Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

The House is resumed for the extended sitting. This is the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. I call the next speaker, which is call No. 10, a second split call, Dr Hamish Campbell.

I rise to speak in support of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This bill represents a crucial step towards securing our energy future as we head to net zero 2050. Let’s be clear. The 2018 ban on oil and gas exploration was short-sighted policy that has hampered our nation’s progress. It not only stopped exploration needed to identify new energy sources but it also discouraged investment in further development of our existing gas fields, and the result is that our annual natural gas production has peaked and has been lower than we ever predicted, putting our energy security at risk.

Also, let’s be clear: if we don’t use gas until we have renewable energy, we will have to rely on coal. The other side of the House seems to be happy with this, or maybe they’re trying to mask it with their virtual signalling, but the reality is we need thermal generation until we can get our renewable energy on track. When we’re looking at emissions—and we’ve heard cries of flooding in Spain and the effects of climate change—when we burn coal, it emits up to 75 percent more carbon dioxide than if we do gas. That means, if we look at it, 93 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide per thermal unit if we use coal and 53 kilograms if we use gas. Some might argue that this bill is a step backwards in our climate change efforts, but let me reiterate: if we burn coal, we are producing 75 percent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced. Natural gas does produce carbon dioxide, but it’s a vital transition fuel that will help us achieve our ambitious goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

We need to work to double our renewable energy, and I think nobody is disagreeing with that, but that is why we need the fast-track legislation. We’ve seen this winter, when the lake levels are low, the sun isn’t shining, the wind isn’t blowing, that we actually need a back-up source. Gas provides a reliable source of energy to supplement those renewable energies. Without gas, we risk the increased reliance on coal, which is a more polluting fossil fuel, or we face switching off our power altogether.

It’s not a pleasure to stand to take a call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and I think there’s some irony in the fact that it says on the wall that the date is 5 November 2024 when the rest of the country is ahead of us as it is 6 November 2024. It is very, very appropriate because this is absolutely an Act from the past. This is literally time-travelling back in time. This is a giant backward step for New Zealand, for the environment, and, through the process taken in this bill, a giant step backwards for good governance. The fact that the other side of the House are comfortable with that isn’t lost on anyone.

Let’s start by looking at the process taken by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee in considering the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Two words: “rushed” and “rammed”, because that was the way it was put through that select committee. It was rushed and it was rammed. The select committee had the opportunity to extend the submission window to allow people to have adequate time—people who live in the areas most affected by this legislation—and the select committee said no. They had the opportunity to form subcommittees to be able to hear more submissions, but the select committee said no. That is not an open-minded select committee. That is not a select committee decision that respects democracy.

However, there are great people who, given the four days, the four very limited days, available to make submissions, made submissions in the thousands. I think it’s really important that, as this legislation is rammed through the House, we take the time to actually revisit some of those submissions here, and, as we get into those submissions, let’s not lose sight of the fact that 96 percent of those submissions were opposed.

I will share extracts of a submission from Te Kotahitanga Marae that expressed full and unwavering opposition. It talked of the “duty of care to protect and advocate for our marae and rural coastal communities which face the direct impact of climate change, including rapidly rising seas that threatens the very land we live on and the future of our people”, and said that “the exploitation of Papatūānuku cannot be allowed to continue. By allowing further fossil fuel extraction, this bill directly undermines our role as kaitiaki and threatens the sacred connection we maintain with our environment.”

The submitter from Te Kotahitanga Marae called on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and on members in this House to listen to the voices of our environment, of our community, and of our tūpuna. We were listening—

💬 Katie Nimon: He’s reading a speech.

I’m reading a submission, because so many of these submissions were not heard. I’m pleased to hear there is a member listening this time, and I will read a whakataukī because I think it’s incredibly appropriate in the context of the submission. Mā te rongo ka mōhio; mā te mōhio ka mārama; mā te mārama ka mātau; mā te mātau ka ora—listening equals knowledge; knowledge equals understanding; understanding equals wisdom; wisdom equals wellbeing. I am reading that and you are listening, and it’s an important message that you should hear.

