Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

The committee is now considering the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 13, “Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I can see that the Minister for Resources wants to take a call, so I will keep this brief. As you say, we’re going through this Part 1, and Part 1 of this bill actually is reasonably broad-ranging because what is happening with the amendments in this bill, in Part 1, is, of course, the purpose statement of the bill being changed. We know how important a purpose statement is to a piece of legislation. It is more than a single clause that is being amended. In fact, it sets the context for how statutory interpretation of a particular piece of legislation may proceed.

The change that is happening to this purpose statement in this bill is one that wasn’t long ago amended. It was amended under the previous Government to remove the onus on the Crown to “promote” minerals exploration to the more benign “manage” of the minerals estate. This amendment takes us back to where we were prior to that amendment, and there are strong and large implications of that, of which that we do have questions for the Minister around. Of course, one of the reasons and the very raison d’être that’s been given for this bill is that the Minister has said we need to signal that we are open for business when it comes to minerals exploration.

I have some very specific questions for the Minister around that, because the Minister received advice. It was in the regulatory impact statement that, indeed, investment in minerals exploration in New Zealand had been declining since 2014—nothing to do with the legislation that occurred in 2018 and 2019, when our Government and Labour led the charge to end oil and gas exploration. There had already been a decline in terms of the exploration activity happening in New Zealand, before that change, and the regulatory impact statement very clearly puts that within the international context of what has been happening around the world. It points to the fact that we are seeing money shift away from minerals exploration and that that is a trend. We saw the peak of this happen in the early 2000s. I would like to know from the Minister what advice he has received that wasn’t in the regulatory impact statement that indicates that we are going to see an increase in exploration activity, when the historical data would actually point to the fact that there has been a decline. So that’s exploration.

The Minister has also talked extensively about the fact that we need to keep investing in those wells that we have. One of the things we on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee asked for advice on—and it is in the commentary around the bill—was the level of investment that was occurring in those permits that were running their course, which were put in place after we ended oil and gas exploration. We can see the long-run investment that was going into existing permits: from 2013, $1.5 billion; 2014, $2 billion; 2015, $1.3 billion; 2019, $1.15 billion; 2020, $1.02 billion; 2021, $1.1 billion; right through to 2022, $1.3 billion. We actually saw an increase of investment going into existing wells, which seems to run counter to the rhetoric that the Minister is using. I’d like to know from the Minister: what advice he has received that there hasn’t been investment going in to those existing permits that are there, and the need to change the purpose statement in clause 1 of the bill in order to counter that. Certainly, his officials were giving us advice in the select committee that investment has been going in.

The stark reality, which I’d like to hear from the Minister, is that despite over a billion dollars a year being invested in our existing permits in wells in New Zealand, there has not been a significant find of oil and gas offshore in New Zealand since the early 2000s. This is not for want of trying. This is not because we introduced a ban on new exploration permits. This is because it is simply not there in a commercially viable way. I’d like to know what advice the Minister has that, somehow, he is going to turn around the course of what has been happening for a very long time and is the long run of what we have seen in New Zealand. I have not seen a shred of evidence that his officials could provide to the select committee. I eagerly await hearing from the Minister and understanding what new evidence he has, because I’m sure this Minister would only make decisions made on evidence.

The Hon Shane—

Jones, otherwise known as “the Matua of Mining”. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for enabling me to make a few introductory remarks, and I respect the fact that that senior member of the Labour Opposition, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has laid down some important questions. But questions must be based on facts, and I draw her attention to Part 1, clause 4. A key portion and a key motivation for this legislation is to get rid of the dewy-eyed expression, backward-orientated—i.e., to replace the word “manage” with “promote”. We belong—which is the underlying impulse beneath this bill—to a Government who is possessed of confidence and optimism that gas and oil has a long-term role to play in the functioning of our economy, till 2050 and beyond. I only hope that I might outlive Moses to enjoy that sight in 2050, but that lies in the world of Providence.

