Third Readings

I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Continental Shelf Amendment Bill, the Reserves Amendment Bill, and the Wildlife Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These changes are central to this Government’s work programme to improve the regulatory system for the petroleum and minerals sectors in New Zealand. This legislation delivers on the objectives of the Crown minerals review to encourage the development of Crown-owned minerals, so that they contribute more to New Zealand’s economic development; to streamline and simplify the regime where appropriate, ensuring that it is in line with the regulatory reform agenda, and making it better able to deal with future developments; and to ensure that better coordination of regulatory agencies can contribute to stringent health, safety, and environmental standards in exploration and production activities.

The petroleum and minerals sectors are already important contributors to the New Zealand economy. Mining is the backbone of many local economies in which they operate. For example, the petroleum industry in Taranaki directly employs almost 4,000 people, with another 4,000 in supporting sectors, and contributes around $2 billion—probably more—in local GDP. Crude oil is New Zealand’s fourth-largest commodity export, worth around $2 billion a year. But the potential for growth is even greater. New Zealand has extensive mineral wealth and 18 petroleum basins. This legislation sends a clear signal to investors that this is a supportive regime that requires high standards of its operators. It is central to changes that will allow us to realise the tremendous opportunities that this high-value sector offers.

The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill states that its purpose is to “promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” It also emphasises the importance of good industry practice in relation to activities undertaken by permit holders under the Act. Among other things this incorporates the ongoing oversight of compliance with health and safety legislation.

There is a lot in this legislation that will allow regulators to focus on the activities that really matter, and will streamline and simplify processes for the hundreds of permits for which the risk profile and potential return to the Crown are lower. The changes introduce a distinction between tier 1 and tier 2 permits. A streamlined regime for tier 2 permits will provide administrative benefits for Government and reduce compliance costs for permit holders. Tier 2 operators will be required to report on a more limited range of matters less frequently, without creating greater risks to the environment or health and safety, or affecting the financial return to the Crown. This will enable New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals to focus on the smaller number of high-value, complex tier 1 exploration and mining operations. Combined with the improved capacity within New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, this increased oversight will seek to ensure Crown-owned minerals are managed in a way that both maximises returns and ensures that activities are undertaken to the standards we expect.

These bills recognise that it is important that various regulatory functions remain distinct but the system as a whole needs to work seamlessly across Government. This differs from the approach taken under the Act to date, which creates strict separations between the allocation, health and safety, and environmental management functions. The report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy underlined the importance of the system working as a whole to assimilate information from various sources and take this into account in permitting decisions and ongoing oversight of all activities under a permit. These bills establish a range of measures to ensure that all regulators share information and have an opportunity to discuss activities under permits with permit holders on a regular basis. I am encouraged by the steps regulators have already taken to work together more effectively in this area.

Of course this legislation is not a substitute for health and safety or environmental regulation. This Government is continuing work on all fronts to ensure that the industry is bound by rules that appropriately reflect the risk profile associated with it.

The wider work programme to implement the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy’s report, development of new regulations for petroleum drilling, review of minimum insurance requirements, reform of the Resource Management Act, and development of regulations under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act represent an active reform agenda that demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring fit for purpose regulatory settings for this sector.

The minerals and petroleum sectors are appropriately subject to a raft of legislative requirements. The multiple legislative reviews affecting the sector are designed to ensure New Zealanders have confidence in the standards that the sector is expected to operate to, which is critical for the future viability and public acceptance of further growth of the sector.

Finally, I would like to mention the additional provisions to create new offences for interference with offshore activities. Such protest actions can impose significant costs on companies carrying out legitimate activities under permits and can create very serious health and safety risks. This amendment fills a gap in the existing legal framework and provides clear expectations and penalties for the new offences. Assurance that lawful activities can be carried out without interference is a necessary part of establishing a predictable investment climate without avoidable risks.

The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is key to realising the potential value of the petroleum and mineral sectors. It provides clear expectations on permit applicants and permit holders, and embeds better coordination processes across regulators. It signals a more flexible approach to permit management that recognises the risk and return profile of each operation. I commend the bills to the House.

Labour will be opposing at the third readings the amending bills from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. It would be nice if everything that Minister Bridges just said was true, but, unfortunately, largely it was a nice piece of fiction. Minister Bridges might think that by merely saying that environmental protections are important and paramount, like some grand wizard, it will automatically be so, but, unfortunately, that is not the reality. This legislation seriously undermines the ability and the role of the Minister of Conservation to carry out the protection and preservation of the conservation estate. It seriously undermines the democratic rights of New Zealanders to protest. It is a missed opportunity.

I want to say upfront that there are some things in this legislation that are good. We welcome the health and safety changes that came out of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Those recommendations were picked up. That is positive. There are some changes to streamline and to pre-evaluate some players in the industry, which we do welcome. But we are very disappointed that, despite some promising approaches made to Labour by Minister Heatley when he held the portfolio at the first reading, we were not able to find agreement on this legislation.

I want to pick up, first of all, the issue that the Minister of Energy and Resources raised last, which is the changes that are being made to introduce criminal penalties for protesters in our exclusive economic zone. Let us be quite clear: this does not plug a gap in our international obligations. The reason it does not is that it applies only to protest vessels. It does not apply to the vessels that industry uses. It does not apply to any other vessels carrying out an activity in the exclusive economic zone. Not only that: it does not just apply only to protest vessels, it applies only to protest vessels that are protesting against oil and gas exploration. If this was about safety and if this was about plugging a gap in our legislation, then we would make it apply to everyone. I want to know from the Minister why any vessel that is behaving in a way that would be illegal in our territorial waters under the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act—why are those vessels not being covered in the exclusive economic zone? Why is it only one narrow class of vessel that is being covered? Surely, if someone is behaving illegally or dangerously or recklessly then they should be covered by this change. Why are they not, Minister? The Minister refused to answer that question all through the Committee stage. No National Party member has even begun to address that issue.

This is not about safety and this is not about our international obligations. If it was, then this issue would have been raised with the Commerce Committee whilst we were considering the bill. Not once did officials raise this issue with the select committee. Instead, the Minister waited until the bill had been reported back to the House to drop this amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 205 on the Table. It has not had the proper scrutiny. It is incredibly bad lawmaking. It was embarrassing to see our Attorney-General come down to the House to defend it. This is a man whose job it is to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand. When we have had a number of eminent legal minds say that this not only contravenes a number of our international obligations but also contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, to see our Attorney-General come down, imply he had a legal opinion, which he had to admit he did not have, and defend the indefensible is, frankly, embarrassing—frankly, embarrassing.

