SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): I stand as the last speaker for the National Party in opposition to the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. For members of the public who may be listening in this is the third reading which means that after the completion of the debate before the House this bill will go to the Governor-General for Royal assent for it to be passed into law. And the bill is going to pass into law because it has the numbers of the Government and—anticipated—the Green Party all of whom have addressed the House this afternoon. By way of process just before it came to the third reading there was the committee of the whole House that reported back from the select committee which was the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. The report back to the House from that committee was that they were unable to agree whether the bill as had been presented in its original form should pass and on that basis recommendations were for further amendments to the bill. Now I did not sit on that select committee; my colleagues Barbara Kuriger Melissa Lee Stuart Smith and the Hon Michael Woodhouse did and three of those members did in parts during the time that this bill was considered by the select committee. That bill was referred to the committee on 22 November last year. Public submissions were invited before the closing date of 23 January this year. There were 334 interest groups who did make written submissions and oral evidence was heard from 17.The position that the National Party arrives at and really the thrust of this bill—which is an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991—is to enable greater flexibility for allocating and managing Crown-owned mineral rights improve permit and licence holder engagement with iwi and hapū and clarify decommissioning-related obligations. So the National Party has expressed concern because the key element is a shift and a change in the purpose to the Crown Minerals Act. Therefore clause 4 which is one of the amendments under the bill is to alter the purpose of the principal Act which will no longer include a requirement for the Crown and Minister to promote" prospecting for exploration for and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. So it's to alter and amend the purpose of "to promote" and instead under the amendment with this bill passing into law require the Crown and Minister to "manage" prospecting for exploration for and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. The main objection that the National Party has to this bill is that it will impact on Crown royalties that are drawn as a result of the promotion of licences for exploration for mining. And it may have been addressed in this House but I'm going to recap because Crown royalties are a little bit like taxes and we have a Government here that is very keen on taxing New Zealanders in this time of a crisis of cost of living. So Crown royalties that are extracted under this bill—this Government has been in power and had the luxury of having $51 million worth of royalties from Crown mineral extraction during the period of 2017 to 2021. Under this amendment which will come into law the Crown royalties will reduce significantly. To the year 2022 the Crown is estimated to receive just under $10 million in royalties from coal and mineral extraction a significant reduction from the take of $51 million during the period of 2017 to 2021.This legislation will mean that the Crown will not promote mining and hence revenue from royalties will inevitably decrease. The impact of this amendment to the Crown Minerals Act is a reality for New Zealanders to be aware of. As the Reserve Bank has recently said we are likely heading for a recession and Government debt is incredibly high. Royalties from Crown minerals are welcomed have been welcomed under this Government and are now going to be depleted and diminished effectively reduced and extracted from the tax pūtea—or from the Crown kitty. So royalties from Crown minerals have been welcomed under this Government and have provided solid revenue for successive Governments. That will change. The other change that will come about—and again it has an impact on the local economy during this time of a cost of living crisis. Let's take it back to local towns. I heard my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson reference Waihī known as a goldmining town previously—historically. So most of New Zealand's mines are situated in the regions. More than 4700 people are employed in the sector wages are high in the sector and also the regional impact is significant in areas where there is mining. For example mining is 21.3 percent of the GDP of Buller on the West Coast of the South Island; 22.7 percent of Hauraki's GDP; and 30.8 percent of Waitaki's GDP. This bill will affect local communities and people with their jobs to provide for their families in this crisis in a country where we have an endemic of a cost of living hitting us. So this is one of the significant reasons why the National Government is opposing this bill; if the Crown does not promote mining as is in this legislation our regional economies will suffer and those earning high-paying jobs will go overseas. That's just part of it—the select committee report identifies the concerns expressed from the National Party. And in summary to emphasise and reiterate that the National Party does have a concern and does have a lens and a protective blanket and cloak around environmental considerations. This legislation also adds more bureaucracy and layers of consultation which will ultimately make it expensive but also tardy and delayed for business to be done. So it was interesting part of the debate that I listened to from my office not having been a member on the select committee to be present to the whole of this debate before the House is that we had a member the Hon Michael Woods—and for the benefit of New Zealanders the title "Honourable" is an indicator or signals that that member has served in a ministerial capacity as a Minister. So my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse sat on the select committee and has ministerial experience. The Hon Michael Woodhouse stood in this House earlier this afternoon and talked from his perspective and the Government's perspective that the "weasel words" of the National Government—the "weasel words"; not honourable words to be expressed from an honourable member. But for the benefit again of members in this House and New Zealanders—weasel words: words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading. There is nothing that's intentionally ambiguous or misleading about the National Party's opposition to this bill. And it's interesting that that member stood in this House but half an hour ago to apologise to the House for ambiguous statements—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Hipango—on topic please.HARETE HIPANGO: Mr Speaker to say that it's all very well for a member to stand and rise in this House and cast aspersions towards the National Party to assert that the position taken is one of being misleading and ambiguous—it's most clear that the reason for the National Party's opposition to this bill is because of the economic impact it will have on regional communities it will have on this country and also that the party is very mindful of its environmental duties and responsibilities of care. In concluding the National Party does not support this bill."