Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I am the chair of the Environment Committee that heard all the submissions on this bill. We spent about 21 hours listening to submissions and working through the bill. Other committee members came and went as happens on select committees. Some were there for some of the time then replaced by other people. That's the way it goes. I was there for virtually all of it. I spent five minutes out of the room at one stage and that was it. So there was one presenter I didn't hear from. Joshua O'Rourke I did miss your presentation I'm sorry. Absolutely I read your submission Mr O'Rourke.Some of the presentations we heard are very much in my mind. They became very present to me. Some of the Opposition members today have referred to Mr Bill Simpson from Waitara and that is a submission that has stuck in my mind. Mr Simpson spoke to us of the neglect in Waitara of the lack of jobs of the closure of the freezing works some decades ago—the freezing works that my grandad worked at actually—of businesses that have closed down of despair and of the gangs in the town. May I suggest that that wasn't caused simply by this particular bill but that that neglect in Waitara has been there for a very long time. Mr Simpson spoke quite clearly about the need for jobs. Mr Simpson I say to you: I have heard that I have conveyed that to members of my Government and we are serious about doing our best for Taranaki. So you have been heard Mr Simpson.We also heard from students from Victoria University of Wellington a compelling presentation from two young women there—young women who spoke of the despair that young people feel that they feel as though their future is being taken away from them and they pleaded with us to act. I say to those two young women from Victoria University of Wellington that we do intend to act with respect to climate change. Mr Simpson and the students from Victoria University of Wellington represent the two sides of this debate: those who opposed this bill and those who supported it. There was no middle ground. There was very clear support for the bill or a very clear rejection of the bill. There was nothing in between. I'll come on to that in just a moment.I do want to speak of just one very memorable moment in the submissions when one gentleman came and gave us a short presentation and then he spent the remaining two minutes praying for us. Thank you—that was very kind of you.We heard many many submissions by video link. We did our best to make sure that people from throughout the country could connect with us and talk with us. Indeed I would like to pass on my thanks to our clerks the staff of the committee who made a big effort to ensure that everyone who wanted to speak to us could do so and many many people from Taranaki took up that opportunity.We have an analysis of the submissions. I read them all and analysed them all and tried to understand what was actually in those submissions. We have an analysis from our officials as to the support for and against the bill. My numbers are slightly different but they are in about the right order. So coming from our officials they say that about 735 submissions were not supportive of the bill. I got to about 720—a faintly different number. They had about 1300 submissions that were supportive of the bill. I had about the same number. What becomes very clear—and these are just the individual submissions—is that there was two to one support in favour of this bill. That's before we add in the submissions that were facilitated by Greenpeace and by Forest & Bird. When we add in those submissions around about 85 percent of the people who made submissions on this bill support the bill. Only about 10 percent opposed it. So there is clearly overwhelming support for this bill.We did get some interesting submissions and I do want to take us through some of them so that you understand what people have said. Now against the bill we had one from the boys in the Totara Street flat and one of them said that he just doesn't like Jacinda Ardern in general. That was his reason for opposing this bill. To be fair many more submissions that were opposing the bill did have I guess more substantial reasons. Jeff Lingrell was concerned about jobs. He said I am the father and financial support for a family of 6 this bill greatly places my livelihood in direct jeopardy." We know this will have an effect on Taranaki. There's no doubt about that but that is exactly why the Provincial Growth Fund is being used to support employment in Taranaki.The Major Gas Users Group were concerned about the energy supply. It was an interesting one. They said "It is important to recognise … that for [the major gas users] significant capital investment is … based on 20-30 year asset lives. Any uncertainty over security of energy supply raises the risk that … investment will not be fully recovered." We know that this will reduce the energy supply from fossil fuels but that is exactly why we are actively working on alternative energy sources—on wind on hydrogen—and on new investment.The Employers and Manufacturers Association was concerned about future investment in New Zealand saying that the rapid change to policy would send a negative signal that will chill intent from overseas investors because they're worried about what might happen in New Zealand. I suppose the evidence to that is directly to the contrary. We have a queue of people who are lining up to invest in the infrastructure development opportunities here.The Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ) of course wanted us to carry on with fossil fuels and they had all sorts of reasons in favour of that. But in response to PEPANZ I offer the submission from Richard Middleton. Mr Middleton quotes from Adam Smith: "Any proposal from business ought always to be listened to with great precaution and ought never to be adopted until after having been long and carefully examined not only with the most scrupulous but with the most suspicious attention." I suggest that we need to apply that test to what those who profit from fossil fuels would say about it.And on it goes through all the submissions. I just want to echo something that my colleague Clare Curran said earlier. When I look at what Business New Zealand said about the bill they said "Business New Zealand agrees with the underlying policy objective sought by the 12 April decision but strongly considers that banning new oil and gas exploration is an unnecessary way to achieve emissions reduction goals." But if we aren't going to do something how can they show they really do support the idea of taking action to mitigate climate change? If not how and when? These were just a few of the submissions against the bill.Chris Norton however said "I acknowledge some people and interested parties will feel like they've been short-changed. However this financial loss to a few is nothing compared to the catastrophe that continuing with the exploration and exploitation of our fossil resources would contribute to for everyone."Abbie Jury from Tikorangi in Taranaki said she urged members of Parliament "to understand that while gas may burn more cleanly than some other fuels at the point of end-use there is nothing at all clean or sustainable in the process of getting that gas out of the ground and keeping the gas flowing." She went on to say "If we do not change our energy sources now that change will be forced upon us by the probability of catastrophic climate change."We examined these submissions initiated of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Dinah Hawkins says that the latest IPCC report makes it absolutely clear that we—all of us—must work now to keep fossil fuels in the ground.Last of all giving everyone a flavour of all the submissions that were totally in support of the bill—the 85 percent of submissions that were in support of the bill—is this from Sam Netherclift: "I am 18 and I think it is very unfair that my generation is inheriting a world affected by climate change because of older generations so making exploration for oil illegal is one step forward in the right direction."There is overwhelming support for this bill and in conclusion I give you the simplest submission of all—of all the many I read—"I support this bill because climate change." I support this bill."