Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1.

Madam Chair, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to speak on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This is, as you will know, something we don’t support, although we did support the bill through the select committee process to ensure that it got through with its amendments. But we don’t support the bill, as I said. We think it goes too far, and, actually, it doesn’t really address the issues that we have at hand, which are the efficient processing of permits, etc. There’s a heck of a lot in in this bill around iwi engagement and reports and so on, and little at all about other engagement with the community. As we know, mining does have an environmental footprint. Actually, in my experience, the mining sector does a very good job of managing its effects, and, in fact, the restoration of mines that I’ve seen has been really fantastic, in some cases returning them to a better state than they were before.

But I would just like to ask the Minister: what was the rationale to single out iwi and hapū but not other groups? It seems like they have been elevated to a position where their view carries more weight than others, when the environment, in fact, belongs to us all. This isn’t on iwi- or hapū-owned land; this is just land in general. So I would appreciate an answer to that if I could get it.

It’s actually quite long on iwi engagement reports and how they must be drafted etc. So what is the rationale behind that, when there’s no requirement to report on engagement with the community at a similar level and in similar detail as there has been for iwi?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s often during the committee stage, you are reflecting back to the select committee process, and sometimes with so many bills going through the House you forget what this is about. I think one of the questions that I actually had in terms of the weight that my colleague Stuart Smith talked about, in terms of the engagement with iwi and hapū, in Part 2, clause 11, where it’s amending new section 29C where it talks about where the applicant is a previous or current permit holder, their engagement with iwi and hapū will actually be given due consideration. I’m trying to figure out how much of an engagement that that is, whether it is actually a meeting with the iwi and hapū to say that their interest in this particular activity is enough, or whether it has to be something a little bit more formal and actually stipulating exactly what they are planning. I’m sort of wondering if the Minister could perhaps give us a little bit of guidance on that school.

The other aspect of it is that where a lot of countries are looking at even incentivising exploration in their countries to even provide subsidies to mining companies to actually come into their country—and the reason I say that is because we have moved on from just powering up our heaters with coal or wood, but you know, technology requires a lot of minerals. Even electric vehicles (EV) have a lot of minerals that are actually being used. Even wind turbines require—actually, I think it is something like 220 tonnes of coal to make a particular wind turbine. So when the Minister actually talks about the reason this bill was introduced in the House was because of our commitment to climate change, I sort of wonder whether we are actually not thinking about the full picture.

I think, when you want to subsidise Tesla cars, for example, when you know drivers of EVs are incentivised to actually move to EVs rather than traditional motor vehicle and transport—but the materials that are actually required for manufacturing those EVs actually require a lot of mining. Sometimes I think that incentivising people to mine those minerals in New Zealand, we may do better in terms of our climate change commitment, because we can actually control the emissions and put regulations in place so that our mining companies are responsible. Whereas we are importing goods that have been manufactured in other countries where we can’t actually control the mining of those minerals, and we are importing dirty coal, for example. We’ve actually talked about that in this House before. So I’m wondering whether the Minister had actually given thought to our trade partners in the way that they incentivise mining, whilst this bill basically disincentives mining.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, the bill proposes to amend the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act—to change the purpose, which is “to promote prospecting for, exploration … and [mining] of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” It seems that the purpose of this Labour Government, as expressed through this bill, is to undermine the business opportunities that lead to economic and social benefits for New Zealanders—as a result of extracting and turning our natural resources into things that people use and consume or that New Zealand manufacturers can export and sell overseas to other users and consumers, who will pay New Zealand money for the benefit of the products that we extract here; add value to here, and then sell.

It’s remarkable that a Government, at a time where New Zealand’s balance of payments deficit has never been higher—it hasn’t been this high in terms of the cash received from selling things overseas compared to the amount of cash New Zealanders have spent buying things overseas; the difference has never been higher. New Zealand is borrowing and spending, as a nation—led by this Government—much more than we are earning in foreign exchange. And yet, Minister, at a time when you would think a New Zealand Government would be doing everything in its power to promote the extraction, recovery, processing, adding value to minerals and resources that the Crown owns and that the private sector is willing to add value to—why wouldn’t the Crown want to promote that at this time? On what basis would a Government seek to undermine the development of these resources and to reduce the potential that by promoting mining and by promoting the recovery of minerals we could actually help to restore some of the economic losses that New Zealand has suffered in the past few years?

