Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. And I'd just like to add to Mr Chris Penk's puns. I think this Government's actually having a bob each way!I was trying to look at the different parts as I wasn't part of the Environment Committee and was wanting to get myself familiarised with the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Looking at Part 1 and Part 2 I'm sort of at a point where I think that in one corner the Government wants to end exploration; on another point they want to continue. And I'm sort of thinking: which one are they actually talking about? I was getting a little bit confused.In terms of what the Minister actually talked about when she said just transition" I guess it's about where one looks from—where the perspective is actually coming from. When the Minister talks about the transition to an industry that is going to be hugely impacted I don't think anybody will be using the terminology "just". You cannot have a just transition when there is a huge loss of jobs. And the question that I'd like to pose to the Minister in terms of how little the impact to the economy is that she's actually suggesting—that the economic impact of this decision is actually not going to change or impact on Taranaki she says—the Taranaki region has the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand; can she guarantee that the decision that she's actually made and the decision that this Government has made is not going to impact on Taranaki having the highest per capita GDP of any region in New Zealand? It's the best.What about the Taranaki region having the highest average wage of any region in New Zealand? Can the Minister guarantee that the decision to stop—this particular legislation—is not going to impact on Taranaki having achieved so far the highest average wage of any region in New Zealand? Can she also guarantee that oil and gas actually accounts for 54 percent of New Zealand's primary energy supply? How is she going to replace that? She says she's actually going to be replacing it with clean energy. Considering the fact that earlier during question time I think it was Mr David Seymour talked about 120000 tonnes of coal that is actually coming in from Indonesia I wonder how she can explain that when she talks about how when she ends exploration she's going for the clean energy option and we've got a situation where companies are importing 120000 tonnes of coal. Oil and gas actually currently accounts for 54 percent of New Zealand's primary energy supply. I'm not so sure whether this legislation is actually a good option to actually go clean. I don't think she can actually guarantee that.How about the oil and gas sector generating 4600 jobs directly and supporting 11000 jobs indirectly? Can she guarantee that those 4600 jobs will not be canned? Can she guarantee that 11000 indirect jobs will not be canned as a result of this Government's policy on the hoof? I'm not trying to make a pun here. This seems to be characteristic of the decision that this Government makes: no Cabinet decision no cost-benefit analysis by officials. I think one of the things that I actually read was that the regulatory impact statement assessment shows that ending offshore block offers is likely to cost this country $7.9 billion in lost revenue and potentially up to $23.5 billion. That's actually more than two Auckland Harbour Bridges. Can the Minister actually guarantee that we are not going to lose that kind of revenue—the revenue that this country so needs to cover at least 316000 hip replacement surgeries just for $7.9 billion? That's actually a home for every homeless person in Auckland."