Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCrown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 16 May 2013(continued on Saturday 18 May 2013)Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clauses 1 to 3(continued)Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Good morning to the Committee on this Thursday 16 May. I am interested to see that we have a different Minister in the chair this morning the Minister for Primary Industries. Perhaps the Minister responsible for this Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill Simon Bridges has gone home to the Bay of Plenty to take care of really important issues. Clearly there are important things going on in the Bay of Plenty as you can tell from—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s out of order.Hon MARYAN STREET: Well get up and raise a point of order. Raise a point of order. There are obviously important things going on in the Bay of Plenty. One of the top stories in theBay of Plenty Times this morning was the fact that a woman was fined $150 for driving through a red light while flossing her teeth. Perhaps the Minister of Energy and Resources has gone to take care of that.We are talking about clauses 1 to 3 of the bill which include the title and the commencement clauses. Last night when I was interrupted by midnight I was talking about the fact that the Minister needs to be careful about the implementation date of this bill. If he is not careful—if he does not give it to a competent staffer in other words—he could have the amendment coming into effect before the bill that it amends comes into effect. So the date of implementation of this bill is to be the day after the Royal assent and if he is not careful and does not look after it and if he does not have somebody with a little yellow sticky label to bring it up for him on 25 May he could find himself in an even more bizarre situation than he currently is.Part of the debate this morning is about the title of the bill. We could call this the “My First Effort (Epic Fail) Bill” because this has been a chapter of errors from the beginning and it is the Minister’s first attempt to bring legislation to the House. So within 6 weeks even before the Crown Minerals Amendment Act which we passed a few weeks ago has been implemented we are here amending it.We could call it the “Nobody Told Me I Had to Earn My Salary Bill” because the level of incompetence around this procedure has been extraordinary. We could call it the “Contempt for Democracy Bill” because it does not allow in this rushed process any due consideration by a select committee. We could call it the “Contempt for Parliament Bill” because the disdain with which the Minister has held Parliament is of epic proportions. We could call it the “Contempt for Due Process Bill” because it has in fact denied people who know more than the Minister—that is not hard—about maritime and international law for example the chance to submit on it. It could be called the “New Levels of Ministerial Incompetence Bill” because of the ineptitude demonstrated from beginning to end.But probably National members would like to call it the “How to Lose Friends and Aggravate People Bill” because they are not keen to be here on a Saturday morning even if the Minister should really go back to watching out for women drivers who drive through red lights while flossing their teeth. It could be called the “Strip New Zealanders of Their Right to Protest Bill”. It could be called—ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The title and commencement are two very important aspects of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. My colleague Maryan Street was talking about the commencement issue and there is a real issue about the potential for this bill to come into force to amend another bill that will not yet have entered into force as an Act. So it will create this dreadful situation where the original Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 is waiting in the queue to come into force on 24 May or 25 May and this bill gets signed off this weekend goes off to the Governor-General for the Royal assent and is in effect in force but amending nothing. That just demonstrates the horrific position that the House has been put in with rushed legislation without any sense of the issue having been properly managed. That is an issue.The title of the bill is very concerning because when the bill is passed it will then be known as the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act 2013. I think we need to be more clever about how to abbreviate that. We could call it the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Squared” because we have both the word “Amendment” and the year “2013” together.Hon Maryan Street: This is not a typo.ANDREW LITTLE: It could have in brackets “(This is Not a Typographical Error)”. It could be called the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 (Times Two) Amendment Bill” or the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 (Mark II) Amendment Bill”. We could of course call it the “Crown Minerals (Barbarised Information) Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill” because if there is one thing that has characterised the debate on this bill as indeed characterised the last one this House considered it is the total lack of regulatory impact information that we have had. That is another unfortunate position that this House has yet again been put into which we should not be put into. In this particular bill as we know there was a very important issue—a genuine doubt over the efficacy of one of the provisions in it clause 14. So it might be appropriate to reflect that in the title of the bill.Alternatively to reflect another deep-seated concern about this bill it might be called the “Crown Minerals (Not Taking Health and Safety or the Environment Seriously) Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill”. That goes to the heart of the issue that we have in this piece of legislation. It is already a pretty light-handed approach to health and safety oversight and environmental oversight when it comes to prospecting and the exploration of oil and gas and this makes it even lighter. It underscores the very deep-seated concern we have that it simply does not take that issue seriously at a time in this country’s history when workplace health and safety in particular is at the forefront of everybody’s minds. We have a disastrous record when it comes to that and this industry as much as it has come a long way in the last 20 or 30 years still has issues about health and safety. In a former capacity I have represented the families of workers at coroners’ inquests in relation to deaths that have been caused in this industry because of issues largely about fatigue and the organisation of work.So when the bill says that the Minister needs to provide some sort of oversight in this day and age we should be expecting the best possible oversight and insistence that the Minister demands world’s best practice in health and safety and world’s best practice in environmental standards. But this bill does not do that. So inserting in brackets within the title “(Not Taking Health and Safety or the Environment Seriously)” would be an apposite reflection of what in fact this bill does—or more accurately what it does not do.Another title might be the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 (Denial of Democracy in Parliament) Amendment Bill” because that is also what we have had. Yet again another piece of legislation is being rushed through the House under urgencywhen actually taking a bit of time to consider it would not have caused any harm or damage to those who have an immediate stake in it. Those are issues that ought to be given very close and serious consideration in both the title and the commencement of this bill.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Colleagues have suggested a number of other titles for the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I think it should be called the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Ignore International Conventions particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) Bill”.Here is a very interesting parallel with another piece of legislation that the House has passed the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. On that bill we had a similar debate about insufficient account being taken of our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and there it was about preserving and protecting the marine environment. Certainly there are a number of matters in the exclusive economic zone Act that decision makers such as the Environmental Protection Authority have to take into account and they include the protection of biological diversity but that has got to be balanced off against economic benefits to New Zealand. Of course these two pieces of legislation are parallel because the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill which we are debating today is all about the allocation of block offers and space whereas the exclusive economic zone Act is all about the applications for marine consents to actually do the extraction.It is interesting that in both of them we have had this major issue with the Government failing to take account of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Here in this bill that is because of clause 14 the extension of the no-protest clause which the Minister introduced with his late Supplementary Order Paper into the principal Act. It is interesting that the Australian legislation has no equivalent. Certainly there is a 500-metre safety zone around an oil installation—a well—but there is no provision of any safety zone around a vessel and there is a very good reason for that which is that the convention does not allow for safety zones around vessels. That is in complete contrast to the provisions around oil rigs where those are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of States. But as Duncan Currie noted in his opinion on the Supplementary Order Paper to the principal Act if you have safety zones around vessels that creates very confusing zones of coastal State jurisdiction around foreign-flag vessels.So this Government in this bill is overriding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and it shows the contempt with which the Government views international conventions. It is potentially passing legislation that it has no jurisdiction to do yet this bill is being pushed through the House and we have not had the benefit of the Law Society or of other submitters who could provide their informed opinion on the impacts of the bill.So I think the bill should be called the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 (Take No Notice of the International Conventions like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) Amendment Bill”. That is quite a distressing step because it is showing that New Zealand is risking being a pariah on the international stage that the Government thinks it can pass legislation that applies on the high seas and that it thinks it can ignore conventions that have been carefully negotiated taking into account all of the interests of the parties. And why? To suppress the right to protest. That is despite the International Maritime Organization and others and a whole raft of international treaties recognising the right to freedom of association the right to protest at sea and despite the tradition that we have in this country of taking to sea to express our wish to protect our oceans against the dumping of waste against drift-netting and againstnuclear testing. This bill is overriding that by extending the provisions in the principal Act to make it an offence to be within 500 metres of an oil exploration vessel and to impose the potentially quite stiff penalties of imprisonment and very severe fines.Because it goes in breach of international law this bill is a bad bill. It is undermining New Zealand’s reputation as well as our protection of our oceans.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I moveThat the question be now put.