Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just want to focus here on clause 11 which is a good example of the way in which changes in this sort of legislation can lead to unexpected consequences. So the original bill which was introduced by Dr Megan Woods said that An authorisation granted under the section is subject"—this is for authorisation of geophysical surveys on land next to land that somebody has got a permit to do drilling on or some sort of activity. So the original bill suggested that "An authorisation granted under this section is subject to the provisions of this Act as if the authorisation were a permit of the same type as the permit held by the permit holder and referred to in subsection (1)."Now the problem with that is that say you've got a permit to do prospecting on land and you're looking for an authorisation to do geophysical surveys on land next to that land or water the bill as proposed would have allowed you to do prospecting or mining on that area instead of geophysical surveys. It was very poorly drafted. So the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee heard submissions on that and we've changed it now so as to say that the authorisation "(b) does not authorise any activity other than the carrying out of … geophysical survey[s]." I raise this as an example of the dangers of getting this sort of legislation wrong which is why it's so important that effective external consultation be carried out on bills such as this.We see as I've said before that targeted stakeholder consultation was carried out with the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand Straterra and Greymouth Petroleum on this bill. I would point out though that no stakeholder consultation has been carried out on the remaining proposed amendments particularly Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 182. That worries me to be honest. It worries me that more mistakes will be made. So I'd be very keen to hear from the Minister in the chair Damien O'Connor and for him to explain to us why he is confident that the SOP changes brought in by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the different elements of this legislation that we're debating here in Part 1 right now—have they or have they not had effective consultation with stakeholders and are we sure that we've got it right? I'm not at all confident and this is an area where quite frankly the Government has not been consistent in its consultation with the broader sector. It has brought through very significant changes in this sector without any consultation in the broader oil and gas front.On this particular legislation which deals with some minor technical issues there has been some consultation but even that led to some mistakes in the initial draft bill. So there are parts of this legislation that we're debating today that haven't had decent consultation and I'm worried about the consequences and I'm asking the Minister to give us some reassurance that a genuine effort has been made to talk to the affected stakeholders in this area. If we go right back to it I mean how does New Zealand make its living in this world? Well there are all sorts of elements to the New Zealand economy whether it's the productive sector in agriculture or the services industry—which is going strong—or tourism when the planes are not on strike and all those sorts of areas but the extractive industries such as minerals and mining are an important part of this economy.There are some people who will turn around and say "Oh don't worry. We need to get modern. We shouldn't be relying on mining—that's old fashioned and part of the history." Well I'll just say that the United States the most sophisticated and successful economy in the world still has a very major part of its economy focused on minerals and extraction and we're not so rich that we can avoid doing that. So it's important that we get this legislation right.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of the Hon Dr Megan Woods to clause 11 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to."