Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The petroleum minerals sector is already an important contributor to the New Zealand economy. Mining is the backbone of many local communities. For example, on the West Coast the mining sector employs over 4,000 people, generates about one-third of household incomes, and contributes $550 million a year to local GDP. The petroleum industry in Taranaki directly employs almost 4,000 people, with another 4,000 in supporting industries, and contributes around $2 billion a year in local GDP.

Crude oil is New Zealand’s fourth-largest commodity export, worth now over $2 billion per year. But the potential for growth is even greater. New Zealand has an extensive untapped wealth of minerals and petroleum resources. The Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 sent 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.

This bill provides commercial certainty to operators who obtained their mining licences under earlier regimes and who are covered by transitional arrangements. It also clarifies how data confidentiality and reporting requirements will apply to all existing privileges. The bill also makes minor changes to the application of operator capability assessments and to the threshold for platinum group elements. These changes do not dilute the robust performance management provisions of the regime in any way, but are necessary to improve the alignment of the regime with industry structures and future resource development.

The bill also makes minor drafting changes, which again are within the scope of the Act itself. Much has been made by the Opposition of the bill correcting errors in the previous Act that was passed. I would note that over two dozen bills in the previous Parliament contained such errors that required correction. The only people in this Parliament who have not made mistakes are those who have not done anything. I also note criticism that these amendments have been picked up before the Act took effect, and the Minister has received criticism for that. I take the opposite view. For the Minister to get on and fix these errors before the Act comes into effect ensures that the public is not adversely affected by any such errors.

In the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 this Government has established a robust, modern, and futureproof regime to allow continued responsible development of New Zealand’s petroleum and mineral resources, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Well, the National Party sent the Hon Dr Nick Smith down to do the spin, because the incompetent Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges—who passed the original bill into law a mere 4 weeks ago, and we are already back having to fix it—is such an embarrassment to the National Party that it has sent down its once-proud Bluegreen champion to set the spin for Simon Bridges and for the Government. Dr Nick Smith should hang his head in shame because he has been shown as the charlatan that he is. Bluegreen—what a joke. This bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, is absolutely appalling for the environment. Dr Nick Smith said that it sends a message to industry that this is a “supportive regime”. Well, that is the understatement of the year. It is more than supportive; it is a developer’s charter. Actually, what it is is a litigator’s dream. That is the reality, because it is so full of errors, it is so full of loopholes, that it leaves the Minister wide open to judicial review. So although the Government wants this to be a developer’s charter, in fact I suspect that it is going to find that it is somewhat of a false economy in that regard.

There has been much mention of the Taranaki District throughout this debate, and, certainly, the oil and gas industry has been very, very good for that district. But do you know what? It is doing just fine under the existing regime. Taranaki did not require complete destruction of laws protecting our environment for it to do as well as it has done. So why do we require this legislation and previous legislation that completely undermines the protection of our environment, unless it is because we want to start carrying out activities that previously would not have been allowed because they are too risky, they are too dangerous, and they do provide too much of a risk to the environment? That is why we are doing it. It is because the Government has no plan B. This is it. This, pokies, and assets sales—that is it. So if this does not deliver the benefits promised, then the Government is kind of screwed. That is why it is deciding that it would rather screw the environment, and that is an absolute shame.

The incompetence of Minister Simon Bridges is incredible. Not only are we back, having to pass an amendment bill weeks after we passed the original amendment bill, before that bill has even come into force, but he sat there in the chair during the Committee stage, like a dried arrangement, and did not take a single call to answer very, very serious questions that the Opposition was putting to him. I do not know whether he does not know the answers, whether he is just too arrogant to think that he should have to give answers on his quarter-of-a-million-dollar salary, or whether, actually, he has no answer. I suspect that it is the latter—that, actually, he has no adequate answers to the questions that we were putting, because this is a seriously flawed piece of legislation.

What this bill does is it extends the protest ban that was introduced by amendment late in the piece—it did not go to a select committee in the original amendment bill—to ban protesting against deep-sea oil drilling in our exclusive economic zone. The Minister said at the time that it was about safety. Maybe the Hon Dr Nick Smith can answer this. If it is about safety, then why is every vessel that engages in dangerous and reckless behaviour not covered by it? Why is it only protest vessels, and only protest vessels that are protesting against deep-sea oil drilling? Dr Smith? Yes, exactly—exactly. Because if that is what it is about, we could be here in urgency passing a bill that extends the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act, which cover dangerous and reckless behaviour by vessels in our territorial waters into the exclusive economic zone. Why did we not do that? That would have covered everyone. That would have meant that no matter who you are, no matter what reason you are doing it for, if you behave in a dangerous way that puts lives at risk, you will be held accountable. Well, under this Government’s law, they are not. In the exclusive economic zone you can threaten people’s lives and it is legal. An activity that would be illegal in our territorial waters is legal in our exclusive economic zone because the Government cares about dangerous and reckless behaviour only if it is opposing deep-sea oil drilling. How completely, completely repugnant is that? Why are we not passing a law that covers everyone? I would like one National Party member to actually answer that question. This is nothing more—nothing more—than an anti-democratic, Draconian piece of legislation that we should all be ashamed of.

What it does, this amendment bill, is it extends that ban out into the continental shelf, into the waters above the continental shelf, and, for the first time, right up to the beaches. So protest activity is banned from the beaches out into the high seas. The problem that we have, and the second question I would like an answer to—and maybe the Hon Dr Nick Smith can answer this one—is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade tells us, and the United Nations convention on the continental shelf tells us, that we do not have the right to pass legislation on the water column above the continental shelf. We have the right to exploit minerals in the continental shelf, we can drill into it, and we can tunnel into it, but in the water we have no jurisdiction. The example the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gives is shipping activity. It says that New Zealand has no right to pass laws regulating shipping activity in the water above the continental shelf. So here is my question. How is it, then, that we have the right to regulate shipping activity that is protesting in the water above the continental shelf? We do not. It is humiliating that the Government is sitting here passing law that we have no right to pass. You might as well pass a law on Mars, because you do not have jurisdiction there, either.

So here we are, putting the Government at risk, because if it decides, under this law it is passing, which we actually have no right to pass, that it is going to take criminal action against a vessel that is operating out there in the high seas, and that vessel then turns round and challenges that because New Zealand has no right to pass those laws—those laws have no legal enforcement—then we leave taxpayers open. Actually, it is just really bloody embarrassing, quite frankly, that the Government cannot even work that out. This is why the bill should have gone to a select committee. We would have got answers to these very, very important questions.