As I said throughout the Committee stage, if the Minister had wanted to extend the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act out into the exclusive economic zone, which is what the High Court said he should do, then Labour would not have had a problem with that, because if people are behaving dangerously, if lives are being put at risk, then, absolutely, that needs to be dealt with. This does not deal with it. All this is is a public relations stunt that sends a message to the oil companies that this Government is prepared to do anything to get them here. It is prepared to sacrifice any democratic rights or environmental standards in order to see this activity go ahead.

We have already seen it with the exclusive economic zone legislation, which is the version of the Resource Management Act that will apply in the exclusive economic zone. That does not comply with our international obligations. That is incredibly weak and permissive, as well. We are seeing it in changes being touted around the Resource Management Act—a tilting of the playing field, constantly in favour of industry over the environment. Whilst—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Jobs.

“Jobs.”, says Minister Nick Smith. Well, I think that this is going to turn out to be the biggest false economy that the National Government has ever put in place. At the moment New Zealanders have trust in the processes that are laid out both in the Crown Minerals Act and in the Resource Management Act. They trust the process, and if the outcome is that a mining project should go ahead, they are less likely to want to oppose it if they trust the process. This is going to result in huge amounts of litigation. This is an absolute boon for judicial review.

I want to refer to one of the changes the bill makes. Currently, if a mining company wants to mine on Department of Conservation land, then that concession goes to the Minister of Conservation. That decision-making power is now being shared with the Minister of Energy and Resources. The Minister of Energy and Resources’ role under this bill is to promote mining. Does anyone not see a problem with a Minister of Energy and Resources, who enthusiastically goes out and promotes mining—we had Minister Heatley, when he held the portfolio, in a general debate doing a big rah-rah speech about the Denniston project, in particular—giving himself half the decision-making powers on whether that concession should go ahead? Did he not think that an organisation or an individual might think there was a slight little bit of predetermination of the decision there? That is why we have kept that power with the Minister of Conservation, because that is where it is most appropriately held. That is where you are going to get the fewest legal or judicial review processes taken against the Government. This is a false economy. This is not going to result in the outcomes that the Government thinks are going to happen.

But we come back to a fundamental point, which is why we are doing this. We are doing this because, for this Government, there is no plan B. This is it. It has put all its economic development eggs in this one basket. So far, we have seen Exxon Mobil pull out, we have seen Petrobras pull out, we have seen Apache pull out—this is a high-risk area. It is serious money, and companies are not going to invest unless returns are going to be—unless, one, they find something, and, two, they find it in commercial amounts. And the likelihood of that is actually not very high, but this is all the Government has. This is the plan. This and asset sales are the plan, so if it does not work, well, it is kind of stuffed, and it knows that.

So what we have seen is a progressive watering down of environmental regulation, a watering down of environmental protections, and now a watering down of people’s democratic rights in order to grease the wheels as much as possible for this to go ahead, because the Government is desperate. Well, that is not a good basis for lawmaking or decision making in this Parliament.

If we have learnt anything from the Rena disaster or from the Gulf of Mexico, it is that sometimes things go wrong, and we need to be absolutely prepared for that. So instead of ramping ahead with this activity and scaling it up to extraordinary levels, this Government should be asking itself some very basic questions. One: do we have the capacity to deal with any disaster, should that happen in New Zealand? I think the Rena disaster showed us that perhaps our capacity to deal with it was not as great as we thought. That is No. 1. The second thing is this: is the regulation that we have in place adequate to ensure the levels of environmental protection that New Zealanders expect? We have confidence in the Resource Management Act; we do not have confidence in what the Government is planning to do to it. We do not have confidence in the exclusive economic zone legislation. That legislation is dangerously weak, given that it governs the activity that is going to be carried out in some of the most difficult parts of New Zealand, out in deep water in the exclusive economic zone. Four kilometres deep is what Petrobras was looking at in the Raukūmara Basin; the Gulf of Mexico was 1.4 kilometres deep. So we are talking about seriously challenging technical difficulties if something goes wrong, and we have to be able to respond to that.

We want to be sure that we are actually going to see benefits coming to New Zealand and coming to New Zealanders, and I accept that in Taranaki this industry has been very good for economic development in that part of the country. That does not mean that there is a guarantee that that is going to be the case everywhere else. Petrobras said, when it was still looking at the East Coast, that there were not going to be local jobs and there were not going to be those local benefits that we got out of Taranaki. So people on the East Coast—and if any National MP, including our local MP or Minister, had bothered to front up to any of the meetings that were held on this issue, then they would have been told this—were asking: “Why are we expected to carry all the environmental risks, the risks to our economy, the risks to our livelihoods, for absolutely no economic benefit on the East Coast?”.

There are a number of serious questions that the Government simply is not asking. It is not asking them, because the answers may indicate that it might need to slow down, and that there may be some regulatory gaps that need to be filled in order to provide that level of assurance to New Zealanders. New Zealanders have seen what has happened around both our own country and the world with these environmental disasters and human disasters and tragedies. Instead, we are doing the exact opposite. Instead, what we are doing is we are stripping out some absolutely fundamental protections. What we are doing is we are skewing the playing field. To the member who is about to take to his feet, I would like to know why it is that the economic benefit test applies only to the mining industry. Why should the tourism industry, which is operating on Department of Conservation land, not be able to have that same economic benefit test applied? In fact, we seem to be passing an awful lot of legislation for one industry in this country, to the detriment of the environment and the democratic rights of New Zealanders.

I would like to answer some of those questions that the previous speaker, Moana Mackey, has asked. Taranaki is one of those regions that has a great balance and protective care but also economic development regarding its environment. We have agriculture, we have oil and gas exploration and production, and we have tourism all operating together at the same time, yet without a complaint regarding any of those activities.

