Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Madam Deputy Speaker I thank you for your directions to the last speaker that the debate should be contained but recognise also that there was a minute and 50 seconds of onslaught on matters that apparently pertain and were allowed to be listened to. What I just want to tell that member is that the hordes and masses in Canterbury were overwhelmed by this decisive nature of the canning of Environment Canterbury using properly the urgent process in this Parliament. Twenty years—20 years—that council had to bring down a water plan for Canterbury and they hadn't got around to it. The most important thing for the region—the water resource—and all the well-meaning greenies and environmentalists on the regional council over all those 20 years could not bring down a water plan. That's when urgency needs to be used not on something like this—not on something like this.What's worse I notice that in the motion moved by the Hon Megan Woods—who did not speak to her motion did not want to defend her motion and decided that she would just allow the House to have a discussion about it and then imperiously expect that the House would vote it through—that motion does not require a select committee to meet during the recess. Now it would be I think a reasonable expectation given that the Government has tried to make a case that this legislation needs to move through very very quickly that the select committee might take more than two of the four weeks to hear submissions. What we've got is the usual sort of Labour Party approach to it as is now the way of the Labour-led Government: let's all have a holiday at the end of the exhausting four weeks of House activity and then we'll cram everything into two weeks and report it back to the House. Well that shows scant regard for the value of this activity to the New Zealand economy and frankly to the goals that this country has for the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions. I can't see anything on the horizon that in any time necessary to reduce those emissions in a large way is an alternative to oil and gas. We are going to be importing oil and gas into New Zealand at huge cost and if people think $2.50 at the pump is outrageous today well let's just see where it gets to in two years' time. The essence of this motion is that this legislation is going to progress at such a pace that those unwitting consumers out there have no time to put their case—no time at all. So I am asking for the Minister to take the opportunity—or anyone from the Government. I thank the Hon Eugenie Sage for making her comments her veiled attack—no actually it wasn't even a veiled attack—on the Opposition supposedly in defence saying We're doing it because you did." That's always a great defence isn't it? But no one else from the Government appears to want to justify—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I did.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —what they're doing here. Oh Iain Lees-Galloway has said that he'll take a speech. Well I'll tell you what—it'll be one of the usual speeches that we get with him and it will probably be five words long: "I move that the question be now put." That'll be all he says. That's all he'll say because they don't have a lot of respect for process. If they did they wouldn't be asking the House to approve this arrangement today.I think it's worth just for a minute considering what a select committee does with a bill. The first thing is the committee takes a lot of advice from those officials of the State who have been I suppose most engaged in the area that's under discussion in the particular bit of legislation. In this case it will be the Crown Minerals people or minerals New Zealand inside the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment. We know already that the advice that they're going to give that committee is "This bill isn't too good for us. This bill doesn't look good."There will be advice that's sought from the Ministry for the Environment. Now they'll be conflicted—very conflicted. They'll say as everyone agrees "If fossil fuel emissions were to fall then that would have a positive effect on greenhouse gas in the atmosphere." But what they'll also recognise is that if we haven't got an alternative—and there is nothing on the horizon. Don't talk about electric cars or hydrogen fuel or anything else; it's not there in the numbers or volume necessary for not only the transport application but also all the industrial applications the home heating applications and frankly still a large chunk of electricity generation as well. So they will make a case that yes it's not a bad idea but don't go too quickly because if we end up importing gas importing more fuel than we net export at the moment then we'll be in a worse position.So those are two pieces of advice that we know a select committee should consider. But in this environment where it's all being done so quickly there'll probably also be quite a bit of activity from the chair of the select committee containing the way in which officials are able to advise on the bill and funnelling it as we are seeing more and more from this Government through the Minister's office for a departmental report that reflects much more on the policy desires of the Government rather than the good of New Zealand. So we're seeing I think just the start of a Government that does not want to have ordinary New Zealanders or New Zealanders who have some expertise in this area having an opportunity to represent their position to a select committee.Then I think that bringing a motion that's got all those fine words in it—"the committee may meet during the sitting of the House during any hours except on a Friday or even on a Friday when the House is sitting"—tends to hide the fact that the House is about to go into two weeks of recess. So during that time this motion actually excludes the select committee from sitting. So even if it were to be referred in the next day the particular select committee theoretically can't get to it in a meeting until 17 October. That means that this is not a four-week process at all; this is around about an eight-day process. And that I think also tends to indicate the sort of deception that the current Government is prepared to perpetuate in the name of apparently being transparent open and honest. Well this—don't make any mistake about it—is a procedural motion designed to hide the worst effects of what ultimately is a very bad policy.Now I know Madam Deputy Speaker you were giving me the eye that says "Don't stray into that policy area." but it was very—Hon Tim Macindoe: She wasn't giving you the eye!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I didn't mean it like that honestly. We're very old friends.Hon Michael Woodhouse: She's only human.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No let's keep it serious.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't bring the Speaker into it.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Keep it serious because it is a serious matter. The reality is that when something as big as this such a huge change to the way we do things is made and it's just flicked to a select committee for a cursory glance then it will lead to mistakes in that legislation and it will lead to very significant losses to individuals who are currently involved in that industry.One thing that a lot of people don't know is that the exploration industry itself each year is worth several hundred million dollars to the New Zealand economy. And everyone talks about Taranaki. Apparently it's going to be transformed Taranaki. It's going to become some kind of agrarian capital for the world and it's not going to be involved in this any more. This is a dreadful move by the Government it is a cynical move by the Government and it most of all is a hugely disrespectful move by the Government—disrespectful of an industry that's incredibly important to the viability of the New Zealand economy an industry that perversely can contribute a huge amount to the reduction of greenhouse gas in New Zealand and an industry that is totally necessary to keep people in their homes secure warm and comfortable during the colder months of the year. This is not right."