My third question to which there was no answer is about the fact that we now, currently, have two criminal offence and penalty regimes operating in our territorial waters for vessels that are protesting. We have the Maritime Transport Act and the Crimes Act, which are already in place, and now we have this new protest ban. Mr Brownlee, maybe you can answer this question. When the police are called out to arrest someone for dangerous activity in our territorial waters, under which regime do they operate? Do they flip a coin? Which one gets precedence? It is a very simple question. Do you have an answer? No, I did not think so. No, I did not think so. I did not think so, because this is such a shambles, such—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What a load of grandstanding rubbish.

Oh, Mr Brownlee is very, very grumpy that he has to be here on a Saturday morning. Well, he should not have put such shoddy legislation into the urgency motion, then. This is just so utterly ridiculous and embarrassing that it defies belief. I want to know where the Attorney-General is on this. Where is Chris Finlayson? We have had no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this legislation. We have had no regulatory impact statement. We have had no ability to scrutinise the legislation at a select committee to see whether or not it is consistent with international law. Where is our Attorney-General? He is meant to be the protector of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this country, and he is derelict in, and absent from, his duty. We even had to be subjected to the spectacle of our Attorney-General coming down in the second reading debate, giving a speech defending this legislation, and insinuating, trying to give the pretence, that actually it had had a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. When we asked him to actually table it, it transpired that there was not one. It was all just a show to try to make it look like the Government had done the work it should have done, when it had not.

On top of that we do not have any regulatory impact statement for this piece of legislation. All we got was a regulatory impact statement for the previous bill. We do not know what the risks are, so I took it upon myself to draft a regulatory impact statement on behalf of the Government. It reaches the standard of quality that we have seen in the other statements in this urgency motion. This is it—this blanked-out document is what I think the regulatory impact statement on this piece of legislation would have looked like. It is very informative—very informative. It took me a long time to draft it. It is an official legal opinion. It is of far higher quality than any information any Government member has brought into the House during this debate. It is of far higher quality than any information our Attorney-General has brought into the House on this debate and the debate on the previous amendment bill. This is about the same level of information that we have had. This is about the same level of quality of information we have had on this piece of legislation. This is a shameful, shameful day for the House, and the Government should hang its head in shame.

I seek leave to correct a vote that I cast on behalf of the Māori Party on, in fact, all of the clauses during the Committee stage. I exercised two proxy votes in good faith, but no vote should have been cast.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to correct the vote. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Could the whip now just deliver the result of the changed vote? He is not now voting for the Māori Party?

The Māori Party votes were cast against each of the clauses. I should not have cast those votes, and I am afraid I was made aware of that only after I had done so.

On that basis, the correct result for each of those votes was Ayes 68, Noes 46.

I am pleased to stand in the third reading debate on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I am not quite sure whether New Zealanders would understand why the previous speaker, Moana Mackey, was holding up a picture of a barcode, but good on her, anyway. I thought it was her speech notes.

I would like to just raise a point, because the previous speaker has harped on in this debate a number of times about why we are even having an amendment bill and why we cannot just stay with what we used to have. She was part of the select committee process when we took on board the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, and we added into the bill matters around health and safety. We know that the industry of mining, whether it is under the ground, in open mines, or petroleum, is a very dangerous industry, and, obviously, history has shown that to us. We also know, of course, that the report of the team, the working group that Rob Jager from Shell New Zealand chaired, said that there were areas where we could see improvements take place.

So it is absolutely essential that we have revised legislation around these matters. It is responsible for us to do it; it is irresponsible for us not to. Let us make it very clear on that matter. We want men and women who go to our workplaces every day to come home safe at night, and that is through every industry, every sector, whether that is mining or whether that is agriculture. We know that a large number of people, sadly, are injured and, even worse, lose their lives in workplace accidents in this country. We, as a Government, are determined to reduce that so that we can have families that are united and do not lose loved ones.

The Government’s Business Growth Agenda supports New Zealand businesses to grow in order to create jobs. This piece of legislation is about that. It has incorporated in it very strong measures around how we interact with our environment. We know that in order for New Zealand to grow and prosper, for its economic activity to be lifted, and for New Zealanders to have what they want, we must engage, utilise, and exploit our natural resources in this country in an appropriate and a responsible way. I believe that this bill covers those areas and gets the balance right. I know there are all sorts of debates about where the point lies in that balance, but we believe, on this side of the House, that the Kiwi way of life is not just about enjoying our environment but about being able to afford to enjoy it. So we must have strong incomes and we must create jobs.

💬 Moana Mackey: Answer the questions we actually asked.

You know that, up in your neck of the woods, up there in Poverty Bay, you have potential and you have opportunity—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

The member understands what I have said. I believe also that she has been on the record as saying that she looks forward to the opportunities that exist through this. I am very pleased to stand in support of this legislation.

I say, on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources, that when omissions were noted and seen, he worked quickly to bring these to our attention and have them rectified. You know, we would certainly hear howls of derision and anger from the other side of the House if we knew and did nothing about them. I am sure that, as the member Andrew Williams has stated a number of times in his speeches, this is actually a good, responsible response to those issues. Thank you.

It is entirely possible to be tolerant of mistakes that people make for the first time in a new job, and often there is leeway given to people who do make mistakes as they get to grips with a new job. But the stakes are very high when it comes to this House. The stakes are very high when it comes to the legislation governing activities in this country.

This legislation, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, has been a complete debacle from beginning to end. The spin that the National Government is trying to put on this amendment bill to an amendment Act is just farcical. The spin now says: “Well, isn’t the Minister good that he spotted the mistakes?”, which he clearly did not; otherwise he would not have brought in an amendment bill in the parlous state that it was. The spin is: “Isn’t it good that he spotted those mistakes and he’s moved to correct them?”. In fact, he has moved so quickly to correct them that it is quite possible that this piece of legislation will come into effect before the amendment Act that it seeks to amend. He is so speedy about addressing these errors that he may find himself tripping up on the dates if he is not careful.

This is the modus operandi of this Government. The modus operandi of this Government is to sell our laws to allow big business to come in and exploit our resources without care about health and safety, because those provisions are weakened, and without care about our environment, because those provisions are weakened, and to say to everybody who looks like a company that will invest in oil and gas: “Come here. Our laws can be altered for you.” But this particular Minister has excelled even that modus operandi. He is now offering to oil and gas companies laws that we do not even have the right to make. He is offering to amend laws that we do not have the jurisdiction to make, in order to make it easy for oil and gas exploration companies to come and wreak havoc on our resources. In this respect not only is it a contempt of Parliament and a contempt of the democratic process, but it is a contempt of the rights of people to submit and have their views heard on this legislation.