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to be able to take my first call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I am particularly interested in the commencement clause of this legislation because we are in—I do not know whether it is a unique situation but it is certainly an extremely rare situation to be debating an amendment bill that amends an amendment Act that has not yet come into force. Obviously there are questions about exactly how the commencement arrangements for this bill should work. As some of us are inclined to do I delved intoMcGee to see whether there were any precedents for this situation and I could not find anything. In the little time I had to have a look through it I could not find anything which suggests to me that it is an extremely rare situation for a Minister to get it so badly wrong the first time around that we find ourselves back here amending an Act that has not even been implemented yet.There are a couple of issues that I think are worth having a look at. Yesterday we traversed the issue of a precise commencement date for the bill that we were debating and the need for a bill to have a precise commencement date in it. You ruled Mr Chairperson that say for instance taking it to a select committee was not precise enough to establish exactly what the commencement date would be for a bill. That leaves us in an interesting situation here where this bill as most bills do says that it commences on the day after it receives Royal assent. But exactly when should a bill that is amending an Act that has not yet come into force receive Royal assent? I think that is a fair question. That seems to me to be quite undetermined. It might be possible that the commencement date set out in this bill is out of order. I think it is difficult to determine exactly what the commencement date for this bill ought to be because we are in this highly unusual situation where the principal Act—and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of calls on the principal Act clause—has not actually yet come into force. So I would be interested in your ruling on that Mr Chairperson.Of course there is one possible option and that is for the Governor-General to refuse to give Royal assent. That is an option that has never been used. It would be absolutely unprecedented for the Governor-General to refuse to give Royal assent but it could be an option if the Governor-General looked at what the Government was doing and thought to himself: “Look you’ve got this a bit out of order here. You need to have the principal Act actually in force before you can amend that Act.” Then it would be an option for the Governor-General to consider refusing to give Royal assent. It would be asMcGee says “a remarkable—indeed a unique—event in New Zealand. No bill presented to a Governor or a Governor-General has ever been refused the Royal assent in New Zealand ...”. I wonder whether Simon Bridges’ stuff-up is really the time to be creating precedent in New Zealand. If a Minister who is so inept and so incapable of getting something as simple as this legislation right has made such a huge mistake is that the time for the Governor-General to step in and do something that has never been done before in New Zealand? Maybe it is. I think it probably is not but I think we have ourselves a very difficult situation here where we have no precedent around how you deal with the commencement of a bill that amends an Act that has not yet come into force.We are also debating the title of the bill. Again this title does not tell us very much. It tells us that it is the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill.It tells us something—Moana Mackey: You couldn’t make that name up.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: You could not make that name up no. It does tell us something. It tells us that this is a highly unusual situation and that Simon Bridges is an incompetent Minister. But I think that you know we really should have in the bill there the fact that as it says in the general policy statement some areas and omissions in the original Act have been identified. So it should be called the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 (Simon Bridges’ Eight Errors and Omissions) Amendment Bill”. I think that that would be a title that much more closely reflects what it is that Parliament is having to do here which is essentially to walk around behind Simon Bridges and clean up his messes before the original Act which he passed through Parliament can even come into force.Of course what we know is that this is a bizarre extension of the anti-protesting regulations in international waters. I think there are numerous titles for this bill that could be considered—Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Generally when we get to this stage of a Committee debate when we are talking about the title and the commencement and the principal Act it is a very narrow debate and it is generally a bit of a laugh. There is a bit of humour at some of the alternative titles that might be given to particular bill. I have heard a bit of that this morning. Some people have referred to this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill perhaps more appropriately being called the “Total Disregard for Health Safety and the Environment Bill” and that certainly is a very valid description. Some people have referred to it as the “Minister’s First Bill (Biggest Mistake in Parliament) Bill”. That is certainly an appropriate title. Others in the debate last evening referred to the possibility of it being called the “Who Came Knocking at the Minister’s Door Bill” given that it is a huge puzzle to us not only why we are debating this bill at 9.20 on a Saturday morning even though the calendar on the wall tells us it is Thursday night but what the need is for this bill to have gone through all stages under urgency.Well the title does not give us any hint to that at all as it is except it is a very puzzling title. “The Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act 2013.”—it looks like someone got their finger stuck on a button on the computer and just did a repeat in error or did a cut and paste but it is not. If only that were the case.This bill that we are debating now amends an Act that is yet to come into force. Like my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway I looked throughMcGee to see whether there was any precedent for this. I had perhaps less time than he had—he had thought of the idea a lot earlier than I did—but I cannot find anything in the history of our Parliament that has an amendment to an Act coming into this Parliament and being debated before the primary Act has even been brought into force. It is absolutely unheard of.If it was a genuine technical mistake or if it was a genuine error then I think we might be a bit more lenient on the Minister Simon Bridges but actually what he has done is chosen in my view to abuse the parliamentary process. He has not reflected it in the title and not reflected it in the commencement date of this legislation. He has abused the process of this Parliament because not only is he doing a couple of small technical amendments that may well have been needed and may have been agreed to by all members of the House but also he has chosen to do wholesale changes to the primary legislation.This brings him into a very difficult situation. It is specifically reflected in the commencement of the bill clause 2: “This Act comes into force on the day after thedate on which it receives the Royal assent.” Well generally the Royal assent is straight after the bill has gone through the third reading. It gets shipped out through the appropriate processes and gets signed off—gets the Royal assent. Well what happens if the Royal assent on the amending legislation occurs—and therefore this bill that we are debating now comes into force—before the primary legislation comes into force? What position does that put Parliament in?Of course people will say: “Oh well it may be just a matter of a few days.” but actually in a matter of the law and in a matter of big issues like health and safety responsibilities like environmental considerations and responsibilities or like financial liability if there is a major spill—if there is some disaster that is impacted on by this Crown minerals Act—where would the liability lie? I think we would have a huge legal debate. I think this bill could be called the “Crown Minerals (Let’s Get Every International Lawyer Excited) Bill” because this leaves itself wide open to some sort of challenge.This is the area where we should be working in exactly the opposite direction. We should be giving security to the industry—that is clear. We should be making sure that the highest possible health and safety and environmental regimes are in place. This works in the opposite direction. We discussed last night in an earlier discussion about how the permit applicant does not even have to be able to prove that they have the health and safety environmental or financial ability to deal with the requirements of the legislation. This is bizarre.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I moveThat the question be now put.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill has as others have said been a highly questionable bill and I want to touch on all three of clauses 1 2 and 3 in my contribution now. First of all I want to look at clause 3 and the amendments to the principal Act because part of the reason we are here is to fix up a whole lot of mistakes that were made in the original bill when it was forced through. As others have so eloquently outlined to the Committee we are in a very odd situation of having to amend a bill that has not yet come into effect which is a very strange situation. But I just thought it was worth putting on the record what those mistakes are—what we are amending in clause 3.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No we’re talking about the title.CAROL BEAUMONT: Clause 3 is about amending the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013. We are talking about clauses 1 to 3. The mistakes made in the original bill relate to the definition of “underground gas storage facility”; references to “reserves” being changed to “resources”; extensions to existing petroleum permits; the addition of platinum to tier 1 permits to make it the same as gold and silver; clarification of the application of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to existing privileges; clarification of the proprietary status of permits acquired by the Crown; references to a dwelling change because as was so eloquently explained last night we are going from a “dwelling house” as two words to “dwellinghouse” as one word—or the other way round I cannot quite remember—and other “minor changes consequential” to the above. So those are all the mistakes.But if I look at some of the more serious matters in this bill I think I want to look at the possibility of changing the title and making a suggestion for that. Some of those things are perhaps about sloppiness and about a Minister and a Government that just force through legislation without adequate scrutiny. But there are some changes in this bill that are very very serious and we talked about those last night at the relevant parts of the bill. They are making significant changes to permit processes—creating conditional permits running real risks around health and safety and environmental matters—and in Part 2 they are around covering the whole continental shelf areawhich is an extra 1.7 million square kilometres. So these are serious matters; they are not just sloppiness.Andrew Geddis in an article last night talked about sloppy and highly questionable lawmaking so I would like to suggest that this bill be amended to be called the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Sloppy and Highly Questionable Lawmaking) 2013 Amendment Bill” because it has both elements in this. It has both sloppiness and it has some very serious and highly questionable matters in this bill. Or perhaps in more kind of day-to-day language we could call it the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Sinister or Stuff-up or Both?) 2013 Amendment Bill” because there are those two elements. So I think that people listening to this debate will be very concerned about this whole process.I want to perhaps suggest another amendment to the name. We sat last night and went through the specifics of this legislation with a Minister in the chair who sat there and failed to answer one single question—not one—and they were serious questions. They were questions about the legality of what was happening here—questions about whether we were breaching international law for example—but still the Minister of Energy and Resources sat there and he read his magazines or at least he pretended to. So I would like to suggest another one which is the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Refusal to Answer Questions) 2013 Amendment Bill”. I have never ever seen such a disgraceful performance by a Minister in the face of very serious questioning about important matters that relate to environmental standards that relate to health and safety and that relate to the legality of legislation that we are having to deal with in this House as part of this Government’s push-through of legislation following the Budget.Again I just want to put it in context. A very good piece by Andrew Geddis was entitled “I think National just broke our constitution” and I think that this legislation is part of that process. He refers to the Government pushing through—TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): When we look at the title the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill