Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It's an absolute delight for me to be able to contribute in this debate but can I first of all say how disappointed I have been this evening with the lack of contribution from the National Party. This is an area where I think the industries need a clear message from this Parliament about the regulatory regime under which they should operate. And all I've had from the National Party is some quite petty point-scoring. I think this Parliament should—not on all occasions sometimes there's valid political points to be made but on occasions like this it would be appropriate for us to focus on the facts focus on the bill and get a good strong united voice from this Parliament.I want to commend my Canterbury friend and colleague the Hon Megan Woods for this bit of work. She's put in a huge amount of effort over very broad-ranging portfolios since we became part of the Government just six months ago. It's certainly to her credit that she's able to get on top of so many issues including ones with quite complex challenges facing them. This Crown minerals legislation I hope is one of many in this space that we debate over the coming term of this Parliament. I imagine that this particular bill will be the least contentious. I think we'll have far more robust debates in the future as we have in the past over Crown minerals because we know that this is at the cutting edge of the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House and how we regard our responsibility to protect certain parts of our country.But that's for future legislation; this legislation is quite narrow. It's quite technical and as my colleague Deborah Russell noted earlier this is really a lot about clarification rather than big policy issues. That is not to say that they're not important. Clarity in regulation clarity in legislation is vital if we want to expect industries to make investments into our future and obviously we do want to do that.The member who just resumed his seat Andrew Falloon was rather cynical I suppose in his commentary about Matua Shane Jones" and I want to just rebuff that and say that I have known Shane for many years and he has never been short of a strong contribution to make. As the Minister who is charged with supporting and encouraging regional development he has really put a huge amount of thought and effort and passion into it and I would have thought that the National Party who have members of Parliament elected to represent many of those provincial areas many of the electorates within our provinces—I would have thought that they would have been working alongside "Matua Shane Jones" to say "How can we get this done together for the betterment of the people in those regions?" And actually they badly need it. They badly need that support.The other point in this legislation as well as the clarification that provides the certainty that I mentioned—you know clarity in many parts of this legislation—is to ensure that regulatory gaps are closed. It's a bit like tax legislation: sometimes you don't really realise there's a problem until someone pushes the boundary and then you realise that either for the purpose of avoidance or evasion or because there is a genuine loophole that has never been recognised before there is a problem and I think it's the latter of those cases. This legislation has never been used in the same way as perhaps it has been used by people looking for tax evasion opportunities but it's clear that there are regulatory gaps and this legislation closes them. So that is ensuring for both the regulators and the industry around permitting. There is no doubt at all about what the legislation intends. So the inconsistencies that were previously in the Crown Minerals Act that were actually drawn to the attention of the previous Government who ignored it who sat on its hands and did nothing are now being closed by this legislation.The first measure is to close gaps in the legislation that currently mean that the Act could be used in a way for which it was not intended. Now I don't think it matters which side of the House you're on or which party are from I think everybody would agree that legislation should only be used for the purpose for which it was intended. As we've heard a lot in the last few weeks the nature of the petroleum industry is changing. There's been an increasing amount of acquisition and divestment activity within that sector and these transactions reflect a global trend of consolidation and rationalisation by large companies. This is not something that we should ignore and this Parliament should always ensure that our legislation keeps pace with those sorts of changes within the industry. So that means increasingly we are seeing smaller companies purchasing late-life fields with the aim of extending their life and increasing production beyond the standard time frames. There's a lot of positives from those changes. Greater production helps us with energy supply as well as extending the life cycle of assets: good for employment good for investment.But it's important that the transfer of those assets be subject to proper oversight and right now one of the loopholes that I described earlier in the law means that that is not always able to be partaken of correctly. So for an example any change of permit operator requires the prior consent of the Minister of Energy and Resources—in our case of course the Hon Dr Megan Woods or a delegated authority. A change of permit occurs when the day-to-day management of a permit changes from one permit participant to another. So unlike a change of permit operator a change of control of the permit doesn't require prior ministerial consent. A change of that control occurs when the majority voting rights for a corporate body are transferred. That is quite a different situation than the earlier one I outlined. So that is not in line with the intent of the Crown Minerals Act because it allows companies to transfer operational responsibilities with reduced Crown oversight. So that's just an example of one of the many loopholes that are closed—loopholes that have allowed this legislation to be used for unintended consequences and which I will be very happy to see not only clarification around but also the gaps that I mentioned closed.The other provision that I'll just briefly mention where clarification has been brought into the Act because this section could have been interpreted in multiple ways is where regulators in order to effectively regulate the activities of permit holders and for the industry to work within the regulatory system that is set out—that system must be clear and easy to follow. This is another example where it isn't. The bill permits that a permit holder must have an access arrangement to undertake minimum impact activities on schedule 4 land. We've had a lot of debate in this House and on the streets of our cities actually about the abuse of schedule 4 land which was proposed by the previous National-led Government. The public won that debate and I was delighted to be part of the opposition to the proposals so this is quite a different proposal. This is not proposing to mine on schedule 4 land which is what the National-led Government does; this is saying that a permit holder must have access arrangements to undertake minimum impact activities on that schedule 4 land.So we'll have a clear regulatory system as a result of the changes in this bill. We will have loopholes closed that have allowed the legislation to be used for intentions other than what it was originally designed to deliver and it will address inconsistencies that are in the Crown Minerals Act. Even though it's a small bill and quite technical I think these are really important measures for this House to be considering. I'm delighted to have made a contribution. I'm very proud of my ministerial colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods and I commend the progress of this bill to the House."