The bill has been rammed through the House under urgency, for no particularly good reason. But what it shows is that this Government works for the benefit of vested interests, and works for the benefit of big business in the hope that it can find 170,000 jobs, which it promised some years ago and which it is failing—failing—to come anywhere near. In order to do that it will sell its mother to bring big business to this country and allow it complete free reign over our environment, over our health and safety standards, and now over the waters above the continental shelf, which we do not have jurisdiction to legislate over. So it is not only the laws that we make that are ours to make, but the laws that we are making that are not ours to make.

I want to go to the question about protests—the curtailing of people’s legitimate right to protest. Through this whole debate we have not had the privilege of an answer to any question we have raised. We have not had any member opposite get up and justify this Minister’s bill, because, first of all, it is not justifiable, but, secondly, they are so contemptuous of the process in this House that the only chance they give for this bill to be scrutinised is in this Chamber, and never mind that 35,000 people submitted on the previous legislation, which was then amended by an amendment Act, which we are now amending—if people can keep up with that.

I am concerned that they are vesting democratic rights to protest in big business, because it seems to me that the 500-metre exclusion zone that any protest vessel must have from an exploratory vessel, or an oil and gas vessel—let us just put it that way—means it must stay 500 metres from the corporate-interest vessel. We can only assume that as the corporate-interest vessel moves around, the 500-metre zone goes with it. So it could push protest vessels back on to shore. Is there no way in which people can ever get closer than 500 metres, even if the corporate vessel breaches the 500-metre limit?

We can have people protesting, but not within 500 metres. I presume that means that the democratic right to protest has now been lodged with corporate interests. So it is corporate interests that now have the benefit of dictating where New Zealanders might protest, because as they move around they have this protection zone of 500 metres, within which no one can protest.

This is shabby law. It is offensive law. It is sloppy law. It has been a chapter of errors from the beginning, and the Minister seems to be incompetent and inadequate to the task. This really does lay down a new level of ministerial incompetence, the likes of which we have not seen before. It is a shame, because the National Party does have a proud heritage of its own, which it can defend. In fact it was 77 years ago this week that the National Party was first founded—77 years ago the National Party was founded. The leader at the time was, of course—who was the leader of the National Party at the time? Who was the first leader?

💬 Tim Macindoe: Adam Hamilton.

Excellent—you pass. Adam Hamilton was the first leader of the party. He is described by the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography as lacking charisma. However, he was a Southland farmer. He moved a motion of no confidence in Michael Joseph Savage at the time. Well, that was an epic fail. That is the only thing that this Minister has in common with what has been, up until now, a proud history for the National Party, in its own terms.

This bill is a travesty. This Minister is incompetent. This Minister does the National Party’s reputation no good, even in its own terms. He does it no good. But worse than that—and I am not here to defend the National Party’s heritage, but, you know, somebody has to; this Minister clearly is not—this is an offence against democratic rights to protest, which are now being vested in corporate interests. So as long as the Shell ship, or whatever it is, is cruising around, everybody has to stay 500 metres away. Why is there not a provision that makes the corporate ship liable if it gets within 500 metres of a protest ship—

💬 Moana Mackey: And acts dangerously.

—and behaves dangerously? If this is about safety at sea, why does it not apply to all ships? This is not about safety at sea; this is about selling our legislation to corporate interests, it is about selling legislation that we are not even entitled to make to corporate interests, and it is an affront to the democratic process and the rights of citizens in New Zealand. This bill is a travesty from beginning to end, and the National Party members opposite are just sitting there, riding out the time for this bill. We have not had the courtesy of any answers, and that goes to how they treat the process in this House. Thank you.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to oppose the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. Because we are sitting under urgency on a Saturday, I have got babysitting duties and had to bring my kids to Parliament. They are in the parents’ room at the moment. Coming down to the Chamber I was thinking about why it is important to oppose this bill going through under urgency. It is not a cliché, but it is because of my kids.

As a parent, the best moments I believe you can have as a Kiwi parent are playing with your kids on the beach. It is such an iconic Kiwi experience, and, by George, we have got some amazing beaches around this country, and I do not want to see that special experience destroyed for New Zealanders. I know that this afternoon thousands of Kiwis are going to the beaches to draw a line in the sand against this Government’s deep-sea drilling agenda. Hundreds of New Zealanders are joining hands across the beach, in about a dozen cities, I understand. I am going to be there with my children. We are drawing a line in the sand. We are saying that if the Government cannot guarantee that it can deal with a spill, if the Government cannot guarantee that it can avoid a catastrophic deep-sea spill, we should not be doing it.

What we know is that this Government is opening up huge acreage, with 189,000 square kilometres opened up a fortnight ago for tender mostly for deep-sea oil drilling permits. What we know is that the deeper you go and the deeper you drill, the more the risks are magnified. The industry itself says that it operates at the frontiers of technology, geology, and geography. Just last week Lord Browne, the former chair of BP, said that the risks for deep-sea oil drilling are too high.

That is why I am opposing this bill, because what this bill is doing, through a bad, ridiculous, embarrassing process, and through a shocking, shoddy parliamentary process, is just encouraging greater speculation in the industry. It is inviting cowboys to come down to New Zealand and be a risk to our environment and our beaches. The risks are too high, yet the Government is trying to clamp down on protests.

A couple of years ago when the Rena spill occurred, with those 350 tonnes of oil, what we saw was New Zealand woefully unprepared to deal with a spill. Yet the Government still nominated its oil spill capacity to be only 5,500 tonnes. What we know is that a deep-sea well blowout could release 600,000 tonnes. In America they had 40,000 people working on a spill. We have got 400 trained responders. In America they had 1,000 vessels. In New Zealand we have got three dinghies. In America they had everything in place, but it was still catastrophic and cost $40 billion. Yet this Government says that the maximum penalties are only $10 million and a company has to have insurance of only $30 million.

The Government cannot guarantee that we will not see a spill. The Government is not prepared; it is not protecting the taxpayer from liability. That is why we are opposing this bill—this ridiculous bill that just shows the incompetence of the Minister of Energy and Resources. Here we are, a matter of weeks after the Crown Minerals Amendment Act was passed. Before it has even come into effect, the Government is having to modify it to fix up the mistakes. But it is worse than that because, through urgency, it is trying to slip in some sneaky changes to benefit its mates in the oil industry.

