Smith Stuart; Lee Melissa; Court Simon; Woods MeganSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to speak on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This is as you will know something we don't support although we did support the bill through the select committee process to ensure that it got through with its amendments. But we don't support the bill as I said. We think it goes too far and actually it doesn't really address the issues that we have at hand which are the efficient processing of permits etc. There's a heck of a lot in in this bill around iwi engagement and reports and so on and little at all about other engagement with the community. As we know mining does have an environmental footprint. Actually in my experience the mining sector does a very good job of managing its effects and in fact the restoration of mines that I've seen has been really fantastic in some cases returning them to a better state than they were before. But I would just like to ask the Minister: what was the rationale to single out iwi and hapū but not other groups? It seems like they have been elevated to a position where their view carries more weight than others when the environment in fact belongs to us all. This isn't on iwi- or hapū-owned land; this is just land in general. So I would appreciate an answer to that if I could get it.It's actually quite long on iwi engagement reports and how they must be drafted etc. So what is the rationale behind that when there's no requirement to report on engagement with the community at a similar level and in similar detail as there has been for iwi?MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's often during the committee stage you are reflecting back to the select committee process and sometimes with so many bills going through the House you forget what this is about. I think one of the questions that I actually had in terms of the weight that my colleague Stuart Smith talked about in terms of the engagement with iwi and hapū in Part 2 clause 11 where it's amending new section 29C where it talks about where the applicant is a previous or current permit holder their engagement with iwi and hapū will actually be given due consideration. I'm trying to figure out how much of an engagement that that is whether it is actually a meeting with the iwi and hapū to say that their interest in this particular activity is enough or whether it has to be something a little bit more formal and actually stipulating exactly what they are planning. I'm sort of wondering if the Minister could perhaps give us a little bit of guidance on that school.The other aspect of it is that where a lot of countries are looking at even incentivising exploration in their countries to even provide subsidies to mining companies to actually come into their country—and the reason I say that is because we have moved on from just powering up our heaters with coal or wood but you know technology requires a lot of minerals. Even electric vehicles (EV) have a lot of minerals that are actually being used. Even wind turbines require—actually I think it is something like 220 tonnes of coal to make a particular wind turbine. So when the Minister actually talks about the reason this bill was introduced in the House was because of our commitment to climate change I sort of wonder whether we are actually not thinking about the full picture.I think when you want to subsidise Tesla cars for example when you know drivers of EVs are incentivised to actually move to EVs rather than traditional motor vehicle and transport—but the materials that are actually required for manufacturing those EVs actually require a lot of mining. Sometimes I think that incentivising people to mine those minerals in New Zealand we may do better in terms of our climate change commitment because we can actually control the emissions and put regulations in place so that our mining companies are responsible. Whereas we are importing goods that have been manufactured in other countries where we can't actually control the mining of those minerals and we are importing dirty coal for example. We've actually talked about that in this House before. So I'm wondering whether the Minister had actually given thought to our trade partners in the way that they incentivise mining whilst this bill basically disincentives mining.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister the bill proposes to amend the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act—to change the purpose which is to promote prospecting for exploration … and [mining] of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand." It seems that the purpose of this Labour Government as expressed through this bill is to undermine the business opportunities that lead to economic and social benefits for New Zealanders—as a result of extracting and turning our natural resources into things that people use and consume or that New Zealand manufacturers can export and sell overseas to other users and consumers who will pay New Zealand money for the benefit of the products that we extract here; add value to here and then sell. It's remarkable that a Government at a time where New Zealand's balance of payments deficit has never been higher—it hasn't been this high in terms of the cash received from selling things overseas compared to the amount of cash New Zealanders have spent buying things overseas; the difference has never been higher. New Zealand is borrowing and spending as a nation—led by this Government—much more than we are earning in foreign exchange. And yet Minister at a time when you would think a New Zealand Government would be doing everything in its power to promote the extraction recovery processing adding value to minerals and resources that the Crown owns and that the private sector is willing to add value to—why wouldn't the Crown want to promote that at this time? On what basis would a Government seek to undermine the development of these resources and to reduce the potential that by promoting mining and by promoting the recovery of minerals we could actually help to restore some of the economic losses that New Zealand has suffered in the past few years? So Minister why? Please explain why the change from "promote" to "manage"? Is it because this Government doesn't really believe that New Zealand can play its part when it comes to climate change? There are many many businesses—many mining companies who I have spoken to and their staff their engineers their scientists who are passionate about restoring the environment as they go delivering better indigenous biodiversity outcomes from some of the most fantastic mining and resource development operations in New Zealand whether it's OceanaGold's Globe Progress