Dyson Ruth: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Generally when we get to this stage of a Committee debate when we are talking about the title and the commencement and the principal Act it is a very narrow debate and it is generally a bit of a laugh. There is a bit of humour at some of the alternative titles that might be given to particular bill. I have heard a bit of that this morning. Some people have referred to this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill perhaps more appropriately being called the “Total Disregard for Health Safety and the Environment Bill” and that certainly is a very valid description. Some people have referred to it as the “Minister’s First Bill (Biggest Mistake in Parliament) Bill”. That is certainly an appropriate title. Others in the debate last evening referred to the possibility of it being called the “Who Came Knocking at the Minister’s Door Bill” given that it is a huge puzzle to us not only why we are debating this bill at 9.20 on a Saturday morning even though the calendar on the wall tells us it is Thursday night but what the need is for this bill to have gone through all stages under urgency.Well the title does not give us any hint to that at all as it is except it is a very puzzling title. “The Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act 2013.”—it looks like someone got their finger stuck on a button on the computer and just did a repeat in error or did a cut and paste but it is not. If only that were the case.This bill that we are debating now amends an Act that is yet to come into force. Like my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway I looked throughMcGee to see whether there was any precedent for this. I had perhaps less time than he had—he had thought of the idea a lot earlier than I did—but I cannot find anything in the history of our Parliament that has an amendment to an Act coming into this Parliament and being debated before the primary Act has even been brought into force. It is absolutely unheard of.If it was a genuine technical mistake or if it was a genuine error then I think we might be a bit more lenient on the Minister Simon Bridges but actually what he has done is chosen in my view to abuse the parliamentary process. He has not reflected it in the title and not reflected it in the commencement date of this legislation. He has abused the process of this Parliament because not only is he doing a couple of small technical amendments that may well have been needed and may have been agreed to by all members of the House but also he has chosen to do wholesale changes to the primary legislation.This brings him into a very difficult situation. It is specifically reflected in the commencement of the bill clause 2: “This Act comes into force on the day after thedate on which it receives the Royal assent.” Well generally the Royal assent is straight after the bill has gone through the third reading. It gets shipped out through the appropriate processes and gets signed off—gets the Royal assent. Well what happens if the Royal assent on the amending legislation occurs—and therefore this bill that we are debating now comes into force—before the primary legislation comes into force? What position does that put Parliament in?Of course people will say: “Oh well it may be just a matter of a few days.” but actually in a matter of the law and in a matter of big issues like health and safety responsibilities like environmental considerations and responsibilities or like financial liability if there is a major spill—if there is some disaster that is impacted on by this Crown minerals Act—where would the liability lie? I think we would have a huge legal debate. I think this bill could be called the “Crown Minerals (Let’s Get Every International Lawyer Excited) Bill” because this leaves itself wide open to some sort of challenge.This is the area where we should be working in exactly the opposite direction. We should be giving security to the industry—that is clear. We should be making sure that the highest possible health and safety and environmental regimes are in place. This works in the opposite direction. We discussed last night in an earlier discussion about how the permit applicant does not even have to be able to prove that they have the health and safety environmental or financial ability to deal with the requirements of the legislation. This is bizarre.