Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Look the Green Party rises to support this legislation. A previous member mentioned it and described it as a bit of a spring-clean. I'd agree with that summary of the bill. I guess you could also call it a bit of a tune up of our Crown minerals regime.What we have seen in the last 10 years is a huge amount of change in this sector in New Zealand. The trends globally are that we've seen some pretty high falls and lows of the oil price over the last 10 years so what we have seen is a number of companies enter New Zealand but also exit New Zealand. I'm thinking of the likes of Petrobras Apache the misnamed New Zealand Energy Corporation—which is actually based in Canada—and a host of others. What we've seen overseas is a trend towards consolidation and operators taking over other operators' permits as part of the response to the market conditions so it's absolutely correct that this legislation deals with when a change of operator condition occurs.Now the risk of course is that a company maybe at the end of a field's life does change the permit operator to another one. Now what no one I think in this House or this country indeed wants to see is cowboys taking over permits without any sort of ministerial oversight or consent and then not acting in the national interest. We have seen a number of adverse effects occur overseas and we've seen some in New Zealand including some of the water pollution under the Kapuni well sites so it's eminently reasonable to make sure that a change of permit operator requires ministerial consent. The Green Party is wholeheartedly behind that. It's a good common-sense change. I want to thank the submitters to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. While the bill didn't engender the heat and light that the later Crown minerals amendment bill dealt with which dealt with the offshore oil and gas ban and the transition towards clean energy we did see 11 submitters: five from industry three from NGOs and one from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I'd like to thank them.Now I want to speak directly to the environmental NGO submitters because I think they had some legitimate concerns which were addressed by the committee. As the committee's report makes clear there were some amendments and there were some clarifications needed to provide assurance on two key issues. The first was around schedule 4 land and the second was around authorisation of activities on land adjacent to permits. To take that first now quite—I think—legitimately one could have read the amendment as originally drafted which is that the same activities that could occur on a permit could occur on adjacent land. Now this is quite a worry of course because for example if you're a farmer with land adjacent to another farmer with a permit over it you wouldn't want to see those activities occurring on your land because there would not be a permit over that land. So what the committee has made clear is that these activities are only of a minimal nature. What we did see the legislation clarify was that the authorisation does not give the permit holder the same power as the permit.The only activity authorised to occur on the adjacent land is a geophysical survey. Now this raised another key issue for the committee because geophysical surveys encompass a whole range of different activities: everything from seismic surveys to gravity surveying through to radiometric and magnetic surveys. But when it comes to the seismic surveys this is an area that I've paid a lot of attention to with regard to the impact on rural New Zealand over the last five six seven years.What we've seen in areas such as Taranaki is that vast swaths of that landscape are covered in seismic surveying. These are packages of explosives—it can be about 2 kilograms' worth of explosives—buried underground to try and ascertain some information about the resources underneath. Now what we have seen I believe is around 1300 packages or seismic survey blocks through Taranaki which weren't given any sort of landowner authorisation. Now this is a big concern because I would put it to the House that this is more than a minimal activity—you're literally digging up fields and burying explosives. What we know from overseas data is that a significant portion of those packages don't actually explode so what you have across Taranaki is unexploded packages literally littering the landscape. Now what is a concern is—as clarified—that these activities can occur on adjacent land. So it was really great to see clarification from the officials—which has been clarified in the legislation and the report—that seismic surveys do not constitute a minimum-impact activity.I think this is good news but I would urge the oil and gas industry and I would urge Federated Farmers on behalf of their constituents to actually pay more attention to this issue. What we do want to see I think is a code of conduct to make sure that farmers aren't getting an unfair deal that they aren't being hoodwinked and that they aren't being pressured. I've been in rural communities where literally farmers have broken down in tears because of the impact of oil and gas companies who—their quote—have pulled the community apart and have literally lied to people's faces". I think a code of conduct would really strengthen that relationship because what the industry needs is a social licence to operate.Now the second key area where I was trying to seek clarification on the committee was this schedule 4 issue because Kiwis rightfully fought back against previous plans to open up schedule 4 land to mining activities. That was clarified in law. I remember that I was at the head of the march. I think there were about 50000 Aucklanders marching down Queen Street so it was quite a legitimate concern for submitters such as Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand who said that this legislation allows access to schedule 4 land in clause 14.So what the committee has made crystal clear—because that was a legitimate concern as to the way you could read the legislation—is that with a new section 54A in clause 14 which clarifies that schedule 4 land is only "common marine and coastal area" this is not schedule 4 land. This is not the most pristine treasured loved places that Kiwis fought so strongly to protect. So I'm glad that this legislation while being a tune up was tuned up even more to make sure it was providing assurance to people who had some concerns that it was going further than the minor amendments it was ostensibly trying to produce.The key issue the Green Party had with the legislation was that while it was making some minor tinkering it wasn't getting to the actual engine of the Crown Minerals Act which is the purpose clause. Now the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act as amended by the previous Government was to add the promotion of oil and gas and other extractive activities. Now I do not think that is the role of the Government.The role of the Government is to make sure there is appropriate oversight and appropriate regulation and that the environment and worker safety is protected. I don't believe it is the job of the Government particularly in a climate change - threatened world when the world's top scientists are saying that we have 12 years left to avert catastrophe—the purpose of our main regulatory body dealing with extractive activities says in its purpose that it is to promote it. Now I believe this must change much like the estimated $88 million in fossil fuel subsidies that have been given to the country by independent academics. These are some of the actions that we can take following on from this tune up.So I'd like to thank the committee and particularly the chair Jonathan Young and all the members and the submitters. Can I please clarify once again to those environmental NGOs that this is not about opening up schedule 4 this is not about opening up the regime to allow more seismic surveying on adjacent lands or basically providing a new loophole to circumvent the existing rules and this is about making sure we don't have cowboys operating. What this Government is doing is starting the process for a just transition. It's the only fair thing for these communities and the workers. But the great news as we know is that clean energy produces four times more jobs than fossil fuels. Taranaki in particular has a bright future as an area of marine energy—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member speak to the bill. Speak to the bill.GARETH HUGHES: —excellence. While we're not trying to see as permits change cowboys enter the market what we are trying to see is a just transition for New Zealand for Taranaki and for those workers. Kia ora."