I stand to be corrected.

Anyway, so I want to congratulate the Environment Committee for all the hard work that they’ve put into this piece of legislation, and I want to thank the submitters. I heard today that there were 7,000—7,000—submissions, and 86 percent were in favour of this bill, and if that is not a mandate to move forward, and that you’re on the right track, then I don’t know what is.

So climate change is happening. It is happening whether we like it or not. What is important is how we adapt, and how we plan for it. We must not be a fast follower. That is not good enough. We must be leaders in this space, and being effective leaders doesn’t mean sitting on your hands and doing nothing. You have to make bold decisions. Sometimes they are hard decisions, but they are the right decisions. And this piece of legislation is the right decision.

So this Government is committed to being a leader, not a follower on climate change, and to transitioning and moving to a low-carbon economy. And I just want to read a submission that stood out for me from Gabrielle Pankhurst, who said, “New Zealand is a small emitter on the Global Stage but can have a big presence encouraging other nations to take action. New Zealand has led the way and had an outsized effect in the past on the nuclear threat, apartheid in South Africa, votes for women and many other policies. Let’s lead the world again when facing the existential threat of climate change.” And that just reiterates what I’ve said.

So this legislation will mean that future block offers will exclude new offshore exploration permits, and that block offers will be limited to onshore Taranaki. We’ve heard from the other side of the House about the risk to employment, but I want to talk about the fact that this Government has passed legislation—future-focused legislation—enabling people to transition from certain types of work into others with our first year fees-free getting people into trades—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Back to the bill.

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I would also like to quote from Minister Wood’s speech initially, where she said we’ve already invested heavily in the Taranaki region. I quote this: “The Provincial Growth Fund has already earmarked more than $21 million”, which includes the potential for new discoveries to make use of existing production in transmission infrastructure, and it’s with things like that that we will ensure that people are able to transition, in a just and fair manner, into new employment, should things change for them.

We’re not talking about stopping this overnight. This is about a 30-year transition. This gives industry—it gives people—time to plan, to adjust, and to change their way of thinking. We have to be sensible about it. We have to give people time to change. I am proud that our small country Aotearoa is leading the way boldly.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s with disappointment I rise to speak this afternoon on a failure of Government. With this bill, with this Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, this Government has failed New Zealanders in four ways.

The first way they’ve failed New Zealanders is with the economy—it’s a failure of the economy. This bill will affect 15,000 jobs across New Zealand—15,000 jobs. Of those jobs, 4,500 are direct and 11,000 are in related industries. The vast bulk of those people are employed in the Taranaki region. This bill has put them on notice. This bill is the letter in the post saying, “You’ll be out of work.” This bill will end 15,000 pay packets across the country, particularly in Taranaki.

It’s not just a failure of the economy; it’s a failure of potential. In my electorate of Rangitata, this bill will end the prospect of 3,100 new jobs around PrimePort in Timaru. The Barque gas development would have created 3,100 new jobs and a billion dollars in activity in the South Canterbury and North Otago regions. We know that’s the case because the permit holder has told us that.

The Government opposite has said, “Oh, no, it doesn’t affect the existing permits; it doesn’t change anything for existing permit holders.” Well, the permit holder themselves has told us that it does. The permit holder and New Zealand Oil and Gas say that this bill makes the development of the Barque prospect materially less likely—materially less likely. They’re now struggling to find investors for this prospect because the bill has had such a chilling effect on the international oil and gas industry, and people overseas have said, “No, New Zealand is closed for business.” The way we know that is because they’ve quoted three large investment companies who’ve said that. One of them has said, “given [the] state of play in NZ at the moment I don’t think we’ll get much airplay internally. So will pass on this one.” Another said, “I’m sorry to inform you but [we’ve] excluded New Zealand from our area of interest”. The third one has said, “It’s been an education for me seeing the reaction by even discussing NZ here!” This bill has had a chilling impact on investment in oil and gas in New Zealand, even for existing permits.

The third failure of this Government is process. This bill was meant to go off, or should’ve gone off, to select committee for six months, in the way that every other bill goes off to select committee. Instead, this Government have said, “No, we’re not interested in hearing from people. We’re not interested in running a proper process. What will we do? We’ll do it for four weeks.”—four weeks. It went to the Environment Committee. They had two weeks of consultation and two weeks of consideration. Within that, they didn’t even bother to go to Taranaki—didn’t bother to go to Taranaki. The one region that relies on oil and gas in this country, and they didn’t bother to turn up. The majority of those 15,000 jobs are in the Taranaki region, and the Government refuses to go there.

