Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Speaker. This Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will bring another blow to energy affordability and security in New Zealand. When the Minister just said that there was support for what the Government is doing in this bill I think that was a step too far. There is support for decommissioning from the industry and the industry came into the select committee and have no problem with their responsibilities around decommissioning but this bill is absolutely a step too far. Most bills have consequences and the consequence of this bill is going to be like other bills that this Government has done: it is going to drive investment out of this industry and before we know it the energy security of this country as we've seen in many things that this Government has done in the last four years is detrimental to our future.As I said the industry wants to decommission. The industry acknowledges the responsibility of the petroleum sector to decommission but this bill is an absolute overreach. The National Party supported this bill at the first reading because we wanted to go into the select committee. We believe in a process with legislation where you give the industry a chance to have a say and the say was that this was a complete overreach. It was based on one bad experience. Last sitting block I was in the House talking about another bill that was based on one bad experience when a livestock ship overturned—a maritime accident. So one thing goes wrong and this Government goes into ban mode: Let's ban it. Let's overreach. Let's do whatever we can to destroy the industry." I think that's actually part of the plan with this bill actually because that's what we've seen.The financial requirements and penalties for companies decommissioning here are disproportionate to the risk. The bill is applied retrospectively and impacts on existing permit and licence holders altering their rights and duties—some of these have been in place for decades. It will reduce New Zealand's appeal as a location for petroleum investment and could also reduce our attractiveness for other investments because of these retrospective liabilities. The Minister said that the world is watching what is going on here. This is the most far-reaching piece of legislation in the world. So guess what if these companies are going to go somewhere they're going to look around the world and they're going to go "Where are we welcome? Oh no that's right. First of all New Zealand closed us down for business and now they're putting these retrospective rules on us. They're looking at perpetuity. Why would we go there? We're certainly not going to go there."The comments that we got back in select committee—and it was really interesting because I've been in select committees where Ministers are open to ideas and participants in select committees ask lots of questions and try to make a bill a better bill. Well this wasn't the case with this bill. The Opposition members were asking lots of questions and we were trying to make it a better bill but unfortunately no one was listening on the other side. So the Government is always wanting to be the first and the best in the world; we hear it again and again and again. We heard it in question time today. Never hear them talking about how the agricultural industry is actually number one for zero-carbon readiness. Never ever hear them talking about things that they don't want to talk about where we're the best in the world but of course they want to be the first and the best in the world and this proposal is stricter and leaves us with the highest level of regulation. And there are no other known directors in New Zealand who are bound to the requirements that this bill requires. We heard that from submitters that came in the room. In fact I specifically asked the submitters if there were any other directors in this country that would be submitted to the requirements that this bill imposes on the directors of this industry.The costs of this greatly outweigh the benefits. Each year the industry contributes around $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy. It brings in about $750 million worth of export receipts. It generates approximately $500 million in royalties and income tax for the Crown. Now it is adding value to this country and even the Climate Change Commission has said that we are going to need gas to take us through into the future because we have a black hole coming in this country when it comes to energy I predict and I'm not talking about coal but it will be filled up with coal. We've burnt more coal in three months of this year than we burnt in the whole of 2016 and 2017. We know we need gas to help us get through to 2035. The Climate Change Commission knows we need gas to help us get through this transition period which Government actually defines transition as: "Well let's ban let's cut things off and let's figure out what's going to happen in the middle and let the lights go off." Dr Duncan Webb: Have you read the bill?BARBARA KURIGER: —because that's actually what's going to happen. And we've got a member over there Duncan Webb who actually asks if I've read the bill. Well I have read the bill. I sat in select committee and I can tell you mark my words the lights are going to go off as a result of the decisions that this Government is making. Last time they went off it was a communication outage. Next time it goes off it'll actually be a power off. Hon Member: The lights are already off in Labour.BARBARA KURIGER: Yeah lights are off for Labour. And there will be consequences of this bill and it'll mean that that Government won't be in Government next time so that'll be fantastic—the country will get a huge advantage out of that.So when we look at the stakeholder commentary—none of which has been taken on board none of which has been listened to—Business New Zealand said a balanced approach to decommissioning was needed. Both Business New Zealand and the BusinessNZ Energy Council have registered their opposition to proposed rules for decommissioning oil and gas infrastructure. So who are the people that really understand how this works? Not the Government. The Government doesn't understand how this works. The industry understands how this works; they're right behind decommissioning and they know that this is actually an unworkable solution for our industry.Energy Resources Aotearoa said the decommissioning overkill needs a rethink but if you're not interested in listening to the industry then law professor Philip Joseph "finds the bill to be retrospective and 'constitutionally objectionable' and 'raises a fundamental rule of law concern' which would be damaging to business confidence." But of course this Government's already damaged business confidence so it's not something that terribly worries them on the other side of the House. Justin Smith QC "expresses serious concerns about 'trailing liability' which means former permit holders can be liable for fields they have transferred and no longer control. He says it is 'a truly novel and draconian provision in New Zealand' "—Draconian. We've heard before that this Government's taking us back to the 1970s; I think they're taking us back to the Dark Ages and the coal age. Consultants Wood Mackenzie "find the New Zealand proposals are far stricter than comparable jurisdictions and unnecessarily duplicative. They find that 'such a strict regulatory system is not necessary to obtain … level of taxpayers' protection.' " And economic consultants Castalia "finds the proposal's costs to greatly outweigh the benefits with net cost to New Zealand of almost $1 billion generating only 11 cents of economic benefit for every dollar of cost."So perhaps Mr Duncan Webb you could read the bill. Asking me if I've read the bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! The member won't bring the Speaker into the debate.BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you Madam Speaker. Duncan Webb might like to read the bill rather than accusing people on this side of the House of not reading the bill because actually this bill is going to take us back into the coal age and we actually will oppose the bill on this side of the House with great gusto. Thank you."