So, Minister, why? Please explain, why the change from “promote” to “manage”? Is it because this Government doesn’t really believe that New Zealand can play its part when it comes to climate change? There are many, many businesses—many mining companies who I have spoken to and their staff, their engineers, their scientists, who are passionate about restoring the environment as they go, delivering better indigenous biodiversity outcomes from some of the most fantastic mining and resource development operations in New Zealand, whether it’s OceanaGold’s Globe Progress Mine in Reefton, or others. They’ve said “For goodness’ sake, Simon, please provide a simple pathway. If you promote resource recovery in New Zealand, you’ll put us on a level playing field with our competitors or even our fellow engineers and scientists and mining geologists and all of the people who operate the equipment. You’ll put us on a level playing field. We don’t want to have to uproot our families and go and live in Australia; we’d prefer to stay here in New Zealand”. Minister, that’s what they say.

But it seems like this Government wishes to reduce that opportunity to live and work in New Zealand, to generate high-paid jobs in the regions and, actually, through mining minerals, whether it be gold or silver or platinum, titanium—any of the other rare earth elements that go into the equipment, whether it’s computer chips, whether it’s satellites, whether it’s batteries. Whatever it is, the world needs these minerals. They’re only found in a few places, Minister, and they’re found in only a few places because of the history of the Earth’s development from a geological perspective and a tectonic perspective. The minerals bubble up from the Earth’s crusts, and they’re found in very limited deposits. That’s why it’s important that a Government does promote their exploration and mining so that we can get the benefit out of them, because if a Government won’t promote it, they’re often very, very difficult to get access to and make something of. So, Minister, will you explain why the change in term from “promote” to “manage”?

There’s a couple of questions in the speeches that we’ve heard that I’d like to address. The first is around the why and the changes to the provisions around engagement with iwi and hapū. So the 2013 amendments to the Crown Minerals Act introduced obligations for tier 1 permit and licence holders to report annually on the engagement with iwi and hapū. This was a change that was introduced by the then National Government to do that. However, what has become evident to us since we came into Government—and in the time that I’ve been the Minister of Energy and Resources—is that that engagement and the quality of it was highly variable. So while there was a requirement that was introduced under the 2013 changes to the primary legislation, that wasn’t occurring. So the changes that are in here around what form that engagement should take, the reporting requirements, and being more explicit about how that relationship needs to be conducted—that is the purpose of the changes that we’re seeing in this amendment here. I think it is fair to say that this is an industry that has some way to go in its journey and its engagement with iwi and hapū and what a 21st century relationship looks like, and this Act will provide a framework around how that can work, and I think the reporting requirements will be absolutely critical.

I did hear in one of the speeches—I can’t remember which; I think it was from one of the National Party members—the disinformation repeated about the record imports of coal that New Zealand is experiencing. I’d just like to point out to that member that she can celebrate the fact that we’re in a 32-year low in the importation of coal in New Zealand, and that largely is because this is a Government that has a plan around what the decarbonisation of our economy—

Hon Member: Imported more coal over the last six years than ever.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and what decarbonisation looks like. So while we hear members yelling “more coal”, I invite them to look at the facts and not repeat disinformation. A 32-year low is something that I celebrate, and I think that many New Zealanders should celebrate—

Erica Stanford: What was it two years ago?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, it was not two years ago; it’s this year. And, of course, the correlating fact is record-high levels of renewable energy production that are occurring in the New Zealand economy.

The ACT member asked about why—the purpose for the change. Why are we changing to the more benign position in the purpose statement of the Act? Before anyone thinks the sky is going to fall in in terms of this change to a more neutral position, I think it’s really important for members to understand that the Crown Minerals Act is a piece of legislation under which statutory decisions need to be made, whether they’re delegated or made by a Minister. So, therefore, the purpose statement is incredibly important in terms of directing those statutory decisions. But, of course, that purpose statement was only changed in 2013 by the then National government, so it’s been five years of its time in Government, actually, of nine—with the more benign position that we’re reverting to, and permits were able to be issued. What this does is it takes the purpose statement that we’re looking at under these amendments—takes it back to that benign position so it does not have to be the case that the “promote” is the primary consideration that has to be taken into account.