The fourth failure is a failure of the environment. Deborah Russell has said at length, as the chair of the select committee, in the first reading, that we are burning the planet. She’s referred to climate change—in fact, many members opposite have referred to climate change as the reason for passing this bill. Well, what does their advice tell them? What does the Government’s own evidence about this bill tell them? It says the net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative rather than positive. It goes on to say that the bill “will result in a likely increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term.” So the very reason—the very reason—that this Government has put forward this bill, they’ve failed on. On the very reason that this Government has said, which is climate change, the Government’s own evidence shows that they are wrong. Not one member opposite has ever contradicted that, because they don’t have the evidence. It’s a failure by this Government.

I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes, Angie Warren-Clark.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. When I think about controversial issues that have come to this House over the years and I think about where people sit and whether they’re on the right or the wrong side of history, I think about the Springbok Tour and our nuclear-free stance, and I think about what our grandchildren will think of this conversation that we’ve had today in this House. Absolutely—absolutely—this is the beginning of change in this country. I have a very short time today, but I am proud to stand here and speak on behalf of this Government in regards to the beginning of the transition away from oil and gas. The Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill is putting in place something that we have strongly looked at across many years, and that is putting in place something for the environment.

The market—the market—has not managed to do this; the Government has to step in and do this. There have been many years where there has been the opportunity for gas companies to make a change, and they talk now of stranded assets, yet climate change has been coming at us like a slow-burning train. It is here, and we need to act—we need to act. Our world is changing, and we have a crisis with global warming. What will happen to our whakapapa, Mr Müller? What will happen when our community of Tauranga no longer has half of its environment because of global warming? What will happen when the food chain breaks down? Can we eat money—can we eat money? We cannot.

What I would like to address—very quickly, because I have very short time—is leakage. Ooh, not that kind of leakage—carbon leakage. What we’re talking about here, and the argument we’ve all heard from the Opposition, is that “Ooh, we’re going to buy from somewhere worse, and it’s going to be terrible.” Well, guess what? The world isn’t sitting still. The world is moving on, and the world is looking at alternatives—looking at alternatives to oil and gas and coal—and that is the argument that the Opposition have failed to take into account when they consider that carbon leakage will occur. Carbon leakage does not sit in a context of not moving forward. The world is moving forward, and we have to keep up. We have to lead. We have to be honest, that, actually, if we don’t support our environment, if we don’t move to a just transition, of 30-plus years, people—30-plus years. We have to do this, because the market has not, and we are prepared to be bold and to do this. I commend this bill to the House.

Just before I call the honourable member, I just want to remind members: if we’re going to refer to other members, we should do our best endeavours to make sure we get the names right.

Something I wholeheartedly agree with: that we should all treat each other with the respect of using our names as accurately as possible. For the member who just resumed her seat, I think that she actually captured—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Angie Warren-Clark.

I know Angie Warren-Clark, but I think she captured something about this bill that in turn captures something about this Government. She drew on the imagery of the Springbok Tour. She talked about New Zealand’s declaration of being a nuclear-free country. She has learned the lesson of Jacinda Ardern, the woman who became the Prime Minister of New Zealand without changing a single policy and getting a 20-point bump in the polls. She learned the lesson that the way to do politics has nothing to do with the importance of how public policy works, or this bill. She learned the lesson that, somehow, spin and symbolism can overcome substance.

The substance of this bill is that it is going to be an environmental, economic, and procedural disaster, with adverse consequences for the country’s international reputation, for the way that we look after our environment, for the way that we become wealthy and invest, and for the way that we are seen in this House to respect parliamentary procedure. Let’s just tick off the reasons why this bill that is all about symbolism rather than substance will backfire on its stated intentions. It’s not going to be good for the environment. It is going to narrow the range of fuel options that New Zealanders have in decades to come. We will have one fewer option. We won’t have oil and gas found off the coast of New Zealand, because no one will have been able to look for it.