we see that it is clearly inappropriate. A better title might be the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Failure of the Responsible Minister to Ensure that Legislation is Free of Mistakes) Amendment Bill” or the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Failure of Simon Bridges) Amendment Bill”. Or we could have the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Failure to Look at Environmental Impacts) Amendment Bill” or the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Failure to Look at Ecosystems Vital to New Zealand) Amendment Bill”. The title could be the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (Failure to Consult with Fisheries to See What Impact This Will Have) Amendment Bill”. Or we could have the “Crown Minerals Amendment Act (What Goes Under the Water—Take A Look at Open-cast Mining) Amendment Bill”. There are many titles that would be far more suitable for this bill.I cannot believe that this bill is actually coming into force on 24 May. This is a bill that would be better served in Cold War Russia under a totalitarian regime. Where is the democratic process? The Government is amending an Act due to come in on 24 May—that is next Friday. We can have no confidence at all that it is accurate. I mean this bill could be the “Amendment Act (Write It As I Simon Bridges Speak) Amendment Bill”. We may arrive back on the Tuesday after to find yet another amendment bill is to be debated. There is no point in attempting to pass the blame to Parliamentary Counsel Office staff and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff as National is trying to do because the Government has ministerial responsibility. As Mr Speakerpointed out in his ruling on written questions as recently as Thursday Ministers have responsibility and it was Cabinet that signed off on the original totally messed up bill which is actually an insult to the English language.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member shouldn’t be talking about anyone else messing up.BRENDAN HORAN: Really? Really? Am I supposed to have messed up Mr Brownlee?Hon Gerry Brownlee: You got sacked.BRENDAN HORAN: I prefer to think of it as being given a totally new perspective on life.Tim Macindoe: It certainly wasn’t a promotion.BRENDAN HORAN: If we are talking about messing up one may look at and address his own sartorial mistakes.Tim Macindoe: The tie isn’t that bad.BRENDAN HORAN: That means comb your hair Mr Macindoe. But if we have a look at the principal Act—Chris Hipkins: He hasn’t got enough.BRENDAN HORAN: —no—we might be better replacing this clause with the Civil List Act which governs ministerial salaries because Mr Bridges is obviously not worth the quarter of a million dollars a year. In the 32 days since the Act was passed that this bill amends Simon has been paid $25000. That is around $1200 for every clause of this bill that needs to be corrected. It is unbelievable.The other day Mr Macindoe stood up and interrupted the process. I cannot believe that Mr Macindoe would get up and say that I was out of order and that I was not following the rules when that side never follows the rules—never mind about democracy never mind about the democratic process.Tim Macindoe: That’s only because your speech was totally irrelevant. You didn’t know that the question was.BRENDAN HORAN: I must say it is very nice to be here on a Saturday morning and see you looking so chipper. This whole bill is a stuff-up—absolutely a stuff-up.Tim Macindoe: You kept getting the forecast wrong.BRENDAN HORAN: But worse than that I would ask some of those members—because for all of his chirping over there Mr Macindoe is a good man. He is an intelligent man. I would ask him to look inside and find that conscience. I know it is there somewhere. There are some very good people over there.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes46New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 70 Noes 46.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes46New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 48.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes46New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 48.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes46New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 48.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of theMinister of Energy and Resources: I moveThat the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The petroleum minerals sector is already an important contributor to the New Zealand economy. Mining is the backbone of many local communities. For example on the West Coast the mining sector employs over 4000 people generates about one-third of household incomes and contributes $550 million a year to local GDP. The petroleum industry in Taranaki directly employs almost 4000 people with another 4000 in supporting industries and contributes around $2 billion a year in local GDP.Crude oil is New Zealand’s fourth-largest commodity export worth now over $2 billion per year. But the potential for growth is even greater. New Zealand has an extensive untapped wealth of minerals and petroleum resources. The Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 sent a clear signal to investors that this is a supportive regime that requires high standards of its operators. It is central to changes that will allow us to realise the tremendous opportunities that this high-value sector offers.This bill provides commercial certainty to operators who obtained their mining licences under earlier regimes and who are covered by transitional arrangements. It also clarifies how data confidentiality and reporting requirements will apply to all existing privileges. The bill also makes minor changes to the application of operator capability assessments and to the threshold for platinum group elements. These changes do not dilute the robust performance management provisions of the regime in any way but are necessary to improve the alignment of the regime with industry structures and future resource development.The bill also makes minor drafting changes which again are within the scope of the Act itself. Much has been made by the Opposition of the bill correcting errors in the previous Act that was passed. I would note that over two dozen bills in the previous Parliament contained such errors that required correction. The only people in this Parliament who have not made mistakes are those who have not done anything. I also note criticism that these amendments have been picked up before the Act took effect and the Minister has received criticism for that. I take the opposite view. For the Minister to get on and fix these errors before the Act comes into effect ensures that the public is not adversely affected by any such errors.In the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 this Government has established a robust modern and futureproof regime to allow continued responsible development of New Zealand’s petroleum and mineral resources for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Well the National Party sent the Hon Dr Nick Smith down to do the spin because the incompetent Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges—who passed the original bill into law a mere 4 weeks ago and we are already back having to fix it—is such an embarrassment to the National Party that it has sent down its once-proud Bluegreen champion to set the spin for Simon Bridges and for the Government. Dr Nick Smith should hang his head in shame because he has been shown as the charlatan that he is. Bluegreen—what a joke. This bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill is absolutely appalling for the environment. Dr Nick Smith said that it sends a message to industry that this is a “supportive regime”. Well that is the understatement of the year. It is more than supportive; it is a developer’s charter. Actually what it is is a litigator’s dream. That is the reality because it is so full of errors it is so full of loopholes that it leaves the Minister wide open to judicial review. So although the Government wants this to be a developer’s charter in fact I suspect that it is going to find that it is somewhat of a false economy in that regard.There has been much mention of the Taranaki District throughout this debate and certainly the oil and gas industry has been very very good for that district. But do you know what? It is doing just fine under the existing regime. Taranaki did not require complete destruction of laws protecting our environment for it to do as well as it has done. So why do we require this legislation and previous legislation that completely undermines the protection of our environment unless it is because we want to start carrying out activities that previously would not have been allowed because they are too risky they are too dangerous and they do provide too much of a risk to the environment? That is why we are doing it. It is because the Government has no plan B. This is it. This pokies and assets sales—that is it. So if this does not deliver the benefits promised then the Government is kind of screwed. That is why it is deciding that it would rather screw the environment and that is an absolute shame.The incompetence of Minister Simon Bridges is incredible. Not only are we back having to pass an amendment bill weeks after we passed the original amendment bill before that bill has even come into force but he sat there in the chair during theCommittee stage like a dried arrangement and did not take a single call to answer very very serious questions that the Opposition was putting to him. I do not know whether he does not know the answers whether he is just too arrogant to think that he should have to give answers on his quarter-of-a-million-dollar salary or whether actually he has no answer. I suspect that it is the latter—that actually he has no adequate answers to the questions that we were putting because this is a seriously flawed piece of legislation.What this bill does is it extends the protest ban that was introduced by amendment late in the piece—it did not go to a select committee in the original amendment bill—to ban protesting against deep-sea oil drilling in our exclusive economic zone. The Minister said at the time that it was about safety. Maybe the Hon Dr Nick Smith can answer this. If it is about safety then why is every vessel that engages in dangerous and reckless behaviour not covered by it? Why is it only protest vessels and only protest vessels that are protesting against deep-sea oil drilling? Dr Smith? Yes exactly—exactly. Because if that is what it is about we could be here in urgency passing a bill that extends the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which cover dangerous and reckless behaviour by vessels in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone. Why did we not do that? That would have covered everyone. That would have meant that no matter who you are no matter what reason you are doing it for if you behave in a dangerous way that puts lives at risk you will be held accountable. Well under this Government’s law they are not. In the exclusive economic zone you can threaten people’s lives and it is legal. An activity that would be illegal in our territorial waters is legal in our exclusive economic zone because the Government cares about dangerous and reckless behaviour only if it is opposing deep-sea oil drilling. How completely completely repugnant is that? Why are we not passing a law that covers everyone? I would like one National Party member to actually answer that question. This is nothing more—nothing more—than an anti-democratic Draconian piece of legislation that we should all be ashamed of.What it does this amendment bill is it extends that ban out into the continental shelf into the waters above the continental shelf and for the first time right up to the beaches. So protest activity is banned from the beaches out into the high seas. The problem that we have and the second question I would like an answer to—and maybe the Hon Dr Nick Smith can answer this one—is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade tells us and the United Nations convention on the continental shelf tells us that we do not have the right to pass legislation on the water column above the continental shelf. We have the right to exploit minerals in the continental shelf we can drill into it and we can tunnel into it but in the water we have no jurisdiction. The example the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gives is shipping activity. It says that New Zealand has no right to pass laws regulating shipping activity in the water above the continental shelf. So here is my question. How is it then that we have the right to regulate shipping activity that is protesting in the water above the continental shelf? We do not. It is humiliating that the Government is sitting here passing law that we have