Mine in Reefton or others. They've said "For goodness' sake Simon please provide a simple pathway. If you promote resource recovery in New Zealand you'll put us on a level playing field with our competitors or even our fellow engineers and scientists and mining geologists and all of the people who operate the equipment. You'll put us on a level playing field. We don't want to have to uproot our families and go and live in Australia; we'd prefer to stay here in New Zealand". Minister that's what they say. But it seems like this Government wishes to reduce that opportunity to live and work in New Zealand to generate high-paid jobs in the regions and actually through mining minerals whether it be gold or silver or platinum titanium—any of the other rare earth elements that go into the equipment whether it's computer chips whether it's satellites whether it's batteries. Whatever it is the world needs these minerals. They're only found in a few places Minister and they're found in only a few places because of the history of the Earth's development from a geological perspective and a tectonic perspective. The minerals bubble up from the Earth's crusts and they're found in very limited deposits. That's why it's important that a Government does promote their exploration and mining so that we can get the benefit out of them because if a Government won't promote it they're often very very difficult to get access to and make something of. So Minister will you explain why the change in term from "promote" to "manage"?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): There's a couple of questions in the speeches that we've heard that I'd like to address. The first is around the why and the changes to the provisions around engagement with iwi and hapū. So the 2013 amendments to the Crown Minerals Act introduced obligations for tier 1 permit and licence holders to report annually on the engagement with iwi and hapū. This was a change that was introduced by the then National Government to do that. However what has become evident to us since we came into Government—and in the time that I've been the Minister of Energy and Resources—is that that engagement and the quality of it was highly variable. So while there was a requirement that was introduced under the 2013 changes to the primary legislation that wasn't occurring. So the changes that are in here around what form that engagement should take the reporting requirements and being more explicit about how that relationship needs to be conducted—that is the purpose of the changes that we're seeing in this amendment here. I think it is fair to say that this is an industry that has some way to go in its journey and its engagement with iwi and hapū and what a 21st century relationship looks like and this Act will provide a framework around how that can work and I think the reporting requirements will be absolutely critical. I did hear in one of the speeches—I can't remember which; I think it was from one of the National Party members—the disinformation repeated about the record imports of coal that New Zealand is experiencing. I'd just like to point out to that member that she can celebrate the fact that we're in a 32-year low in the importation of coal in New Zealand and that largely is because this is a Government that has a plan around what the decarbonisation of our economy—Hon Member: Imported more coal over the last six years than ever.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and what decarbonisation looks like. So while we hear members yelling "more coal" I invite them to look at the facts and not repeat disinformation. A 32-year low is something that I celebrate and I think that many New Zealanders should celebrate—Erica Stanford: What was it two years ago?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No it was not two years ago; it's this year. And of course the correlating fact is record-high levels of renewable energy production that are occurring in the New Zealand economy. The ACT member asked about why—the purpose for the change. Why are we changing to the more benign position in the purpose statement of the Act? Before anyone thinks the sky is going to fall in in terms of this change to a more neutral position I think it's really important for members to understand that the Crown Minerals Act is a piece of legislation under which statutory decisions need to be made whether they're delegated or made by a Minister. So therefore the purpose statement is incredibly important in terms of directing those statutory decisions. But of course that purpose statement was only changed in 2013 by the then National government so it's been five years of its time in Government actually of nine—with the more benign position that we're reverting to and permits were able to be issued. What this does is it takes the purpose statement that we're looking at under these amendments—takes it back to that benign position so it does not have to be the case that the "promote" is the primary consideration that has to be taken into account. Of course we will be able to issue permits for all the kinds of mining activities that the member was outlining in terms of the critical materials that are going to be absolutely essential for our decarbonisation journey as a country for those minerals that we will need for our wind turbines; that we will need for our electric vehicles; that we will need for emerging battery technologies. There is no reason why decisions to grant those permits cannot still be made and as I said the previous National-ACT Government worked under a regime for five of its nine years. So if it was so important to that side of the House it took them five years to make that change when they were in Government—clearly it wasn't the deciding factor. And in fact it was after the change to the purpose statement of the Act actually under the previous Government that fewer offshore block offer permits were taken up—fewer offshore oil and gas permits were taken up. It wasn't about the purpose statement of the Act; it was that there weren't economic opportunities to be explored there. So I think we need to keep in perspective the changes that we're making. This is an important part of how we make sure that our legislation framework is pointing us in the direction of how it is that we do fit in with what the world is doing. New Zealand is not an outlier here. We have the International Energy Agency who is pointing to the kinds of changes that countries need to make and New Zealand is seen as very much fitting the kind of decarbonisation journey that the world needs to go on. This is a tool but it still will allow for the kinds of activities we need in respect to Crown minerals that New Zealand needs into its future."