SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well it appears I've come up slightly sooner than I expected. But I do rise with my colleagues to—despite the reservations we will express and have expressed—support this bill through to select committee.It's an interesting perspective though to ultimately think one can address the needs of end consumers—whether they are domestic consumers or businesses hospitals and what have you—by simply trying to factor in demand-side actions or information disclosure when at the heart of the challenges that face us in the future of gas provision and certainty of supply is in fact the problem that we are constraining the exploration for new sources of natural gas. We would do far better—far better—if we had a genuine concern for whether they are large-scale demand-side users or in fact right at the very end because ultimately all costs and all impacts flow through to those end users. Whether they are themselves commercial users or domestic users we would serve them all much better if we were to take actions to address certainty of supply by ensuring that we could find all the supply that we can so that there's always an opportunity to be able to meet the market.Instead we're deciding that we can somehow square the circle by just demanding a bit more information disclosure. While that is not necessarily a bad thing it certainly isn't a thing that is going to address the heart of the problem or indeed likely to make that much difference in any sort of short or medium term. The only thing that's going to make a difference is ensuring that there are sufficient reserves new finds so that there is availability of gas now and into the future. Indeed that also is another means to be able to adjust and react to when there are unplanned outages. If we look at 2018 not only were there planned and unplanned outages in the gas supply but also a problem in availability or certainty of hydro-generated electricity as well.So in terms of a solution—no matter how well the bill is drafted no matter how noble its intent—to a real-world problem the only way to describe this measure is underwhelming. There's always hope that the Government can see light and revise the position it took without consultation with officials let alone even industry participants a couple of years ago by basically halting new exploration. There's always a chance—we're not at the election yet—they could reverse their position. Of course if we are given the privilege of returning to the Government benches by the people of New Zealand on 19 September we are very clear that we will do that because we are focused on solutions that can actually work and drive the outcomes that New Zealanders need.This bill does something. In fact if I reflect back on 2½ years of this Government that in itself is a near unique thing but it does something at least. But what it does is not something that will actually address and fix a problem or provide a solution to what is the heart of the problem; it will move a short way along that spectrum. More information for more market participants particularly those that to date have this view that they are either cut out of that information or at least not guaranteed it—so informing the market more is not a bad thing. In fact generally in markets it's a very good thing but that doesn't necessarily mean that the act of doing that represents a solution in this case to the heart of the problem. The only thing that the Government could be doing that we could be doing as a Parliament were we truly concerned—and I actually believe we are—about the extent of this problem and both the likelihood and impact of future occurrences would be to address the supply side of the issue and not simply looking at some information sharing on the demand side.It is in that respect another example where the Government in being so desperate to be seen to be doing something and not wanting obviously to reverse an earlier policy on the hoof sort of action they'd taken but wanting to be seen to do something finds the nearest available something and says Well in that case I'll do that." But it flies in the face of what market participants—particularly on the supply side—are saying is needed. In that I would categorise it as quite frankly a let-down. Shortly we'll all be telling the people of New Zealand that that's not at all uncommon from this Government and what they could expect from them into the future as well. In fact you'll reflect on 2½ years it's pretty obvious that that is the case. But they've at least offered up something. The something isn't enough and that generally sums their Government up for the last 2½ years—the something is not enough. It's not well-targeted it doesn't actually address the true problem and it certainly doesn't provide a genuine solution. But it is something and it is something that was at least a little bit better than what was there yesterday. So for that reason we will support this bill to select committee."