It is important to also understand that there is great economic benefit, and I say to the previous speaker that at some point in time the East Coast needs to embrace the opportunities that are before it, as Taranaki did 50 years ago. Now we have in Taranaki the average wage in the oil and gas sector at $95,000. Just before Christmas, over 125 jobs were advertised at over $100,000, and all the time, if you come to Taranaki, as I am sure the member has in the past, you will witness and see and appreciate and enjoy a great environment. There is no reason why economic development cannot proceed with robust environmental concerns and care.

If we go back to where oil and gas exports were at one point in time, they were the fourth-largest export from this country. Then we saw the Tūī field come on stream, and one field in its production lifted the oil exports to the third-highest export commodity in the country. When you think about that, think about hospitals. Think about schools. Think about police stations that are being built, as one is, in New Plymouth at the moment. Think about roads. Think about New Zealand superannuation being able to be increased, for our elderly New Zealanders, at a higher rate than inflation. Think about jobs, and well-paid jobs. Think about all the benefits that can be achieved whilst all the time having a robust environmental regime in our legislation, which this Government is putting in place, particularly around the exclusive economic zone, which never existed before under that previous Government’s time and regime.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this legislation. I believe that it touches on some very important areas and brings some very good, balanced, pragmatic, sensible, and principled pieces of legislation together that will enhance the future productivity of this country whilst also protecting our environmental principles. Thank you.

The member who has just resumed his seat, Jonathan Young, started his contribution by saying that he was going to answer a few of the questions posed by my colleague Moana Mackey. He totally ignored every single question that my colleague Moana Mackey had asked. But that is not surprising, because the Minister who sat in the chair during the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill did exactly the same thing. The only contribution that he made to the Committee—and I am talking about the Hon Simon Bridges—was to be abusive. He was then followed by the Hon Chris Finlayson, who was also abusive—personally abusive of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Anne Salmond. Dame Anne Salmond, New Zealander of the Year, was denigrated in this Chamber by our Attorney-General and by the Minister responsible for this legislation. I thought it was an outrage, and I am looking forward to a bit more contrite behaviour from both those Ministers in the future.

I was also surprised by the contribution from Jonathan Young, who actually should know better. He does come from an area where exploration is really relevant. He knows that all the good things that happen in Taranaki that he was boasting about—and I agree with him; they are very good for that region—happen under existing law. The opportunity to have environmental protection and conservation values recognised exists under current law, and this legislation weakens it.

As has been pointed out, Labour supported the legislation going to the Commerce Committee but we said we had bottom lines about the role of the Minister of Conservation in making decisions that should not be weakened, and about the importance of protection of our environment and conservation that, again, should not be weakened, and that if those fundamental issues were not addressed, then we would oppose the legislation. I think it is a shame. I think it is a huge missed opportunity, and it is particularly frustrating because, in an area where such a lot of investment is required before there is potential financial return, the best thing that this Parliament can offer to the exploration industry is security. If we could get wide, cross-party agreement on important issues such as the regulatory regime, such as the policy framework, then the industry would have a lot more confidence in going into these areas, where they need such a lot of investment.

The National Party does not have a clue about giving an important industry confidence in investment in the future. All it wants is a narrow opportunity for some of its benefactors to invest in this area. Well, it should not be done at the cost of our conservation estate. It should not be done with a risk of environmental damage. This legislation enhances that risk, rather than reduces it.

I am not sure whether the Minister of Conservation is going to take a call in this debate, but I am frustrated that a Minister who has such a good record for a National Party Minister in the area of conservation is about to have so much of his advocacy and his decision-making ability weakened by this legislation, and I think Nick Smith would resent it. I want to briefly congratulate the Minister, though. Over the weekend he made one of the best announcements I have ever heard, and that is the signing off, from his perspective, of the Akaroa marine reserve—the Dan Rogers Marine Reserve. It is a decision that is celebrated, and I want to sincerely congratulate the Minister on making that decision. It does not justify this legislation, though. In fact, it makes it even worse when you have a Minister of Conservation who clearly understands the issues and the passion. I ask why on earth we would then want to say: “But let these other areas go ahead of it. Let the Minister of Conservation have their decision-making power weakened.” That is dumb. It is stupid. It gives exactly the wrong message from the New Zealand Parliament, and I do not think that Nick Smith in his heart of hearts supports it. I guess this legislation was drafted up while he was not in Cabinet, and that might explain some of it.

There have been a lot of conversations during the earlier stages of the debate about the outrage of Supplementary Order Paper 205, which was introduced by Simon Bridges. The select committee put a lot of effort and energy into this legislation. There were a lot of attempts to get things right as much as possible, and, where there was clear disagreement, that was sort of put to one side in an effort to make the legislation workable. There was a reconsideration by the select committee as a result of the Pike River inquiry recommendations, and I want to commend the chair, Jonathan Young, and the officials for the way that they looked at those really difficult issues, which came about as a result of a tragedy, and across-party work was done very, very well in order to ensure the future safety of our miners. I think that was a great example of how this Parliament should work together.

Then along on his black stallion rides Simon Bridges, throwing abuse to as many people as he can as he goes, trampling over basic democratic rights, and, in my view, misrepresenting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration on his Supplementary Order Paper. I heard both Simon Bridges and Chris Finlayson in the Chamber struggling about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration of that Supplementary Order Paper, but I understand that Simon Bridges said on TV in just the last couple of days that the Supplementary Order Paper had got a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sign off. Well, I would like him to table it. I do not believe it. I do not believe that there would be a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sign off on that Supplementary Order Paper. It is a blatant attack on the right of protesters. It is absolutely selective. Simon Bridges totally lied to the House and the public when he said that it was introduced because of urgent matters of health and safety. If it was about health and safety, it would have applied to everyone in that situation, but it does not. It applies just to protesters.

So I believe that the public of New Zealand feel totally misled and feel as if they have been denied the democratic process of Parliament, where any matter other than something that is urgent and critical gets referred to a select committee for proper public scrutiny and discussion. None of that has been the case in this area, which fundamentally removes New Zealanders’ right to have their say. We value protest in New Zealand. Of course we do not always like it—if we are on the receiving end of protest, of course we do not like it—but we should cherish our ability in a healthy democracy to make our views known within a legitimate framework, and that right has been taken away from people with Supplementary Order Paper 205.