The Government has no vision for this economy. It would rather gamble with our environment, gamble with our fishing industry, gamble with our tourism industry, and gamble with that important Kiwi experience of enjoying a beach with your kids. It is going to gamble with that to support its mates, because it has got no vision. But there is a better way. We should be encouraging clean energy, manufacturing jobs, and a smart, innovative economy, but the Government is not doing that. It is putting all the eggs in this basket. What you see is the Government cutting special deals. That is why under urgency it is passing amending legislation to amend legislation that still has not come into effect, with no select committee process, no regulatory impact statement, and, in fact, no actual answers in the Committee stage.

The only parliamentary scrutiny our country has is the ability to question the Minister and his officials. Yet the Minister refused to take a single call, and neither did any National member take a call, in the Committee stage. This is, quite simply, lawmaking at its worst. But what we are gambling with is our environment and our economy. What the substantive amendments contained in this amendment bill do is encourage speculation. Once this bill is passed and signed into law, to apply successfully for a permit companies do not have to have the financial capability to be able to do the work they are promising to do. Let us say that again: you do not have to have the financial capability to do the work you are promising to do—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Not the Speaker.

Apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is deeply worrying because what we are doing is encouraging speculation in the industry. The Government’s oil drilling agenda has been so woefully unsuccessful. With Petrobras leaving, Apache Corporation leaving, and Anadarko delaying all its work, the Government is trying to look as though it is busy by encouraging a proliferation of small players to speculate in the industry, because the plan has been just so unsuccessful. The second point is that what we are seeing—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ha! The member has scared them off.

Well, Mr Brownlee, I am quite happy to have taken a strong stance, along with the majority of New Zealanders. Remember that 99 percent of Kiwis in the regulations submissions said it should be a prohibited activity because you cannot guarantee it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

And, Mr Assistant Speaker, what we are seeing is this Government making it easier to get a deep-sea oil permit without the technical capability. Let us say that again. You do not have to have experience of knowing how to drill a well to get a deep-sea drill permit under National. What we see this Government saying—and we saw John Key a month ago saying—is that it is not going to invite cowboys down to New Zealand, but this is exactly what this legislation rammed through under urgency does. It is about getting cowboys to come down to New Zealand to speculate. We do not want people learning how to drill on the job—we do not want people learning how to drill on the job. The Government is gambling with our economy and gambling with our environment. It is not on because there are better ways forward.

Just lastly, what we see is clause 14 being sneaked through by Minister Bridges. Originally, Parliament saw the traditional New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and select committee processes bypassed through the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper. Now the Government is using urgency to amend something—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have members who do not have the floor interjecting on each other. If they want a call, that is fine. They can do it later on. But they know it is out of order and it is discourteous to the member who is trying to speak. Courtesy is contagious, members.

Let us hope the National members can take a call and talk about the substance, so that they can talk about why they are weakening our permit rules, why they are weakening our regulations, and why they are risking and gambling with our environment.

The important breach of human rights and, I believe, international law is in clause 14, which they are sneaking through. They are sneaking through under urgency something that had no scrutiny because they snuck it through in an amendment to the previous legislation. This is not on. Eminent legal professors have said that. What they are doing is extending their five new criminal provisions, the so-called Anadarko amendment introduced through a Supplementary Order Paper, out into the continental shelf.

This is interesting because New Zealand does not actually have jurisdiction over the continental shelf—if you look at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website, look at the Ministry for the Environment website, and look at the conflicts wracking China, Japan, and the Arctic countries that are debating this very issue at the moment—but the Government is quite prepared to unilaterally run ahead and say: “Oh, sure we don’t have jurisdiction, but we’re going to apply laws that relate only to the oil industry, that relate only to protest.” It is so scared of protest—it is sending the message that protest is effective and it is laying down a challenge to protestors that the industry is scared of the work they are doing—that it is prepared to run roughshod over New Zealanders’ human rights. It is an honourable tradition, which the former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, Peter Williams QC, and Dame Anne Salmond, New Zealander of the Year, have said is such a fundamental part of New Zealand and such an honourable tradition.

The Government is ramming through and extending these egregious powers over an extended 1.7 million square kilometres of the continental shelf. It is deeply worrying because it is a breach of human rights. It is deeply worrying because it is going to have international geopolitical ramifications. New Zealand is unilaterally running ahead, extending its jurisdiction. What we are seeing is all in support of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, which only a fortnight ago said it is going to be applying for a permit—where else but the continental shelf.

This is a worrying precedent we are seeing from this Government. We are seeing laws being made for Hollywood. We are seeing laws being made for casinos. We are seeing laws being made for the industry by the industry. This is not on. It is not what Kiwis expect. This Government has got tens of millions of dollars in subsidies, pages and pages of tax exemptions, free research support, free support from officials, and legislation being passed for the industry. It even calls out the navy to support Petrobras in the oil industry. This Government is sending out a very important message: “Drill, baby, drill!”. New Zealand is open if you are a foreign offshore oil company.

What about the wind industry? What about the manufacturing industry? What about the geothermal industry? This Government is sending the message that this is not a level playing field. It is going to subsidise, support, and do anything it can to support one particular industry, because it has got no vision. It would rather risk our environment and gamble that someone will find something somewhere, and that will be our path to prosperity. It is not, because we have got the fourth-lowest royalty rate in the world. We know from Taranaki that we are going to see hardly any jobs.

What we know is we are going to see all the profits flow offshore. The Government’s own report says 90 percent of the profits are going to flow offshore. That means hardly any jobs, hardly any taxes, hardly any royalties, and profits flowing offshore, yet risking our environment. Why does the Government not listen to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report that said there is a $22 billion clean-energy opportunity? Why does it not listen to the Pure Advantage report that says there is a $6 trillion clean-tech industry that we could be getting a slice of? But no, this Government would rather keep its head in the sand and bend over backwards to follow this disturbing trend.

This is lawmaking at its worst. There is a better way. The Green Party is offering solutions to make New Zealand a richer place and to enhance those beautiful beach experiences for Kiwi families.

I rise to take a quick call on the third reading of this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. This National Government was elected to provide an environment where jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders would be created. When you talk to people out in the communities, out in the streets of Auckland, in the provinces and rural communities, what do they want? They want jobs. They want opportunities. They want independence for their families.

What we have just heard from Gareth Hughes and Clint and his mates is that they do not want jobs. They do not want to create opportunities for people out in our communities. I challenge Clint and Gareth Hughes to come out and talk to people out in the communities that I represent. What they want is jobs. They want to feed their families. They want to clothe their families. They want to educate their kids, to live a Kiwi lifestyle that they have been used to. I challenge Gareth Hughes to do that. This petroleum and minerals industry employs 7,000 people—$1.8 billion. It has the potential to create 40,000 more jobs and $12 billion a year for our country. That is what it has the potential to do, and this Government supports that notion that we should be providing jobs for those people in our communities. I support this bill because it is our future. It is about our families, our communities, and their independence, and, particularly, it is about our children. I commend this bill to the House.

