Penk Chris; Tolley AnneCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 2 now of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I'd like to focus specifically on new section 26 being within the schedule that will be the new Part 2 inserted into the Act. In particular I'd like to highlight what I think is some matter of drafting actually if nothing else that could be tidied up and perhaps the Minister might have a view on some of the suggestions that I'm about to make in that regard.New section 26 is called Specified proceedings unaffected". So this is basically setting out that the bill will not affect a particular matter that's before the courts at the moment. If you'll indulge me for a moment Madam Chair I'll quickly outline the words of that and that will give me a better position from which to be able to highlight what I think are some limitations in the way that that's been set out: "The proceedings in the High Court between Greymouth Gas Turangi Limited and the Minister of Energy and Resources"—and then within brackets a number related to the particular case—"may be continued heard and determined or settled as if the Amendment Act (other than this clause) had not been enacted."There are a number of difficulties that I have with the way that this has been constructed. The first is that of course this particular case that's referred to might actually not still be going on by the time the bill is enacted or indeed given Royal assent. So if the legislation—the bill—referred in some way to that possibility perhaps by saying "the proceedings that are taking place as at 6 November 2018" or "at the time of drafting" or "at the time of the committee stage of this bill commencing" or so on then that might be helpful for the sake of clarity.It's also something of a concern to me that this doesn't actually refer to the fact that the case might be appealed. So if this matter which is referred to in the legislation has been a proceeding before the High Court in this particular matter it might actually be subject to appeal which would be the normal legal right of one or other of the parties to seek leave to appeal. And if that's the case then it's not actually clear whether the exclusion that's currently set out in new section 26 would actually continue to apply. I suspect it would and perhaps at least for the sake of clarity for those who are particularly affected by that case the Minister might be able to provide a view to the House for the sake of the record.Similarly in relation to the case itself there might be ancillary matters there might be related proceedings there might even be different entities that become a part of this legislation—they might get joined at some other point in the process. It might be also just off the top of my head that the particular company that's listed there as one of the parties might—and I suggest this not as a real possibility with any knowledge of that possibility—in general terms go into liquidation or receivership and therefore might be somewhat outside the effective definition within this Act of that matter that is excluded from its effect.Similarly the Minister of Energy and Resources might become a different entity by reason of—and I don't mean the person herself in this case but it might be that a different ministerial portfolio is created such that actually a different party to the proceedings would effectively be substituted. And I think that in the Act if we're going to go to the trouble of spelling out for very good reason that a particular set of proceedings is excluded we might as well be precise about that.Another related issue arises which is to say that similar issues to this with the same justification for exclusion might arise bearing in mind that this bill amending the Act will basically come within the limitation period for such issues. So I wonder if the Minister can advise whether she has given any thought to or her officials might be able to give any advice on whether similar cases to that might be precluded similarly.Finally as we're competing for attention with the Melbourne Cup I'd like to finish with a few more general remarks. It seems that the Government has its blinkers on. We can talk about that till we're hoarse but effectively it's an exercise in unbridled power the way this has gone through. They're jockeying for position on the world stage. It's policy on the hoof. They should be reined in. They're looking a gift horse in the mouth for this part of our economy. That's seven horse puns on the trot—sorry now eight—and I'm happy to be one of the "neigh-sayers".CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Megan Woods with some trepidation."