Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I begin my contribution today opposing this bill by first of all thanking the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee which I am a part of for the work that they've actually done and I have to say particularly for the contribution of our spokesperson on this bill Barbara Kuriger who actually did the heavy lifting because as its often is with select committees spokespeople actually sub permanent members out when they're having to deal with it. I was often subbed out so Barbara could hear the submissions process. I appreciate all the work that she has done and I'd like to thank her and everyone including the committee clerks who have actually put in a lot of hard work. Even though the committee actually disagreed I think the process of that select committee was a good one.I'd like to start off by commiserating with the Labour member for New Plymouth Glen Bennett because the contributions that I've heard from the Labour Government have probably nailed his chances of being re-elected in New Plymouth to zero. In terms of the way that the members have actually spoken it is very clear that members on that side of the House do not understand how business works. Just because they claim that National supports big business and whatever it just goes to show that they understand nothing about business. It's not just big business; it's every business that we care about including those which have actually suffered tremendously in Auckland through lockdown for more than a hundred days. When that member talks about enduring liability and responsibility I just would like to say that the legacy that this Labour Government has left New Zealand is thousands of businesses that have had to close and the migrant population who are separated because of Government policy. So do we actually now send the Government the bill for the cost and the heartache and everything else that has actually gone wrong as a result of this Government's policy? Maybe perhaps that's what we should do.But if we could talk about the details I was actually shocked when I first heard that the costs greatly outweigh the benefits as this proposal is estimated to cost $1 billion—$1 billion—and for every $1 spent we will see only 11c—11c—worth of benefit. I know maths may not be the stronghold of some members and I just want to say if Opposition members have invested in a house that is worth $1 million if you put this mathematics—and this is cost-benefit analysis. If you spend $1 and you'll only get 11c worth left—if they bought a house for $1 million and they decide to sell it with this 11c worth of benefit the house will only be worth $110000. What kind of an idiot would make that kind of an investment—that only 11c is gained as a result of spending $1. A billion dollars is the cost to the taxpayer. Yes I know there was an incident with the Tūī field and the Tamarind company that is costing the taxpayer and that is an unfortunate incident. I know for a fact that the industry when they submitted to the select committee were not actually trying to obfuscate from their responsibilities; what they were actually wanting was regulation that is reasonable and is actually putting up those people who pollute to be responsible.I think everyone can agree to that. If one pollutes they have to pay some kind of reparation to right the wrong that the company has done. I think most people would accept that kind of responsibility if that is put in regulations for the businesses to be responsible for at the end of their term. But what this bill does is put retrospective responsibility on the company. It's like when someone goes into a contract saying I've sold my house. I've signed a contract." and I've actually sold it but 10 years down the track I'm responsible for what goes wrong with that house. Does that actually happen? No it's been sold.Hon Members: It does.MELISSA LEE: Gosh—for something that the new owner does? This is what I'm talking about—for something that the new owner does to the house is what I'm responsible for—and that is not right. That does not happen. As I said in a previous reading of this bill it's like moving the goalposts after the—what do you call the person who kicks the ball? The kicker kicks the ball in a rugby game for example and the goalposts actually move. How do you score a try in a game of rugby if the goalposts actually move after the ball has been kicked? This is ridiculous. The Government spends money wastes money on ridiculous things that are not necessary particularly during COVID—just like the walkable Harbour Bridge where the cycleway and the walkway along the Harbour Bridge was going to cost mega amounts of millions of dollars. They wasted so many million dollars of taxpayer money—Hon Member: $51 million.MELISSA LEE: —$51 million that's right—that has actually been spent. Who is going to be responsible for that? Should we be sending the Government the bill for that because the taxpayer is paying for their mistake just like the supposed slow tram down Dominion Road to the airport? That is never going to happen. "How much is the taxpayer going to pay for the legacy of this Labour Government?" is what I'd like to ask those members.One of the things that I have read previously is that even the people who have submitted are as I've said supportive of responsibility being put on those people who pollute. I think the regulations need to be reasonable and as I said nobody wants to be making New Zealand a dirty country. We all want to be responsible but this particular legislation does not provide that. It actually puts a burden on people who may want to actually invest in New Zealand. The Taranaki decision by the Prime Minister meant that thousands of jobs actually went in Taranaki but this is like scaring future investors away for a decision that the Government is making. It also means that we as consumers of electricity will probably have to pay more for our power than ever before and considering the fact that all of us who were in Auckland were spending more on power. We were using more power because we were locked up at home. We were cooking. We were turning all the lights on in the house. I mean normally we're not home that often or that long during the day but we had our computers going so we used more electricity and that cost is on the consumers because of this Government's bad decision. I together with my colleagues on this side of the House oppose this bill."