My colleague Moana Mackey talked about why this legislation has been pushed through—why there is a need—and her summary was exactly right: the National Government has no plan B. If it is not asset sales or exploration at the cost of conservation and the environment, there is nothing, and that is not a proper plan for the security and future of New Zealand. It is not the brighter future that New Zealanders were promised by John Key. All it offers is the denigration of the precious environment that we boast about so much internationally—the precious environment that is at the heart of our tourism, is at the heart of our “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign, and is at the heart of many values of New Zealanders, as well.

Why would we risk that? Why would we say that those values are no longer important? Why do we have an economic benefit test against something that is values-based? If we do that, as we do in this legislation, then our values will always lose, and I do not believe, and I know that a lot of New Zealanders do not believe, that money is more important than our values. I think that is a wrong place to start in terms of a legislative framework.

We have heard a lot about the bad things in this legislation, but there are some good things and I just want to briefly mention them. The move to enshrine schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and the automatic inclusion of some areas in schedule 4 is a very good move. I have no confidence at all that in the future National might not revert to mining in schedule 4 land, but certainly the move to automatic inclusion is good. The introduction of the two-tier system of permit management, with the higher, more complex permit applications getting a different level of consideration than the more straightforward ones, I think is a very good thing. The improved coordination between the Crown minerals permitting regime and the health and safety and environmental legislation is a very good move, as well. I wish it was extended to all permits, rather than to just tier 1 activity.

I am disappointed that the fundamental issues were not resolved so that we could support this legislation. It would have been a good message to the industry. I am outraged at the breach of process by Simon Bridges. Therefore, we will be opposing this legislation strongly.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare Pāremata ko tēnei rā. I would like to start my speech on this legislation with two quotes. One is a traditional tangata whenua whakatauākī. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua—people perish, but the land remains. However, in the case of this legislation, after it goes through the House, some of the land may not remain. The other quote I would like to give is from the miners of Waihī in 1912, inspired by the funeral of Frederick Evans: “If blood be the price of your cursed wealth, Good God we have bought it fair”. The cursed wealth referred to is the wealth of large companies, especially overseas ones, and their exploitation of both people and the environment. The Crown Minerals Act, as it will be, is set up to facilitate both of those above all else. We hear about Taranaki. We hear how wonderfully it is going. We hear about the West Coast. What we see in those communities and in my community is two-tier economies: economies where sections of the community are benefiting and other sections are being left behind, and I will refer to that later in this kōrero.

However, back to the cursed wealth. There is only one substantive redeeming feature of this legislation, and that is Supplementary Order Paper 152 amending Part 1 of the original bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which included the recommendations of the Pike River commission of inquiry. If nothing else, at least we can support the lives of workers, and the Greens supported that Supplementary Order Paper.

However, the rest of the legislation is mainly a declaration of war, challenged by the public at the select committee: the Minister of Energy and Resources as a promoter of mining, not as a regulator; the joint ministerial decision-making over the access to the Department of Conservation’s land—and there were a huge number of submissions on that issue. The only change was to make this for significant issues. Well, any application on Department of Conservation land has significance to people. There were the public notification issues, the extensions to exploration licences, and the tokenism towards te Tiriti rights via iwi engagement reports that have no proper framework or recognition of any kind of veto. The fact is that coal is a fossil fuel, oil is a fossil fuel, and we need to transition away from this dependency on these fuels towards a sustainable and renewable economy.

Then there are the Orders in Council that undermine the Minister of Conservation. The undermining of the Minister of Conservation throughout this legislation is a very, very serious matter, and the Orders in Council mean that instead of the Minister having rights over designations, it will go straight to Cabinet, and we know what happens there under this Government.

The net economic benefit is the wrong criterion, because decision making cannot be about just economic benefit. It needs to be about a net total benefit, including the environment, because no environment—no economy.

And then there is the legendary Supplementary Order Paper 205, the “Anadarko clause”, to lock up the defenders of the marine environment if they go anywhere near an oil rig or an oil vessel. It was opposed by, I think, 79 percent of people who were recently surveyed. It is also, potentially, a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I also am dubious that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been consulted properly on this legislation. Forget about rights in international waters, let us breach any kind of protocol and jam this Supplementary Order Paper into the legislation at the last moment! It is very, very sad to see the Government following appalling process and ignoring the Commerce Committee, which we sat on. Despite some of the bright young faces on the Government benches, this is forcing an outdated, authoritarian, dictatorial, knee-jerk response against Te Whānau-a-Apanui and Greenpeace because they won. It is not only unfair but ridiculous, and the Government has now made an enemy of some very middle-of-the-road citizens, who may not want to go out on the water themselves but do not believe that this is the kind of behaviour they would expect from a Government or that it is a recognition of people’s legal and human rights.

Also there was my Supplementary Order Paper 211, which was voted down, which would have stopped any confusion about schedule 4. It would have stopped prospecting, exploration, and mining in schedule 4 land and it would have clarified to all parties that no mining promises made to the public by this Government were actually fulfilled. This legislation further erodes the integrity of schedule 4 by changing the definition of “minimum impact activity” and, according to the Minister of Energy and Resources, under questions from me last week, it will allow for drilling for exploration but not for mining. The Minister does not understand mineral exploration. You do not drill for exploration. You drill so that you can mine, and then, when you have got your permit because you have done your exploration drilling, you mine it; you do not drill it. Never mind, Minister, you will catch up, and you will hear from the public on this matter. There is a simple approach to schedule 4 land that this legislation should be supporting: leave it alone. That is what the people marched for, that is what they asked for, and that is what should happen.

Another part of this legislation refers to a very controversial decision that has been in front of the courts. Yesterday I stood on the Denniston Plateau. I stood there with an astonishing vista of mountain and ocean, an astonishing and delicate array of native plants and geology. I will hold this photo up for the benefit of the House. This is me, yesterday, on the Denniston Plateau, in front of this astonishing array of national treasures. If any of you have been to the Burren in Ireland, which is a national treasure in Ireland, you will know that there is a similar feeling there—a feeling of absolute diversity, a feeling of absolute beauty, and a feeling of absolute specialness, which the Irish are capitalising on for their economy, but we are about to destroy. This includes, of course, the kiwi, our national bird. Well, why not mine it? It is only a kiwi. There is the gecko, the giant snail, and, in fact, a wonderful large kōura that I took a photograph of in a crystal-clear piece of water up on the Denniston Plateau. It was right in the area where Bathurst Resources proposed its open-cast mine. Some things are not compatible. You cannot rehabilitate after you have open-cast mined an area. There will not be any of these species left.

