Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Clauses 1 2 and 3—so I'm going to just touch on clause 2 at this point in time which is the commencement. What I'm proposing through Supplementary Order Paper 152 is that instead of just having a commencement date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council we extend that to either 1 January 2021 or Before the Governor-General appoints a date under subsection (1)(a) the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources must—(a) release a discussion document on the 'no new mines on conservation land' policy" and also that they complete a series of consultations as they have stated. The reason why I say this is because in this bill there is a provision to restrict access on conservation land for only minimum impact activity and this seems to pre-empt the consultation process that the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources have committed themselves to—in the mining sector—take place. I think that it's important that we ensure that that process and that timing is put in the right order because the potential is that a company may apply for a permit in the onshore Taranaki region that actually also has some overlap in the conservation area—prior to the consultation that the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation have undertaken with the broader sector. This bill is pre-empting that and as such I do not think that we can afford to have such pre-emption before there's been a thorough consultation around access to conservation land. We all know that the Speech from the Throne says no new mines on conservation land and so this is the policy statement that the Minister of Energy and Resources—and she spoke to the Minerals Forum in Queenstown at the annual conference about this consultation. Suffice it to say there is quite a high level of alarm and concern in the resources sector about the inclusion of this provision in this bill around restricting access to conservation land so what I'm proposing for the Minister and others to consider is that we delay the commencement of this bill until that consultation has taken place—until the consultation that the Minister has committed to and that she has given in good faith with assurances that she will listen to the minerals and the resources sector takes place—and the consultation is with the mining sector and iwi in affected areas. We already understand that this bill has breached Treaty obligations through Te Ātiawa's settlement process where they have had a commitment by the Crown to consult on such matters and they raised that of course in the select committee process. So consultation with iwi with local government groups with environmental groups with community groups and with interested members of the public—this is so important. So I would suggest and put forward that the rest of this Act come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent but that the Governor-General appoints a date under new subsection (1)(a) after the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources have actually undertaken what they have said they will do. I think what this does is it puts into place the correct order of things. I don't think that the Minister in the chair Megan Woods wants to be accused of a lack of consultation with the minerals sector or the other sectors so putting this provision in the bill creates that apprehension. The Minister may have an answer to that—I'd be keen to hear. But what I'm suggesting is that if this bill proceeds in the way it does then it actually takes away an existing right or an existing business-as-usual situation where a company who want to explore and who want to drill a hole in that exploration may want to produce and can no longer do that. At the present there are 20 companies that do that and it is taking away a provision."