no right to pass. You might as well pass a law on Mars because you do not have jurisdiction there either.So here we are putting the Government at risk because if it decides under this law it is passing which we actually have no right to pass that it is going to take criminal action against a vessel that is operating out there in the high seas and that vessel then turns round and challenges that because New Zealand has no right to pass those laws—those laws have no legal enforcement—then we leave taxpayers open. Actually it is just really bloody embarrassing quite frankly that the Government cannot even work that out. This is why the bill should have gone to a select committee. We would have got answers to these very very important questions.My third question to which there was no answer is about the fact that we now currently have two criminal offence and penalty regimes operating in our territorial waters for vessels that are protesting. We have the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act which are already in place and now we have this new protest ban. Mr Brownlee maybe you can answer this question. When the police are called out to arrest someone for dangerous activity in our territorial waters under which regime do they operate? Do they flip a coin? Which one gets precedence? It is a very simple question. Do you have an answer? No I did not think so. No I did not think so. I did not think so because this is such a shambles such—Hon Gerry Brownlee: What a load of grandstanding rubbish.MOANA MACKEY: Oh Mr Brownlee is very very grumpy that he has to be here on a Saturday morning. Well he should not have put such shoddy legislation into the urgency motion then. This is just so utterly ridiculous and embarrassing that it defies belief. I want to know where the Attorney-General is on this. Where is Chris Finlayson? We have had no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this legislation. We have had no regulatory impact statement. We have had no ability to scrutinise the legislation at a select committee to see whether or not it is consistent with international law. Where is our Attorney-General? He is meant to be the protector of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this country and he is derelict in and absent from his duty. We even had to be subjected to the spectacle of our Attorney-General coming down in the second reading debate giving a speech defending this legislation and insinuating trying to give the pretence that actually it had had a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. When we asked him to actually table it it transpired that there was not one. It was all just a show to try to make it look like the Government had done the work it should have done when it had not.On top of that we do not have any regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation. All we got was a regulatory impact statement for the previous bill. We do not know what the risks are so I took it upon myself to draft a regulatory impact statement on behalf of the Government. It reaches the standard of quality that we have seen in the other statements in this urgency motion. This is it—this blanked-out document is what I think the regulatory impact statement on this piece of legislation would have looked like. It is very informative—very informative. It took me a long time to draft it. It is an official legal opinion. It is of far higher quality than any information any Government member has brought into the House during this debate. It is of far higher quality than any information our Attorney-General has brought into the House on this debate and the debate on the previous amendment bill. This is about the same level of information that we have had. This is about the same level of quality of information we have had on this piece of legislation. This is a shameful shameful day for the House and the Government should hang its head in shame.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave to correct a vote that I cast on behalf of the Māori Party on in fact all of the clauses during the Committee stage. I exercised two proxy votes in good faith but no vote should have been cast.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to correct the vote. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Could the whip now just deliver the result of the changed vote? He is not now voting for the Māori Party?TIM MACINDOE: The Māori Party votes were cast against each of the clauses. I should not have cast those votes and I am afraid I was made aware of that only after I had done so.Mr SPEAKER: On that basis the correct result for each of those votes was Ayes 68 Noes 46.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand in the third reading debate on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I am not quite sure whether New Zealanders would understand why the previous speaker Moana Mackey was holding up a picture of a barcode but good on her anyway. I thought it was her speech notes.I would like to just raise a point because the previous speaker has harped on in this debate a number of times about why we are even having an amendment bill and why we cannot just stay with what we used to have. She was part of the select committee process when we took on board the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and we added into the bill matters around health and safety. We know that the industry of mining whether it is under the ground in open mines or petroleum is a very dangerous industry and obviously history has shown that to us. We also know of course that the report of the team the working group that Rob Jager from Shell New Zealand chaired said that there were areas where we could see improvements take place.So it is absolutely essential that we have revised legislation around these matters. It is responsible for us to do it; it is irresponsible for us not to. Let us make it very clear on that matter. We want men and women who go to our workplaces every day to come home safe at night and that is through every industry every sector whether that is mining or whether that is agriculture. We know that a large number of people sadly are injured and even worse lose their lives in workplace accidents in this country. We as a Government are determined to reduce that so that we can have families that are united and do not lose loved ones.The Government’s Business Growth Agenda supports New Zealand businesses to grow in order to create jobs. This piece of legislation is about that. It has incorporated in it very strong measures around how we interact with our environment. We know that in order for New Zealand to grow and prosper for its economic activity to be lifted and for New Zealanders to have what they want we must engage utilise and exploit our natural resources in this country in an appropriate and a responsible way. I believe that this bill covers those areas and gets the balance right. I know there are all sorts of debates about where the point lies in that balance but we believe on this side of the House that the Kiwi way of life is not just about enjoying our environment but about being able to afford to enjoy it. So we must have strong incomes and we must create jobs.Moana Mackey: Answer the questions we actually asked.JONATHAN YOUNG: You know that up in your neck of the woods up there in Poverty Bay you have potential and you have opportunity—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.JONATHAN YOUNG: The member understands what I have said. I believe also that she has been on the record as saying that she looks forward to the opportunities that exist through this. I am very pleased to stand in support of this legislation.I say on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources that when omissions were noted and seen he worked quickly to bring these to our attention and have them rectified. You know we would certainly hear howls of derision and anger from the other side of the House if we knew and did nothing about them. I am sure that as the member Andrew Williams has stated a number of times in his speeches this is actually a good responsible response to those issues. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It is entirely possible to be tolerant of mistakes that people make for the first time in a new job and often there is leeway given to people who do make mistakes as they get to grips with a new job. But the stakes arevery high when it comes to this House. The stakes are very high when it comes to the legislation governing activities in this country.This legislation the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill has been a complete debacle from beginning to end. The spin that the National Government is trying to put on this amendment bill to an amendment Act is just farcical. The spin now says: “Well isn’t the Minister good that he spotted the mistakes?” which he clearly did not; otherwise he would not have brought in an amendment bill in the parlous state that it was. The spin is: “Isn’t it good that he spotted those mistakes and he’s moved to correct them?”. In fact he has moved so quickly to correct them that it is quite possible that this piece of legislation will come into effect before the amendment Act that it seeks to amend. He is so speedy about addressing these errors that he may find himself tripping up on the dates if he is not careful.This is the modus operandi of this Government. The modus operandi of this Government is to sell our laws to allow big business to come in and exploit our resources without care about health and safety because those provisions are weakened and without care about our environment because those provisions are weakened and to say to everybody who looks like a company that will invest in oil and gas: “Come here. Our laws can be altered for you.” But this particular Minister has excelled even that modus operandi. He is now offering to oil and gas companies laws that we do not even have the right to make. He is offering to amend laws that we do not have the jurisdiction to make in order to make it easy for oil and gas exploration companies to come and wreak havoc on our resources. In this respect not only is it a contempt of Parliament and a contempt of the democratic process but it is a contempt of the rights of people to submit and have their views heard on this legislation.The bill has been rammed through the House under urgency for no particularly good reason. But what it shows is that this Government works for the benefit of vested interests and works for the benefit of big business in the hope that it can find 170000 jobs which it promised some years ago and which it is failing—failing—to come anywhere near. In order to do that it will sell its mother to bring big business to this country and allow it complete free reign over our environment over our health and safety standards and now over the waters above the continental shelf which we do not have jurisdiction to legislate over. So it is not only the laws that we make that are ours to make but the laws that we are making that are not ours to make.I want to go to the question about protests—the curtailing of people’s legitimate right to protest. Through this whole debate we have not had the privilege of an answer to any question we have raised. We have not had any member opposite get up and justify this Minister’s bill because first of all it is not justifiable but secondly they are so contemptuous of the process in this House that the only chance they give for this bill to be scrutinised is in this Chamber and never mind that 35000 people submitted on the previous legislation which was then amended by an amendment Act which we are now amending—if people can keep up with that.I am concerned that they are vesting democratic rights to protest in big business because it seems to me that the 500-metre exclusion zone that any protest vessel must have from an exploratory vessel or an oil and gas vessel—let us just put it that way—means it must stay 500 metres from the corporate-interest vessel. We can only assume that as the corporate-interest vessel moves around the 500-metre zone goes with it. So it could push protest vessels back on to shore. Is there no way in which people can ever get closer than 500 metres even if the corporate vessel breaches the 500-metre limit?We can have people protesting but not within 500 metres. I presume that means that the democratic right to protest has now been lodged with corporate interests. So it is corporate interests that now have the benefit of dictating where New Zealanders mightprotest because as they move around they have this protection zone of 500 metres within which no one can protest.This is shabby law. It is offensive law. It is sloppy law. It has been a chapter of errors from the beginning and the Minister seems to be incompetent and inadequate to the task. This really does lay down a new level of ministerial incompetence the likes of which