Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It'll be a pleasure to speak in any way that you should feel appropriate in relation to the clause—Hon Stuart Nash: Just follow the rules.CHRIS PENK: I will follow the rules. I'll follow the rules so tightly that you will be no doubt very impressed with the number of different title observations that I have to make including—well let's get the obvious out the way—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. It will amend the Crown Minerals Act 1991—so far so good. But what's in the brackets there? The word (Petroleum)" I would suggest could be actually usefully substituted to provide a clearer description—and not for any other purpose Mr McAnulty—and I have a number of different suggestions along those lines.The first could actually be the phrase "(Nuclear-free Moment)". It could be the "Crown Minerals (Nuclear-free Moment) Amendment Bill". That's something of an olive branch that I would offer to the Government benches.Simeon Brown: An olive oil branch?CHRIS PENK: That's something that they feel is appropriate to the nature of the bill. Ha ha! An olive oil branch has been suggested. Well I think that's probably a gratuitous attempt to get the word oil into the bill. So I'll ignore that comment from Mr Simeon Brown and not allow myself to be distracted and waste any of the House's time on that.But the significance of the "(Nuclear-free Moment)" suggestion that I made is that actually—well ironically—if nuclear energy were the substitution that is not provided in this bill then we would be perhaps not having the pyrrhic victory that we're going to have in relation to carbon emissions as has been previously outlined on this side of the House. To be clear I'm not suggesting that necessarily—that would go to the content of the bill and not the title—but I think "(Nuclear-free Moment)" would have that nice little double meaning perhaps according to which side of the debate one finds oneself.Another suggestion would be something along the lines of "(Investment Implications)"—so the "Crown Minerals (Investment Implications) Amendment Bill". There are significant implications for the emotional investment and the political investment that the Government has placed in this bill and of course investment in the more literal and obvious sense in relation to extraction industries that have served us well as a country both in terms of energy supply and indeed in economic terms is obvious too. So again I'm making a suggestion that I think might find favour on both sides of the House by offering something that could be viewed as a positive no matter which angle one approaches this bill from.My next suggestion is the word "(Coal)" and just to be clear I'm talking about the substance that's used to burn energy. Charlie—Dan Bidois: Not talking about "coalition"?CHRIS PENK: No not talking about "coalition" actually funnily enough or indeed the acronym "COL"—Charlie Oscar Lima—which I won't go into on this occasion; it wouldn't be appropriate. So just "(Coal)" on the face of it—the coalface of it so to speak.So moving on finally to a couple of other suggestions perhaps it could be called the "Crown Minerals (Climate Change Impact) Amendment Bill". Again in the spirit of bipartisanship recognising the significance that both sides of the debate place upon this bill well there will be some sort of impact and we can all agree on that—whether it is substantial or insubstantial is a question of debate. But actually more significantly in relation to the discussion we are now having in this committee on this side of the Chamber we believe actually that the impact will be real but will be adverse. The reason for that is outlined much more eloquently than I'll be able to manage—but briefly to make sense of my title-related suggestion is simply that the impact will be adverse because we'll end up as a country importing energy from overseas that is less clean than that which we are extracting and supplying and consuming locally already. So "(Climate Change Impact)" would be a suggestion to allow both sides to claim some sort of moral victory.Then finally the "Taranaki Economy Impacts Bill" would be another way of characterising this piece of proposed legislation. The disappointing aspect of that is that that can only mean one thing: it could not be in this case both positive and negative in a Schrödinger's cat kind of way but actually only could be negative. It couldn't be anything else inside that policy box; it could only be a negative effect on a part of the world that has actually served our country very well and indeed other parts of the world in splendid fashion too. If we're considering climate change or global warming as a global problem we need to see it in these terms not just in view of New Zealand's emissions but none the less I am sad to report as my various title suggestions make clear that I think that these will not be served well in that regard either."