Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on this bill which is a distressing one for many of us on this side of the Chamber because it will have such an impact on our economy on our living standards and in particular on the region of Taranaki—all for very unspecific and unthought-through potential goals. So we're looking at Part 1 here which stops the exploration offshore anywhere and retains some work onshore in Taranaki. If we go back to this whole process it was announced on the fly by the Prime Minister a couple of days before her intended global audience to announce it. There was no broader cost-benefit analysis or any analysis whatsoever underpinning that judgment and that decision. And then after the decision was made and it was announced the Government decided to go through the process of actually legislating and consulting with the industry affected which is an appalling way of doing things. I struggle to remember such an egregious example of Government behaviour in recent times. And so this whole process has been a sham.The select committee process which has been truncated by this Minister Megan Woods—truncated by this Minister to the point of ridiculousness—has been carried through and this whole process has been carried through in a sham-like way because the Government has already decided what it was going to do. You might say Well does that matter?" Well it does matter. Look at the eye-watering potential costs—I'm holding the regulatory impact statement which does various modelling and thinks that the potential cost in terms of just the revenue that the Crown will be forgoing might range between $1.8 billion and $26 billion over an extended period with the mid-range being about $10 billion. That's the fiscal cost to the Crown. Then it may be in terms of the company profits that could be affected by this somewhere between $200 million and $2 billion. But what about the broader economic costs for the New Zealanders employed in the industry the economic costs of more expensive energy and all the many potential ramifications of this decision. Well they haven't even tried to calculate that. The regulatory impact statement says "Well we didn't try to do it but they could be substantial. The broader economic contribution of the petroleum sector to the national economy has not been modelled and we can't work out just what this is going to cost." So here we are blundering in—for the sake of a speech from the Prime Minister—to a decision the costs of which we have no idea but they certainly run into the billions and billions of dollars. Now OK you might do that if there is a clear benefit—Todd Muller: Billions.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Billions—that's right. "Billions." as Shane Jones would say. You might do that if there is a clear and obvious benefit but all the indications are that this decision will lead to higher climate global emissions from the New Zealand economy. Why? Because this bill does nothing to have any impact on the behaviour of New Zealanders using the energy. It makes no impact on what energy they use; it only makes an impact on what we produce. If we continue to use as much energy we'll just have to import it from somewhere else and the net impact is worse for the climate. So it costs a huge amount—potentially a colossal amount. There are no clear benefits whatsoever other than virtue signalling by the Prime Minister in front of audiences around the world. But the final thing is the wider cost to New Zealand's reputation and attractiveness as a place of investment because New Zealanders will only get the opportunity to have good quality jobs and to live fulfilling successful lives if we have a strong economy. That strong economy relies on investment—investment coming domestically but from around the world. Well who is going to invest in this country from around the world if you have a Prime Minister that's prepared to chop off at the knees a major industry without any proper process and without any analysis before she makes that decision? Anybody might well ask "Well I'll invest in another industry but who knows what the Prime Minister might decide to knock out next." And that sense of uncertainty and unpredictability that this Government has demonstrated since it's come into the office is the biggest cost of all and on that basis I'm shocked."