we have not seen before. It is a shame because the National Party does have a proud heritage of its own which it can defend. In fact it was 77 years ago this week that the National Party was first founded—77 years ago the National Party was founded. The leader at the time was of course—who was the leader of the National Party at the time? Who was the first leader?Tim Macindoe: Adam Hamilton.Hon MARYAN STREET: Excellent—you pass. Adam Hamilton was the first leader of the party. He is described by theDictionary of New Zealand Biographyas lacking charisma. However he was a Southland farmer. He moved a motion of no confidence in Michael Joseph Savage at the time. Well that was an epic fail. That is the only thing that this Minister has in common with what has been up until now a proud history for the National Party in its own terms.This bill is a travesty. This Minister is incompetent. This Minister does the National Party’s reputation no good even in its own terms. He does it no good. But worse than that—and I am not here to defend the National Party’s heritage but you know somebody has to; this Minister clearly is not—this is an offence against democratic rights to protest which are now being vested in corporate interests. So as long as the Shell ship or whatever it is is cruising around everybody has to stay 500 metres away. Why is there not a provision that makes the corporate ship liable if it gets within 500 metres of a protest ship—Moana Mackey: And acts dangerously.Hon MARYAN STREET: —and behaves dangerously? If this is about safety at sea why does it not apply to all ships? This is not about safety at sea; this is about selling our legislation to corporate interests it is about selling legislation that we are not even entitled to make to corporate interests and it is an affront to the democratic process and the rights of citizens in New Zealand. This bill is a travesty from beginning to end and the National Party members opposite are just sitting there riding out the time for this bill. We have not had the courtesy of any answers and that goes to how they treat the process in this House. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to oppose the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. Because we are sitting under urgency on a Saturday I have got babysitting duties and had to bring my kids to Parliament. They are in the parents’ room at the moment. Coming down to the Chamber I was thinking about why it is important to oppose this bill going through under urgency. It is not a cliché but it is because of my kids.As a parent the best moments I believe you can have as a Kiwi parent are playing with your kids on the beach. It is such an iconic Kiwi experience and by George we have got some amazing beaches around this country and I do not want to see that special experience destroyed for New Zealanders. I know that this afternoon thousands of Kiwis are going to the beaches to draw a line in the sand against this Government’s deep-sea drilling agenda. Hundreds of New Zealanders are joining hands across the beach in about a dozen cities I understand. I am going to be there with my children. We are drawing a line in the sand. We are saying that if the Government cannot guarantee that it can deal with a spill if the Government cannot guarantee that it can avoid a catastrophic deep-sea spill we should not be doing it.What we know is that this Government is opening up huge acreage with 189000 square kilometres opened up a fortnight ago for tender mostly for deep-sea oil drilling permits. What we know is that the deeper you go and the deeper you drill the more the risks are magnified. The industry itself says that it operates at the frontiers of technology geology and geography. Just last week Lord Browne the former chair of BP said that the risks for deep-sea oil drilling are too high.That is why I am opposing this bill because what this bill is doing through a bad ridiculous embarrassing process and through a shocking shoddy parliamentary process is just encouraging greater speculation in the industry. It is inviting cowboys to come down to New Zealand and be a risk to our environment and our beaches. The risks are too high yet the Government is trying to clamp down on protests.A couple of years ago when theRena spill occurred with those 350 tonnes of oil what we saw was New Zealand woefully unprepared to deal with a spill. Yet the Government still nominated its oil spill capacity to be only 5500 tonnes. What we know is that a deep-sea well blowout could release 600000 tonnes. In America they had 40000 people working on a spill. We have got 400 trained responders. In America they had 1000 vessels. In New Zealand we have got three dinghies. In America they had everything in place but it was still catastrophic and cost $40 billion. Yet this Government says that the maximum penalties are only $10 million and a company has to have insurance of only $30 million.The Government cannot guarantee that we will not see a spill. The Government is not prepared; it is not protecting the taxpayer from liability. That is why we are opposing this bill—this ridiculous bill that just shows the incompetence of the Minister of Energy and Resources. Here we are a matter of weeks after the Crown Minerals Amendment Act was passed. Before it has even come into effect the Government is having to modify it to fix up the mistakes. But it is worse than that because through urgency it is trying to slip in some sneaky changes to benefit its mates in the oil industry.The Government has no vision for this economy. It would rather gamble with our environment gamble with our fishing industry gamble with our tourism industry and gamble with that important Kiwi experience of enjoying a beach with your kids. It is going to gamble with that to support its mates because it has got no vision. But there is a better way. We should be encouraging clean energy manufacturing jobs and a smart innovative economy but the Government is not doing that. It is putting all the eggs in this basket. What you see is the Government cutting special deals. That is why under urgency it is passing amending legislation to amend legislation that still has not come into effect with no select committee process no regulatory impact statement and in fact no actual answers in the Committee stage.The only parliamentary scrutiny our country has is the ability to question the Minister and his officials. Yet the Minister refused to take a single call and neither did any National member take a call in the Committee stage. This is quite simply lawmaking at its worst. But what we are gambling with is our environment and our economy. What the substantive amendments contained in this amendment bill do is encourage speculation. Once this bill is passed and signed into law to apply successfully for a permit companies do not have to have the financial capability to be able to do the work they are promising to do. Let us say that again: you do not have to have the financial capability to do the work you are promising to do—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Not the Speaker.GARETH HUGHES: Apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. This is deeply worrying because what we are doing is encouraging speculation in the industry. The Government’s oil drilling agenda has been so woefully unsuccessful. With Petrobrasleaving Apache Corporation leaving and Anadarko delaying all its work the Government is trying to look as though it is busy by encouraging a proliferation of small players to speculate in the industry because the plan has been just so unsuccessful. The second point is that what we are seeing—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ha! The member has scared them off.GARETH HUGHES: Well Mr Brownlee I am quite happy to have taken a strong stance along with the majority of New Zealanders. Remember that 99 percent of Kiwis in the regulations submissions said it should be a prohibited activity because you cannot guarantee it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!GARETH HUGHES: And Mr Assistant Speaker what we are seeing is this Government making it easier to get a deep-sea oil permit without the technical capability. Let us say that again. You do not have to have experience of knowing how to drill a well to get a deep-sea drill permit under National. What we see this Government saying—and we saw John Key a month ago saying—is that it is not going to invite cowboys down to New Zealand but this is exactly what this legislation rammed through under urgency does. It is about getting cowboys to come down to New Zealand to speculate. We do not want people learning how to drill on the job—we do not want people learning how to drill on the job. The Government is gambling with our economy and gambling with our environment. It is not on because there are better ways forward.Just lastly what we see is clause 14 being sneaked through by Minister Bridges. Originally Parliament saw the traditional New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and select committee processes bypassed through the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper. Now the Government is using urgency to amend something—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have members who do not have the floor interjecting on each other. If they want a call that is fine. They can do it later on. But they know it is out of order and it is discourteous to the member who is trying to speak. Courtesy is contagious members.GARETH HUGHES: Let us hope the National members can take a call and talk about the substance so that they can talk about why they are weakening our permit rules why they are weakening our regulations and why they are risking and gambling with our environment.The important breach of human rights and I believe international law is in clause 14 which they are sneaking through. They are sneaking through under urgency something that had no scrutiny because they snuck it through in an amendment to the previous legislation. This is not on. Eminent legal professors have said that. What they are doing is extending their five new criminal provisions the so-called Anadarko amendment introduced through a Supplementary Order Paper out into the continental shelf.This is interesting because New Zealand does not actually have jurisdiction over the continental shelf—if you look at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website look at the Ministry for the Environment website and look at the conflicts wracking China Japan and the Arctic countries that are debating this very issue at the moment—but the Government is quite prepared to unilaterally run ahead and say: “Oh sure we don’t have jurisdiction but we’re going to apply laws that relate only to the oil industry that relate only to protest.” It is so scared of protest—it is sending the message that protest is effective and it is laying down a challenge to protestors that the industry is scared of the work they are doing—that it is prepared to run roughshod over New Zealanders’ human rights. It is an honourable tradition which the former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer Peter Williams QC and Dame Anne Salmond NewZealander of the Year have said is such a fundamental part of New Zealand and such an honourable tradition.The Government is ramming through and extending these egregious powers over an extended 1.7 million square kilometres of the continental shelf. It is deeply worrying because it is a breach of human rights. It is deeply worrying because it is going to have international geopolitical ramifications. New Zealand is unilaterally running ahead extending its jurisdiction. What we are seeing is all in support of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation which only a fortnight ago said it is going to be applying for a permit—where else but the continental shelf.This is a worrying precedent we are seeing from this Government. We are seeing laws being made for Hollywood. We are seeing laws being made for casinos. We are seeing laws being made for the industry by the industry. This is not on. It is not what Kiwis expect. This Government has got tens of millions of dollars in subsidies pages and pages of tax exemptions free research support free support from officials and legislation being passed for the industry. It even calls out the navy to support Petrobras in the oil industry. This Government is sending out a very important message: “Drill baby drill!”