Of course, we will be able to issue permits for all the kinds of mining activities that the member was outlining in terms of the critical materials that are going to be absolutely essential for our decarbonisation journey as a country, for those minerals that we will need for our wind turbines; that we will need for our electric vehicles; that we will need for emerging battery technologies. There is no reason why decisions to grant those permits cannot still be made, and as I said, the previous National-ACT Government worked under a regime for five of its nine years. So if it was so important to that side of the House, it took them five years to make that change when they were in Government—clearly it wasn’t the deciding factor. And in fact, it was after the change to the purpose statement of the Act actually under the previous Government that fewer offshore block offer permits were taken up—fewer offshore oil and gas permits were taken up. It wasn’t about the purpose statement of the Act; it was that there weren’t economic opportunities to be explored there.

So I think we need to keep in perspective the changes that we’re making. This is an important part of how we make sure that our legislation framework is pointing us in the direction of how it is that we do fit in with what the world is doing. New Zealand is not an outlier here. We have the International Energy Agency who is pointing to the kinds of changes that countries need to make, and New Zealand is seen as very much fitting the kind of decarbonisation journey that the world needs to go on. This is a tool, but it still will allow for the kinds of activities we need in respect to Crown minerals that New Zealand needs into its future.

I’m just wondering if the Minister could elaborate on one of her comments she made before, and just let us know how much coal was imported last year and what record low does that compare to? So when she says “it’s a record low”, what year is she comparing it to? How much was imported last year and then what year is she comparing that to in terms of “record low”?

Less coal was burnt in the last three months of 2022 than in any other quarter since December 1990. I guess, when you’re talking about a 32-year low and 2022 is the year, it would make sense that 1990 was the date that you’d be using there.

That September 2022 quarter saw just 426,000 tonnes of coals burnt for industry process or electricity generation, so that’s the quantum we’re talking about. But of course, this is a situation where we do need to continue to phase out coal in the economy and that is exactly what our Government is doing. What we have done is we have set an end date for the fact that we will be able to burn coal for industrial or process heat and that is exactly why we are partnering with industry.

But I would like to bring that member back to what we are debating here in this bill. This is about the New Zealand Crown Minerals Act. This is about how it is we grant permits for New Zealand extraction. So while I’m happy to act—as probably what she could have got off Google, in terms of what those dates in tonnages of imports looked like—what this is about is the regime for how it is that we administer the New Zealand Crown mineral estate. What the member is asking about is coal imports, but what I am pleased to report to the House is a 32-year low in the burning of coal in New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you—a fascinating insight! And just to bring to your attention, during a debate on the former bill, a Labour MP also used Google to access information during the debate. So this is across the House, the use of information technology, and I’m sure the Minister would welcome that.

Minister, a couple of things: you have raised the issue of record low coal imports, and we assume that relates to a reduction in the need to consume coal for energy and electricity production. So I would always be interested, because you have introduced it into the debate, in how much of that is related to the fact that we’ve had an extraordinarily wet year and that the hydro dams are currently 110 percent full.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I would like the member to come back to a question that’s within the scope of this bill.

SIMON COURT: Certainly. Well, I shall then. The Minister has raised the issue of critical minerals. The Minister has identified that the minerals that have been mentioned, whether they’re gold, silver, platinum, titanium, selenium, which is used as an agricultural input—all kinds of minerals are available in New Zealand. But in other jurisdictions, Minister—like Australia, for example, the UK, the US, and Canada—they’ve identified a list of critical minerals. Now, in the debate previously in response to a question, you mentioned critical minerals. Minister, these other jurisdictions have identified a critical minerals list that would help a Government agency making decisions about permit applications and how they are viewed against whether the minerals that are proposed to be extracted are critical or not. And there are a whole lot of minerals that only exist in a few places around the world. Rare earth elements, for example, Minister—they go into batteries, they go into electronics, they’re absolutely vital for satellite communications, cell phone communications.

Minister, what progress has this Government made on a critical minerals list? I understand it’s on the work programme. And how will the criticality of minerals be given a weighting when applications, in terms of clause 5, “Section 5 amended (Functions of Minister)”, when a Minister is weighing up permit applications and whether they should be approved? Thank you, Minister.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, Simon Court makes a very good point, and I think that it’s well worth exploring, because what we have seen internationally has been a reluctance in the developed world to mine and to process minerals within their own borders. They have effectively exported that mining and the processing of those elements and minerals that are vital for a transition to low emissions to places like China where actually the labour laws are very scant, at best. In fact, the American President, Joe Biden, passed an executive order which effectively made it that any products that come from Xinjiang in China would be required to have an assurance that no forced labour was used in the making of those materials. And for the Minister’s benefit, if she’s not aware, over 70 percent of the world’s polysilicon is actually processed in Xinjiang and made into polysilicon ingots. Sometimes it’s further processed and made into the wafers, and in other cases it’s exported to other nations to be made into those wafers. But what often happens is, in the step before that, some polysilicon goes into Xinjiang and is then blended with the material being processed there. So, effectively, if the solar panels have polysilicon in them, and polysilicon for other uses, it’s pretty hard to ascertain whether it came from that country with forced labour and where forced labour may have been involved in that.