I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. We have been looking at this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, last night and now again today, on Saturday, and we are coming to the end. I would like to add the views of New Zealand First, which, as always, are the common-sense views, the level-headed views, and the views that I believe the majority of New Zealanders would wish to see in this House.

We have heard opinions and viewpoints from all extremities, but at the end of the day a great deal of it is a lot of red herrings and a lot of diversions away from the fact that New Zealand is fortunate to be sitting on a very significant resource. For a population of 4.5 million people we are in a very, very fortunate place in the world to have an enormous resource and an enormous potential that, if you ask most New Zealanders, we certainly cannot just ignore. We must take the opportunities we are given and look at those opportunities in a very sensible, sustainable, and responsible way. It must be done, and we all agree—every New Zealander—that we would not wish for the environment to be in any way damaged and we would not wish for us to put our jewel in the Crown, our wonderful environment, at risk. At the same time, if it is done sensibly and responsibly, there is enormous potential to improve the wealth, the prosperity, and the well-being of all New Zealanders as a result.

In this regard New Zealand First has supported this bill in most areas, but we did, you will note, vote against one aspect, and that was the aspect in relation to protests on the high seas. That is one area where New Zealand First cannot agree with the Government, because we do believe still in the freedom to protest. We could not, in our own conscience, vote for something that would take away that right of New Zealanders. I have mentioned in this House in the past that we can recall the frigates the Otago and the Taranaki going off to Mururoa Atoll, being sent by our Government to protest on the high seas about atmospheric testing in French Polynesia. Our Government sent those vessels. Likewise, I can remember when the Haddo was coming up the harbour in Auckland, and New Zealanders were out there protesting. So we are a nation of free protest, and we do respect that. New Zealand First could not go along with that part of this bill, because we still believe in the right of New Zealanders to protest anywhere, as long as they are keeping a lawful manner. To protest is their inherent right. That is why we have plaques on the walls of this Chamber representing the many great battles that New Zealanders have given their lives for, such as Passchendaele, Messines, Egypt, and Gallipoli. Therefore we do uphold the right of people to defend the rights of their country, but also to defend the rights of freedom of speech.

Back on to the Crown minerals. We do agree that there were some significant errors in the original Crown Minerals Amendment Act that needed rectifying. This legislation was put down to be enacted next week on 24 May. It was then found that there were some errors in the original drafting, which, if they were not sorted out with this amendment bill, in fact by next week, would cause some real complications in terms of the original Crown Minerals Act.

It was simple. The main premise, the big one, of this whole bill was the fact that the tier 1 applicants potentially would not be able to operate after 24 May if this amendment bill was not put through, because they are not always necessarily the final company that does the exploration, the drilling, the actual mining, or whatever it is. Often they are scout companies. As I mentioned in the House last night, they are the forerunners that go out, look at the opportunities, look at the potential of the resource, do the research, do the initial exploration, and do the initial fact-finding to see whether there is something actually there to take forward. If they do establish that, then often that is when other major international investors, and indeed New Zealand investors, would get involved and perhaps take it to the next stage. They were going to be excluded under the original amendment Act, and it could have meant that many, many operators in New Zealand could literally have had to cease operations because they would have found that they were not compliant with the original Act.

That would have been an unacceptable situation. That would have potentially cost jobs in this country. That would have potentially cost investment in this country, and that would not be a good thing. New Zealand First would not condone doing something that would result in New Zealanders potentially losing work, losing opportunities, and losing jobs. That would not be a good thing. We do support the bill in that respect.

But as I mentioned in the House last night, our support is contingent also on, hopefully, in the future there being a review in other areas of this whole minerals and resource taking within New Zealand. We in New Zealand First firmly believe that for the country to truly prosper from the taking of minerals, both onshore and offshore, all New Zealanders must benefit from it. In particular, we believe that where New Zealanders and where regions and where provinces are affected by the taking of those resources and the taking of those minerals, they, in turn, should receive a significant amount of the benefit back. The Crown should not just take the royalties, and they should not just disappear into a big black hole in Wellington, just to be used to pay for other activities of Government and to prop up other areas of Government. They should be returned to where the minerals were taken from.

In that respect, New Zealand First has put out a policy in the last month or so where we would, if we had the opportunity to have influence over this, ensure that 25 percent of the royalties taken by the Crown for the minerals would be returned back to the region and back to the province from where they were taken.

That would help those regions to underwrite and pay for some of the infrastructure—such as roading, such as local infrastructure, and such as good facilities for their communities and amenities for their communities—to, in some way, offset their own costs but also to compensate them for some of the downside of the effects of mining or minerals extraction or exploration or drilling in their particular regions. We think it is a win-win. We have had extremely good feedback from around New Zealand on this. We think it is a positive thing. We think New Zealanders would get on board. We actually think that in order to take New Zealanders with us, to take New Zealanders forward and see a benefit in exploration, to see a benefit in mining, and to see a benefit in taking mineral resources from our wonderful country, all New Zealanders should benefit, and New Zealand First would certainly ensure that that was the case.

Just in closing, New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We do believe in jobs, we do believe in employment, and we do believe in taking this country forward.

Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and support this Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill at its third reading. This Government has got a very focused growth agenda. It is ensuring that this economy grows and jobs are created for New Zealanders. I agree with Andrew Williams that we need infrastructure. We need schools, roads—all those things. This Government has been working on this for the last 4 years or 5 years. I can assure you that this will continue, and it will support all the job opportunities being created. I commend this bill to the House.

I once again rise to speak on the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. I would like to invoke our good and well-loved late friend Parekura Horomia, who, when asked early in his political career in the House about a particular piece of legislation on a very important and topical issue of the day, responded in terms that were regarded then as parliamentary, so, hopefully, they will be regarded as parliamentary today. He said that he wanted a piece of legislation that could not be frigged around with. What has happened with this legislation is completely the opposite. We have not had a good quality piece of legislation, and it has been frigged around with. Yet again we are asked to do exactly that today because this Government cannot and will not get it right. We are in the extraordinary situation of having a reasonably comprehensive amendment bill to an amendment Act that has itself not yet taken effect. If that does not tell you about the quality of the management of legislation through this House, then I am not quite sure what will.

