Penk Chris; Tolley AnneClauses 1 to 3CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement aspect of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. I'd like to focus on the commencement date and in particular the fact that some urgency has been indicated by the Government in proposing a bill that will in becoming an Act come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.The first observation to make about that is that clearly the Government feels some urgency about that. That makes sense as far as it goes in terms of their position that this is a matter of some urgency but I would ask the Minister Megan Woods to consider whether she might be willing to accept perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper if that were to be lodged to provide a different time frame for three particular reasons that I will now spell out.The first is that the date is uncertain in the sense that we will not know until the bill receives Royal assent when it will come into force. Obviously at the point that it does receive the Royal assent there will be certainty because it will simply be the day after that that the Act will come into force but that will allow very little time indeed for those who are affected by it to be able to respond appropriately to its provisions.For that reason I am wondering if the Minister would be able to provide some guidance on whether she'd be amenable to a different type of commencement such that the Act would come into force perhaps a certain number of days or weeks or perhaps months or even a year or years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. That at least would provide more certainty in the sense that from the time that Royal assent was given those who are affected most by it would have the maximum opportunity—or at least some opportunity—to arrange their affairs such that they will have the adverse effects mitigated somewhat. It seems to me that that would tie in with the Government's stated goal more broadly of achieving just transition" such that those who effectively will be bearing the burden on behalf of all of New Zealand—and if we're going to have a "Kumbaya" moment for the world then at least we can have less unfairness in the sense that they will have a reasonable opportunity to move forward. The reason this is particularly important in this bill is because of the significance of the time frame within the Act as it will become as mentioned in new clause 24. Now I appreciate that's in another part of the bill but it's particularly in relation to the commencement date—which I'm allowed to speak about at the moment—that that has significance. In particular I refer to the fact that an application or a tender—an application being defined as an application or a tender—will be treated as having been withdrawn and relodged at the point that the Act comes into force. So actually it's not just a matter of the timing of the bill being significant from the point of view that the various players involved need to know what's happening generally so that they can react; it's also that they might work proactively to act in a certain way—for example in particular by lodging an application in the hope that it will be viewed in one way and not the other. The significance of that is—in particular I'm thinking of a situation where a time frame might allow a judicial review of an application that is denied. For example a party might apply and have such an application rejected by the Minister or however that is considered—and I must confess I'm not on top of that detail but I know that judicial review in general terms is available where a decision maker is said not to be reasonable. Now if the time frame was such that that review were to be still ongoing when the Act came into force then I think that the interests of justice would dictate very much that the applicant's permit might actually be more appropriately considered to have been passed at that point if the High Court—as it would be—would consider the application for judicial review decide that the decision should be set aside and then the Minister subsequently decides that it should be approved or determined in a positive manner. So that is the significance of the timings as far as I'm concerned. I look forward to any comments that the Minister might have in terms of the commencement date and whether that could be pushed out or have a specific calendar date maybe so that there's some certainty for all involved. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies. I'll make it clear we are debating clauses 1 to 3."