Goudie Sandra: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7877] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As has been outlined by my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith Part 1 contains largely technical amendments and I turn to some of the information we have with regard to that part. Some substantial matters have been raised by submitters. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the definition of coal in particular and where the gases that are produced by coal come in in the definitions. The submitters want this definition clarified. That matter is not clarified in this bill even though it was raised by a number of submitters. 
In the principal Act “coal” is defined as meaning “anthracite bituminous coal sub-bituminous coal lignite peat and oil shale; and includes every other substance worked or normally worked with coal:”. However the gases that are produced are largely related to petroleum and should probably in that context be clarified in this bill to identify that they are not associated with coal but are associated with petroleum. It was asked that the definition of coal be included to ensure that itexcludes natural gas and oil occurring within a coal or a coal measure and clarify the definition of “petroleum” to explicitlystate that it includes hydrocarbons naturally occurring in association with coal. 
That issue has not been addressed in this bill. I believe that is a considerable oversight when this was a matter that was substantially raised by submitters. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain why it has not been clarified. Maybe he would like to consider an amendment at this late stage to give some certainty around where these definitions fall. I reiterate that it is necessary to clarify the definition of coal to ensure it excludes natural gas and oil occurring within a coal or coal measure and to clarify the definition of “petroleum” to explicitly state that it includes hydrocarbons naturally occurring in association with coal. 
This issue has arisen in other jurisdictions. The example of Queensland Australia was given. If consultation had been more extensive and perhaps more adequately done as identified by my learned colleagues it might have highlighted this issue and something may have been done about it. However it is not too late if the Minister so chooses to make a change. The provision in the Queensland legislation—the Petroleum Act of 1923—may have helped in that regard. Its section 150 did identify coal in that definition. So the Government has had substantive material available to give it the information necessary to make that type of amendment. It would have been a pretty simple sort of amendment. That is why I am raising it here in Part 1 because that is where the definitions are covered. The Government has managed to identify “occupier” and changed that but it has not managed to change the simple definition of “coal” or “petroleum”. 
I note my learned colleague has also brought forward another amendment that has not been addressed and that is the definition of “existing privilege”. Quite rightly he pointed out that existing privilege had not been identified in the Crown Minerals Act nor has it been addressed in this amendment bill. So there has been some failure on the part of the Minister in addressing these shortcomings in the bill. 
One of the other things I would like to address is section 36(1)(b) in clause 5. There is a change by inserting after the words “permit relates” because “permit relates” is not in section 36(1)(b) but in 36(1)(c) in the original Act the words: “or decrease the minerals to which the permit relates”. The Minister can extend the duration of a permit or restrict the minerals to which the permit relates.