Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the significant consistent themes across the select committee process and the submitters that the Environment Committee heard from was an incredible frustration and palpable anger that the Government had put in front of this Parliament a policy that was anti - climate change anti - New Zealand's economic interests and anti - Taranaki region and that had absolutely no supporting data that the ministries could stand behind. This is the low tide in my opinion of this Government's performance thus far—low tide in terms of competence and low tide in terms of analysis. This is public policy of the worst sort because—and we heard it in Megan Woods' contribution this afternoon—when you strip their rhetoric away this has nothing to do with climate change. This is about their fundamental view informed by their relationship with the Green Party that they are anti - the extractive industries—full stop—because the data says you don't need to do this but the Government are doing it anyway.The Government is anti - big oil. You heard it in Megan Woods' criticism that by giving voice to a sensible view that most New Zealanders hold—in our opinion—somehow we are captured by big oil. That's why the Prime Minister stood on the forecourt signalling that this decision was going to be made with the slogan End big oil" behind her. That's why she went up to Europe and made this decision quickly despite the fact that the official advice said do not do it from an economy perspective do not do it from a climate change perspective and do not do it from a regional development perspective. Your own officials are saying this is woeful policy but do it you do because it's all about celebrity politics. It's all about the slogan. It's all about being able to stand up beside Emmanuel Macron and say "Look. We New Zealand are taking a leadership position. We are going to end big oil." And then when the communities that you're going to impact say "Come and see us and talk to us about it." you say "No." because that is exactly what we have seen: an arrogance of a breathtaking—breathtaking—level.Let's step through some of the perspectives that we heard and allowed through our questioning to be put on the table through the select committee process. The economic impacts: 4000 jobs at risk; $7.9 billion of export receipts lost—they're all looking down; anyone who's watching this at home they can't look at us—this is the Government's own official advice on the cost of this policy and that is a mid-point. It's up to $23 billion. That's what the advice says—4000 jobs.Now the other argument—and you've heard it here—is "But we have to do this because we must take a leadership position in climate change." How many of the Government members have actually bothered to test that rhetoric by actually asking the question around the role of gas in the global supply and energy demand in the next 30 or 40 years? I suspect none of them. If you look out 30 or 40 years in terms of energy demand globally I accept coal is on a negative trajectory. Renewables are on a significant uplift from an almost zero base globally. But the other key energy source that is seen as having a huge future across the world over the next 30 or 40 years is gas as all those developing countries that are currently dependent on coal have the opportunity to move to gas. Gas has half the emissions profile of coal. We sit in little New Zealand at the bottom of the world on an extraordinary gas resource that we could extract that we do extract that we could extract more of and that we could assist the developing countries to move from coal to gas and assist the global climate change endeavour and they say no because they would prefer the slogan of "End big oil" because it goes really well when you give a speech like that at Victoria University but not so much when you're out in provincial New Zealand and not so much when you're in the Taranaki region. It is all ideology.The whole premise of this bill—and we heard it from David Parker—is for New Zealand to take a leadership role on climate change. Leadership is providing developing countries with a fuel source that reduces their dependence on coal and all the other gas exporters of the world those countries around the world—Norway other Scandinavian countries that have gas reserves—are wanting to fill their boots with that economic opportunity. But not this Government not this group because actually it's not what the data says from their perspective. It's not a rational response. It is just optics. It is just an "End big oil" slogan that they want to be associated with.Another area that I want to touch on is that I am currently working on behalf of the National Party with Mr Shaw on seeing whether there's an opportunity to develop bipartisan support for a climate change commission a commission that if it is established—as certainly it has been signalled it will be—is to provide best-practice science-based evidence on these sorts of issues. The Government in its haste to get these sorts of issues being thought about by an independent climate change commission has given an interim Climate Commission two jobs: find us ways of lifting our renewable generation from 85 percent to 100 percent and find out whether or not it is appropriate to deal with agricultural emissions via an emissions trading scheme mechanism. They have a pre-committee already established for the purpose of these sorts of debates.So if the Government wants to have a fair conversation around the issue and role of gas and coal and our natural extractive resources in the energy mix of this country and its export profile looking out 10 20 30 years this is exactly the issue that you would give to a climate commission. Not a show not even interested and I know why: because a climate commission that is tasked with looking at what the science says that is tasked with looking at what the economic impacts are and that is tasked with looking at what the rest the world does would say "This is flawed policy. Don't do it." My view is that they would give the same voice opposed to this public policy disaster as their own officials did and still they look to the floor. If only this was some sort of theoretical debate ladies and gentlemen but actually Taranaki is one of our strongest regions: 4000 people employed directly; 11000 indirectly.Jonathan Young: Three National Party MPs.TODD MULLER: Indeed—very good ones Jonathan. And when Bill Simpson from Waitara drove four hours to the select committee to give a heartfelt contribution on what this meant for his community and his whānau by the time it got to five minutes—"Thanks. See you later. Our decision is made." Our future—New Zealand's future—is symbols and speeches at the UN. It's not delivering value for the people of Aotearoa and the regions who depend on being part of a global journey on climate change. This party rejects this as retrograde legislation that should be thrown out. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."