One of the questions that the member asks is why are we settling upon the word “promote” rather than “manage”. If we do not promote—and I am being quite open and unfettered here in the philosophical direction that we’re travelling—our economy, if we do not promote our indigenous resources, if we do not convey to investors both domestic and overseas that we’re open for business and their rights will be protected and will not be summarily stripped in the way that that 2018 decision had the unintended effect of stripping people’s confidence and certainty—thus, they abandoned their rights. That is why the word “promote” is there. I don’t need to trail through the words and the detritus of various bureaucratic statements—this is what we were elected to achieve.

Now, if I can go on and respond to a few other remarks: yes, the member is correct, there are some challenges in terms of accessing the geologically existent gas resources. But the whole purpose of this set of amendments is to give the confidence to people that, if they make the commitment, if they spend the hundreds of millions of dollars, their rights will not be stripped in some sort of Venezuelan experience, which, sadly, has begun to infect the sovereign reputation that our nation currently is viewed as possessing. Oil and gas was, at that particular point in time, closed down, so it’s just not correct to say that it’s a geological reality, the chilling effect of an earlier decision. Reversing that foolish, naive, juvenile decision is what this bill seeks to do.

There are a host of other improvements, sir, and, with your acquiescence, I’d like to quickly outline them so that members on the other side of the Chamber can follow the narrative and identify where there may be opportunities for them to contribute. I’ve already spoken about investor confidence—that’s not to be trivialised. I will also, during the course of this debate, talk about the decommissioning regime. Why on earth should the taxpayer, exclusively, be left with the obligation of a liability to write out the Gregory to meet the costs of decommissioning—i.e., clean up after firms have profited from the utilisation of this indigenous resource?

At the same time, we do not want to impose such onerous obligations and duties that are so burdensome it scares away investors, and that’s why this is like a Swiss watch: finely balanced, not unlike the character of “the Matua of Mining”. That is what actually is going to be, I think, taking a bit of time this evening, the decommissioning. And there’s a loophole. Sadly, a loophole was left by the old regime that would have allowed flash Harrys and other untrustworthy characters from time to time to poke their nose into the affairs of New Zealand, and that is what we’ll be fixing up later this evening.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister for Resources for addressing some of those questions, but, more specifically, on the change from “manage” to “promote”, which is at the crux of Part 1 of the bill. I’d like to flag that the other piece that we will come to under this part of the bill is, of course, the provisions around the Government policy statement, but I’ll address that in a further call.

The Minister went through why they were changing from “manage” to “promote”, but that’s not actually what I asked. I asked the Minister what advice he had and, to quote him, why he is “possessed with confidence and optimism” that we can have oil and gas through to 2050—and why they are changing that provision in Part 1 of the bill around “promote”, given the historical data that shows us that, since 2014, we have had a decrease in exploration in New Zealand? They are the facts.

The Minister said that he wanted to deal in the facts. Well, the facts are in black and white, from his own officials in the regulatory impact statement: “Exploration activity in New Zealand has been declining since 2014, before the 2018 ban on new petroleum exploration outside onshore Taranaki. This is consistent with global trends in upstream oil and gas investment, which peaked in 2014 when the oil price crashed, and has not recovered to the same levels as oil and gas firms and traditional lenders navigate the energy transition”. The Minister tells the committee he is “possessed with confidence and optimism”. I want to know why that is, given what advice that he has received and given the advice that we are seeing from his officials runs absolutely counter to that.

The Minister also tells us—and, again, there’s a nuance on what was asked of the Minister and what he did not address with the contribution he made to the committee. I asked him why we need to do this. He talked about there being all this risk and investors fleeing. The evidence, the facts—it is laid out in the commentary to the bill—show that, actually, investment in existing fields increased after the ban. The facts do not stack up with what the Minister is saying. There was no investment flight. In fact, investors put more and more money into the existing permits that were left untouched after the 2018 changes, yet there were not the significant fines.

What evidence is the Minister working off? From what we are hearing, it sounds like a whole lot of rhetoric, and the evidence that his own officials have provided alongside this bill to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and through the regulatory impact statement runs counter to what the Minister is claiming. This committee deserves to hear what other evidence is sitting out there that we haven’t been privy to or that we haven’t seen that shows the need for these changes in Part 1? It certainly doesn’t stack up, and this committee deserves to hear.

