Little Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I am pleased to speak yet again on this very important bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. In Part 1 the critical issue is the change that it makes in terms of the existing Act which has not yet come into force in relation to the oversight that the Minister of Energy and Resources effectively provides to permit seekers when they are having their permit approved for—presently it would be for both prospecting and exploration. What the change does is it splits that up and requires a separate approval at least in terms of the health and safety and environmental measures. It splits it between the prospecting stage and then a separate approval of the health and safety and environmental measures for the exploration stage.Our concern is simply this: we know—and I do not think there is too much disagreement actually between members in this Chamber especially in light of the events of the last 2 or 3 years—that health and safety is absolutely paramount. It is absolutely paramount for those who work in the industry and indeed for the communities they are part of. The other aspect is of course environmental and the events of 2011 off the Bay of Plenty tell us that the public’s demand is that the most effective and world’s best-practice environmental safeguards are expected. The question we then ask is what it is about the measures that are in this bill and the splitting up of the approval process for the health and safety and environmental safeguard measures that is going to improve what is already there. The reality is that it will not.The reason for that is twofold. First of all the present law which we passed only a short while ago and which is not yet in force is reasonably light in terms of the standard the Minister is obliged to require when considering approval of a permit. That is simply that the Minister needs to be satisfied that the permit applicant is likely to have the appropriate technical capability and is likely to have the financial capability and then any other relevant information. That is the Minister being satisfied that these criteria are likely to be met. It is a pretty low test. Not only that but it is a subjective test because it is the applicant’s means—the potential permit holder’s means—that are relevant. So the Minister’s satisfaction is confined to the particular applicant. It is not about meeting an industry minimum standard or a world’s best-practice standard; it is what the particular permit applicant can do. So that is a low test. Presently it says that when the Minister is giving the approval the Minister has to be satisfied that the appropriate health and safety and environmental measures are in place for both prospecting and exploration.By splitting it up it means that the successful permit holder needs to provide satisfaction only in relation to their prospecting part and at that point they have a foot in the door—have a foot in the door. So if having prospected they gather the data and they decide that this is worth taking to the next phase the exploration stage then it isincumbent upon the Minister of the day to deal with a permit holder who comes back and says: “Right we’ve done the prospecting. We’re satisfied there’s enough there to move to the exploration stage to start drilling and to bring down our rig.”—and those rigs can cost up to $1 million a day. The Minister then must deal with the permit holder and is expected to hold them to a further test about health and safety and environmental measures.I am just saying that on the track record of this Government which has shown no ability no intestinal fortitude to stand up to corporate heavyweights from around the world why would we rely on the Government—this Government or frankly any Government—to be able to withstand the sort of pressure that large multinational enterprises can bring to bear—