I also stood in the museum, to honour past miners, as a great-grandchild of a mining family who stayed poor until my family left the industry. Like so many miners’ families, poverty and the cycle of poverty, the boom and bust, remains. But open-cast mining on the scale proposed by Bathurst Resources on the Denniston Plateau is supported by a provision of this legislation that will allow joint decision-making by Ministers, being retroactive in effect, towards Denniston, and this cannot be mitigated. There may be 200 or so jobs for 5 years, and then the West Coast will be back to the boom-and-bust cycle, of which the collapse of Solid Energy is so typical.

The Mayor of Reefton came to the select committee and asked us when there would be a genuine regional and infrastructure pay-off from all this mining in his area. He stated that he loves digging up gold and coal, but asked when he would get that sustained benefit for his community, because it was not happening. The answer, Mr Mayor, is never. It is not about local sustainability. Times have changed, but still the pattern for mining communities is the same all over the world. It is a boom; it is a bust. Whether it is Waihī, whether it is Reefton, whether it is Westport, it is a boom and then it is a bust. In the meantime, we bust things that cannot be fixed, like the Denniston Plateau.

However, on a more positive note, times have changed. The idea of green coke from woodchips, producing green steel, is still a new idea beneath our horizon, but it is a growing idea. Humans are endlessly creative. We can find other things, other methodologies, other economies than destroying places like the Denniston Plateau. That should be part of a national park, not a net economic gain, as it is described. It is unforgivable devastation, and there will be national resistance. There will be positive and celebratory national resistance to oil drilling in the ocean. There will be positive and celebratory national resistance to the destruction of the climate and biodiversity and communities who deserve so much better. There are huge opportunities in places like Denniston for wonderful things to happen.

The Government needs to wake up with this legislation, because the Government is losing the last shreds of its credibility as a just Government or a Government with any kind of vision. This legislation represents Government at its worst, building in bias and legislating for privilege, instead of supporting an economy that is sustainable. When the people of this country marched in the streets, they marched because we want to love and protect our special places. We want the integrity of our oceans to remain. We know that we can create employment that is sustainable and that is healthy for future generations without destroying these very important places, let alone taking away the basic rights of citizens to non-violent protest.

The failure of imagination in this legislation is extreme. It is very, very disappointing to see it go through. There are some technical amendments that will tidy up some of the frameworks, some of the permitting regimes, but in the end this legislation has come down squarely and fairly on the side of injustice, on the side of the miners who want to take our resources and use them for the short term, not for the long-term vision of our communities. Stand with us on the Denniston Plateau, because we will be standing there, and see what it means to actually believe in the sustainability of our environment. Kia ora.

I stand to support the Crown minerals legislation. I stand alongside the Labour Party and the Green Party in support of past miners, but unlike the Labour Party and the Green Party, I am also interested in present jobs in the mining and petroleum sector, and future jobs in the petroleum and mining sector. The Labour Party, which was built out of the West Coast mining sector, of course, has turned its back on them now.

The interesting thing, of course, is that the Labour Party and the Green Party will take the royalties. That is right. When they are in Government, in the distant future—I am sure they will be in 10 or 20 years from now—they will take the royalties and they will take the taxes collected off the backs of the mining jobs, tens of thousands of them, across New Zealand. They will collect the royalties and they will collect the taxes, and they will spend that money, which is the interesting thing, is it not? They are very interested in the income, the royalties, and the taxes off the mining and petroleum industries, they are very interested in the idea of spending that money, but they oppose the industry at every single turn.

I have to ask why, when you consider that on the West Coast of the South Island and, of course, in Taranaki, you have got two regions there that have very successfully developed their mining industry. Take Taranaki, for example. In that area they have the largest industry—the dairy-farming industry—working alongside the second-largest industry, the petroleum industry, working alongside a very successful tourism industry in Taranaki. So there you have one region in New Zealand where petroleum works alongside dairy farming, works beautifully alongside tourism, and it is very successful indeed. In fact, in terms of job growth and GDP you would struggle to beat Taranaki.

My question to the Labour Party is: why cannot that success, working alongside petroleum, dairying, and tourism, be reflected in other regions in New Zealand? There are 16 other regions in New Zealand where agriculture is successful, as is tourism, so why cannot the oil and gas sector be successful, like they have been in Taranaki? Well, there is no reason. I would not say it would be able to happen in every region, but surely there is a second, a third, a fourth, and a fifth region in New Zealand where those three sectors can work closely and successfully to get it like they have in Taranaki, and the Labour Party could run off with the royalties and spend them the way it will do when it is in Government—well, one day. That is why I support this legislation.

I would like to point out and thank the Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges, and his colleagues Nick Smith, Minister of Conservation, and Amy Adams, Minister for the Environment, because they have actually done more for public safety and the environment, when it comes to oil and gas and mineral exploration, than was done in the previous 10 years under the Labour Government. For example, we have got the Crown minerals legislation going through at the moment, with enhanced regulations around health and safety, and mining and petroleum. We have the exclusive economic zone legislation—there were no rules out in the exclusive economic zone before this Government came into force—and, of course, there are the new regulations on health and safety, which are working their way through the system.

I support this legislation. It is good to see this industry promoted. I am glad that we have listened to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, the New Zealand Minerals Industry Association, Straterra, and many others, and we are taking on many of their recommendations. I recommend this legislation to the House.

I take a call on the third reading of this legislation arising from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Can I say, on behalf of New Zealand First, how disappointed we are that it has come to this, when it was doing so well under the former Minister of Energy and Resources, Phil Heatley, and then under the current Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges. It was all going along swimmingly well. We had said in this House during the first two readings that we supported economic development, we supported, as a party, the Government’s initiatives in terms of improving the well-being and the prosperity of people within this country, in terms of accessing our minerals and the resources that are there, both onshore and offshore, and we felt it was in the interests of the New Zealand economy to support this legislation.

