Jones Shane; Kuriger BarbaraHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I don't want to talk about the last regime. I don't want to commit cruelty to species that are on the verge of extinction! I want to talk about elements inside this particular bill the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and I want to start with energy. As was pointed out to me during the select committee process the scrutiny process a word and an experience that I wasn't quite familiar with certain things happened during the unwanted sabbatical. However coming back to the topic I want to talk about the mortal threat that we face in terms of having a robust adequate source of energy and the fact that our energy resilience is threatened by a host of wild untested expansionary falsehoods in terms of what was served up about how New Zealand should respond to climate change.We cannot respond to climate change in an energy context—whether it's more sun more wind other interventions—unless investors unless firms unless farmers unless manufacturers have the confidence that the lights will stay on and we'll have enough fuel in the country to continue to grow the economy. I am funding—Scott Willis: They know that you're a one-term Government.Hon SHANE JONES: We've heard enough from Yabba Dabba Doo over there. This is serious economics. We are talking about the threat to the resilience of our nation in respect of fuel.Ever since that crazy dangerous decision was made to imperil the robustness of our military worsen the resilience of our firms through the closure of the only refinery that we had in New Zealand it falls to us now to tidy it up—an investment to ensure that our fuel supplies continue to remain at a level where business has confidence in our direction. If we do not have an energy system that can guarantee to keep the lights on we will not attract new investment and this notion that somehow just wind just solar is going to keep the economy turning over—riddle me this: why is it that the 1500-megawatt investments that are either going through the system or have already been allocated are not already up and running?The last regime did nothing to improve the competitiveness of the energy sector which is why in the coalition agreement now funded as a consequence of this Budget we're going to drive better competitiveness. Not only are we going to drive better compliance—and I don't want to talk about the 100000 New Zealanders whose lives have been blighted by the falling over of one single pylon. Let me come back. There is a clear message in this particular Budget: either we're going to use our own indigenous resources or we're going to worsen our vulnerability and throw ourselves at the feet of geopolitical instability.There is a very bleak story to be told. Whilst previously no one wanted to openly admit that we should use our own gas resources this politician this side of the House is clearly going to trumpet: if you want to invest in gas and in oil in New Zealand the door is open. The opportunities are here. We are not going to quietly watch the mountains of Indonesian coal grow whilst the only response we hear is More wind more solar." We need hard-headed responses and as a part of my delivery we're going to do that in the context of energy.Let me talk a wee bit about fisheries an area that has been continually demonised continually delegitimised. The industry has now in our side of the House not only advocacy but a politician who is not going to acquiesce with the ongoing trivialisation of this important industry and this notion that suddenly we're going to outlaw bottom trawling—suddenly we're going to outlaw the majority of the techniques used by our current fishing industry—to suit a tiny minority of activists. It's not happening. We need to boost the income boost the revenue from expanding our capacity derive more livelihood income more export income from that industry.Now let me go on to what was meant to be the key institution to moderate and incentivise changes to behaviour in climate change: the emissions trading scheme (ETS). What happened under the last regime? Well hopefully we'll see the back end of the soon to be retiring chairman of the Climate Change Commission. I can't comment on the CEO of that organisation but I go down on bended knee and pray that the next chair deals to that particular person's inability to deliver what society needs. But what was the inheritance that we ended up with? Gross uncertainty continual attacks on forestry and an inordinately negative view as to what role sequestration what role abatements what role offsetting should play—to the point that the last regime thought the best way to deal with this was to hand out massive corporate subsidies to recipients in the industrial world. And those who received it—good on you. You played by the rules; you received the pūtea. My message to you: abide by the key performance indicators.But we're not going to address the challenges of climate change unless we bring certainty and stability and a lot of the work that was under way under the last Budget has gone by the way and there's a narrow focus this time to enhance certainty and boost stability in terms of the ETS. And this notion that some would have you believe—that we're going to go away and spend billions of dollars in 2030; that's what we hear from the Yabba Dabba Doo Party over there: that New Zealanders are going to endorse us sending billions of dollars to the Congo—never going to happen. New Zealanders expect us to invest so that society so that the community can adapt to the challenges of changing weather and changing community challenges.Now let me finish just on building and housing. Kāinga Ora—and I'm not too fussed by the name. "Kāinga" from the word "kā": to light a fire where you built your home; "ora"—sadly for that lovely Māori word meaning "wellbeing" most of the experience for organisations with that name in their moniker has been an inverse-related outcome. Kāinga Ora ended up under the last regime delivering houses at $6500 per square metre. No wonder their finances are in a terrible state. In New Zealand we should be delivering bulk standard houses for at least $2400 per square metre. And why do I say that? There is no point building the Taj Mahal when what society really requires is to stop spending the $1 million per day in motels and move those people into bulk standard ordinary whare not overcompensated and overcapitalised like many of us grew up with in New Zealand—an ordinary Keith Hay house—or in the case of the people who grew up in the 1960s where you could get the same dwelling if you lived in Kaitāia down to Invercargill.Kāinga Ora sadly with a board that lost its way probably dominated by a very very overreaching Minister of the time has worsened housing statistics in New Zealand. The costs blew out to the point that yes there is at the moment a pause because we've got to get our hands around the throat of how much money we are continually throwing after bad outcomes. And the worst—the worst legacy—is to look at the trajectory of inflated costs associated with delivering housing for the most needy which is why our modest contribution of the granny flat is already inordinately popular around New Zealand—not only as a response because it eclipses the Building Act much of which is unnecessary bureaucracy; it will also have a pathway through the Resource Management Act. It's common-sense robust gestures of that nature which will deliver to garden-variety Kiwis a housing solution that is not overcapitalised and does not have the cost structure of the Taj Mahal.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Celia Wade-Brown; this is a split call—five minutes. Thank you."