Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be taking a call tonight on the title clause of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I do so with some hesitation actually because I don't typically take calls on title clauses but I genuinely think tonight that they have titled this bill incorrectly because there is no suggestion in here of what the bill does. It mentions petroleum which is fair enough but it doesn't talk about the fact that permits will be ended. It's not very specific at all in what the bill's intent actually is. So I've got a few suggestions which I'd like to put before the committee for consideration.The first one of those is the Crown Minerals (Effect on Regional Development) Amendment Bill". And the reason for that is that I think even the members opposite would appreciate there will be an effect on regional development not just in Taranaki of course. My good friend from Taranaki Jonathan Young has been talking about the impact on Taranaki where there's something like 15000 jobs that are reliant on the oil and gas sector. And so I think that to adequately portray what this legislation does we do need to be talking about the effect on regional development in Taranaki and also in other parts of the country because it's not just Taranaki that it will affect; it will also be other parts of the country. As we know the legislation does lay out that Taranaki onshore will be protected for at least the short term but it's silent on—in fact it bans—any other development in any other part of the country.The example I used earlier in the debate was my area of South Canterbury which will be affected and this bill will affect it and that's why I think it does need to be talking more about the effect on regional development in the title of the bill. There are 3100 jobs on the line—the Barque development would create 3100—and so that will have an impact on regional development if that development doesn't go ahead.The second one I wanted to point out was just in relation to the consultation process that we've gone through on this bill. And so the second title I'd suggest would be the "Crown Minerals (Four Weeks' Consultation) Amendment Bill". And again I think that would quite adequately portray the process that we've gone through because again I think members opposite would appreciate that it has been a truncated process. Generally legislation goes off to select committee for about six months. This select committee the Environment Committee had just four weeks to consider it. That included two weeks of hearings and two weeks of consideration.Barbara Kuriger: Hearings but not much listening.ANDREW FALLOON: And so as part of that they didn't go off—exactly; not much listening—to Taranaki for example which is very disappointing when the majority of jobs will be lost there. So I think that if we are to properly portray what process this legislation's gone through we should consider changing the title to the "Crown Minerals (Four Weeks' Consultation) Amendment Bill".The third one I'd like to put on the table for members to consider is the "Crown Minerals (Environmental Impacts) Amendment Bill". Again I think members opposite have talked at length today about the environmental impacts of the oil and gas sector and I don't think they'd get too much argument from this side of the Chamber. Of course there's an environmental impact from the oil and gas sector. Again as my colleague Jonathan Young has pointed out previously in the debate there is already transition under way. Most companies and others are transitioning away from fossil fuels and you see that with the likes of Fonterra moving away from coal. And so when we talk about this bill—in particular when we talk about the title of the bill—we should be considering what the environmental impacts are.We look at the advice that the Government's received and I just want to point to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE's) advice where they made two particular comments. The first one is that the net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative rather than positive. And that's quite an important point which I think should be reflected in the title of the bill rather than just calling it the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill which doesn't talk to the reasons that the Government's putting the bill up. They're talking about the environmental impact so that should be reflected in the title of the bill. And unfortunately as MBIE's own advice has pointed out the environmental impacts are negative.The second thing they go on to say is that it will result in a likely increase in global greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term and that's the advice I found particularly remarkable. Again it should be reflected in the title of the bill because what members opposite haven't done simply by putting "(Petroleum)" in the title is talk about the fact that the impact on the environment in the short to medium term will be negative rather than positive.So I think any one of those three titles would more adequately reflect what the content of the legislation is. Simply putting "(Petroleum)" in the title doesn't talk about the economic impacts on regions it doesn't talk about the process that we've gone through to get here it doesn't talk about the environmental impacts and it certainly doesn't even talk about the fact that we're ending permits for offshore oil and gas exploration. Thank you."