Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I'm pleased to take a call on this bill. I'd like to take a slightly different tack. Part 1 clearly is the substantive provisions of the bill—who can apply for a permit and where—and the submitters that we heard from in the Environment Committee spoke quite clearly and in unison around the process and the lack of time that they had to submit and the lack of time they had in select committee to give their views around this Part 1. I'd like to speak about one of those in particular which I found quite concerning and I want to hear from the Minister in the chair about what she thinks of the process and whether or not we need perhaps to go back to select committee. There was a gentleman that came to speak to us by the name of Paul Rishworth chairman of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—the body responsible for advising Parliament on policy and legislation.He raised serious issues with the bill and the bill's process. In his submission he said that the submission process around Part 1 was inadequate and further said that There is no suggestion that an extra week or two in the legislative process or in the select committee process would have [had] a major adverse effect." So my question to Minister Woods is really: why wasn't it considered that there were an extra couple of weeks available to us to hear from more submitters and to hear for a longer period of time from submitters around this substantive part of the bill?The submission from Paul referenced Treasury's analysis of the bill which said "[D]ue to the time limitations and analytical constraints arising from Cabinet's previous decisions MBIE did not consult the petroleum industry and the public on the proposals." His submission pointed out that this showed the limitations and constraints of having such a short consulting period. And we saw this in submissions from others—many others—who complained of a lack of time to prepare and the very short time that we in select committee allowed for them to be able to present either five minutes or 15. Frankly it was embarrassing. I felt and members on this side who sat in on that process felt that to be hearing from CEOs of major companies and major industry bodies who only had 15 minutes to present and to answer questions and to cut them off at the last second was frankly embarrassing.The Minister was quoted in the media as saying that there were a couple of thousand submissions and therefore the short time frame was fine and those who wanted to have a say got to have a say. She was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying "This is something [that] we announced in April. The Prime Minister and I have been meeting with communities and the industry since April and have been having discussions about it." Well this flies in the face of what submitters told us in select committee. They said that there wasn't enough time that there were a lot of people that they knew of that didn't have time to submit that because we didn't go to Taranaki there were people in Taranaki—businesses and individuals—who didn't get to have their say and that the time they had to make their submissions was far too short.Powerco said in their submission that "The Government did not consult with stakeholders prior to making its announcement on 12 April ... Nor has it consulted on the development of the Bill"—despite what the Minister said. "The Bill [was] placed into urgency" which means the select committee process "has … not allowed for meaningful consultation with [the] affected industry or the public." That's what Powerco said. So there were a number of industry organisations and businesses and submitters who felt that they hadn't been consulted despite the Minister's claims. So I'd like to ask the Minister whether or not she feels that this process has been fair to the industry and to the people of Taranaki given that we didn't go there given that we only gave them two weeks to take a look at the bill and to make submissions given the fact that we only gave them five or 15 minutes in select committee and given that the overwhelming feeling of all of the submitters against the bill was that the process was flawed and was undemocratic.One of the things that the Prime Minister and the Minister have said is that they rushed this process because of the block offer and I'd like the Minister in the chair Megan Woods to advise us whether or not she had had representations from the industry and the industry bodies to say that they actually didn't mind if that block offer was put off in order for the select committee process to be pushed out. What we heard from many of the industry organisations was in fact that they didn't mind whether the 2018 offer was in fact pushed out. In fact we learnt that the 2018 block offer wasn't even going to happen in 2018. In fact it's not happening until next year. So the question for the Minister in the chair is: why the rush? We didn't need to have all of these submitters complaining about this undemocratic process and the shortened time frames because in the end the block offer isn't happening until next year and the industry is more than happy for that to be pushed out. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair: why the rush? Why did we need to be in this situation having CEOs of companies being cut off to the second by the chair in an embarrassing and appalling manner when there was no need for this rush—when there was no need for urgency? That was made quite clear by the industry bodies that came to talk to us. They were more than happy to have that pushed out.Furthermore I would like to ask the Minister in the chair—we know that advice wasn't gained by the Minister prior to the announcement. We know that the regulatory impact statement came after the announcement. We know that there's been no cost-benefit analysis. We know that there hasn't been a lot of consultation done in Taranaki. I'd like to ask the Minister in the chair whether or not she thinks that this process has been a good thorough democratic process and whether or not she thinks that the Minister needs to in fact get far more information around the lack of investment that's going to be happening in Taranaki and the loss of jobs.Carbon leakage—we asked that question in select committee about carbon leakage about what would happen when we would be in fact importing more oil and gas from overseas from countries which frankly don't have the environmental standards that we have in this country and what that would mean to global emissions. One of the things brought up by the submitters was the fact that although this sounds nice the effect in reality is that global emissions are likely to rise from this policy—and that was actually made clear by MBIE as well—because it's not doing anything with demand. That was something that came through quite clearly in the submissions as well. I'd like the Minister to actually talk to us today about what is going to happen with demand because she's said quite a lot about the reduction in global emissions from this bill but in fact the advice has been to the contrary. With the uptick in petrol tankers and the uptick in importation of natural gas to this country it is most likely that global emissions will rise and that's what carbon leakage is all about. Just because we stop producing it here—it's got to be produced somewhere else and the likelihood is that global emissions will rise because of that.So there are a number of questions for the Minister mostly around process and whether or not she thinks that in fact because of the thousands of people that we didn't get to talk to and that didn't get to submit in Taranaki that haven't had their say—should we go back to select committee? Secondly should the Minister now get a lot more information especially around carbon leakage? We asked that question and an answer hasn't been forthcoming. Is she going to get more of a cost-benefit analysis? And does she have information around the potential job losses and lack of investment in the Taranaki region? We have yet to see that information. We've been asking and we haven't seen it. It's all been nice words and virtue signalling and fluffery but what we're asking for are the details. We're talking about a huge region thousands of jobs—highly skilled highly paid jobs—and a bill that is in fact most likely going to have the opposite effect to its intent. I would be keen to hear the Minister's answers to those questions and I will be back for more shortly. Thank you."