Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Well I think we have heard there the driving impetus behind this bill: that we want to lead on the world stage. In fact as I look at this bill and I look at the intent of this bill and its general principles as I sum up the effects of this bill for Taranaki and New Zealand and as I look at what the alternative approach would be that we would initiate I see a huge huge gap between these two sides of the House.The intent of this bill is in fact quite varied. Frankly it's confusing. The commentary on the bill says that the bill is one of several initiatives that seek to aid New Zealand's transition to a low-carbon economy". Well I think that we would support that. That's one of the guiding principles of this bill. The regulatory impact analysis' opening statement says "The Government has stated that it is committed to acting on climate change. It has said that it wants to show global leadership" and the Minister has reiterated that this afternoon. Yesterday recorded on the Hansard the Minister also said that the underlying principle of this bill is that "we cannot afford an economic shock in this country." and she refers to making hard decisions.Well I doubt very much whether this Minister will have to pay a high price for her decision. The people of Taranaki will pay a high price for her decision and I do find that those words do not give any comfort.I believe that this bill will not achieve a transition to a low-carbon economy. When the Minister was asked for evidence for research she was unable to present it to public commentary. Wanting to show global leadership? Well honestly it's hard to get one's head around that—it really is—because I don't see us being able to offer global leadership.When I look at countries around the world I would say Norway offers global leadership. They're a country that is 100 percent renewable. In fact they have such an excess of electricity they send it into Europe. We have about six to eight weeks of storage in our lakes; they have three to four years. They have a trillion-dollar sovereign fund generated out of the hydrocarbon industry which they are using to invest in education and development and innovation around renewable activities. They are investing into massive offshore wind farms. Yes they are involved in the development of hydrogen but they are doing it as one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. They have the highest level of drivers of electric vehicles and they have been able to afford it because they have not made their country poorer by decisions like this.When this Government considered taking their steps they did not seek analytical advice or information around the cost of it. They did not seek environmental evidence. They did not seek any consultation with the industry. I think that if we were wanting to not create economic shocks in our nation then going more slowly and being more considered taking further advice and getting analysis would be an important step to take. All of the advice and the analysis has come after the fact of the decision and it's an embarrassment of how process works.I think that's a damaging part of what's happened here because offshore investment and investors have looked at New Zealand and they have lost their confidence in us not just in the hydrocarbon sector and not just those businesses that want to invest in that sector but IT businesses people who want to come here to this country who have been shocked by the process by the suddenness and by the lack of consultation. So when it comes to a driving principle of this bill—which the Minister spoke of last night—of averting an economic shock in this country I think that the process has created its own economic shock and I think that's a particular issue.I struggle to see how New Zealand can show global leadership. I think my colleague Todd Muller has often said that the problem about what's happening in this sphere is that we want to be first fast and famous. I don't know whether this is a small-country syndrome but I think that we should be fast followers. We should not be reckless leaders. I think that we ought to learn from countries that have innovation and R & D that is well ahead of us and adopt their discoveries adopt their principles. Yes we have got the ability to maximise our renewable resources and I am not saying that we should not do that—we should—but what we are seeing here through this bill is a loss of revenue to the Crown a loss of revenue and economic impact to a region and potential for an unemployment increase.Venture Taranaki said that there are 7000 jobs at risk. No it may not be today—although I do note that today it has been announced that TAG Oil are exiting the country. I do know other companies that have closed down and I do know of people who have lost their jobs and I know people who have sought to get finance for house purchases and have been pushed back. So to say that the effect of this is going to be in 20 or 30 or 40 years' time is not true. I think that if the Government had taken their time and consulted had said "This is where we want to go. We want to aim for a low-carbon future." you know we would have supported that. But let's do it in a way that doesn't create harm but actually becomes part of a transition that is well planned. I think that we are missing that.I want to talk about—just in the few minutes left—Taranaki being a focus of this bill because it is. The bill focuses on the onshore Taranaki region as the only area available now for block offers. The counterfactual is that this now excludes any new permits anywhere else. So what it does is it denies opportunities for regions that have potential such as Northland such as the East Coast. There's a very good reason why Taranaki has the highest average wage of any region in the country: it is because of this industry. It is because there is investment coming in. Now for the Minister of Energy and Resources to say "Don't worry that will continue on."—I know that when companies come to invest in New Zealand they want to look more broadly than just in one specific region because they certainly want to look more broadly across the whole country. That has now been denied.When we've lost TAG Oil for New Zealand we have got to understand that some of the rationale—well in fact maybe if not all the rationale—has been because of the initiative and the speed and haste with which this Government has driven this bill through. If I could quote Max Murray he said the Government's April announcement of restrictions on future exploration activity would discourage foreign investment. TAG Oil is a company that comes from Canada. He said the policy created uncertainty for overseas jobs. I know they apply. They sought to get senior managers into positions in New Zealand and the people that they approached said "We don't know how long our jobs will last in your country." and they declined the offer. So they are some of the issues that are there.We know that New Zealand Oil and Gas an excellent company are finding it particularly challenging to find joint-venture partners for their work in offshore Canterbury—a prospect if it was successful that would create 3000 jobs in the South Island. This bill has created uncertainty. The Government has said that they've wanted to create certainty. They've created uncertainty—certainly for the short term certainly for the medium term—and I think it's tragic.Well the alternative we offer—let me first say that we will reverse the Government's decision to ban new offshore explorations. We believe it is poorly planned. It will not achieve emission reductions but will potentially increase them. Just a final couple of comments: we will consult with the sector to see a planned effective and smooth reduction of emissions to agreed levels that is technology-led and I believe evidence-based and scientifically based. We would want to make a decision and bring leadership in such a way that the New Zealand people would have confidence. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."