Earlier in this third reading debate Jonathan Young said that the changes in this bill were necessary for health and safety in the industry. Well, that is just patently not correct. The thing about that is that this Government has finally started to take health and safety seriously. It could not do anything other than that. It had the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy saying that things were in a parlous state and something had to change. It had its own committee chaired by the very good, the very great Rob Jager, himself the head of an oil company in this country, Shell Todd Oil Services, who recommended radical change to our health and safety approach. Nothing in this bill is going to make a single bit of difference to health and safety. We need a comprehensive approach, and, if anything, what this bill will do is make it worse, because the health and safety oversight required under—I have to get this right—not the primary legislation, but the amendment Act that we are now amending, is itself pretty weak. It is pretty light. It simply requires the Minister to be satisfied that it is likely that a permit applicant has the technical capability and the financial means to do the job. There is no objective standard to it, and it, of course, requires the Minister merely to be satisfied. That is a pretty low standard. With all due respect to the members in this House, that is a pretty low standard, in reality.

What this bill then does is split that up. It says that whereas before the Minister had to be satisfied about technical capability and financial means throughout the entire process up to exploration drilling, now we will split that up, and we will say: “Listen, if you have got the technical capability and the financial means for the prospecting aspect of it, we will just let you go then and come back to us for the next bit.” And then all of a sudden what apparently this bill contemplates is that if, when the Halliburtons, the Schlumbergers, and the Shells have got their initial permit and the Minister’s satisfaction as to technical and financial capability, they come back and say: “That’s it. There are barrels under there. The black gold is going to flow. We want to come back for the rest of it.”, now the Minister is going to be able to stand up and say: “Uh-uh, you’ve now got to show me a second round of technical and financial capability.” There is just no way, on the track record of this Government, that we can be sure that any Minister in this Government is going to be able to stand up to a Schlumberger, a Shell, or a Halliburton and say: “Oh no, you’ve got to stop what you’re doing now because you’ve got to have better than what you’ve got now, even though I approved it last time.” That is incredible. So what this bill does is it weakens that level of oversight at a time when we are meant to be being convinced that this Government is taking health and safety seriously. This goes in totally the opposite direction, and that is why it is wrong. That is why we are opposing it.

Mr Lotu-Iiga in his speech said that it is all about providing jobs. He trotted out the old repeated assertion that the parties in Opposition do not want jobs for people, which is completely ridiculous. He might want to know—and Jonathan Young knows this as well as I do—that we have had probably the best summer of oil exploration and oil industry activity in many years in Taranaki in the summer just gone, and you know what the most recent employment statistics show? Unemployment in Taranaki went up by 500. In the last—

💬 Su’a William Sio: How much?

Five hundred. Five hundred more jobless in Taranaki in the last year after the best summer season of oil industry activity we have seen in many years. This is not the panacea. This is not the gold at the end of the rainbow that this Government trots out. Let us do this activity because, yes, there is the possibility of generating some value. But this is not the answer to New Zealand’s long-term economic structural problems. We have got to get past that. Until we have people in office in Government and on the Treasury benches who understand that New Zealand has deep-seated, long-term structural economic problems, and are prepared to do something about it, then life ain’t going to be too good for us in 5 years’ or 10 years’ time. This is not going to cure it. This is not the cure. But while we have an oil and gas industry and while we have Ministers who have responsibility for providing oversight, then the least, I think, New Zealand expects is that we will operate to world’s best practice. This bill will not do that. It does the opposite. It is a highly subjective approach, a highly subjective test that will not ensure that we have the best possible not only health and safety but also environmental standards operating when it comes to oil and gas, both prospecting and exploration.

And then the other insidious aspect of this bill is the conceit in it. It is this attempt to legislate for something that we simply do not know we have the power to legislate for, and that is control or management of all the water above the continental shelf. We have had evidence before this House in this urgent procedure that suggests that it is hugely doubtful whether we can even pass this law, or at least pass a law and hope that it has meaningful effect. We do not have a response from the Minister of Energy and Resources. The Minister sat in the chair all through the Committee stage and did not respond to a single point that was raised—legitimate points backed up by evidence. We have not had the benefit of a select committee process where we can call upon the officials, professionals, and independent advisers. We have not had the benefit of that, and we are ramming this through roughshod, as Mr Henare was concerned to hear earlier in this debate. It is being rammed through roughshod, and he knows what that is. He would have seen that a few times in his time as a union official, I know, because in his day, when he was a union official, ramming things through roughshod was the only way they did things. I was a union official in the democratic days of the union movement. Things were all sweetness and light—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: When was that?

—and it was good. And we did good things.

💬 Hon Members: Just after he left.

Just after Tau Henare left—that is right. So it is not possible—[Interruption] That is right—wore the leather jackets up to the Marsden Point oil refinery. We know how it operated. That was just for the clerical workers. We know how it worked. We are concerned. We did good things and the union members of Taranaki, including the bits of Taranaki that fall in the electorate of the member opposite, Shane Ardern—they were happy people and good people, people who worked at Motunui and the Waitara Valley plant in the days when it fell in a different electorate. But it is in New Plymouth now, in its rightful place, and things are going well.

We are opposed to this legislation because it treats with contempt the people in the oil and gas industry, particularly those who are working at the coalface and doing the dangerous work. It treats with contempt those who wish to exercise their right to dissent to activities that are happening and raise a voice of protest. It treats with contempt the very members of this House and the lawmaking procedures that we are elected to do and to fulfil in good faith and with proper information and good process. It treats all of that with contempt. It is a bad bill. It is a wrong bill. And this will be a day of shame for this House when this bill goes through.

Wo hen hao, xiexie. I believe that my colleague Jonathan Young knows Taranaki much, much better than the previous speaker, Mr Andrew Little. So when Jonathan says that Mr Little is wrong, Mr Little must be wrong.

As I said at the first reading, the aim of this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, is to encourage the safe and sensible development of Crown-owned minerals by streamlining and simplifying the Crown minerals regulatory regime, and by ensuring better coordination of regulatory agencies. This bill provides commercial certainty to operators who obtained their mining licences under earlier regimes and who are covered by transitional arrangements. It also clarifies how data confidentiality and reporting requirements will apply to all existing privilege holders. Under Labour, no real action was taken to regulate offshore extraction of oil, gas, and mineral resources, and/or to protect our seas.

This bill shows that the National-led Government is developing our resources in a responsible manner. It will create higher-paid jobs, raise our standards of living, and build a more productive economy for all New Zealanders. So I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

I advise the House that this is a split call. [Interruption] Have we finished? Good. I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.

There is no rush, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is all right, is it? I cannot hear you.