Just before the Minister does rise to speak, I remind him that he’s been blessed with a very loud voice and he doesn’t need the microphone to make it loud. The convention in the chair is that you don’t use the microphone to increase the depth and volume of your comments. But, now, feel free to answer.

Sir, I shall take that admonition on board. It’s just that, in my life, I’ve found that volume is proportionately related to intellect.

I will now respond to the questions, and this is how this debate should work: the questions that the honourable member the Hon Dr Megan Woods has put before me—this is a very senior member of the current House of Representatives, and she is complaining that underlying the words in this statute is an absence of quality information. The information that I have amassed as a Minister often comes from the industry, and they were frightened to share that information with the former Minister. They were scared. They had been scared. They had been demonised.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Ha, ha!

Hon SHANE JONES: Now, my volume will rise if there’s too many interactions of an unprofessional nature. They were intimidated by the last Government, and they were so open after the election to sharing with me. For example, they were five days away from signing major contracts for that massive gas resource off the coast of Te Wai Pounamu, Oamaru, Timaru—five days away—and then that indiscriminate, random cancellation decision was made by that Prime Minister, aided and supported by the Minister—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Nonsense. The time line doesn’t even stack up!

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, I’ve been invited to provide insights as to where I might have got them from, and in this committee, I’m endeavouring to do that. Because the industry had been chilled, the industry had not been given an opportunity to openly engage, and they knew—they knew—that if they shared information, it would be used against them.

I’m so thankful that many of the representatives from the current industry are so open and forthright with their information. For those reasons, I’m possessed of a great deal of confidence and optimism for our country. We, of course, didn’t know—certainly, we the politicians of that time—that the consequence of cancelling the oil and gas industry in 2018 would be a growth in Indonesian coal, but the industry knew that. The oil and gas industry knew that, but they were afraid to share that with that Minister, because they knew they would be demonised. A number of them have been driven out of New Zealand. That’s why they are now flocking back—they are now flocking back.

They’re 10 deep in terms of people wanting to meet with me and share their enthusiasm in relation to trusting the word “promote”. All the word means is that, now, the Crown, the State, will promote that this indigenous resource is available to be exploited, available to be processed, and made available so that we have energy security. We are handicapped because we no longer have energy security as a consequence of Taranaki being shorn, Taranaki being denied, and Taranaki being undermined of economic resilience, due to a climate-alarmist decision that was made and, sadly, has now proved to be having a very devastating effect in that part. But, on Friday, I’m going there, and I’m going to share with Taranaki that there is a future for oil and gas.

The word “promote” does mean that our regions have a future, including ironsands, and I look forward to meeting the various stakeholders in that regard, because that’s what “promote” means. When we denote through legislation that we’re going to be active and outward looking, we’re entitled to have a different philosophical approach. I mean, one party over there believes in wind. Now, I’m not speaking against the god of wind—occasionally, I’m regarded as the god of wind—but all I’m saying is that gas and coal have a vital place to play, and we need to exploit it, and through these amendments, we will be exploiting it.

I thank the Minister for Resources for that contribution, and I invite the Minister to share and table with this committee that evidence that has been provided to him. It comes as news to me that big oil and gas were so intimidated by me that they were afraid to show me this evidence. I certainly had many robust debates with them, and certainly officials had information shared with them.

I find it interesting that the Minister is telling us the industry is sharing with him information that clearly has not been shared with his officials, because it certainly isn’t making its way into the regulatory impact statements or any of the advice that has been offered to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. If the Minister is receiving off-book advice from some of these industry players, I think the committee would be very interested to know the provenance of that advice and to see that advice and to see it there.

The Minister opened up a very interesting area for debate in that last contribution that he made when he said that part of the reason for amending the purpose statement in Part 1 of this bill was, of course, around energy security. I have some very easy questions for the Minister. Historically, how long on average has it taken a permit to come from exploration to production? And, given the time that it takes, and it has taken historically, to take a permit from exploration to production, how many could have been in place after an ending of oil and gas exploration in 2018? How many historically new fields would we have seen in place? Does the Minister really want to continue telling New Zealanders that this is the answer to the energy challenges that we face?

