Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Madam Assistant Speaker—and I promise you I'm not impaired. I have not had a single drink. It's a pleasure to rise to speak on this particular bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill in the third reading debate. I'd like to commend the member who just sat down Mark Patterson. What an effort to actually break his speech up into two parts one last night and one tonight and to complete almost 10 minutes of a speech. I have to say that I wasn't quite sure where he was actually sort of going with that.Tim van de Molen: Neither was he.MELISSA LEE: Yeah. He probably wasn't very sure. You know often one of the things that actually happens before I get to the bill—sorry Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to answer a comment that Dr Shane Reti actually said in terms of the $700000 that this Government cannot afford for Northland children's vaccinations for meningitis. I would say maybe the Government could actually take it off one of the advisory boards. I know for a fact that the broadcasting ministerial advisory board got $1.5 million and there are only four people—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): And back to the third reading please. MELISSA LEE: Thank you—and back to the third reading. I will. In the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Minister of Energy and Resources actually got up in her third reading speech and said this: [The] Government is committed to ensuring that the regulatory system that manages New Zealand's Crown-owned minerals and the permitting regime that underpins these sectors is robust and fit for purpose."—that sounds wonderful—"This bill seeks to clarify and update statutory provisions and [addresses] gaps inconsistencies and errors with the Act."—that sounds very reasonable—"The changes in the bill will ensure that the identified regulatory gaps are closed it will ensure that there is clarity for regulators and for the industry around permitting and it will address inconsistencies in the Act."For that particular opening sentence that the Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods said in the third reading I completely agree because National supports making minor changes to tidy up bits and pieces of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. We actually believe that these are largely small changes through the bill although there is actually some financial beef to prosecute those who fail to notify the Minister of the change of control of a permit in the participant companies. For example when a company has been given a licence to prospect and they decide that they're going to sell their company and they do not actually let the Minister know and the licence goes to some unknown entity for example—that is going to be a problem. I know for a fact that during the select committee process there was actually a company that came into the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and submitted that there is a process of changeover happening and we actually gave it an exemption. I think that was a good thing that the select committee did.One of the things that I thought about when Mr Mark Patterson was talking in terms of the energy sector—I was reflecting back on my childhood in Korea. Korea was a very poor country and actually relied very heavily on coal. There were many instances where I remembered as a child a coal mine collapsing and people being trapped. But the other thing that is actually very significant and in my memory is that coal miners from Korea actually left Korean shores when Korea was recovering from the Korean War. They were very very poor. Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and the president at the time decided that he needed financial aid from other countries and by exporting the experts who were actually in the coal mining field as well as Korean nurses to overseas countries—and one of the countries that actually took Korean coal miners was the Germans. The German settlement of Korean people began with Korean coal miners. The reason why coal miners actually came into my mind was this whole thing about exploration. One of the things that this Government did in terms of minerals and the Crown Minerals Act and the other bill that we debated and this one is also related is in relation to the stopping of exploration in this country. What that actually means is that it has a major impact on an economy for example in New Plymouth. I think the mayor actually said it was a kick in the guts. The announcement by this Government was a kick in the guts and a decimation of an industry where people rely on work to actually earn a living to support their family where people are actually working to feed their families and support their families to move ahead in this country.They said one of the reasons why they were actually collapsing and kicking them in the guts was to have clean energy. The ironic thing is that in the first year of this Labour-led Government they talked a big game. There was big talk about climate change and how New Zealand should be clean and green and yet the results speak louder than words. The rhetoric that they gave out is actually false. New Zealand burnt the most coal in five years to keep the lights on. That's right. It was the worst result ever—the most coal burnt in five years—because they were trying to keep the lights on. When you're in a very cold winter environment you need people to actually have energy so they can keep themselves warm and we had a shortage and they actually burnt more coal.The other thing is talking about "clean" and "greenness". I mean a lot of people have talked about wind power and renewable energies and I've actually spoken about this before. Do members actually realise that it takes 230 tonnes of coal for the steel that is actually required to make the turbines for windmills? It is ridiculous that in Parliament—apparently it needs 4.5 new wind farms a year. That's what Dr Woods actually said: in order for them to progress we need to create 4.5 new wind farms. What does that actually mean in terms of the coal that is required to make the steel to make the wind turbines? That means we actually use more coal. It's not as green as the Minister actually seems to think it is.In terms of the Crown minerals bill—I notice Madam Assistant Speaker is actually looking at me—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill contains amendments as I said to the Crown Minerals Act 1991. It's a technical bill. It's not a major concern for the National Party because we worked on it and we're quite happy with it and we support the bill. But one of the things that I'd like to remind this Government—this Labour Government fails to actually understand that every decision that they make has a major impact perhaps on another industry as well. Earlier I talked about a decision that the Government made in terms of foreign homeowners preventing foreigners from buying a home. In this country we have a shortage of 1000 doctors. We can't entice foreign doctors to come to this country because they are not allowed to buy homes. Somebody across the Chamber over there said that if they become residents they can. Well if they can't work here and actually become residents then they can't. You know they have to actually work here and they can't work here because they don't want to work here when they can't even buy a house.This bill is technical. It's a small amendment and it actually makes a huge impact on the industry. I totally and utterly support this bill but I give one warning to the members opposite: decimating Taranaki and decimating the oil and gas exploration industry is killing New Zealand families. It is actually provincial New Zealand. I mean they say they care about the regions. They say they care about the regions and Taranaki is one big region that earns a lot of money from oil and gas exploration—one of the richest regions in our country—and that Government that party destroyed it. I say go for it. You are making this country worse for the decisions you make—not you Madam Assistant Speaker but that Government."