Smith Stuart; O'Connor GregSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and I too would like to thank my fellow members on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and the chair Naisi Chen who is in the Chamber today. The National Party does not support this bill and nor did it support all of the amendments. However we did not seek to block those amendments; we could've and sent the bill back to the House unchanged and not recommended to pass. However we didn't want to be obstructive and so in the spirit of cooperation we committed to be cooperative on this matter.However I do have some serious reservations about this bill and it's interesting that the Minister the Hon Duncan Webb made a few references in his speech to climate change intergenerational issues transition away from fossil fuels etc. and moving to a greener economy. That is the refrain from across the world by environmentalists but they forget one thing—they forget one thing—the only way to transition is actually through minerals. We require more minerals not less in a greener if you like economy in an electrified economy. For example in the humble cellphone we have gold copper silver tantalum tungsten aluminium lithium cobalt silicon tin potassium indium aluminium gallium neodymium—these are quite hard some of these—samarium nickel and praseodymium.Hon Member: Such chemistry.STUART SMITH: Such chemistry yeah. That's just one of our consumables. If you go to an electric vehicle (EV) it's a similar story a lot of those minerals and it's actually a significant amount—six times more minerals needed in an EV than a conventional vehicle. Things like wind turbines: an average wind turbine takes 220 tonnes of coal to make that wind turbine. All of these things come from minerals. All of these things have to be mined. The extractive industries are essential to any transition that we have. Renewable energy particularly the intermittent renewable energy of solar and wind—they are really diffuse sources of energy. That means that we have to have a lot of plants all around the country small wind turbines or solar panels to extract anywhere near the energy levels that we need—all dependent on minerals. We all want to transition but we have to be realistic. The National Party is realistic and that's why we stand here against this bill.One of the major changes in this is clause 4 which alters the purpose of the principal Act which the Minister alluded to. It's no longer including the requirement for the Crown and the Minister to promote prospecting" and instead going to "manage prospecting" etc.—and exploration and mining. The Minister mentioned the oil and gas ban which I have said many times in this House had a chilling effect on the sovereign risk profile of New Zealand. It is a significant issue for us now in a world where accessing capital for anything—renewable projects or anything actually—we are now seen as a much higher risk. It's not that they think that we'll default but they have to price that risk—far better to actually go to some other country with a lower risk profile and put their money there. They have voted with their cash essentially. So that has left us in a much more difficult position than we would otherwise be.The issue about consulting with iwi—I don't have an issue with that at all. All of the mines I've been around—unlike the Minister actually I have been down two gold mines and I've been to several other mines and some mines that are in the process of being reinstated after the mining has finished. The work that goes on in those projects I'm not sure if you're aware on the West Coast or anywhere else when a mine has come to the end of its life the people that come in to restore it—and bear in mind they have to have significant bonds to ensure that they live up to their obligation—those people are passionate environmentalists. They are employed by mining companies but their job is not to penny pinch; their job is to meet the criteria that they are required to under the law. So trying to go and really steer a horse by its tail by trying to slow down the permitting process—Mr Speaker I don't know if you've had much to do with horses but I have. I can tell you steering a horse by the tail is a good way to get kicked and it's not really effective in getting a good direction. So I think that is where we're going wrong here.So those mining companies do a great job in getting their land back to where it was prior to mining as best can be. We have to accept that our existence on this Earth does change things—where we trade we leave a footprint. The best thing we can do is to ensure that that footprint disturbs as little as possible. And I can assure you they are doing that.In regard to iwi engagement—all of those mining companies it's in their best interests to engage with iwi. They do that anyway—relationships absolutely. However there will be times when iwi have little to do with that particular. And that's where my rub with this comes. Actually the Treaty of Waitangi under article 2—and I'm just going to quote the Waitangi Tribunal who say "guaranteed Māori the undisturbed position of their properties including their lands forests and fisheries for as long as they wish to retain them." That's great—fantastic. But so do other people. And I think I've had this conversation before—ahikāroa I think is the term—I have a relationship with the land as I'm sure you do. Why are our rights not the same as anyone else? I really object to this provision. It should be those that are affected parties and interested parties. It should not be based on ethnicity. It should not be based on a particular iwi or anything else. If they are an interested party they will be identified as that anyway. It's nonsensical to put this in the law it doesn't make sense and it's just a crazy situation.Permits and permitting is what New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals are supposed to do within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. They have been slowing down I suspect in the view of trying to do their bit for climate change. The processing of permits and the mining sector—it's been an appalling performance that we have seen to date. Whether it's deliberate I don't know. I have to assume that it might be given that one permit application I'm aware of has been almost five years—five years—in the processing of that permit and I'm not aware if it's been either granted or declined at this stage. I can tell you as of December 2022 there were 16 permits that were sitting within New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals—just sitting there languishing. Miners tell me they are finding these issues all the time.I spent time at Stockton mine—I'm sure you know where that is. We're talking here about emissions and we hear a lot about that from the other side of the House. Coal from Stockton lowers global emissions. Coal from Stockton is used by steel mills to lower their coal input into making steel. It's not the emissions here that are important; if you really care about climate change you'd care about global emissions not the emissions in your patch. Yes we can have an influence and we should. But when we have coal of a quality that comes from Stockton—the metallurgical coal used to make steel and other products like carbon for carbon fibre—that should be able to be extracted and sent to those countries to help lower their emissions to make high-quality steel. That might end up in a wind turbine that we put up here in New Zealand.I think we have lost sight of the ball here. Look everyone cares about climate change and dealing with that but let's get our facts right. Let's approach this in a way that's sensible and actually is going to have the most effect not do something that is simply signalling our virtue and beating our chests rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I cannot commend this bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come to suspend this debate—this is all wrong let's get my wording correct for this time of the night. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 20 June. Thank you for your work this week.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m."