He says with great glee that he’s going down to Taranaki to promote ironsand mining at the expense of wind. Wind energy, offshore wind, which the Minister brought up as something that he is going to privilege through Part 1 of this legislation, not only has the potential to provide New Zealand with energy security in the medium to long term but—this cuts to the heart of what Labour believes about this—offshore wind offers opportunities for New Zealanders in employment. It offers well-paid, meaningful jobs in terms of the energy transition, and this is what this Government is prepared to throw away in this name of “short-termism”. That is what we are seeing with the change in this purpose provision of the bill.

The Minister is showing through the contributions he’s making to the committee tonight that he is not serving in the best interests of New Zealand. He speaks with glee about the fact that he is here for, and to promote, the interests of the industry—for the big end of town. Well, we on this side of town, on this side of the Chamber, will speak up every day of the week for the people whose jobs are on the line, the people that need that well-paid meaningful work into the future, and that security. We will stand up for those communities and not for a Minister that is prepared to put the interests of industry first—certainly not New Zealanders first; that is not what we are seeing.

A responsible Government needs to take a long-term view of where opportunities lie in our regions and where opportunities lie for New Zealanders in work. The Minister is showing absolutely no ability to do that. I go back to the question that I started this contribution with: what advice is the Minister specifically referring to that he has received from industry, and will he table it so the committee can share in it?

This is a short contribution because I’m confident that the Green member will want to have her say, and that’s fair enough. Although content is inversely related to relevance, I shall now respond.

What I have said is that, as a consequence of earlier decisions, investment confidence in New Zealand chilled. The word “promote” is designed to lift up spirits, and as a consequence of the high-quality interaction that I have enjoyed—which is why I have been dubbed “the Emperor of Energy” and a host of other high-quality descriptions. Now, far be it from me to exaggerate those names, but I can’t deny the fact that, when I go to industry fora, they are genuinely impressed that they have a politician that is pro-industry, that is pro-growth, and that is pro-economy. If you have any doubt—because this has turned into quite a wide-ranging debate, sir—go on to, I think it is, YouTube and you can see our former Prime Minister in a Time magazine interview giving her view as to why the gas and oil industry was cancelled by her. The foolish philosophy is reflected in that senior member of the committee, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, but this is a debate about democracy and ideas, and I accept that. All I’m going to say, yet again, is that “promote” is an active term; “promote” is a forward-leaning term.

Now, in addition to that, this particular part—and I’m hoping I can move matters along slightly—deals with the Government policy statement, GPS, shall I say, and this creates an opportunity for the Crown to state very clearly how gas, how this particular resource, can play a key transitional role. The member did raise transition. The fact of the matter is that because the gas and oil industry was cancelled by Labour, what do we have? Indonesian coal. We have Genesis bringing mountains of coal here, and so many industries—the corn industry, we heard on Radio New Zealand this morning, are no longer planting corn because the gas industry was cancelled. That is jobs lost in agriculture, jobs denied regional New Zealanders, so it’s not unreasonable for us to reinstate the importance of this particular resource being made available to investors, either domestic or fresh international investors.

And do you know what they’re going to say? They’re going to say, “But how long is this going to last?” That’s a very, very sad and, quite frankly, depressing prospect, because they fear that this lurching which has defined energy policy in New Zealand will continue. I suspect it’ll only continue for as long as that member is the representative of her party for energy.

Glen Bennett: Oh, come on!

Hon SHANE JONES: No, no—it’s quite true, quite true. So much of what we do in our positions is informed by the heritage we feel we need to protect. It’s all OK to say we made a mistake. I should never have stood with Jacinda Ardern in 2018 with my Kabuki faces and acquiesce with the worst decision ever made on energy policy in New Zealand. Now I’m correcting it, which is why I’m highly applauded throughout industry in New Zealand.

I’ll just make the comment at this stage that while the Minister continues to make each of his replies sound like a general debate speech, it’s very, very difficult to narrow the topic. While he continues to introduce new topics, then of course it’s going to be very difficult for the Chair to rule that the debate has become repetitive.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Hon Members: This’ll be good.

