Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. As I start my call on Part 1 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill I'd just like to make note of the process that has been followed by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee in particular the work done by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) prior to the preparation of this bill. Quite often we see as the select committee process progresses that there are issues raised that quite often set back the process and require further information. So I congratulate MBIE on the thorough work that was done in preparation of this bill in particular the work that they did in consulting with the various sectors that are responsible for Crown minerals—even the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—but they also went on to consult with the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand Greymouth Petroleum and Straterra regarding certain clauses in the bill. So I just wanted to acknowledge that before I started. Thank you for the opportunity.I wanted to also bring up the point raised by my colleague around new section 54A in clause 14 of the bill. New section 54A talks about schedule 4 land. Part of the consultation that was done—I'm not sure it covered off the implications of the schedule 4 land. In particular I want to point out the parts that refer to accessing coastal areas.As a big part of the gold mining industry on the West Coast black sand mining is quite a lucrative but also a fickle arrangement given that you are always battling with the tides. So I just wanted to make sure from the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford whether the implications of dealing with machinery and any of the perhaps biosecurity issues that may be as a consequence of having this heavy machinery on beaches in the coastal areas were a concern that was raised.I did note also in the report from the select committee that the issue was also raised about biosecurity and I note from the report that the transport of machinery around various mine sites was seen by some submitters to be of concern yet the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill did not address any of those biosecurity issues. I just take the point that when you're moving from perhaps one beach site or one bush site and you're taking heavy machinery to another site—one of the points raised was around kauri dieback and transmitting those biosecurity risks around the country. So the bill did not address that and I just wonder if the Minister could perhaps shed some light on the rationale for that not being part of the discussion at the time and whether he does in fact think that there should be some attention paid to that as part of this bill.The bill makes very small adjustments to the existing Crown Minerals Act of 1991. One of the major considerations and changes that have been made is the cost of the penalties now going up to $800000 and I just wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us about some of the considerations or perhaps provide an example of what might attract the maximum penalty. I do note that it is up to $800000 but it does seem a high price to pay for perhaps an administrative error or non-compliance in terms of notification to the ministry. I just wonder if we could get some clarification around the types of misdemeanours that might attract that high $800000 fine. Thank you.