So if it just happens to be that these magical new sources of energy, peak load electricity generation that doesn’t use thermal fuels, have not come to pass, what will the options be? Well, it won’t be relatively clean-burning gas off the coast of New Zealand, and it won’t be relatively clean oil off the coast of New Zealand; it will be doing what Genesis are doing right now: importing 120,000 tonnes of coal from Indonesia—hardly a country with the kind of environmental record that we want to be patrons of.

So we’re going to end up with fewer options, and we’re going to end up using fuels that are worse for the environment and worse for climate change than the options we would have if people were allowed to look for oil and gas off the coasts of New Zealand on the possibility that it might be the best option for the economy and the environment in the future. By the way, if this Government was really serious about climate change, here is what they would do: they would ask what carbon price our trading partners are facing, and they would say, “We’re going to beat them by 10 percent, and if they increase it, we’ll increase it too.” That would actually put a real carbon tax on consuming energy and fuels, not just kneecap one industry. What does it do to the economy? What does it do to our international reputation?

When people look at New Zealand, they used to see a country that followed due process, a country that was beyond reproach for corruption, and a country where you knew that people would keep their word and your property rights would be safe. Now they look at this Government, shaking their heads in astonishment, to see a New Zealand Parliament that, with a four-week consultation, with a bill rammed through this House under extended sittings, and with all the urgency in the world but no care, can take away years of expectations of investment opportunities, can take away the certainty that investors require—and it won’t just be oil and gas; it’ll be the international business community across a range of sectors looking at New Zealand, shaking their heads, and wondering why.

This is a bill that is underlining and putting on display, for everybody to see, the politics of symbolism over substance for which this Government will become known. It’s bad for the environment, it’s bad for the economy, it’s bad procedure for the reputation of this House, and it’s bad for the whole country’s international representation as a safe place to invest, but, well, apparently it is good PR and marketing. I suspect that in the long term, the people of New Zealand will conclude differently. I proudly oppose this bill on behalf of the ACT Party.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too stand with great disappointment today to speak to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This is—and I support Mr Seymour—a sad day for Taranaki. It is a sad day for New Zealand, a sad day for our democracy, and certainly a sad day for our country’s economic future.

I thought this Government was going to be the main meal: New Zealand First and Labour with a side of Greens. But what we’ve actually got is a salad with absolutely no substance inside of it. If I was Winston Peters now, I’d be wondering what on earth I’d signed up for with this Crown minerals bill before us today, because it’s clear that this is a Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw show. All poor old Winston Peters has done is being—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I want to remind the members of Speakers’ rulings 121/4 and 121/5. At the third reading, one must discuss the bill as it emerged from the select committee. The member hasn’t started. She’s had her introduction and she’ll now address the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the Taranaki region, in relation to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, I feel that the Prime Minister is like the Grinch who stole Christmas. But, unfortunately under this Government, we won’t even have a lump of coal to be able to give to the naughty children—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Second warning—address the bill or I will terminate the member’s speech.

I’d like to run through some of the risks to New Zealand from the passing of this bill today. As James Shaw eloquently put it, the reputational damage to New Zealand from the passing of this bill is a chronic shame for us. It is part of the reputation that this country has built up over many years. Another one of the consequences and the risks that we face from this bill is the consistency that business needs. It needs a firm and level playing field for the years ahead, where they have to plan and evaluate their long-term investments. So we need great big long lead-in times, and, unfortunately, the uncertainty of this passage of legislation that is going to be created across the investment sector is going to damage our reputation and that consistency that business needs.

Now, the other risk from this bill is to the investors. Now, investors—they’re probably our biggest risk of all. We need that major investment coming here into New Zealand. A classic example of the result of this bill passing through this House was the decision from Methanex, who were the second major natural gas consumer. They called a halt to their major investment of a $100 million expansion of their plant in Taranaki. The other major investment that we have seen withdrawn as a result of this legislation is Ballance Agri-Nutrients shelving a billion-dollar rebuild of their Kapuni factory. This type of legislation, this Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill, creates uncertainty in the sector, and this is the type of damage that we are seeing. That is before the bill has even passed through and become legislation.