STEVE ABEL: That’s very kind. I appreciate the acknowledgment of the Chair that the debate has been widened somewhat, and we do appreciate that, Minister “Matua of Minerals”. The suggestion that the Minister for Resources made, that it was juvenile to respond to the existential threat of climate change by keeping minerals in the ground—oil, gas, and coal—is an interesting suggestion, and I would like to ask the Minister, once I outline the nature of why his use of that term “juvenile” needs to be explained somewhat: is it juvenile to take into account the advice of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says that we need to leave all oil, gas, and coal unexplored and unextracted from 2021—three years ago?

One of the members opposite suggested we should have nuclear energy in New Zealand. I do not think that’s a popular suggestion—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: That’s what the IEA says.

STEVE ABEL: Are you suggesting that there should be nuclear energy in New Zealand? I do not believe that nuclear is a good idea.

Now, given that the International Energy Agency suggests that we need to leave oil, gas, and coal in the ground, and it may suggest that in some regions nuclear is appropriate—there’s a whole lot of other problems with nuclear, and I’m sure most New Zealanders do not want to see nuclear here. Perhaps the Minister has a view on that, given that perhaps his colleagues think that nuclear is a good idea. Also, in the transition to a decarbonised society, there is an expectation that the remaining gas that we have will be used wisely, i.e., not expended on things that are inefficient; perhaps not exported as methanol, which is not the most wise use of gas if it’s such a vital energy resource for us, given a Canadian company is doing most of that exporting—and, in that regard, making the decision at a political level, in 2018, to say we will lock away the remaining oil, gas, and coal in the ground, and thereby begin that crucial journey of transition.

What advice has the Minister received that he regards as so juvenile on the climate and energy transition impact of reopening oil and gas, and coal, as he advocates for, in such a way as the Minister talks about locking us into a commitment and a dependency on that gas to 2050? What is the impact of New Zealand’s obligations and commitments to achieving global climate targets to deal with that existential challenge of climate change, which the Minister describes as “climate alarmism”? Is the Minister not only saying the International Energy Agency is wrong, but also saying the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incorrect when it says the greatest threat facing humanity—all of us—is existential climate change? And how has the Minister justified, in the light of whatever advice he has received, the reopening of oil and gas exploration?

Hon Member: Competitive energy prices.

STEVE ABEL: The energy crisis that the member opposite has interjected about—

Hon Member: Competitive energy prices—electricity.

STEVE ABEL: —I will tell you—is, in fact, a crisis of a failure of Governments to actually plan sufficiently for how we do the transition. A refusal to intervene in the market in such a way as it makes the generators build the consented wind farms that they have, as it makes sure that the actual market incentivises the creation of the new renewable energy that we need to electrify our entire energy system, to respond to the member opposite. This strategy of digging up new gas and oil does not take us on that journey to decarbonisation, and so my question to the Minister is: how do you, in the context of whatever climate advice you’ve got—which we’d like to hear what it is—justify this level of denial of climate change, this level of denial of the science of energy transition? Thank you.

I will respond to the allegation that the pulpit of truth now is in an international energy organisation. I am entitled to form a view that that is a disagreeable organisation run by corporate ruffians. We will not be embracing everything it says, because its advice does not suit the needs and it’s not well-informed about the trajectory that our wee nation is on of $400 billion GDP—a 5.2 million country who has historically had a hermetically sealed energy system. We’re on the verge of having to contemplate importing liquified natural gas because of the cancellation of the oil and gas industry.

Now, I want to keep it very tight and direct the member to Part 1, new section 12, the Government policy statement. That is where a Government of the day will lay down what is the virtue; what is the policy; indeed, what is the purpose as to why society would choose to continue to use this particular resource. This is a device. This is a platform that enables that narrative, those debates, to take place. Unlike what I inherited, we’re not going to make random, indiscriminate decisions based on the voters of Sandringham in Auckland. We’re going to take account of industry, we’re going to take account of employers, we’re going to take account of firms up and down regional New Zealand; not the tiny group of—I won’t say chardonnay-drinking because that’s so tired and old-fashioned. All I’ll talk about—

Hon Member: Champagne.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, I won’t talk about champagne either. I’ll just talk about the fact that a tiny, narrow group of swivel-eyed, ill-informed people living in that general area of—I’m astounded I’m saying this, because my nephew Stacey Jones actually comes from Sandringham, Point Chevalier—one of the greatest players of rugby league; I’ve no idea whether he depends on gas.

