Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I take a call in this debate because I am horrified at the fact that we've had a truncated process imposed on us with the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Whilst I realise the debate is very narrow Madam Deputy Speaker and you referred earlier to Standing Order 290(3) the particular part I want to object to is the fact that the Government is giving an instruction for this to be reported back by 29 October just over a month away. On a day when I think we've seen one of the saddest days in this New Zealand Parliament when we've passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which is an absolutely disgraceful piece of legislation supported by the Green Party now we have this piece of legislation before Parliament tonight in which the Minister herself gave the perfunctory speech of the night around the date of 29 October and the instruction that select committee could meet at times outside normal—and I don't object to that part. The part I object to is 29 October and let me explain why because the Minister herself the Hon Megan Woods was not prepared to do so.The announcement of this legislation was made on 12 April this year. It has taken this Government six months to get the legislation into this House and we know that when they made the announcement on 12 April this year industry had not been consulted at all. Industry had not even been consulted. It was a huge shock to the petroleum industry and I know that many of the people involved in that industry want the opportunity to make a submission to the select committee. It is worth us noting tonight in the House that tomorrow we go into a two-week recess; many members of Parliament have made their plans to return to their constituencies for the next two weeks and work hard amongst their constituents both Government members and Opposition members. What we have effectively with the instruction in this House is that the select committee will call for submissions and have the opportunity to hear them for approximately two weeks. I think that is a complete degradation of the responsibility by this Parliament led by the Labour-led Government.Madam Deputy Speaker you will be aware that I will shortly return to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva. I know you'll be aware that I'm travelling there and I know that when I was last there New Zealand's democracy was held in the highest regard but I know that when I go back there this time it'll be with examples like this where the Government's deliberately truncating the chance for industry to have a say on some of the most dramatic and some of the most important legislation to the petroleum industry that we've seen in this Parliament in the time that I've been here.I noted the speech from Kieran McAnulty. He compares this legislation to Labour's nuclear-free legislation in 1980.Hon Members: Ha ha!Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: That's what he said. He said this is as important as New Zealand's nuclear-free status which I supported the Labour Government doing in the 1980s. But would they have done it in the 1980s Kieran McAnulty and not have been prepared to have a reasonable select committee process? No they would not and Kieran McAnulty holds his head in shame. He knows how outrageous it is and the fact that he was prepared to compare it to the nuclear-free legislation of the 1980s shows that this legislation deserves a reasonable chance.He talked in his contribution about Genesis Energy about Methanex and about Ballance Agri-Nutrients having a vested interest—an extreme interest—in the ramifications of this legislation. So I say to Kieran McAnulty and I say to Dr Megan Woods and I say to Iain Lees-Galloway who then gave the perfunctory speech that Dr Megan Woods wasn't prepared to give: those companies deserve a chance to have a say before a select committee. They'll need more than two weeks to have a say and I will guarantee to Kieran McAnulty that there will be a large number of submissions. I think there'll be a submission from the Mayor of New Plymouth. He's been very vocal lately about the effect this will have on the economy of New Plymouth and on Taranaki. What chance will all these submitters have of having a fair hearing before a select committee when effectively it will run for two weeks? So I say to Kieran McAnulty: if he's so so proud of what a former Labour Government did with the nuclear-free legislation why won't he allow people to have a say—a reasonable say—on this?Kieran McAnulty: Oh they'll have plenty of time.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: He says they'll have plenty of time. Today is 26 September and the Government has demanded a report back by 29 October. Is that plenty of time for a piece of legislation that is as dramatic and as significant as the nuclear-free legislation Kieran McAnulty? I don't think it is. I don't think it is and I don't really believe that Kieran McAnulty thinks it is.This is a truncated process. It's an unnecessarily truncated process because this announcement was made in April. Why couldn't the legislation have been introduced after the announcement by Jacinda Ardern or was it rushed because of her appearance in Paris? Well that's what the media said and I'm inclined on this occasion to agree with them. But having made the announcement in April on 12 April get the legislation into this House give the people of New Zealand a chance to fairly submit. Instead of that we are having this very rushed process. And do you know what really amazes me? It is the money potentially involved. We had a Treasury report saying that the cost to New Zealand is at a minimum $7.9 billion but potentially in excess of $23 billion. And Kieran McAnulty says that deserves about 30-odd days of parliamentary consideration. It is wrong and the member over there on the other side of the House knows it is.I'll give him one last reason why it's wrong: the very reason the Government claims this legislation's been introduced into the House is to cut greenhouse gas emissions internationally. And what we now have is clear evidence—a clear dispute to that claim—that this will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions. So I say that this legislation—Raymond Huo: What's your evidence?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Raymond Huo finally interjects. We've heard from him! We've heard from him and he says What evidence?" I don't have any evidence tonight Mr Huo but that's the process of a select committee inquiry. That's why you send it to a select committee Mr Huo so you that can collect the evidence and you can make a rational decision about the effect of this legislation long term on the interests of the New Zealand economy. That's the purpose of a select committee.But if you're a Labour Government member and you're concerned that the evidence may debunk the very reason for this legislation what you do is you truncate the process and that's what's happening here tonight and that's why I think there should be a strong debate. I'm particularly wounded by the fact that it's happening on the same day that we have passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and I've got to go to Geneva shortly and try and explain to other international colleagues why New Zealand is suddenly having so little regard for democratic process under the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government. Tonight's motion is a disgrace."