So I’ve talked to the loss of income as a consequence of this bill, and we’ve heard that the Crown revenue alone is $7.9 billion. As an example of what that type of Crown revenue could have created here in this country: it could have built all of Auckland’s light rail, it could have built all of Waterview Connection, it could have built all of Transmission Gully, it could build the new Dunedin Hospital—

Order! The member will resume her seat. I am now going to read to her Speaker’s ruling 121/4: “Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.” Speaker’s ruling 121/7: “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill; they must not deal at length with matters not provided for in the bill.” The member hasn’t actually discussed either the purpose or the content of the bill in half the time that she had available. The member’s speech is terminated.

Tuatahi māku e Te Māngai o Te Whare, he mihi poto tēnei pea, koinā te mea, ko tēnei tō tau tuatahi, kotahi, i roto i tēnei Whare. Hari huritau mō tō whai tūranga hei Māngai mō Te Whare.

[Firstly, for me, to the Speaker of the House, this is a short acknowledgment, because this is your first year, one year in this House. Congratulations on your anniversary of being appointed Speaker of the House.]

💬 SPEAKER: And now to the bill. Thank you.

Āe, ka huri ahau ki te pire ināianei, e rongo atu ana ahau i wō whakatau. E mihi ana ki Te Minita nāna i kawe mai tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare Pāremata. E mihi hoki ana ki Te Komiti mō te Taiao me te heamana, arā ko Dr Deborah Russell, me te nui o ngā kaitono. Neke atu i te whitu mano tāngata i tono mai mō tēnei kaupapa, mō tēnei pire. Te nuinga o rātou, neke atu i te 86 paiheneti, i tautoko i tēnei pire.

Nā e hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero mō tētahi o ngā kaitono, arā ko Te Patu Harakeke, he iwi nō roto o Te Tai Tokerau, ō rātou āwangawanga mō te whakamahanatanga o te ao. He hapū noho ki te takutai moana. E āwangawanga ana rātou mō ngā rā kei te heke mai. E kaha tautoko ana rātou i tēnei pire. Engari ko tētahi kōrero, me whakawhānui ake pea. Hei whakaarotanga; whakaarotanga tēnā mō Te Minita.

Tētahi atu o ngā kaitono nō Te Whare Wānanga o Wikitōria, nō te rōpū tauira, ko Tamatha Paul te kaikōrero. Ahakoa ehara ahau i te mema i runga i Te Komiti o te Taiao, i reira ahau i taua wā. I rongo ahau i a rātou e kōrero ana mō ō rātou āwangawanga mō ngā rā e heke mai ana. Me pēhea tō rātou ao ki te kore e whakature tēnei ture, tēnei pire i te rā nei? E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou mō tō rātou tū kaha ki te tautoko i tēnei kaupapa, i tēnei pire.

Ko te kaupapa o tēnei pire ko te kaitiakitanga, ko te manaakitanga; ko te kaitiakitanga mō ngā rā, mō ngā uri e whakaheke ana. Nō reira i runga i tērā e kaha tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire. E tautoko ana ahau i te whakairinga o tēnei pire ki Te Whare. He hōnore tēnei māku, ko tēnei te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire. Nō reira e tautoko ana ahau, e whakairi ana ahau, ko te pae tawhiti whakamaua kia tata, whakamaua kia tina. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

[Yes, I will now turn to the bill—I hear your direction. I acknowledge the Minister who has brought this bill to Parliament. I also acknowledge the Environment Committee and its chair, Dr Deborah Russell, and the large number of submitters. Over 7,000 people submitted on this topic, on this bill. Most of them, over 86 percent, were in support of this bill.

Now, I would like to speak about one of the submitters, namely Te Patu Harakeke, a tribe from within Te Tai Tokerau—their anxieties about global warming. They are a subtribe living on the coast. They are concerned about the future. They strongly support this bill. But there is one statement to make: it should perhaps be broader. Food for thought—this is food for thought for the Minister.

One of the other submitters was from Victoria University, from the student group. Tamatha Paul was the spokesperson. Albeit I am not a member of the Environment Committee, I was there at that time. I heard them speaking about their concerns for the future. What would their world be like if this legislation was not passed, this bill, today? I want to thank them for their strong stand in support of this matter, this bill.

The focus of this bill is guardianship and protection; guardianship for tomorrow, for the descendants who are coming. Therefore, on that note, I strongly support this bill. I support it being passed in this House. This is an honour for me; this is the third reading of this bill. Therefore I support, I uphold it, bringing the distant horizon closer, so that we can grasp it and make it manifest. We are ready to progress together.]