We heard a number of months ago, in the first reading, how $2 billion had been received by the Crown since 2008 from royalties of minerals and resources, and that is very good. It could be improved a lot with a review of how much is charged in terms of those royalties. But, again, New Zealand First felt that that was a positive thing for the economy. We also supported the idea of a two-tiered system for the permit management, so that higher risk, higher value minerals would have a higher level of permit management, as compared to lower risk, lower value minerals. The bill also would sift out applications that did not meet the standards. We saw merit in that in the beginning, and in terms of ensuring that those who were applying did meet the required standards. We also were impressed in the early days of this legislation, when it came first to the House, that there would be increased community consultation in relation to the Crown interests and in terms of taking resources and minerals from both onshore and offshore. Indeed, this lined up with the Act that was put through Parliament last year, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, on which New Zealand First also supported the Government in terms of that 200-mile limit—the fifth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. Again we saw merit in New Zealand taking a responsible attitude towards looking at the resources that were out in the vast ocean, and looking at it in an environmentally sustainable manner in terms of recovery of some of those resources.

That is where it was all going swimmingly well and New Zealand First was supportive of the legislation. Unfortunately, a deal-breaker occurred in the last week or so in the form of Supplementary Order Paper 205 of the Minister of Energy and Resources regarding protests on the high seas against mining, exploration, drilling, or resource recovery in our 200-mile limit. That Supplementary Order Paper, which was dropped in at the very last minute, at the eleventh hour, floored us somewhat, because we felt that it was inappropriate. I spoke in this Chamber on the matter last week, and said that we felt it was inappropriate to start mixing a bill that was going to become an Act all focused on minerals exploration and focused on the actual operations of mining and mineral resources with starting to take into account the safety, health, and well-being of people on the high seas who may be going about their daily lives in terms of protest at certain activities out there—drilling, mining, or whatever. We felt that was really undermining the heart of what Kiwis stand for. We always support the underdog. We always support the person who is prepared to stand up and be counted.

As I mentioned in the Chamber last week, we ourselves are a country, as a country and as a Government, that was prepared to go to Mururoa Atoll in 1973 with our two frigates, the HMNZS Otago and the HMNZS Canterbury, and make it known to other Governments and other authorities that we did not support what they were doing there in Mururoa in terms of nuclear testing. We felt that it was our legitimate right to go there, to do that in a safe manner, and to do it in a responsible manner. We did feel that it was our right to go over there and cause a little bit of mayhem on the high seas for the French at the time. Likewise, I think a lot of New Zealanders who were opposed to nuclear vessels saw merit in the protests at the submarine USS Haddo when it came into port in New Zealand and many protesters went out to voice and show their opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion. Again, although that perhaps did not go down well with all New Zealanders, a lot of New Zealanders did uphold the right of those protesters to go out there and show some opposition to nuclear activity. So we did not feel it was quite right for the Minister to say “Well, that can still occur; it just can’t go on within 500 metres of any vessel on the high seas”, and that these protesters should just line up outside the head offices of the mining companies or outside their respective onshore bases but should not actually do that at sea. At the end of the day, we all know that often protest results come about only by people actually being at the coalface of the protest and making sure that others are aware of it. New Zealanders, I think, will always uphold the right of lawful and reasonable protest.

In that respect, we did feel that if there were going to be concerns here, they should have been addressed under a different Act, not under this Crown minerals legislation. They should have been addressed in some alteration to the Maritime Transport Act, to ensure that the master, the crew, and the passengers of any vessel were taken care of in a way that kept their safety and well-being uppermost. We felt, in that respect, that section 65 of the Maritime Transport Act, which says that “Every person commits an offence … which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person or to any other property, irrespective of whether or not in fact any injury or damage occurs.” is already in the Act and perhaps the legal advisers could have looked at ways to extend that out to encompass activities in our economic zone, so that it was seen as a safety and health issue, and not simply a sidling up to the mineral and mining companies to perhaps take the heat away from them in terms of their economic activities.

That was a gamebreaker for New Zealand First. It is a bit unfortunate. I have spoken to the Minister on a couple of occasions, as late as this afternoon, and asked whether the Government would withdraw that provision—somehow take it out of the legislation—so that we could focus back on the actual Crown minerals, the resources, the economic benefits, and all that sort of thing, and away from the aspect of taking away basic rights of New Zealanders to protest. He was not able to do that, and said it was too late, unfortunately, to address that situation, and it could not be done at this stage. So, as a result, New Zealand First is not, unfortunately, going to be able to support this legislation.

Having said that, we know that it will pass, because the Government has the numbers for this to pass, and it will go into law. We do just signal to the Government that we do not think this was necessarily the right way to do this. We think it is very important for jobs and for employment in this country that we do address the Crown minerals situation, but we feel at the same time that those minerals need to be reassessed in terms of how much we charge in the way of royalties and how much we get back from those royalties. New Zealand First, for instance, has come out with some very good policy in recent weeks, where we would return 25 percent of all royalties taken from any region back to the region where that resource is taken from. We believe that is a very positive thing for regions throughout New Zealand, so that of the economic benefits returned to the Crown, at least 25 percent of them are returned back to where they are taken from. In that respect, we certainly hope that some of those sorts of recommendations are taken up by the Government in the future, because we do want to see this country prosper, we do want to see more jobs and more opportunities for our people in this country, and we do want to grow the economy. But, unfortunately, while this gamebreaker sits here within this legislation, New Zealand First cannot support it.

Thank you for the opportunity to stand and support this legislation divided from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Phil Heatley, and the present Minister, the Hon Simon Bridges, for this important legislation, which is very important for our economy.

There should be absolutely no doubt in the minds of New Zealanders that if we want to sustain and improve our standards of living then we need to encourage the development of Crown-owned minerals. This legislation is a very positive step towards achieving a high level of economic growth and a high standard of living. The legislation updates and streamlines the regulatory regime around Crown minerals. The National Government, after winning the last election in 2011, declared its four big priorities. One of them is to build a more competitive and productive economy. The proposed legislation reflects our commitment to New Zealand and New Zealanders. With those words, I commend this legislation to the House.

I wish I could say that it gave me great pleasure to get up and speak to the third reading of these bills, which come from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, but it does not. I am very sorry that legislation is being passed in this way about these matters. There are some things in the legislation, which my colleague Ruth Dyson outlined earlier, that we are perfectly happy with. Certainly, she identified those things. For example, we welcome the schedule 4 provisions and the two-tier process around permitting complex and more straightforward applications. Those sorts of things we have no trouble with.

