Kuriger Barbara; Dean JacquiBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you. I've still got two tabled amendments that I wish to speak to so I don't think we want to close this down just yet because I want to hear what the Minister wants to say on another couple of issues. However what I did want to say before I move to those other tabled amendments is that the Minister talked about overseas companies as opposed to New Zealand companies. Now we know that around the world that this is an industry—we've just had COP26; we know that we're not the only country in the world that's actually trying to get to the new clean energy future. I just must point out that this country's gone backwards in the last few years which is very disappointing. It was heading towards 90 percent renewable electricity in 2016 and struggling to make 75 percent this year.So we've just got to be careful what we do because the Minister talks about a transition and I'm still waiting to see one. I don't actually think this is going to be part of a good transition going forward any time soon because when I go out into energy meetings and conferences the word that is most often used is uncertainty." Government has no plan; Government has no transition. Call it a just transition—you can call it whatever the Government wants to call it but actually if it isn't a transition it isn't a transition.We know that coal and gas are two fuels that at some point in the future we will need to have replacements for. But that's a long way out in terms of this country in terms of the needed gas. The Climate Change Commission made that point. It seems really silly to target our own resources and lob off what we have and import fuels from Indonesia that are not as climate-friendly as the ones that we can produce in our own country.What I also want to say is that the Minister's made a lot of noise today about the money that it cost to unpick the Tamarind. You know that is not a good thing that happened right? We stand here and we know that. We're not arguing decommissioning; we're arguing this bill because it's an overreach.The Minister talked about schools and building buildings and making sure we need the money in this country to do the things that we need to do. I know that the Minister's been to Taranaki and I know that the Minister will have seen buildings all around Taranaki and probably in other parts of the country which have been paid for by this industry. So you know it's all very well to cry in one direction and not appreciate what has happened in another direction. I can tell you that a lot of stuff the local swimming pool a whole range of things—and I bet there's a few members on that side of the House that have actually been to WOMAD over the years—are all supported by this industry. They have been absolutely fantastic sponsors in the community. So I don't think it's fair for this Government to characterise this as an industry who just does stuff to us and walks away. That is not true. I know that those overseas companies will dearly have in mind about decommissioning because right across the world they are the focus of attention of a lot of people. So no one is actually disputing Minister that we need to decommission; we are just disputing this bill.So I'm going to start talking on the next one of my tabled amendments and this is an amendment also to clause 17. This is about removing the trailing liability provisions because this is an unnecessary and highly unusual instrument in New Zealand law. Other provisions in the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and this bill will ensure that the decommissioning will be properly executed. The bill as it stands makes attracting directors unnecessarily difficult—[Time expired] Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Barbara Kuriger.BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you Madam Chair. This bill as it stands will make attracting directors unnecessarily difficult as they will be subjected to perpetual liability. It also undermines the norms of civil and criminal liability by making directors liable for decommissioning after a permit has been transferred. If you want an equivalent to that perhaps we should be asking about perpetual liabilities of Governments that make really silly decisions in this space whether it's the Public Service whether it's Government or not. When Ministers get to the point where they keep pointing the finger at private sector for their decisions and not wanting to take personal responsibility for their own policy decisions then I start to have a problem with it.We had submitters come to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and they said there is no other directorship in New Zealand that would be expected to be able to work under this regime. Now is this a start of something that this Government is going to continue in terms of overreach into other directorships? I don't know. Nothing would surprise me at this point in time. But is it fair to actually override what good directors put in place by putting legislation in place that's going to expect directors of a particular industry to have to go much much much further than directors in other industries? It's something that's untenable and unheard of.I know that this Government is opposed to large business. I know they're opposed particularly to large international business. We've sort of heard connotations—probably not those words this morning but heard connotations come out of the Government. But some of those businesses have done amazing things for our community. I'm sure Angela Roberts has probably been in the swimming pool in New Plymouth I'm sure been to WOMAD and I'm sure many others on the other side of the House have actually benefited from this industry. So let's not stand here and pretend that they're all bad because it doesn't matter if I look at my energy portfolio or my agriculture one this Government is actually pointing the finger at the industries that we need in this country. We've just had a massive pandemic and I know that you've noticed and we're not happy with all the things that are going on around that at the moment either and overreach. But at the end of the day the energy industry is something that we need in New Zealand and right now with not just this bill but various things that are going on around energy by this Government we are going to become a very energy—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can I ask the member to come back to the bill.BARBARA KURIGER: Yes. Thank you Madam Speaker. I will come back to the bill. So in order to keep our energy security up I propose that with this tabled amendment that I've put in place we do not expose the directors of this industry to wider director duties than we do with directors from other industries.Now I've got another tabled amendment here which I'm putting in place. I don't expect the Government will support it but it would be nice if they did. This amendment is to entirely remove the post-decommissioning fund because the fund was entered into the legislation without consultation and that's something that we hear pretty often these days—without consultation "let's just do it; don't ask anybody."—and without a cost-benefit analysis or evidence of a problem that it seeks to solve. The fund ignores that the "polluter pays" principle as a levy is imposed on all permit holders regardless of their actions or their risk profile. The "polluter pays" principle is a foundation for environmental law in New Zealand and it creates a perverse incentive for companies to act within the bare minimum legally mandated scope of decommissioning as they will still pay for decommissioning failures. So you know it's just another piece of this bill that is overreach. In the remaining section of this speech—and I'll probably take another one if I get the opportunity—is that we're not opposed to decommissioning just the overreach—[Time expired]"