Street Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10254. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak in this Committee debate on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. There are several things wrong with Part 1. One is the process one is the content and one is the context in which this bill and Part 1 sits. The particular concern about the process has been well traversed by members on this side of the House during the course of the first and second readings. It has been a shabby process. The first piece of legislation that the Minister of Energy and Resources brought in which this bill is now seeking to amend was not a stellar process either in that one of the most significant changes to it—that is the ban on protesting—was not brought in until after the bill had been reported back from the select committee. But in this part the thing that gets my attention is that we do not have a regulatory impact statement here and in the explanatory note of this amendment bill to the amendment Act there is reference to the two previous regulatory impact statements. So I am forced back on to those two previous regulatory impact statements from which to draw my own suppositions and to apply them to the bill in front of us at the moment.One of the things that struck me in one of the regulatory impact statements was that in one of the parts of the stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991—and that is one of the regulatory impact statements that has been tabled for us today—it said that given the public interest in this matter full public consultation was undertaken and there were three hui around the country with iwi on Great Barrier Island in Thames and in Christchurch in relation to areas of land that were proposed to be removed from schedule 4. In total the regulatory impact statement says there were 37552 submissions—37552 submissions. This goes to the process around this bill and Part 1 of this bill. Of those submissions 32000 were made by individuals using a standard submission form that had been supplied to them by groups that care and whose business it is to care about the environment. Even if you take those out there were still 5234 unique submissions made by individuals and organisations.It becomes crystal clear now why the Minister has engaged in such a shabby process: he is afraid of public opinion. He is afraid that the people who care about the health and safety standards applying to the permits in respect of Part 1 of this bill or the environmental standards or the capability of organisations that are seeking to do exploratory or drilling work in our territory—he does not want submissions on those things. He does not want the weight of 37000 submissions to come down on him and because of that because of the weight of those submissions he has chosen—I can only assume he has done it deliberately. I do not assume the man to be a stupid man so I can only assume he has done it deliberately in order to avoid the weight of public opinion.