There is another submission from the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand that states very clearly that international scientific consensus is that the use of fossil fuels for energy consumption is the leading cause of climate change, responsible for more than three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions. A 2023 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it plain that the world is unlikely to meet global targets unless urgent action is taken, with both the UN Secretary-General and the IPCC calling for the world to phase out coal, oil, and gas—phase it out, not start promoting the exploration for it again.

I will finish on a submission that was light when it was submitted but had high impact when it was delivered to the select committee. This was a submission from Benjamin Neville from Dunedin. He said, “I can accept that different people can hold different views on what is best for the country, but to ignore the wealth of scientific evidence about the huge risk to all of us that further fossil fuel extraction and carbon dioxide emissions will cause is just negligent.”

This was a succinct submission from Benjamin Neville, but it was delivered in a powerful context. He was knee-deep in flood water in a Dunedin street as he delivered his submission to the select committee, and the fact that events like those recent floods in Dunedin are a direct result of the climate change that scientific evidence is telling us is because of the exploration activities that this Government is ramming through should not be lost on members. If you want to have his message reiterated, I suggest that you tune into the song he chose to play at the end of his submission, and it was a very appropriate piece of music to round off an excellent submission from Benjamin.

There are three things that I want to finish by focusing on, three very, very good reasons to object to this giant step backwards. Firstly, starting the re-exploration and the promotion of exploration will slow down our transition to renewable energy. Whilst this may be refuted by members on the other side of the House, it should not be lost on anybody that BlueFloat Energy, upon news of this exploration being back on the table, removed their wind generation development plans from New Zealand shores, and they stated it was because of the allocation of seabed. So offshore wind power generation is off the table because of the actions of this Government.

Secondly, trade agreements and our international reputation are at risk. This giant step backwards is damaging our brand internationally, damaging our environment, and undoing the excellent work that Labour in Government did with international trade agreements. Why would you put all of that at risk for this bill? It is hard to understand.

The other thing that I think should not be lost on anybody is the huge burden of clean-up costs on taxpayers. This bill weakens the mechanisms to hold the large companies liable for the damage they could cause and for the huge collateral damage that could be caused to our environment as a result. The trailing liability removal and the changes to those clauses make it very, very easy for big business to step away from their obligations to responsibly manage environmental impacts and damage from this very, very risky practice that the rest of the world is rightly walking away from.

I’ll finish off by expressing the strongest possible opposition because the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill disrespects—it disrespects proper process, it disrespects mana whenua, it disrespects those who submitted to the select committee, 96 percent of whom were opposed. It disrespects our environment to take such a backward step, to be so reckless, to be short-sighted, and to not have the future of New Zealand as your focus.

Let me tell you a couple of things I think are really important to not leave out in this argument. We, as a Government, are very ambitious about a couple of things, and I’m going to share those two things with you today. One of them is doubling renewable energy sources, and the other one is doubling the value of our export market in the next 10 years. Now, we can’t achieve the second one without doing a few things. The first aspect is making our economy more productive. We’re working on that. We’re building roads and it’s all very exciting. We’re going to get people places faster. The other thing we can do is reduce the cost of producing. A big impact on the cost of producing is energy sources for manufacturing.

Now, in my electorate, we have Pan Pac. We know that, when the energy prices were at their peak, it was about $400 a megawatt. Then a couple of weeks later, it was down to $9.38. Businesses can’t cope with that, and, in fact, they can’t, because that’s why Winstone Pulp International closed. If we want to have high-value incomes for our people, we need to have sustainable energy to do it. The member opposite said the international advice is that we phase out. Well, the former Government did not phase out; they just stopped. Now we are dealing with the preserve outcomes. We have to make sure we are making smart decisions, and we cannot double our renewable energy sources overnight. We have got to work with what we’ve got so we don’t have the perverse outcomes. It is very, very important that we work with what we’ve got and we make sure that we have a productive economy and we can contribute to the global economy and grow our GDP, and this is all part of the sustainable plan. Thank you.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Contracts of Insurance Bill.