. New Zealand is open if you are a foreign offshore oil company.What about the wind industry? What about the manufacturing industry? What about the geothermal industry? This Government is sending the message that this is not a level playing field. It is going to subsidise support and do anything it can to support one particular industry because it has got no vision. It would rather risk our environment and gamble that someone will find something somewhere and that will be our path to prosperity. It is not because we have got the fourth-lowest royalty rate in the world. We know from Taranaki that we are going to see hardly any jobs.What we know is we are going to see all the profits flow offshore. The Government’s own report says 90 percent of the profits are going to flow offshore. That means hardly any jobs hardly any taxes hardly any royalties and profits flowing offshore yet risking our environment. Why does the Government not listen to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that said there is a $22 billion clean-energy opportunity? Why does it not listen to the Pure Advantage report that says there is a $6 trillion clean-tech industry that we could be getting a slice of? But no this Government would rather keep its head in the sand and bend over backwards to follow this disturbing trend.This is lawmaking at its worst. There is a better way. The Green Party is offering solutions to make New Zealand a richer place and to enhance those beautiful beach experiences for Kiwi families.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I rise to take a quick call on the third reading of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. This National Government was elected to provide an environment where jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders would be created. When you talk to people out in the communities out in the streets of Auckland in the provinces and rural communities what do they want? They want jobs. They want opportunities. They want independence for their families.What we have just heard from Gareth Hughes and Clint and his mates is that they do not want jobs. They do not want to create opportunities for people out in our communities. I challenge Clint and Gareth Hughes to come out and talk to people out in the communities that I represent. What they want is jobs. They want to feed their families. They want to clothe their families. They want to educate their kids to live a Kiwi lifestyle that they have been used to. I challenge Gareth Hughes to do that. This petroleum and minerals industry employs 7000 people—$1.8 billion. It has the potential to create 40000 more jobs and $12 billion a year for our country. That is what it has the potential to do and this Government supports that notion that we should beproviding jobs for those people in our communities. I support this bill because it is our future. It is about our families our communities and their independence and particularly it is about our children. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. We have been looking at this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill last night and now again today on Saturday and we are coming to the end. I would like to add the views of New Zealand First which as always are the common-sense views the level-headed views and the views that I believe the majority of New Zealanders would wish to see in this House.We have heard opinions and viewpoints from all extremities but at the end of the day a great deal of it is a lot of red herrings and a lot of diversions away from the fact that New Zealand is fortunate to be sitting on a very significant resource. For a population of 4.5 million people we are in a very very fortunate place in the world to have an enormous resource and an enormous potential that if you ask most New Zealanders we certainly cannot just ignore. We must take the opportunities we are given and look at those opportunities in a very sensible sustainable and responsible way. It must be done and we all agree—every New Zealander—that we would not wish for the environment to be in any way damaged and we would not wish for us to put our jewel in the Crown our wonderful environment at risk. At the same time if it is done sensibly and responsibly there is enormous potential to improve the wealth the prosperity and the well-being of all New Zealanders as a result.In this regard New Zealand First has supported this bill in most areas but we did you will note vote against one aspect and that was the aspect in relation to protests on the high seas. That is one area where New Zealand First cannot agree with the Government because we do believe still in the freedom to protest. We could not in our own conscience vote for something that would take away that right of New Zealanders. I have mentioned in this House in the past that we can recall the frigates theOtago and theTaranaki going off to Mururoa Atoll being sent by our Government to protest on the high seas about atmospheric testing in French Polynesia. Our Government sent those vessels. Likewise I can remember when theHaddo was coming up the harbour in Auckland and New Zealanders were out there protesting. So we are a nation of free protest and we do respect that. New Zealand First could not go along with that part of this bill because we still believe in the right of New Zealanders to protest anywhere as long as they are keeping a lawful manner. To protest is their inherent right. That is why we have plaques on the walls of this Chamber representing the many great battles that New Zealanders have given their lives for such as Passchendaele Messines Egypt and Gallipoli. Therefore we do uphold the right of people to defend the rights of their country but also to defend the rights of freedom of speech.Back on to the Crown minerals. We do agree that there were some significant errors in the original Crown Minerals Amendment Act that needed rectifying. This legislation was put down to be enacted next week on 24 May. It was then found that there were some errors in the original drafting which if they were not sorted out with this amendment bill in fact by next week would cause some real complications in terms of the original Crown Minerals Act.It was simple. The main premise the big one of this whole bill was the fact that the tier 1 applicants potentially would not be able to operate after 24 May if this amendment bill was not put through because they are not always necessarily the final company that does the exploration the drilling the actual mining or whatever it is. Often they are scout companies. As I mentioned in the House last night they are the forerunners that go out look at the opportunities look at the potential of the resource do the research do the initial exploration and do the initial fact-finding to see whether there issomething actually there to take forward. If they do establish that then often that is when other major international investors and indeed New Zealand investors would get involved and perhaps take it to the next stage. They were going to be excluded under the original amendment Act and it could have meant that many many operators in New Zealand could literally have had to cease operations because they would have found that they were not compliant with the original Act.That would have been an unacceptable situation. That would have potentially cost jobs in this country. That would have potentially cost investment in this country and that would not be a good thing. New Zealand First would not condone doing something that would result in New Zealanders potentially losing work losing opportunities and losing jobs. That would not be a good thing. We do support the bill in that respect.But as I mentioned in the House last night our support is contingent also on hopefully in the future there being a review in other areas of this whole minerals and resource taking within New Zealand. We in New Zealand First firmly believe that for the country to truly prosper from the taking of minerals both onshore and offshore all New Zealanders must benefit from it. In particular we believe that where New Zealanders and where regions and where provinces are affected by the taking of those resources and the taking of those minerals they in turn should receive a significant amount of the benefit back. The Crown should not just take the royalties and they should not just disappear into a big black hole in Wellington just to be used to pay for other activities of Government and to prop up other areas of Government. They should be returned to where the minerals were taken from.In that respect New Zealand First has put out a policy in the last month or so where we would if we had the opportunity to have influence over this ensure that 25 percent of the royalties taken by the Crown for the minerals would be returned back to the region and back to the province from where they were taken.That would help those regions to underwrite and pay for some of the infrastructure—such as roading such as local infrastructure and such as good facilities for their communities and amenities for their communities—to in some way offset their own costs but also to compensate them for some of the downside of the effects of mining or minerals extraction or exploration or drilling in their particular regions. We think it is a win-win. We have had extremely good feedback from around New Zealand on this. We think it is a positive thing. We think New Zealanders would get on board. We actually think that in order to take New Zealanders with us to take New Zealanders forward and see a benefit in exploration to see a benefit in mining and to see a benefit in taking mineral resources from our wonderful country all New Zealanders should benefit and New Zealand First would certainly ensure that that was the case.Just in closing New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We do believe in jobs we do believe in employment and we do believe in taking this country forward.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and support this Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill at its third reading. This Government has got a very focused growth agenda. It is ensuring that this economy grows and jobs are created for New Zealanders. I agree with Andrew Williams that we need infrastructure. We need schools roads—all those things. This Government has been working on this for the last 4 years or 5 years. I can assure you that this will continue and it will support all the job opportunities being created. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I once again rise to speak on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I would like to invoke our good and well-loved late friend Parekura Horomia who when asked early in his political career in the House about a particular piece of legislation on a very important and topical issue of the dayresponded in terms that were regarded then as parliamentary so hopefully they will be regarded as parliamentary today. He said that he wanted a piece of legislation that could not be frigged around with. What has happened with this legislation is completely the opposite. We have not had a good quality piece of legislation and it has been frigged around with. Yet again we are asked to do exactly that today because this Government cannot and will not get it right. We are in the extraordinary situation of having a reasonably comprehensive amendment bill to an amendment Act that has itself not yet taken effect. If that does not tell you about the quality of the management of legislation through this House then I am not quite sure what will.Earlier in this third reading debate Jonathan Young said that the changes in this bill were necessary for health and safety in the industry. Well that is just patently not correct. The thing about that is that this Government has finally started to take health and safety seriously. It could not do anything other than that. It had the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy saying that things were in a parlous state and something had to change. It had its own committee chaired by the very good the very great Rob Jager himself the head of an oil company in this country Shell Todd Oil Services who recommended radical change to our health and safety approach. Nothing in this bill is going to make a single bit of difference to health and safety. We need a comprehensive approach and if anything what this bill will do is make it worse because the health and safety oversight required under—I have to get this right—not the primary legislation but the amendment Act that we are now amending is itself pretty weak. It is pretty light. It simply requires the Minister to be satisfied that it is likely that a permit applicant has the technical capability and the financial means to do the job. There is no objective standard to it and it of course requires the Minister merely to be satisfied. That is a pretty low standard. With all due respect to the members in this House that is a pretty low standard in reality.What this bill then does is split that up. It says that whereas before the Minister had to be satisfied about technical capability and financial means throughout the entire process up to exploration drilling now we will split that up and we will say: “Listen if you have got the technical capability and the financial means for the prospecting aspect of it we will just let you go then