I just want to bring my contribution to a point for the members on the other side of the Chamber: the Government policy statement is where these priorities, these different points of opinion, can be articulated, and the public can have their say. Because I’m very, very open-minded, I look out to gather information in, but I’m not going to be guilt tripped by any organisation that is dominated by people who are anti-growth, anti-development, and have swallowed the virus of climatism—it’s just not happening.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I still don’t feel the Minister for Resources has addressed the question from my colleague the Hon Megan Woods around why on earth would he want to “lurch”—the word that the Minister used: “lurch”—back to the word “promote” from “manage”. We still don’t have a clear answer for that on this side of the Chamber. When he talks about lurching and energy policy lurching backwards and forwards, does he not acknowledge that this piece of legislation is lurching in the other direction? That’s my first question.

My second question—and I’m not sure if this fits with the Standing Orders but I will ask it none the less—is: the Minister spoke about standing on the podium with the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern in 2018. He confessed to the fact that that was the worst decision that he made. How can he justify that when he was actually in Cabinet and made the decision? I know it’s probably not something that he can answer in this debate, but I don’t understand why he stood—

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance? Relevance?

GLEN BENNETT: The relevance is that the Minister stood in support of legislation that he believes “lurched”, and I want to know why he says that.

The next question I have for the Minister is—the word that he used was “dewy-eyed expressions”. Now, I don’t actually understand what he means by that. I may be a bit too young for him. In his first contribution he talked about that. How is that actually relevant to this piece of legislation and this part of the work?

The other question I want to ask the Minister—because he has continued to go on and on and on and on about the cancellation in 2018. Now, I’d like him to table anything relevant to the cancellation, because if I look through the legislation in 2018, 2019, if I look through everything, Labour never cancelled—

Carl Bates: Labour never did anything.

GLEN BENNETT: We said a lot of things, thank you very much. I’m asking the Minister to actually give us some relevant information on that, because it’s not clear to me in terms of what the Minister is saying when it comes to this—the fact of, in clause 4, “Section 1A amended (Purpose)”, amending “manage” to “promote”.

The other question which is related to this is about when he says New Zealand is “open for business”. I am unsure what he actually means by that when we look at some of the industries that actually have been successful in terms of their work.

I also would like to have a response to my colleague the Hon Megan Woods, who has already asked about the period of time it takes from discovery to actually pumping that oil or gas out of the ground—what that time line is, if the Minister could explain it.

My final question is around what we talked about around a line in the sand in 2018—that he stood beside the Prime Minister of the time. Why does the Minister think it is important to go backwards; to “lurch”—the word that he used—back into oil and gas when it still exists and it’s still creating income for the country, creating income for Taranaki, creating income for the taxpayer? Then, when we look at things like solar, like geothermal, like green hydrogen, like wave energy, like tidal and wave energy, like offshore wind, the Minister seems obsessed with oil and gas. He talked about being “the Emperor of Energy”; he talked about people calling him “the Emperor of Energy”. My final question to the Minister this evening, in my contribution, is: who is calling him “the Emperor of Energy”? Is that his funders?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr—

Scott Willis: Willis. Scott Willis.

Francisco Hernandez: Francisco—oh.

Scott Willis. My travelling companion.

Could have been “Francisco Willis”, but that would have been—thank you, Mr Chair. My apologies. I know it is—what’s the time—9.50 p.m. It’s late at night, and I am not going to address the Minister’s climate denialism, as interesting as it is.

I do want to look at clause 4, the amended purpose, as has been addressed, because I was interested to hear that the Minister for Resources believes that we’re hermetically sealed in terms of our energy. We have never been hermetically sealed. We may have had an abundance of renewables, and we did something very well, even under the Muldoon days, when we built so much renewable electricity generation, but then we’ve rested on our laurels, and I’m keen to hear from the Minister where the energy strategy is at. Where is New Zealand’s energy strategy? Do we have a national energy strategy to be delivered before Christmas?

