Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to take a call on Part 2 which actually I think should be better renamed Speaking out of both sides of your mouth" because for Part 1 what we've heard from Minister Woods is a justification of why her Government wants to take the lead in climate change and the lead in banning and constraining our opportunity with respect to oil and gas and we've had a significant number of times where she has got to her feet and talked to the opportunity that must be grabbed by New Zealand to show leadership. Then of course she stands up in Part 2 and says "Oh but actually we still want to continue with some exploration—particularly those who have existing rights." It talks to the dichotomy that exists actually within this bill. As we've discussed previously this is an optics symbol bill. On the one hand depending on the audience they will talk up the constraints that they are putting on our export opportunity with respect to oil and gas and this is the section in which they say "Oh yes but onshore Taranaki your existing rights are unaffected and so don't really worry about it." On the one hand we have a conversation around "Well the oil and gas is heading to be a sunset industry anyway. You already had a thousand jobs lost off it when the price dropped." but then in the same breath is "Oh yes but you know we still want to be there for a just transition and to manage a transition for the region and the economy." So the question to the Minister when we look at these issues with respect to protecting existing rights is please Minister could you explain to us—those few who are listening and not watching the Melbourne Cup—what does "just transitions" actually mean because—Erica Stanford: It's not a racehorse name. TODD MULLER: Yes it's not a racehorse name. It could be actually. We hear it all the time—"just transitions". I'll tell you what this party thinks "just transitions" means: unemployment and severe dislocation cloaked in the language of empathy from our Prime Minister. That's not just transitions; that is letting this country and regional New Zealand down. So let's hear what a just transition actually means and I'm sure the Minister will say "Well this Part 2 is part of a just transition because a small part of the industry that currently exists onshore they may continue." Offshore you can't; onshore you can. The assumption here is that of course onshore those opportunities will continue unabated and as Jonathan Young has very eloquently voiced this afternoon actually when you dig into—excuse the pun—how this sector works it is not anywhere near as optimistic as the Minister has outlined. Indeed we heard through the select committee from a number of submitters over the chilling effect that this was already having with respect to those businesses who have interests in oil and gas in New Zealand including the opportunities that are supposedly enabled in Part 2—the existing permitted opportunities. OMV talked about the fact that they have a third of that as I understand and if they don't have a find by 2018 or 2019 they're likely not to continue with any exploration. So this came up time and time again in the select committee—a complete misunderstanding from the other side around how this sector actually works the long-term view that investors take and the chilling effect with respect to their investments particularly for those existing opportunities that sit in the ground. The Minister I am sure will stand up and say "Don't worry we will have supply security because all of this onshore opportunity will be realised."—that is nonsense. The data doesn't support it. Jonathan Young with huge experience from that region has already talked to the fact that we will be exposed here from a security of supply perspective and this Government simply wipes that critique away thinking that somehow those with capital are going to magic up an opportunity despite the constraints inherent in this part."