and come back to us for the next bit.” And then all of a sudden what apparently this bill contemplates is that if when the Halliburtons the Schlumbergers and the Shells have got their initial permit and the Minister’s satisfaction as to technical and financial capability they come back and say: “That’s it. There are barrels under there. The black gold is going to flow. We want to come back for the rest of it.” now the Minister is going to be able to stand up and say: “Uh-uh you’ve now got to show me a second round of technical and financial capability.” There is just no way on the track record of this Government that we can be sure that any Minister in this Government is going to be able to stand up to a Schlumberger a Shell or a Halliburton and say: “Oh no you’ve got to stop what you’re doing now because you’ve got to have better than what you’ve got now even though I approved it last time.” That is incredible. So what this bill does is it weakens that level of oversight at a time when we are meant to be being convinced that this Government is taking health and safety seriously. This goes in totally the opposite direction and that is why it is wrong. That is why we are opposing it.Mr Lotu-Iiga in his speech said that it is all about providing jobs. He trotted out the old repeated assertion that the parties in Opposition do not want jobs for people which is completely ridiculous. He might want to know—and Jonathan Young knows this as well as I do—that we have had probably the best summer of oil exploration and oil industry activity in many years in Taranaki in the summer just gone and you knowwhat the most recent employment statistics show? Unemployment in Taranaki went up by 500. In the last—Su’a William Sio: How much?ANDREW LITTLE: Five hundred. Five hundred more jobless in Taranaki in the last year after the best summer season of oil industry activity we have seen in many years. This is not the panacea. This is not the gold at the end of the rainbow that this Government trots out. Let us do this activity because yes there is the possibility of generating some value. But this is not the answer to New Zealand’s long-term economic structural problems. We have got to get past that. Until we have people in office in Government and on the Treasury benches who understand that New Zealand has deep-seated long-term structural economic problems and are prepared to do something about it then life ain’t going to be too good for us in 5 years’ or 10 years’ time. This is not going to cure it. This is not the cure. But while we have an oil and gas industry and while we have Ministers who have responsibility for providing oversight then the least I think New Zealand expects is that we will operate to world’s best practice. This bill will not do that. It does the opposite. It is a highly subjective approach a highly subjective test that will not ensure that we have the best possible not only health and safety but also environmental standards operating when it comes to oil and gas both prospecting and exploration.And then the other insidious aspect of this bill is the conceit in it. It is this attempt to legislate for something that we simply do not know we have the power to legislate for and that is control or management of all the water above the continental shelf. We have had evidence before this House in this urgent procedure that suggests that it is hugely doubtful whether we can even pass this law or at least pass a law and hope that it has meaningful effect. We do not have a response from the Minister of Energy and Resources. The Minister sat in the chair all through the Committee stage and did not respond to a single point that was raised—legitimate points backed up by evidence. We have not had the benefit of a select committee process where we can call upon the officials professionals and independent advisers. We have not had the benefit of that and we are ramming this through roughshod as Mr Henare was concerned to hear earlier in this debate. It is being rammed through roughshod and he knows what that is. He would have seen that a few times in his time as a union official I know because in his day when he was a union official ramming things through roughshod was the only way they did things. I was a union official in the democratic days of the union movement. Things were all sweetness and light—Hon Tau Henare: When was that?ANDREW LITTLE: —and it was good. And we did good things.Hon Members: Just after he left.ANDREW LITTLE: Just after Tau Henare left—that is right. So it is not possible—[Interruption] That is right—wore the leather jackets up to the Marsden Point oil refinery. We know how it operated. That was just for the clerical workers. We know how it worked. We are concerned. We did good things and the union members of Taranaki including the bits of Taranaki that fall in the electorate of the member opposite Shane Ardern—they were happy people and good people people who worked at Motunui and the Waitara Valley plant in the days when it fell in a different electorate. But it is in New Plymouth now in its rightful place and things are going well.We are opposed to this legislation because it treats with contempt the people in the oil and gas industry particularly those who are working at the coalface and doing the dangerous work. It treats with contempt those who wish to exercise their right to dissent to activities that are happening and raise a voice of protest. It treats with contempt the very members of this House and the lawmaking procedures that we are elected to doand to fulfil in good faith and with proper information and good process. It treats all of that with contempt. It is a bad bill. It is a wrong bill. And this will be a day of shame for this House when this bill goes through.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Wo hen hao xiexie. I believe that my colleague Jonathan Young knows Taranaki much much better than the previous speaker Mr Andrew Little. So when Jonathan says that Mr Little is wrong Mr Little must be wrong.As I said at the first reading the aim of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill is to encourage the safe and sensible development of Crown-owned minerals by streamlining and simplifying the Crown minerals regulatory regime and by ensuring better coordination of regulatory agencies. This bill provides commercial certainty to operators who obtained their mining licences under earlier regimes and who are covered by transitional arrangements. It also clarifies how data confidentiality and reporting requirements will apply to all existing privilege holders. Under Labour no real action was taken to regulate offshore extraction of oil gas and mineral resources and/or to protect our seas.This bill shows that the National-led Government is developing our resources in a responsible manner. It will create higher-paid jobs raise our standards of living and build a more productive economy for all New Zealanders. So I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the House that this is a split call. [Interruption] Have we finished? Good. I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): There is no rush Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is all right is it? I cannot hear you.Hon RUTH DYSON: You are quite correct it is a split call. Could I just commend the member who has just resumed his seat Dr Jian Yang and say that he made a more valuable contribution to the debate than has the Minister of Energy and Resources throughout these entire proceedings. Throughout the first reading the second reading the Committee stage and now the third reading the Minister has not made a single contribution of any value at all to this debate. I think that is really doing a disservice not only to the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill but actually to his colleagues and to the House. I think that Parliament should be treated in a better way in a more respectful way than that. The Hon Simon Bridges has I think let the National Party team down in this great week of its 77th anniversary as a political party in New Zealand.In terms of both the process of this bill and the content I am very pleased to be joining my Labour colleagues in opposing it. When looking first of all at the process members have been quite puzzled by the name of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill which will become the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act 2013. It sounds like someone did a cut and paste and made an error in the name of it but the reason it is called such an unusual name is that this bill which we have debated now through all stages under urgency amends mistakes—fixes mistakes—in legislation that has not even come into force yet.We warned the Government at the time to take care with the detail. Oh no the Hon Simon Bridges was so keen to get his name on a bit of law that was passed through its third reading that he totally ignored all the consideration of the House and made a whole lot of mistakes and now he has suddenly come back to Parliament and said: “I’ve got to fix them under urgency.” Well that would not be so bad. He is new at the job and he is human he can make mistakes and we would be happy to fix them up. But he did not do just that. He then took the opportunity of a Budget measure being put through under urgency to make significant changes to the substantive legislation.The first one is of huge concern and that is that it reduces the health and safety the environmental and the financial security considerations around oil and gas exploration. That is a step in the wrong direction after the Commerce Committee took such care over the health and safety considerations in the previous legislation. It is insulting to the select committee which worked so hard. The select committee reconvened to look at the outcomes from the Pike River inquiry and ensured that they were incorporated into the legislation on a pretty across-all-parties basis actually and in a very open way. I commend Jonathan Young the chair for his leading of that process. And then Simon Bridges just biffs it all out. Those considerations are a bit hard for the industry so he reduces them all.The second part of what this bill does—other than fixing up the mistakes of Simon Bridges—is it extends the protest ban. The most controversial part of the last legislation was that this new protest ban was introduced but not for health and safety—not for health and safety. That was what the Minister said at the time: “Oh we care so much about health and safety we’re going to introduce this protest ban.” If that were the case it would have been exactly the same health and safety ban on all vessels but it is not it is just on protest vessels and it covered the exclusive economic zone. That has now been extended to cover the continental shelf—the water above the continental shelf. That is extraordinary.It is very clear from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice on its website that New Zealand does not have jurisdiction over that water. We do not have the right to pass laws in relation to activity in that water. But oh no Simon Bridges mastermind of this Parliament has decided he knows better than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade he knows better than all the advice. So now we have a reduction in the health and safety the environmental and the financial security considerations in regard to exploration and we have an extension of a protest ban into an area that we do not have jurisdiction over and that is why this bill should be thrown out.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to draw a matter to your attention to do with standard of dress in the Chamber. I see there is a member opposite who has graced the Chamber with his presence this morning wearing a jersey. It is correct that he is also wearing a jacket over the top of it but I understood the required standard of dress was business attire. I have had a lot of dealings in business settings over many years. I have not yet seen a business person man or woman wearing a jersey in a business setting. I just wonder whether you might consider whether or not the member is suitably dressed for this Chamber.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think that is a most frivolous contribution from the member and not one that you should give any time to whatsoever. I notice members—[Interruption] I am speaking to the point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have a point of order.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I notice members in the Chamber—there was one member in the Chamber today dressed in a denim suit. Apparently that works.Brendan Horan: Who’s that?