Stanford Erica; Tolley AnneERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I also answer to Denise Lee". This is a Government that loves working groups—150-odd or one every couple of days. They love them. They love spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants bureaucrats experts—they love spending up large on consultation. What $1.5 million for a justice summit? The next one's going to be much the same and $3 million on a couple of education summits. They're not afraid of a committee. They're not afraid of spending money. In fact they love it except when it comes to the environment—or except when it comes to this bill in fact—except when it comes to an industry that pays really high wages employs really skilled people and provides us with a pathway to transition to a low-emissions future and except when it comes to facing up to our emissions profile and making good evidence-based decisions on the best things we can do to transition to a low-emissions economy because when it comes to these things this Government is woeful. When this decision was made—when Jacinda Ardern came out and made this statement—we had not a single working group. Not a single dollar had been spent on a summit—not a single croissant not a single report not a single industry group consulted not a single Cabinet paper brought not a single cost-benefit analysis and not a single piece of evidence about how this bill would reduce global emissions not even our own—and we have to ask ourselves why that is. Why is it that our environment and this bill get such a raw deal when at the same time this Government is spending millions of dollars consulting out there? It is spending millions of dollars on its flash online campaign when it comes to the relatively simple task of banning plastic bags yet for something that is our nuclear-free moment of our generation to quote our Prime Minister proper process is not important—not important at all. Consultation—not really important. Working groups—not important. Summits—not important. Proof or evidence of emissions reduction—not important. So if these things aren't important for this bill what is important? What is so important that we are willing to risk our environment by having such a substandard process—what is it? It's quite simple really. It can be summed up in one word: image. It's April 2018. Jacinda Ardern is heading to Europe to meet with Macron Merkel and May and you can imagine the people in the Beehive: "We need to make her look like an eco-warrior. We need to make her look like a champion of climate change. We need something to make her live up to all that pre-election puffery. We need that photo op." So we ended up with the infamous April 12 announcement of no new offshore oil and gas exploration which has resulted six months later in this bill.This bill and a lack of process is not only economic vandalism; I would argue that it is environmental vandalism. It's total and utter virtue signalling symbolic rubbish that from a policy perspective is going to be detrimental to New Zealand—from an economic and security perspective and you've heard that from speakers before me—but most importantly for me this is detrimental to New Zealand from an environmental perspective. Labour and the Greens are misleading New Zealanders into believing that this decision is somehow going to be a fundamental shift into benefiting our environment. The reality is that with the absence of any proper research and any proper process this Government has brought forward a bill that will not reduce a single emission—in fact from their own officials we get a report that says exactly the opposite.The net effect of this bill in fact will be an uptick on the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point because this Government are not focusing on what is important which is the demand. They're not willing to invest in vehicle efficiency. They've done nothing about fuel efficiency. They've been woefully inadequate in improving the uptake of electric vehicles—49 percent of our emissions come from vehicles. This Government should be focused on fixing the demand problem. Cutting the supply will only increase the number of tankers coming into Marsden Point. Not only that; they're now demanding that the production is done overseas in countries that don't have resource management Acts don't have exclusive economic zone Acts and don't have an Environmental Protection Agency. All we are doing is shifting production to where quality and environmental oversight is far worse and the environmental outcomes are far worse.To quote Brian Fallow just to finish off with "This policy is self-righteous … [virtue signalling] environmentally pointless economically costly … politically counter-productive to the Government's own agenda of climate change." But hey Jacinda Ardern got that photo and I've heard that she's got a speech in the UN tomorrow so luckily we're in urgency to complete this first reading. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This next call is a split call. I call David Seymour."