Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I usually say that it's a pleasure to rise and speak in these debates but I have to tell you that this one's just not so good. It really is not good to be standing in this Chamber in a committee of the whole House that has been asked to go into an extended sitting in order to examine this bill as reported back from the second reading because—well it's just a bad piece of legislation. The individual parts and clauses—specifically a new Part 2 is being inserted into schedule 1 of the Crown Minerals Act—actually go to the heart of a lot of confusion that this bill has created not just in this Parliament and not just in the local industry but actually globally about what exactly this Government's intention is. You see they've come back—if you look at for example new clause 23(2) being inserted into schedule 1 which says that existing permits continue to have effect—and it appears that what the Minister is trying to say is that permits could also be extended if they currently exist. This goes to the central paradox of this bill which is that on the one hand the Government would have us believe that it is engaging in a nuclear-free moment and that New Zealand is leading the world that it is going to transform the way that energy is used and consumed throughout this country and then from here beyond to the rest of the world—that is the rhetoric on the one hand. That is the intention of the bill that we heard from members at the second reading. Then on the other hand we ask ourselves well does the clause and the specific text that's being brought back from second reading actually reflect that intention? What it seems to say is Well maybe if you have an existing permit extensions will still be allowed and maybe your existing privileges granted will still be allowed." and that leads us to ask the question: does the Government really believe that it's implementing a nuclear-free moment? Or actually what this Government is doing is trying to have a bob each way because whenever they're challenged—whenever the Government is asked about petrol prices for instance or what its intention is for the Taranaki region—they turn around and say "Oh no it's not that bad. Most things will continue as they are. We're not really making much change here." So what I want the Minister to stand up and answer is: when she puts in this new part of the schedule for all of these provisions for existing privileges for existing permits which one is it? Is the Minister taking us in a bold leap forward that is going to transform energy worldwide or is it actually the truth that not much is changing here—that there's nothing to see—because I think if we're going to be certain that this bill before us truly reflects the Government's intention she needs to tell us. What does she say to the Fitzroy Engineering that we just heard about from Andrew Falloon? What does she say to the global investors? Is she saying that "This is a nuclear-free moment and the time that New Zealand changes everything." or is she saying that "Actually there's nothing to see here and existing permits will continue." as the new Part 2 inserted into schedule 1 by this amendment seems to suggest? I think the committee needs to know because if it's the case that actually this Government is trying to transform the world then perhaps they need to be bolder. Perhaps they need to remove some of these protections and privileges that will allow—as they tell us—everything to carry on as it always has. But on the other hand if they are not trying to ruin people's property rights and destroy New Zealand's international reputation then maybe what they actually need to do is give greater protections to people investing in the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. So if the Minister could stand up and tell us which one is it—a nuclear-free moment or "nothing to see here"—I think the committee would be greatly aided. Thank you Madam Chair."