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well if you look around—looking over there at one of our colleagues—it is somewhat sartorial. But none the less if we are going to start doing these things there are other members—I have always thought that there is a huge gap between the dress standards for male and female members in here but this is not a way to raise it—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is not an appropriate time to raise it and I would ask you to please ignore it.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well I guess it is Saturday morning. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I would like sort of unusually to join with Gerry Brownlee not in his negative comments about my colleague Andrew Little but on the substance of the point of order. I think you will be aware because you were here when urgency used to be a regular feature of Saturdays that the Saturday business dress tended to be slightly less formal—as it is in most businesses—than it might be Monday to Thursday or in some cases on Friday. I think Speakers have taken a more relaxed attitude on a Friday. I can remember Roger Douglas here in a jacket and a jersey. He apparently had a collar and tie underneath but the jersey was polo neck so you could not even tell.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.Brendan Horan: Point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No I do not need any more help. I have listened to the contributions from all sides. I realise it is Saturday morning and we would probably rather be somewhere else. [Interruption] Order! I am on feet. Recognising that the member might be cold I accept that sometimes we do need to wear a jersey under a suit.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s top-class merino.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not going to get into what class it is. Who was on their feet? I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Speaking to the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill I say that the Green Party opposes this bill. It is a very troubling bill and there are a number of reasons for that. One of them is that it is being pushed through under urgency with no scrutiny—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the member’s tie? Coming into the House in an open-neck shirt.EUGENIE SAGE: —and no ability for the public to comment. Yes I am wearing a pink shirt. It was Pink Shirt Day yesterday. I am a day late and that is because we are still on Thursday.When we are dealing with bills under urgency when there is no opportunity for the public to comment or for a select committee to engage with a bill we have only the collective intelligence of members of Parliament in this Chamber. So it has been particularly disturbing that during the Committee stage of the bill we have had no Government members standing up to defend the bill and to engage with the issues that the Opposition has raised. What is even more disturbing is that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Energy and Resources never answered any of the questions that the Opposition was asking. So when it is down to us—because the Government has excluded others from engaging with this bill—we should engage. The Opposition has engaged and has flagged some very troubling aspects of the bill but Government members have not engaged during the Committee stage. That is very disturbing.It is also disturbing that we did not have a regulatory impact statement apart from the one that Moana Mackey produced and held up with a series of black lines on it. Without a regulatory impact statement there has not been an honest effort to explain the implications of the bill. So it has been left to the Opposition to highlight the problems caused by clause 14 and the way in which it extends to the high seas the five criminal offences that were created by the Anadarko Supplementary Order Paper to the principal Act.Without a regulatory impact statement there has been no examination of how this clashes with our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea which New Zealand has signed up to nor on what basis the Government is purporting to establish new criminal offences in an area where we do not have the jurisdiction to do so. But because the bill has not gone to a select committee we have not been able to engage with officials.This law that we are passing today is potentially null and void if it overrides and does not implement our international obligations. Yet at no point did the Minister rise to explain what he thought was the jurisdictional basis for doing that. It is interesting that when you look at the comparable Australian legislation which is the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 that legislation provides for a 500-metre no-go zone around oil rigs and similar structures but there is no provision in the Australian legislation for a no-go zone for vessels. That is obviously because Australia understands the requirement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the fact that that preserves freedom of navigation on the high seas.So why does the Government feel that it has to go so far and potentially breach our international obligations when there are already numerous international instruments and the Maritime Transport Act that address this whole issue of safety of navigation and vessels? Why? It is because under this Government we have a Government that has morphed from being nanny State as it accused the former Labour Government of being to being strong-arm State—one that is intolerant of dissent that is contemptuous of the democratic process and that wants to ensure that people have no opportunity or minimal opportunity to disagree with it. It is prepared to criminalise legitimate protest on the high seas against the Government’s flawed economic agenda which relies so heavily on the exploitation of resources. It is prepared to cut across the whole tradition of dissent and protest on the high seas that is upheld in other international treaties. This is a bad bill. The Green Party is opposing it.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to oppose this third reading of the “Crown Minerals Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment Bill”. I do so because this is a DIY job. It is a fix-up job and not a very good one at that. The same thing is actually happening outside the front of Parliament as is happening here in the debating chamber. [Interruption] We can wait for this member to be told off. I do not mind waiting for a few seconds. But—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That member has certainly been told off.BRENDAN HORAN: Outside—Hon Gerry Brownlee: He sleeps in a dogbox. He lives at the back of the House under a rock where he belongs.BRENDAN HORAN: Mr Brownlee that is the trouble with your side of the House. There are too many lips flapping. You cannot learn anything while your lips are flapping. You need to have those ears opening. Too bad “Big Ears” is not here.Outside the Beehive roof is being replaced because the current roof is not fit for purpose just like that side of the House. The roof is being replaced in copper. How much is that costing—$3 million? Well there you go. That is how much minerals cost because that is Crown mineral copper. It is a Crown mineral but this Government would just give it away to anybody who comes along. Who is out there? Who is going to be mining? Trans-Tasman Resources. Can somebody help me? Who is on the board of Trans-Tasman Resources? Who is that woman? Is it not Ms Shipley? Could that be right? Ms Shipley? I am just pulling out splinters again wondering how many boards that woman is on. But here we are on a Saturday morning because the Minister’s performance is not fit for purpose either.What I wonder—and as I said earlier there are some members over on that side whom I greatly respect—is how those members could possibly support overseas interests foreigners coming in and plundering our natural resources. These mineralshave taken millions of years to accumulate. There are no regulatory impact reports and the fisheries have not been consulted. We do not know what effect it is going to have. If we have a look at open mining on land we may get an idea because this Government is used to subterfuge. Can you imagine the effect on our ecological systems when all of that iron ore and sand is removed? And I have not even begun to touch on mining.This Government has proven that it cannot remove oil from a ship on a rock so how is it going to remove oil that is leaking from the seabed at 1500 metres under the seabed or even if it is 400 metres under? How long is it going to take rescue teams to get there? Where is the infrastructure for us to support this? But most important what is going to be the impact and what are we getting out of it anyway? One to 2 percent profit about which some foreign company will come and say: “This is what we made.” In the case of Trans-Tasman Resources where it brings in the big Chinese ship and it takes out as much iron ore as it wants what else is it taking out and again what is the effect on our ecosystems? Ecosystems are very fragile and we wonder what is going to happen.This is an appalling bill. It is a sell-out. It is a sell-out for New Zealand. It is a sell-out of our children’s future of our heritage. Some of these members may not know what it is like under the water. I do not know when they were last in the surf. But when you dive under a wave—and I can tell you this actually—if you dive under a big wave you can see the water swirling. As it swirls you see the sand moving and within that sand are crustaceans. There is all sorts of sea life. And as those crustaceans are floating around and the shellfish are floating around in come the fish and that is how they feed.Grant Robertson: Why isn’t Mark Mitchell speaking right now?BRENDAN HORAN: Well I am just giving a little basic demonstration of how an ecosystem works in the ocean. Have members on that side even considered the impact on our fisheries? [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you. I fail to understand how those members who have a conscience can possibly support this bill. You have seen what happened in theRena case. There is oil still floating up and when the wind is in a north-easterly direction as it is today at Mount Maunganui and the surf is up I can go out there and I will still come in with specks of oil on my board. The shellfish off Tauranga have not been fit to eat since theRena disaster. The shellfish have not been fit to eat since theRena disaster but you do not see that in the papers. Why not? Why do you not see it?Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s largely not true that’s why.BRENDAN HORAN: There are a number of reasons why you cannot. Actually Mr Brownlee go and see the local doctors. Go and see Dr Tingey. He will tell you about all the gastro cases that he has seen where people have been eating shellfish and have gotten food poisoning. In Mount Maunganui it is tragic what theRena has done and the ongoing effects.What is going to happen if we get a disaster with oil leaking out to sea? This Government cannot fix it up. Where are the booms to protect? Where are the rescue teams to clean up the mess? This mess will be cleaned up after the next election when a new Government comes in—one with a social conscience one with an environmental conscience and one with—Hon Gerry Brownlee: And one without Brendan Horan.BRENDAN HORAN: I will be here. Do not worry Mr Brownlee. I will be here because I have got an environmental conscience. You would be surprised that there are a lot of people in New Zealand who support my being here.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Name 28 of them.BRENDAN HORAN: Ha ha! But I digress. I would like to again explain what is happening to our environment and what is happening to New Zealand when good people have to go along and follow a bill that is clearly wrong. It is clearly wrong and it has not even come into effect. Here we are rushing through the night trying to pass amendments to the legislation. It is not well worked. It is not very well organised. That is why one of the National members departed. It was not because of a glass of wine; it was because somebody showed their office their electorate office on television and exposed this Government as being totally disorganised just as this bill the writing of this bill shows that this Government cannot do one thing right. Do not let me even start on housing. How are you going to build 39000 houses in Auckland? How are you going to do that? You are completely disorganised.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Irrelevancy.BRENDAN HORAN: Well it is relevant because some of those roofs will have copper spouting which is a Crown mineral—they will. This Government says there are going to be 39000 houses and there are a lot of Crown minerals in that. But guess what—we will be buying them from overseas interests. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes68New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes46New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.