You are quite correct, it is a split call. Could I just commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Dr Jian Yang, and say that he made a more valuable contribution to the debate than has the Minister of Energy and Resources throughout these entire proceedings. Throughout the first reading, the second reading, the Committee stage, and now the third reading the Minister has not made a single contribution of any value at all to this debate. I think that is really doing a disservice not only to the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill but actually to his colleagues and to the House. I think that Parliament should be treated in a better way, in a more respectful way than that. The Hon Simon Bridges has, I think, let the National Party team down in this great week of its 77th anniversary as a political party in New Zealand.

In terms of both the process of this bill and the content, I am very pleased to be joining my Labour colleagues in opposing it. When looking first of all at the process, members have been quite puzzled by the name of this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, which will become the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Act 2013. It sounds like someone did a cut and paste and made an error in the name of it, but the reason it is called such an unusual name is that this bill, which we have debated now through all stages under urgency, amends mistakes—fixes mistakes—in legislation that has not even come into force yet.

We warned the Government at the time to take care with the detail. Oh no, the Hon Simon Bridges was so keen to get his name on a bit of law that was passed through its third reading that he totally ignored all the consideration of the House, and made a whole lot of mistakes, and now he has suddenly come back to Parliament and said: “I’ve got to fix them under urgency.” Well, that would not be so bad. He is new at the job and he is human, he can make mistakes, and we would be happy to fix them up. But he did not do just that. He then took the opportunity of a Budget measure being put through under urgency to make significant changes to the substantive legislation.

The first one is of huge concern, and that is that it reduces the health and safety, the environmental, and the financial security considerations around oil and gas exploration. That is a step in the wrong direction, after the Commerce Committee took such care over the health and safety considerations in the previous legislation. It is insulting to the select committee, which worked so hard. The select committee reconvened to look at the outcomes from the Pike River inquiry, and ensured that they were incorporated into the legislation on a pretty across-all-parties basis, actually, and in a very open way. I commend Jonathan Young, the chair, for his leading of that process. And then Simon Bridges just biffs it all out. Those considerations are a bit hard for the industry, so he reduces them all.

The second part of what this bill does—other than fixing up the mistakes of Simon Bridges—is it extends the protest ban. The most controversial part of the last legislation was that this new protest ban was introduced, but not for health and safety—not for health and safety. That was what the Minister said at the time: “Oh, we care so much about health and safety, we’re going to introduce this protest ban.” If that were the case, it would have been exactly the same health and safety ban on all vessels, but it is not, it is just on protest vessels, and it covered the exclusive economic zone. That has now been extended to cover the continental shelf—the water above the continental shelf. That is extraordinary.

It is very clear from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice on its website that New Zealand does not have jurisdiction over that water. We do not have the right to pass laws in relation to activity in that water. But, oh no, Simon Bridges, mastermind of this Parliament, has decided he knows better than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he knows better than all the advice. So now we have a reduction in the health and safety, the environmental, and the financial security considerations in regard to exploration and we have an extension of a protest ban into an area that we do not have jurisdiction over, and that is why this bill should be thrown out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to draw a matter to your attention to do with standard of dress in the Chamber. I see there is a member opposite who has graced the Chamber with his presence this morning wearing a jersey. It is correct that he is also wearing a jacket over the top of it, but I understood the required standard of dress was business attire. I have had a lot of dealings in business settings over many years. I have not yet seen a business person, man or woman, wearing a jersey in a business setting. I just wonder whether you might consider whether or not the member is suitably dressed for this Chamber.

I think that is a most frivolous contribution from the member, and not one that you should give any time to whatsoever. I notice members—[Interruption] I am speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have a point of order.

I notice members in the Chamber—there was one member in the Chamber today dressed in a denim suit. Apparently that works.

💬 Brendan Horan: Who’s that?

Well, if you look around—looking over there at one of our colleagues—it is somewhat sartorial. But, none the less, if we are going to start doing these things, there are other members—I have always thought that there is a huge gap between the dress standards for male and female members in here, but this is not a way to raise it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

It is not an appropriate time to raise it, and I would ask you to please ignore it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Well, I guess it is Saturday morning. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I would like, sort of unusually, to join with Gerry Brownlee, not in his negative comments about my colleague Andrew Little but on the substance of the point of order. I think you will be aware, because you were here when urgency used to be a regular feature of Saturdays, that the Saturday business dress tended to be slightly less formal—as it is in most businesses—than it might be Monday to Thursday or, in some cases, on Friday. I think Speakers have taken a more relaxed attitude on a Friday. I can remember Roger Douglas here in a jacket and a jersey. He apparently had a collar and tie underneath but the jersey was polo neck so you could not even tell.

Thank you.

💬 Brendan Horan: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I do not need any more help. I have listened to the contributions from all sides. I realise it is Saturday morning and we would probably rather be somewhere else. [Interruption] Order! I am on feet. Recognising that the member might be cold, I accept that sometimes we do need to wear a jersey under a suit.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s top-class merino.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not going to get into what class it is. Who was on their feet? I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage.

Speaking to the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill, I say that the Green Party opposes this bill. It is a very troubling bill, and there are a number of reasons for that. One of them is that it is being pushed through under urgency, with no scrutiny—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the member’s tie? Coming into the House in an open-neck shirt.

—and no ability for the public to comment. Yes, I am wearing a pink shirt. It was Pink Shirt Day yesterday. I am a day late, and that is because we are still on Thursday.

When we are dealing with bills under urgency, when there is no opportunity for the public to comment or for a select committee to engage with a bill, we have only the collective intelligence of members of Parliament in this Chamber. So it has been particularly disturbing that during the Committee stage of the bill we have had no Government members standing up to defend the bill and to engage with the issues that the Opposition has raised. What is even more disturbing is that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Energy and Resources, never answered any of the questions that the Opposition was asking. So when it is down to us—because the Government has excluded others from engaging with this bill—we should engage. The Opposition has engaged, and has flagged some very troubling aspects of the bill, but Government members have not engaged during the Committee stage. That is very disturbing.

It is also disturbing that we did not have a regulatory impact statement, apart from the one that Moana Mackey produced and held up, with a series of black lines on it. Without a regulatory impact statement, there has not been an honest effort to explain the implications of the bill. So it has been left to the Opposition to highlight the problems caused by clause 14 and the way in which it extends to the high seas the five criminal offences that were created by the Anadarko Supplementary Order Paper to the principal Act.

Without a regulatory impact statement there has been no examination of how this clashes with our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which New Zealand has signed up to, nor on what basis the Government is purporting to establish new criminal offences in an area where we do not have the jurisdiction to do so. But because the bill has not gone to a select committee, we have not been able to engage with officials.