But bad process always results in bad law. Good process sometimes results in bad law, but much less often. Bad process always results in bad law. With the introduction of the Minister’s amendment around protest vessels, we have, dare I say it, a sneaky little amendment brought in without public scrutiny. In fact, Parliament was used to prevent that amendment from going back to the Commerce Committee for proper consideration and submission. When the Green Party moved a procedural motion that it be returned to the select committee, the Government used the weight of its numbers, regardless of the process, to deny that leave and to deny the public the opportunity to speak to this matter and to have their views made known. So what we will have is legislation that is bad in process and bad in parts.

The explicit purpose of this bill is to promote the prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand. That is what it says in the Bills Digest about the purpose of this piece of legislation. This is a contentious area, without any doubt, and for the Minister to proceed in more than a cavalier way—in, I think, a sinister way—with the amendment that he introduced, which will restrict protest vehicles from getting within 500 metres of a drilling rig or a seagoing vessel that has mineral exploration as its purpose, is simply a denial of community upset and community disquiet about deep-sea exploration. There have been sufficient examples overseas of the dangers of deep-sea mining and deep-sea drilling for people to be legitimately concerned.

When protestors get close to property and trespass, they are arrested and they pay the price. Lucy Lawless and others recently in relation to a Greenpeace protest at New Plymouth were arrested when they transgressed the law, and they have paid the price for that or are in the process of doing so. To ban protesters from getting close to the object of their protest is simply a curtailment of democratic rights that we should not be tolerating in this country. Protestors often do things that are dramatic in order to get attention. I do not want our society, in its rapacious desire, led by this Government, for fossil fuels, for ongoing depletion of natural resources at all costs, to compromise our democratic freedoms in the process.

This is, in large part, bad law. It encourages the development of Crown-owned minerals so that they contribute more to New Zealand’s economic development. Yes, on the surface it could be a reasonable thing to do, and even a beneficial thing to do, if it were being seen in a vacuum. But at the same time as this legislation is going through the House with its tawdry little ministerial amendment, we have round one of the Resource Management Act changes in front of the select committee, we have proposals on round two of the Resource Management Act changes, and we have proposals on water quality and management, which give nobody who has an interest in this area any confidence—any confidence—that this Government cares about the protection of the environment. There is no guarantee in any of these provisions—which are not crowding in upon us now by accident; this is designed by Government—and there is no evidence in any of this crowding of legislation and proposals for legislation that gives anybody in New Zealand interested in our environment confidence that this Government will protect it or intends to protect it.

For example, in response to an earlier National Party speaker, Jonathan Young, MP for New Plymouth, who contributed to this debate, I just want to ask, on behalf of the people in Tikorangi, what that member is going to say and what he is going to do about the community disquiet, the community concern, around the Kōwhai wells, especially Kōwhai C in Tikorangi, just out of Waitara. It is an area that I personally know very well. I spent quite a lot of my childhood there. On the basis of this bill, and the way that this Minister has ridden roughshod over community concerns, and concerns expressed by notable New Zealanders—who are not stupid, and who are clever and intelligent and perceptive about these things. In the face of that concern, he has proceeded against due process to bring in an amendment that makes this bill a travesty.

It seems to me that Jonathan Young has now been given the right by the Minister to ignore the people of Tikorangi, to simply say to the people of Tikorangi: “Oh yes, heard what you said, don’t agree with you. You might be clever. You might be the New Zealander of the Year, but your opinion”—oh, sorry, Mr Speaker; this is in quotation marks. He might say to the people of Tikorangi that those people are clever, they might have the New Zealander of the Year amongst them, but he puts no store by their opinions. That is not good enough. It might be the way John Key wants to run his Cabinet—and the new boy on the block, Simon Bridges, is following the Prime Minister’s pattern—but it is not good enough if one is trying to run a democratic country that is accustomed to democratic rights and to being able to make a difference where it sees the need. Thank you.

I rise to support the legislation arising from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. National’s priority is to build a more competitive and productive economy. Natural resources industries play an essential role in our effort. Oil, gas, and minerals make a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy. Oil is one of our key exports, along with dairy, meat, and wood. The oil and gas industry sustains 7,700 jobs nationally. However, there is huge potential for mineral exploration to contribute even more to New Zealand’s economy. This bill will go a long way towards unlocking that potential, while taking care of environmental and safety issues. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

This is a split call.

In 1992 the National Government deregulated the mining industry. In 1997 it created schedule 4 areas—that is, high conservation value areas, including national parks, which were out of bounds for mining. In 2009, it proposed to mine in schedule 4 areas. And now, in 2013—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Some.

—no, no, it opened them all up, Mr Smith. You cannot get out of that one. In 2013, the National Government is proposing to lock in schedule 4 areas, once again, in this legislation.

I will start with the good news. This legislation does include some provisions that Labour supports. The first one that I must speak of with passion is that of implementing the recommendations—or some of them—from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, which, unfortunately, was the result of 1992 legislation by the National Government. It is moving to address the problems created, and I acknowledge that, as do the families of those 29 miners, as do the people of the West Coast and in the mining sector. We need safe mining. This legislation makes some improvements in the process for applying for mining permits, with a two-tier system that gives due recognition to the important ones. It incorporates health and safety provisions into all aspects of mining, including prospects, and that is as it should be. It makes it easier to revoke permits where operators do not meet standards, and it does increase the penalties.

Those are the good points of this legislation, and I would like to acknowledge them. However, there are some problems with it. One of the things raised by my colleagues there, of course, is the one that relates to the Minister of Conservation but perhaps has precedent and flow-on issues for other landowners. In 1992, along with the deregulation of the mining industry and mine safety, the Government said that landowners should have the ultimate right of, I guess, blockage and ban on any mining on their land. Prior to that, the Crown owned the minerals under the land and gave, with those mineral rights, the right to the land. It was not right. It overrode private property rights. What is happening here in these bills is that for the Minister of Conservation, who holds conservation land on behalf of all New Zealanders, her rights to manage that land will be potentially overridden by the Minister for Economic Development.

