Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you I want to go back to Supplementary Order Paper 91 that I spoke to before in the name of Barbara Kuriger. This relates to clause 17. I used a couple of mining examples in my contribution and I realised that the Minister has referred to them as not being relevant. I used them as examples of the types of local infrastructure that is often built when people are accessing sites no matter what they're doing there whether it's gold mining coal mining whether it's oil and gas exploration. So I just want the Minister to perhaps reflect on the compulsion to remove those assets when they could be repurposed. What is the Minister's aversion to actually having that infrastructure remain in place for other purposes? Because we know that when things happen and mines decommission there is always loss of jobs loss of community infrastructure and if they can be used for other things—and it just seems ironic to me that you know we have these assets that could be repurposed. The Government on one hand is saying they're worried about wasting taxpayers' money. And on the other hand they're quite happy to have millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure removed and taken out with the decommissioning process. It just beggars belief to me that that would be a compulsion as part of it. Simply all I'm asking is: would the Minister consider that this is a negotiable arrangement at the end of that process? Because we don't want to lose something that can be repurposed and perhaps grow another industry out of that potential that is there. We know that there are some contributors very strong contributors to community while they are there on site and Barbara Kuriger has referred to them. I've witnessed it myself. The mining industry no matter what they're mining are always generous and community contributors. So we simply want to make the best of the assets when those jobs are gone and those industries are gone. And I just ask the Minister to maybe reconsider the strictness of the provision and look to Supplementary Order Paper 91 as a potential solution to that. We don't want the industry to exit completely with everything that they've invested in because that Minister would be a waste of not taxpayers' money but certainly the business's money and the investment that they've made in setting up. It is an irony that we have the Government or the Minister saying on one hand that they don't want to waste taxpayers' money but they're quite happy to waste these opportunities. If we continue to pass legislation like this in the House I fear that this country is going to be left in a situation where no one's going to want to come here and invest. Because when you start passing retrospective legislation it spooks investment. It spooks business from setting up here in New Zealand. At a time when we need to be encouraging more investment into this country as we pick up the pieces from extended lockdowns and business closures all opportunities need to be considered for the potential that they hold for keeping our communities employed and adding to the tax contribution that they make to this country so we can pay the bills in the future. I just ask the Minister please reconsider Supplementary Order Paper 91. Thank you Madam Chair.