Pugh Maureen; Woods MeganMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would like to make a contribution to the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 91 in the name of my colleague Barbara Kuriger. This SOP refers to clause 17 and asks that new section 89E(1) on page 13 after line 3 inserts another set of wording that doesn't make the obligation on removing assets after decommissioning. I have listened to some of the questions and the answers from the Minister Megan Woods and I'm still quite confused about the necessity for the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Because from my understanding when applications are made via the Resource Management Act and resource consents are applied for there is a requirement to have a bond in place for this very purpose so that when a resource consent reaches the end of its workable life there is money now set aside for the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the land. I'd just also like to point out around the must remove" rather than "may" because there are a couple of examples that I'd like to use around where that obligation to remove is enforced how some opportunities might be lost. One of them is around the site at Pike River which is back in the front of mind again this week. At the Pike over 2006 and 2007 there was a huge amount of infrastructure installed to the mine and of that were 7.5 kilometres of brand new 100 kilovolt lines to a brand new substation that was purpose-built and then a further 8.6 kilometres of 33 kilovolt line which went to another substation which split the power then into three 11 kilovolt lines. Along there in order to get the lines in there there was something like 180 power poles inserted plus 16 kilometres of two-lane sealed road. Now part of the conditions of that particular application was that at the end of the life of the mine those assets would all be removed.There's another example I'd like to use about decommissioning through the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill: the OceanaGold mine site in Reefton. For those of you who don't know Reefton which is locally known as the town of light it is a place of innovation. It's the home of the Bearded Miners who are a famous tourist attraction in that town and John Bougen's tiny homes manufacturing. It's also got world-class mountain bike tracks. But of course it's most famous for one of its older personalities during the mining era of that town Little Biddy who is now the name of Reefton Distillery's most famous gin. But when the OceanaGold mine went in so too did the roads and the bridges and the buildings in there. And since that mine closed down in 2016 the local community has been trying to repurpose some of those assets and use them as a tourist attraction. So if we have a situation such as this bill then if those assets are forced to be removed those opportunities have also gone with them. This SOP simply leaves the door open for the opportunity for those assets to have another purpose to give more life to those communities because—as you will no doubt know—when those mines close so too do the jobs go with them and these assets can provide a very real alternative for workers. Thank you Madam Chair.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Madam Chair I've spoken to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the member that's just taken her seat Maureen Pugh has spoken to and will give an indication to the committee that we won't be supporting those. I'd like to also point out to the member that the examples she used are completely irrelevant. This is a piece of legislation that is about petroleum permits. None of the mining activities that the member spoke about would be touched by this legislation."