Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Well far from clarifying anything and getting over any confusion this bill is written in a way that doesn't appear to deliver what the Minister of Energy and Resources and what subsequent Labour Party speakers have had to say. If one looks at the amendment to section 6—clause 5 of this bill—about exemption from the levy what that's saying is that under the principal Act any exemption that might have existed no longer exists but then it qualifies it by saying that actually anything that's been taken out under the exemption and paid under the exemption is perfectly lawful and quite reasonable.So the question that sort of comes into my head is: why wasn't there a bill that simply said this is the new regime for the Crown's interests in levies and royalties on gas? It would've been a very simple bill—so simple that it raises the question of why it wasn't dealt with in simple statute amendment which would've meant that the Minister would've had to go through the arduous process I suppose of talking to other parties in the House making the reasonable case that she claims she has made and getting agreement for it to go through in a statutes bill. That would've been I think something that could've been achieved in the last five months—after all speaker after speaker after speaker from the other side of the House all victims of the sloganeering of the current Government has said that the changes were minor that the changes were fixing an anomaly that the changes were closing a loophole and that it was simply a matter of clarification. All of those are circumstances that are required for a statutes amendment but no we've got a bill. After the Minister was first notified of the potential for this in December of 2022 we go through five months—no consultation with the industry no discussion with other parties in the House and suddenly on the day that the Government has brought down a Budget that they claim is about the cost of living a bill is brought into the House that's going to put extra costs on to New Zealanders. It doesn't make sense. So from a political strategy point of view this has got to be an absolute loser.When it comes to bills like this we have had very legitimate questions that've been put to the Minister. One of those was how it will apply that pre-1986 and post-1986 arrangement that appears to be in place although the bill actually says anything before 1986 is now gone except that the main bill—this is the confusion—still leaves discretion for that with the Minister. So it's an all over the place sort of bill and the claims on the other side that it's all very simple are actually an indication that there has not been great consultation even inside the Labour caucus which is most alarming in my opinion.We heard that there is to be in the Crown minerals department inside the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment a new determination for what a gasfield is. So what we understand—what's always been understood—is that a gasfield is a geological structure that exists somewhere in the Earth's crust and that it can be defined by an area and therefore lines on a map. That is what the licence is issued for for the extraction of gas in that gasfield. What we've heard tonight from the Minister is that there are only two fields that are affected here—one is Māui and the other is McKee—and that if there are to be new wellheads put on those existing fields then that is considered to be new deposits or new discovery and therefore caught by the new legislation. That seems to be fundamentally mixed up. It goes back to my point: if it is just to change the royalty structure to bring it all into line to simplify it to overcome an anomaly to make a minor change to bring it all into a clarified situation that avoids a loophole why have that extra construction put on it?Why were the advisers coming up to the Minister and giving her advice that this would constitute a new deposit? There's no such thing as a new deposit inside an identified gasfield. It is either a gasfield or it's not. That is the reason why across those two big fields—or certainly across Māui I should say there are only two platforms but there are multiple wellheads multiple extractions from in that reserve.We heard also that if we don't do this then the Crown could be missing out on $50 million in revenue. That number appears to have been plucked out of the air. Why wasn't it in the explanatory notes? Why wasn't it in some sort of discussion that was had with parties around the House? No one's going to say Oh that's a bit silly. We won't take that." Instead we got this ludicrous argument that there were hoards of the oil industry banging down the Minister's door begging to pay more tax. That's complete rubbish. Be upfront about what's going on. If it's just the change to the royalty structure the levy structure then have a bill that says that not this convoluted arrangement that we've got here in front of us tonight.When we look at oil and gas in New Zealand particularly gas it is a massive transition fuel—no question about that. I don't have any doubt in my mind that over the next few decades the energy picture for New Zealand will change. We should be looking to that future. But it's not here now; it won't be here in five years' time. It might be a little closer in 10 years' time but gas is going to be a transition fuel in the New Zealand economy for a long time.So what we would question is why there isn't a more upfront approach about what's happening here? Because it also seems to me that if you look at just Māui alone it was supposed to be extinct 20 years ago. It's had two revisions of its potential and the latest revision says "Well it's got another 10 years with about 500 petajoules of energy likely available for extraction during that time." I suspect that that's about to be recalculated. I suspected that there is a new—they call it the "P" reserve figure that's likely to go up. I think that's probably one of the motivations here.I can't help thinking that the Government is slightly embarrassed having gone on for so long about an energy transition an economy that is going to be run on these new fuels which are not in sight—absolutely not in sight—knowing that for the next few decades we're going to be relying on that big resource and so they want their extra royalty out of it.In principle we don't oppose royalties. But we do oppose the fact that this has been done very very quickly; it's been done without consultation with the industry; and it's been done in a way that makes everything look just a little bit shifty. I heard some ridiculous comments from the Green member before about the balance of payments. I mean you would swear that you could grow money on trees with the way those people talk. It's just not possible. You would swear that there is some kind of alchemy that would make gold available at the swizzle of a stick inside a glass somewhere. It's just not possible.Looking at what Māui and McKee and Pohokura and any other gasfield that you like to mention has contributed to the economy of New Zealand over those last 50 years it's just extraordinary. Imagine what our balance of payments would be if we were as reliant on gas as we have deliberately made ourselves reliant on coal. It would be an absolute disaster—a greater disaster than we're already seeing with the burning of coal at Huntly.So any suggestion that this bill has got even an inkling of purpose in reducing carbon emissions in New Zealand is just out to lunch. We know that the burning of gas is a cleaner option than burning coal; everyone knows that. We know that doing that efficiently is even better. We know that beyond that when there is another fuel that can replace that and it's clean that will be even better again. But in the meantime we need to have a less-confused energy policy and a policy that does not make new definitions for the industry."