Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be joining my colleagues this afternoon on this side of the Chamber in opposing this bill. I sit on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and unfortunately we weren't called on to consider this bill. Usually we do look at Crown minerals bills; in fact we have a Crown minerals bill before us at the moment. But unfortunately this bill went to a committee where the Government has a stronger majority. So this is the only opportunity that I'll have during the committee stage to scrutinise the legislation. I intend to take numerous opportunities to do so.I want to focus my initial comments on Part 1 of the bill clause 5 which inserts a new subsection (2)(b). It says a person may apply under this section for a prospecting permit for petroleum or a mining permit for petroleum in respect of any land in the onshore Taranaki region only:". And so my first question to the Minister this afternoon is: why have they specified Taranaki and not included any other regions within that? I understand why the Minister has probably done that and I guess I support it to an extent that there is a very strong and functioning oil and gas industry in Taranaki. It accounts for about 41 percent of their GDP. So to safeguard some of that for the time being I think on this side of the House we do have some support for but the concern that we have is that no other regions have got the opportunity to do that.My colleague prior to me Maureen Pugh mentioned the Barque gas development off the coast of North Otago and South Canterbury and my concern as the MP for Rangitata is the impact that this bill will have on somewhere like Timaru. If that gas development had gone ahead it would've be a huge boon for the South Canterbury and Timaru area. And so to have this bill which specifies only onshore Taranaki and leaves out every other region in the country is in my view wrong. And in a debate just a few days ago we had the Government accusing this side of the House of picking winners. Well my concern is that they're picking some regions to be moderately successful in the short term and leaving other regions like South Canterbury out in the cold.My next point I wanted to make was that during the debate on the first reading we had MPs on the other side talking about the environmental impact. This is the reason for this bill apparently: the environmental impact of oil and gas on climate change. And we had Deborah Russell during that debate accusing us of backing the burning of the planet. She mentioned several times that we supported the burning of the planet. Well my question to her and I guess for the Minister as well is: what is it about onshore Taranaki petroleum that doesn't affect the environment? Because what they're saying is that it's fine for onshore Taranaki to continue to have permits allowed for but not for any other region in the country. So I ask the Minister in the chair and any member opposite who'd like to take a call: what is it about Taranaki onshore petroleum that doesn't have an impact on the environment?The second point I'd like to make in relation to environment is just what impact this bill will have. We've heard at length from members opposite that the reason they're doing this is because we need to be a world leader in climate change and we need to substantially reduce our carbon emissions. And I think on that latter point most members on this side would agree with but this is not the bill to do it. And the reason for that is that this bill will lead to an increase in the short to medium term of carbon emissions. And the reason we know that is because it sees it and the Government's own advice. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's own advice to the Government literally quotes "The net impact on global emissions is uncertain but more likely to be negative than positive." So emissions in New Zealand will actually increase with the passage of this bill.And the reason for that is very simple actually: it's because we're going to rely more on coal. And my good colleague Maureen Pugh down there is screwing up her face because I know she's a big supporter of the West Coast coal industry as am I. But there's no doubt that coal has a greater impact on the economy than natural gas. The Government opposite are talking about banning the exploration for gas and in the short to medium term that's going to lead to an increasing reliance on coal and will increase our emissions—as the Government's advice says to them and unfortunately they haven't listened to it.So this bill doesn't stack up from an economic perspective in Taranaki where they're going to shut down all offshore what exploration. It doesn't stack up from an economic sense for any other region in the country. And nor does it stack up from an environmental perspective because the Government's own advice says that it will lead to an increase in carbon emissions in the short to medium term."