This is a really critical question, because what I hear from the energy sector is a need for consistency and a need for an understanding about what infrastructure builds we’re going to have. I have heard from the Minister that there are problems. We all understand there are problems. The Minister has even referred to the Electricity Authority as a “chocolate teapot”—not working for the benefit of the community—and I think we could have some agreement that there needs to be change in the electricity sector.

There is a bill, for example, called the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill that the Minister would be free to pick up to enhance and more rapidly build the renewables that we have and to enable better competition in the market to ensure that we fast track the doubling or tripling of renewable electricity supply that is called for but that is not actually enabled through anything this Government is doing, because this Government seems fixated on fossil fuels. It talks about renewables but wants to fast track fossil fuels, so there’s a real inconsistency here.

My question to the Minister is about the energy strategy: are we going to see something delivered that will ensure not fossil fuels fast tracked but the doubling or tripling of renewable electricity generation, which is the other purpose this Government has told us they’re interested in? If we could see something that said, “Instead of fossil fuels, we are going to double or triple renewable electricity generation”, then I can guarantee that the Greens would be in support of something that would do that. At the moment, we don’t see anything down that pathway, so I’m really, really keen to hear about where we’re going and how we can be open for business to assist new wind development. Is there going to be a challenge with our minerals extraction that will put at risk some wind development? Perhaps the Minister might like to respond to that, as well.

Coming back to the ability for us to build the renewables that we need so that we do not need to dig up minerals, so that we do not need to dig up fossil fuels, and so that we do become a hermetically sealed, energy-sovereign nation and can electrify our economy and ensure affordable, cleaner, cheaper, smarter electricity for everyone, will we be able to have an energy strategy before Christmas? Will we be able to reform the market to enable the faster build of renewable electricity generation? Will we be able to see that we are focused on electrifying our economy based on renewables, rather than turning back to some bizarre past where we didn’t care about the climate—because those days are gone?

We do care. We care because we’ve got children and we’ve got grandchildren—some of us—and we want to ensure that there’s a future for them. I’m really interested in hearing how we’re going to support the transformation of our energy sector into something that will deliver for not just this generation, not just the next generation, but seven generations into the future.

Sir, I’m conscious that time is winding down. I just want to repeat again: I don’t want to broaden this debate, because we’ll lose the focus on the genius of this bill. What I would like to share with the committee is that this bill will have a Government policy statement, but this bill is only one contributor to energy security.

Now, when I was invited to hold this role as the associate energy Minister and Minister of—for—Resources—because I’m not “of” resources; I’m “for” resources—I came across a cobweb-riddled report that had been neglected and overlooked by the last regime. In fact, it was almost infested with the katipō spider. Now, after I got rid of that climate-riddled, exaggerated, hyperbolic critter, I found that there was a report that the last regime never followed up for deep, critical, magma, close, geothermal energy. It has fallen to me to identify how deeply relevant that source of energy is. They had tried plaintively in the face of the last regime, sought incessantly to talk to a former Minister of science and energy, but they were rejected because it did not suit the ideology. So, yes, I admit that this bill does turn over ideology and that it replaces it with practical, adaptable strategies.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s simply not true.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, it is true that there are challenges with emissions, there are challenges with policies that are being imposed upon us, such as an ill-conceived deal that Jacinda Ardern agreed to that we’ve had to make the best of with the EU, but we must use our own resources to boost our resilience and maintain our productivity.

All that this innocuous piece of legislation does is restore to New Zealanders what they enjoyed four or five years ago, to recreate a level of certainty and confidence so that we can keep the lights on without importing Indonesian coal. What possibly could be wrong with that? That is why—and I won’t go on too much longer—the word “promote” is an active, doing word. A doing word is not some word like an adjective that you describe everything; it’s an active verb: you go and do something. You get out there and you ensure that people are instilled with confidence, as all the industry is—and they most certainly will be when this bill passes. Thank you very much, sir.

I will just say to the Minister that, if he’s going to make wide-ranging statements, I wouldn’t make too many plans for later tomorrow morning, because he is introducing a lot of material that the Chair has no choice but to allow and to broaden the scope of this part of the bill. I will certainly be briefing the incoming Chair tomorrow morning on that matter.

Given that, members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

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