Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much to the Minister for giving us that preamble. I guess in some regards when the Minister discounts climate change mitigation as a policy purpose for the bill I want to just highlight in the commentary in the second paragraph This bill is one of several initiatives that seek to aid New Zealand's transition to a low-carbon economy in line with the country's international commitments." And so it can't be separated. It can't be divorced from that purpose. Certainly I understand that to write that into the bill would be problematic; however the policy purpose of these changes seems to be quite clear.I want to come to the Part 1 clause 4 where section 2 talks about the onshore Taranaki region as being the area that's constituted as that which is able to receive applications or bids through a block offer for expiration permits. It's significantly unclear in the bill and the preamble and any commentary that we have received prior to the differentiation between offshore and onshore. To say that it's maximising current infrastructure—well of course any company would want to do that. But we also understand that in regard to the offshore 2018 block offer that people were expecting there were nominations of around 39 different particular areas. So to say as the Minister has said in the past and the Prime Minister has also said that offshore block offers in the past couple of rounds have been poorly subscribed to—well of course that occurs because it is more expensive. And secondly it is during a period of time where the price for oil went below $30 a barrel—quite significantly lower—and so it became an economic choice rather than a resource choice.Currently New Zealand has 50 percent of its resources offshore 50 percent onshore. And so we would say that consideration around offshore and onshore and the differentiation—it has been unclear why the Government has sought only to choose onshore Taranaki. Yes I acknowledge that in some respects the Minister has talked about a transition—and obviously the industry is based there—but the industry has also looked beyond there in the past and there is certainly enough evidence and enough data to suggest that there is opportunity beyond regional Taranaki.When we look at regional Taranaki—perhaps some of my questions to the Minister will come as we go through this committee stage—we do understand that there is a very defined boundary for regional Taranaki as is mentioned here in the bill. The Local Government (Taranaki Region) Reorganisation Order 1989 depicts boundaries but what is interesting about Taranaki and looking at this boundary between offshore and onshore is that the first sightings of oil evidenced in Taranaki were actually in that middle space. It was on Ngāmotu Beach in Moturoa in Taranaki where oil seeps came through the sands. So actually making differentiation between onshore and offshore is—well if you look back in history to 1865 it's really interesting that the first discoveries of oil were on the beach in the border between. Significant discoveries have been in both particular areas. It's known that even in pre-European times Māori discovered and saw the evidence of oil seepage not only in onshore Taranaki on the beach but also in other regions on the East Coast as well. If you look at the history that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals put up in terms of the history of New Zealand's oil and gas discoveries it's particularly interesting.It's very clear and obvious to the Minister of Energy and Resources that the National Party opposes this bill. We oppose it on many grounds. But going back to some of these introductory remarks that are in the commentary there is the issue there around achieving New Zealand's climate goals. And I put it to the Minister and to the committee and I would like an explanation on constraining exploration to onshore Taranaki: what will that do to achieve a climate goal for New Zealand particularly when we understand that New Zealand produces around 131000 barrels a day which is mostly exported? If we were to cut off the supply of that or reduce it severely—this bill's final intention would be to do that; it would be to close it down and make this a sunset industry—then we would no longer be able to supply that to the world market. And will that make a significant difference to the goals of climate change mitigation?The reality is that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries runs a daily excess of two million barrels a day. And it's a little bit like this: if I put my hand in the ocean and pull it out—if I pull my hand out of the ocean—it will be filled instantly and there will not be left a gap. And it's the same issue with New Zealand's hydrocarbon exports. If we withdraw from the international market by trying to constrain only into the Taranaki region excluding all other regions excluding offshore and think that that is going to make a dent in international demand and take up we're mistaken.So what we have here is a bill that seeks to reduce the area where this activity can take place with the intention that as the Minister has said it's going to fulfil these wider and deeper obligations. But it won't. And so in a sense all that we are achieving here is what this party says is virtue signalling. We are saying that we are prepared to create such pain such disruption—we are prepared to end an industry for a goal that we will not reach. And I think that that is poor governance and poor decision-making and certainly is an effect of the lack of consultation that's taken place through this whole process. At least in the committee stage we get to go through it clause by clause and hopefully the Minister will be able to stand on her feet and answer the many questions that we have to validate this piece of legislation to try to convince not just us but New Zealanders why it's so important when in fact it doesn't achieve some of the big goals that she and her party and the coalition members are seeking to achieve.I don't know what the goals are of New Zealand First because this is the party across the way that in terms of the onshore Taranaki region—actually they've now got a huge expectation. How can you find a replacement in terms of the just transition the Minister speaks about for 4500 direct and another 3000 indirect jobs that come from an industry that actually powers New Zealand's economy? And if we don't have them powering our economy we will import the product from somewhere else. We'll pay somebody else—give them our economic value. We will have higher levels of hydrocarbons just to get the product here. So actually we are defeating ourselves at multiple levels and I look forward to contributions from across the Chamber. I certainly look forward to what the Minister has to say about these particular issues. Thank you very much Madam Chair."