Street Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10268. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. In the explanatory note of this bill there are some bullet points that relate to “Matters in the Bill … to which errors or omissions will be corrected …”. In other words we have an amendment bill to the amendment Act because there are errors or omissions that need to be corrected. As it happens they all fall within Part 2. They start with the definition of “underground gas storage facility”; the definition of “offshore area” which is in clause 14 which members have been discussing recently; references to “reserves” being changed to “resources” which was a matter that the Minister of Energy and Resources referred to in his introductory speech; extensions to existing petroleum permits; addition of “platinum group metals” to the list of mineral types with the same tier 1 thresholds as for gold and silver; clarification of the application of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to existing privileges granted after that Act came into effect; clarification of the proprietary status of permits acquired by the Crown; and references to a “dwellinghouse”. That is eight items—eight items—thatwere errors or omissions in the bill that was passed a matter of just weeks ago—eight errors and omissions.I am beginning to wonder whether the Minister has just about begun to understand the importance of the select committee process. With eight errors or omissions being corrected in this amendment bill perhaps now after hours and hours in the House under urgency on this the Minister might be beginning to understand the importance of going to a select committee where people with expertise can help MPs to get the law right.We can argue about the policy position—and we are arguing about it particularly with reference to clause 14—but it at least ought to be expressed accurately in the law. But for these eight points that are missing or are incorrect all of which fall within Part 2 we are here under urgency instead of observing the proper process which might have rescued this Minister from these hours of purgatory as he has had to listen to one speech after another berating him for his incompetence and his inadequate approach to the legislation. I would like to ask the Minister whether he prefers this kind of repeated drubbing in urgency or whether he would rather have the legislation go to a select committee where people can have some say and where in fact improved legislation may be the result.I would like to focus a little bit on clause 13 which is unusual because clause 14 is the lightning rod in this part. But clause 13(1) says: “In section 52 new section 99B(1) replace ‘dwelling house’ ”—spelt as two words—“with ‘dwellinghouse’ ”—spelt as one word. “Dwelling house” spelt as two words “dwelling” and “house” is to be replaced with one word “dwellinghouse”. We are here at 11.30 on a Friday night to turn “dwelling house” into “dwellinghouse”. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify why that should be the case. Why are we here taking a space out between two perfectly legible and understandable words and making them into one word? I presume there is some significance in that and it has a particular meaning. Had I been able to ask at a select committee I might have been able to find out. If this is bringing “dwellinghouse” into the same—