There will be some, particularly in my patch down on the West Coast, who might say “Oh, that’s great.”, but when they actually stop and think about it, if we want sensible, environmentally friendly, sustainable mining, we have to go about it the right way. Labour supports that, but it must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner, it must be done in a way that returns real benefits to the community—not just temporary benefits—and it must be done in a way that upholds the highest levels of health and safety across the mining sector. Labour has had that view for a long time and we will not resile from that. The problem is that if, as these bills go through, those rights of the Minister of Conservation—who owns the land or manages the land—are overridden, then there is the potential, if the economic benefit test on mining applications applies to other landowners, for their rights to be overridden too.

What the Government has done at the last minute is bring in a ban on protesting. Everyone thinks it is a bunch of long-haired hippies running out there, all in wetsuits, whom you see protesting about offshore mining. Well, can I say that many landowners—many ordinary New Zealanders—protest against mining because they see the proposals as not being environmentally sensitive and not providing benefit to the community, and they too want to protest. We have to be careful that the passage of this legislation does not undermine—as it does for those offshore—ordinary New Zealanders’ rights to stand up and say “This is not right.” Their ability to do that ensures a better process and often ensures a fairer and better outcome.

The Government riding roughshod over New Zealanders’ rights to protest is unconstitutional. That is why Labour has taken a position of opposing this, and I support the opposition on that basis. In spite of positive provisions in the legislation implementing better health and safety standards in the mining sector, there are other provisions in these bills that mean that, on balance, Labour cannot support this legislation.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to oppose the legislation arising from the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I am opposing it because of the content—these are bad bills passed through a bad process—but more important, I think, because of its impact on core Kiwi values, which is that we love our conservation estate, we love our natural environment, and we want to protect it. It goes against our values as well because it contains an egregious amendment, the “Anadarko amendment”, which goes against a core Kiwi value that we can make our world a better place and we can do the right thing. And we have stood up for so many progressive causes over the decades in New Zealand. This goes against the Kiwi value to do the right thing and protest.

Thirdly, I also rise to oppose it because of the economic strategy that is behind these bills that are about to become law. The “drill it, mine it, frack it” approach to economic development—this dirty, old-fashioned, 19th century economic agenda—is not delivering for our economy. That is why we have got the worst-ever economic performance in over 50 years. The plan is in tatters, with oil companies like Petrobras and Apache Corporation leaving the country. We see others like Anadarko delaying their activity. What this country is crying out for is real, tangible, positive economic solutions. That is what I will seek to talk about in this short call.

Firstly, I want to raise some comments on this legislation and to look at the “Anadarko amendment” before looking at some those positive economic solutions that we need for Aotearoa New Zealand. Firstly, the legislation does have some positive amendments. We would like to thank the submitters and the Commerce Committee for including those. They include the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy recommendations. The legislation now includes the ability to put a moratorium on certain mining types. However, there are many and numerous problems with this legislation.

The whole purpose of the legislation is where it is flawed and where it goes wrong. The concrete foundations are cracked. We see the whole purpose as being about picking winners in this one sector: oil, gas, fracking, and mining. It is about disempowering communities. It is about weakening the powers, role, and ambit of the conservation Minister. We now see the Minister of Energy and Resources involved in access agreements. We see the changing role of the Minister of Energy and Resources. His job is now to attract permit applications. We see changes to schedule 4, where now for the decisions on what should be included or taken out, the control is being given to Cabinet in an unprecedented fashion. We know where this Cabinet is going to go. It is lengthening permits, which is convenient for the mining industry. That is the agenda: it is trying to support the mining industry, trying to pick winners. It is a lazy economic gamble, hoping that someone else—mostly foreign-controlled companies—will find something in the soil. They will benefit, yet we know that in terms of royalties, taxes, and jobs—these are the other sectors of our economy—Kiwis and the New Zealand economy are not going to be the winners.

When we look at the “Anadarko amendment”, Supplementary Order Paper 205, this is lawmaking at its worst. We are picking a specific industry to get specific legal protections that no other industry gets. It is an amendment to legislation that was passed under a hasty process. It was introduced on Easter Sunday, there was no select committee hearing and no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, yet we see the Government coming in and attacking some eminent New Zealanders, like former Prime Ministers, the current New Zealander of the Year, and eminent legal professionals. It is an absolutely shocking performance from the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Attorney-General. We see the amendment substantively trying to turn the New Zealand military into the private security forces of the oil and gas sector.

It is egregious and abhorrent legislation. It goes against those core Kiwi values, but what gives me hope is why the Government is introducing it. It is introducing it because it is scared, because it knows that protesting works. It worked in terms of Petrobras. Although the criminal penalties have been increased, we know that this is just going to go down as a challenge to those people in New Zealand who love and want to protect our marine environment. You are going to see more protests as a result of this legislation than you did before. They want to protest because they want to stand up for a clean, smart economy. That is what PricewaterhouseCoopers is talking about. With its recent estimate, we could be earning $22 billion. This is what the successful business leaders are talking about, when they say we could be building 50,000 jobs in clean energy. This is what other people are saying: we could be saving $600 million a year in terms of electricity savings by moving to a 100 percent renewable energy sector.

This is our vision for our economy, not flogging off the assets, and not digging them up—mining, fracking, and drilling. It is about investing in our sustainable brand. It is about building prosperity that is long term, not the boom-and-bust cycle Catherine Delahunty talked about. It is about a real, smart, sustainable vision, and that is what we are inspired by, what we are motivated about, and what we are standing up for in this Parliament. We are going to keep doing it, Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Lands) Bill or not. We are standing up for a smart—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

I will take a short call. I just want to congratulate Minister Simon Bridges on the very good Supplementary Order Paper 205. I just want to say that we are not talking about protesting on Queen Street. We are not talking about protesting on Princes Wharf. We are talking about protesting on the high seas, and anyone who has been on the high seas will tell you that it is an unpredictable and dangerous environment.

I am sure that if the Green Party members were out there going about their lawful business, they would be very unhappy if they had people boarding their vessels, if they had people jumping in front of their vessels, or if they had people interfering and stopping them going about their lawful business. That is what this amendment is about. It is not about preventing people from having their right to protest. They can, but they are going to have to comply with a non-interference zone, and they are going to have to make sure that everyone remains safe when they are going about their lawful business.

The other thing they have to consider is that if there is an accident, if there is an incident, who is going to be called on to go out there and try to resolve it? It would be our emergency services. Every time that happens, we are putting them in danger also. It is a very, very good amendment, and I support it. Thank you.