This law that we are passing today is potentially null and void if it overrides and does not implement our international obligations. Yet at no point did the Minister rise to explain what he thought was the jurisdictional basis for doing that. It is interesting that when you look at the comparable Australian legislation, which is the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, that legislation provides for a 500-metre no-go zone around oil rigs and similar structures, but there is no provision in the Australian legislation for a no-go zone for vessels. That is obviously because Australia understands the requirement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the fact that that preserves freedom of navigation on the high seas.

So why does the Government feel that it has to go so far and potentially breach our international obligations, when there are already numerous international instruments, and the Maritime Transport Act, that address this whole issue of safety of navigation and vessels? Why? It is because under this Government we have a Government that has morphed from being nanny State, as it accused the former Labour Government of being, to being strong-arm State—one that is intolerant of dissent, that is contemptuous of the democratic process, and that wants to ensure that people have no opportunity or minimal opportunity to disagree with it. It is prepared to criminalise legitimate protest on the high seas against the Government’s flawed economic agenda, which relies so heavily on the exploitation of resources. It is prepared to cut across the whole tradition of dissent and protest on the high seas that is upheld in other international treaties. This is a bad bill. The Green Party is opposing it.

I rise to oppose this third reading of the “Crown Minerals Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment to the Amendment Bill”. I do so because this is a DIY job. It is a fix-up job, and not a very good one at that. The same thing is actually happening outside the front of Parliament as is happening here in the debating chamber. [Interruption] We can wait for this member to be told off. I do not mind waiting for a few seconds. But—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That member has certainly been told off.

Outside—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: He sleeps in a dogbox. He lives at the back of the House, under a rock, where he belongs.

Mr Brownlee, that is the trouble with your side of the House. There are too many lips flapping. You cannot learn anything while your lips are flapping. You need to have those ears opening. Too bad “Big Ears” is not here.

Outside, the Beehive roof is being replaced because the current roof is not fit for purpose, just like that side of the House. The roof is being replaced in copper. How much is that costing—$3 million? Well, there you go. That is how much minerals cost, because that is Crown mineral copper. It is a Crown mineral, but this Government would just give it away to anybody who comes along. Who is out there? Who is going to be mining? Trans-Tasman Resources. Can somebody help me? Who is on the board of Trans-Tasman Resources? Who is that woman? Is it not Ms Shipley? Could that be right? Ms Shipley? I am just pulling out splinters again, wondering how many boards that woman is on. But here we are on a Saturday morning because the Minister’s performance is not fit for purpose either.

What I wonder—and as I said earlier, there are some members over on that side whom I greatly respect—is how those members could possibly support overseas interests, foreigners, coming in and plundering our natural resources. These minerals have taken millions of years to accumulate. There are no regulatory impact reports, and the fisheries have not been consulted. We do not know what effect it is going to have. If we have a look at open mining on land we may get an idea, because this Government is used to subterfuge. Can you imagine the effect on our ecological systems when all of that iron ore and sand is removed? And I have not even begun to touch on mining.

This Government has proven that it cannot remove oil from a ship on a rock, so how is it going to remove oil that is leaking from the seabed, at 1,500 metres under the seabed, or even if it is 400 metres under? How long is it going to take rescue teams to get there? Where is the infrastructure for us to support this? But, most important, what is going to be the impact, and what are we getting out of it anyway? One to 2 percent profit, about which some foreign company will come and say: “This is what we made.” In the case of Trans-Tasman Resources, where it brings in the big Chinese ship and it takes out as much iron ore as it wants, what else is it taking out, and, again, what is the effect on our ecosystems? Ecosystems are very fragile, and we wonder what is going to happen.

This is an appalling bill. It is a sell-out. It is a sell-out for New Zealand. It is a sell-out of our children’s future, of our heritage. Some of these members may not know what it is like under the water. I do not know when they were last in the surf. But when you dive under a wave—and I can tell you this actually—if you dive under a big wave, you can see the water swirling. As it swirls, you see the sand moving, and within that sand are crustaceans. There is all sorts of sea life. And as those crustaceans are floating around and the shellfish are floating around, in come the fish and that is how they feed.

💬 Grant Robertson: Why isn’t Mark Mitchell speaking right now?

Well, I am just giving a little basic demonstration of how an ecosystem works in the ocean. Have members on that side even considered the impact on our fisheries? [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Thank you. I fail to understand how those members who have a conscience can possibly support this bill. You have seen what happened in the Rena case. There is oil still floating up, and when the wind is in a north-easterly direction, as it is today at Mount Maunganui, and the surf is up, I can go out there and I will still come in with specks of oil on my board. The shellfish off Tauranga have not been fit to eat since the Rena disaster. The shellfish have not been fit to eat since the Rena disaster, but you do not see that in the papers. Why not? Why do you not see it?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s largely not true, that’s why.

There are a number of reasons why you cannot. Actually, Mr Brownlee, go and see the local doctors. Go and see Dr Tingey. He will tell you about all the gastro cases that he has seen, where people have been eating shellfish and have gotten food poisoning. In Mount Maunganui it is tragic what the Rena has done, and the ongoing effects.

What is going to happen if we get a disaster with oil leaking out to sea? This Government cannot fix it up. Where are the booms to protect? Where are the rescue teams to clean up the mess? This mess will be cleaned up after the next election, when a new Government comes in—one with a social conscience, one with an environmental conscience, and one with—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: And one without Brendan Horan.

I will be here. Do not worry, Mr Brownlee. I will be here, because I have got an environmental conscience. You would be surprised that there are a lot of people in New Zealand who support my being here.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Name 28 of them.

Ha, ha! But I digress. I would like to again explain what is happening to our environment, and what is happening to New Zealand when good people have to go along and follow a bill that is clearly wrong. It is clearly wrong, and it has not even come into effect. Here we are, rushing through the night, trying to pass amendments to the legislation. It is not well worked. It is not very well organised. That is why one of the National members departed. It was not because of a glass of wine; it was because somebody showed their office, their electorate office, on television and exposed this Government as being totally disorganised, just as this bill, the writing of this bill, shows that this Government cannot do one thing right. Do not let me even start on housing. How are you going to build 39,000 houses in Auckland? How are you going to do that? You are completely disorganised.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Irrelevancy.

Well, it is relevant because some of those roofs will have copper spouting, which is a Crown mineral—they will. This Government says there are going to be 39,000 houses, and there are a lot of Crown minerals in that. But, guess what—we will be buying them from overseas interests. Thank you.