Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Madam Speaker thank you for the call. I rise to explain why the Labour Party is voting against this bill. It is true that we in Government have concerns about the potential environmental effects of seabed mining and we don't dismiss the concerns of the member in that regard but we can't vote for this bill.The member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer who has just taken her seat said that the intention of this bill was only to apply to ironsands. That's most clearly not the intention of this bill and indeed the third paragraph or the third dot point says that the policy intention of this bill is to retrospectively withdraw existing seabed mining consents and exploration rights under the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) Act and the Crown Minerals Act. Crown minerals most obviously include gas. It has been clear from the start of this bill that the effect of this legislation would have been to amongst other things close down the Māui platform and it would have done that retrospectively it would have done it without compensation and it would have done it without any transition period. Now what would that have done to the country? Well from the Government's point of view it would breach an undertaking that we gave to the oil and gas sector at the time when we banned the granting of new offshore exploration permits. We said that we would allow existing acreage to continue to be explored and developed so it would have been in breach of that undertaking. Additionally it would have threatened the security of supply of our electricity in the short to medium term. Now we're doing very very well as a country to transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels. We are getting ever closer to the 90 percent renewable electricity target that the prior Labour Government set when I was Minister of energy and climate change in the period prior to 2014 to 2017—prior to the election then. We set the 90 percent target and since then the proportion of electricity that is coming from fossil fuels has been decreasing.What it would do in the meantime though is we still do need gas—particularly in a dry year. We still have a dry-year risk when we don't have enough hydro stored in our lakes. To generate the electricity that we need to keep the lights on we need to use gas. That will not be the case for ever but it is still the case for a while yet.In addition to that gas is relied upon in the Taranaki region as well as other parts of the North Island for the dehydration of milk. The transition towards renewables to substitute fossil fuels for the dehydration of milk which is one of the major uses of gas is not yet complete. The production of urea currently relies on the use of natural gas as well. So the industrial consequences—never mind the fairness aspects—the economic consequences of terminating all of those consents would have been substantial and in our view wrong as well as in breach of the undertakings that we as a Government gave to the industry when we banned or when we said there would be no further block offers for offshore oil and gas.So what are we doing? Well we accept that there are issues here. For me one of the biggest issues is if there is a genuine concern—as I do think there is—about mining at sea if we can coalesce with the Pacific around a solution to protect the Pacific from deep-sea mining then effectively we will be protecting a big part of the world's oceans. That is one of the issues that should be considered by the select committee and the inquiry that we have requested the select committee to conduct. I wrote a letter—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the member. I'm having difficulty hearing the member's contribution. If I could ask respectfully for your contributions coming from the other side of the House to just lower the volume. That would be great. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Madam Speaker. With regard to the terms of reference that I proposed to the select committee it's a matter for them. But we suggested that there be an inquiry which presented an overview of seabed mining operations and proposals—that would include the ones that are obviously of concern to the Māori Party—looking at opportunities as well as costs and risks of the seabed mining industry; comparing other methods of obtaining minerals like land-based—and I thank the member for her contributions in respect of the likes of lithium and the comments that she made about some of the major users of and producers of electric vehicles are saying that they're not going to use sea-based mining to obtain those minerals. How seabed mining is managed internationally and in New Zealand—I think the committee should have a look at that to see whether if seabed mining was to continue in some form the regulatory settings are up for it or whether it shouldn't—and how domestic regulatory settings are performing including under the Crown Minerals Act the Resource Management Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Whether any change to domestic regulatory settings should apply to the coastal marine area the EEZ the extended continental shelf or all of them the prospect of any change of regulatory settings being supportive of Pacific countries and considering their own positions on seabed mining—in respect of that issue it is an issue that I find difficult or I think is difficult for Pacific countries. We know how difficult it is for a country like New Zealand to properly measure and control the effects of deep-sea mining as evidenced by the chain of court decisions that the member referred to in her contribution. We're a pretty sophisticated and large country relative to the size of the environmental ministries in Pacific Island countries and if it's difficult for us it must be even more difficult for those Pacific countries. I think it would be good if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave consideration to that and the advice that they will no doubt give to the inquiry if the select committee wants to hear from them. Then finally recommendations for maintaining or updating New Zealand's domestic regulatory settings which could include the sorts of measures that the member seeks. But I would make it clear now that were we to agree those sorts of changes in the future—and I'm not saying we would but were we to do so there is no way we would contemplate resiling from the agreement that we had with the oil and gas industry that they can continue with their existing rights in the Taranaki offshore basins.So that explains why the Government is unable to support this bill. It's not for us to ensure that a member's bill is in good shape to be considered. If there was a minor part of this bill that was problematic yes that could be fixed at select committee. But the very intention of this bill as explained in the general policy statement is to retrospectively withdraw existing seabed mining consents and exploration rights under the EEZ and Crown Minerals Act retrospectively without compensation and from the point of view of the Labour Party that would be a bad thing to do.