Now, I’ve asked questions about this, but I get the answer that, “Well, we’ve got forced labour regulations.” Well, the Americans did too, but the President has gone another step—a significant one step further. It won’t cover it all, for the reasons I just outlined, but did the Minister put any thought into that when she was having this bill drafted and the instructions to the officials and the drafters? Because it appears to me this does make it more difficult. This does slow it down. It makes it more likely that the rare earth elements, as Simon Court mentioned, and other minerals that we use in everyday life now, are not just used—I will cover this further in my third reading speech, but it’s surprising where some of these minerals are used in products that people—

Hon Jo Luxton: The question?

STUART SMITH: —would not understand. I think someone’s trying to be a chair over there, by the sound of things—I distinctly heard that, but anyway. So I’d really like to know if the Minister did take that into consideration. We did hear from her previous contribution—we now know what the Minister does in her spare time: she watches back episodes of Yes Minister. There was a very good impression of Sir Humphrey with the answer that she gave to my colleague Erica Stanford, and I thought that was quite good, actually, almost an Academy Award performance. But the Minister, if she could just come back with those answers, that’d be much appreciated.

I have another question as well. Under clause 14 we will replace section 41(6) with “(6) Before mining granting consent, the Minister must be satisfied that the transferee is highly likely to be able to comply with—(a) the conditions of, and give proper effect to, the permit; and (b) in the case of a permit as defined in section 89D, the relevant obligations in subparts 2 and 3 of Part 1B.” Well, aren’t they just required to meet those things? Why is it that “the Minister must be satisfied”? Has that been outlined anywhere else in legislation around mining or any other activities, that they “must be satisfied”? And is “must be satisfied” a high enough bar to achieve whatever it was that the Minister was trying to achieve from that particular clause, or was that not one that she actually insisted on? Is that just one that came up? Where was the legislative gap that required clause 14 to be inserted into this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to come back to clause 5, “Section 5 amended (Functions of Minister)”. Because right now, as the Minister of Energy and Resources, you would have the most current and up-to-date experience with the functions of the Minister exercised under this Act. So Minister, I want to ask—when it comes to “The Minister has the following functions” in the current Act, this bill proposed to modify section 5(a). So instead of the functions of the Minister are “to attract permit applications [for Crown mineral extraction], including by way of public tender”—in other words, a Minister to act as an advocate; a business development function for Government. Imagine that. Instead of the Minister acting in that role trying to drum up more business, the Minister will instead be required, “from time to time [to] offer permits for application”. “From time to time”. So instead of “to attract permit applications”—which sounds like business development; getting New Zealand going—“it’s, from time to time, offer permits for application”.

So Minister, I’m interested. I’m sure those who might want to take part in resource development in New Zealand or invest in resource development are interested. I’m sure the engineers, the scientists, the geologists, all the digger drivers, all the jumbo operators—everybody who works in mining in New Zealand—would be interested whether the Minister considers what times “time to time” covers. Does it mean annually? Does it mean every few years? Does it mean when the Minister wants to announce something and so goes somewhere to a small town—maybe on an election campaign—and announces this is now the time we’ll open applications for permits? What is this “time to time”, Minister; and on what basis will “from time to time” permit applications be made available?

Because having all of this power delegated to the Minister to essentially handbrake—essentially throw sawdust into the transmission of—a vital economic activity, which is resource development, Minister—if it’s not a priority for this Minister or a future Minister, “time to time” could mean, well, almost never. Because when you combine the purpose to be amended, with “promote” gone, “manage” in; and then “attracting permit applications” gone. No more business development, no more New Zealand open for business. But “from time to time” we might make a permit application process available.

That really sounds like this Government is proposing to slowly strangle the life out of resource development—out of the gold mining, out of all of that other valuable extraction that goes on in New Zealand right now. In fact, I understand that gold exports to Australia are only second after wine in terms of their value—only second after wine. Who knew that New Zealand’s second-largest export to Australia is gold?

Yet, this Minister doesn’t really seem to have provided confidence to the industry, to the towns where these activities take place, to all of supporting manufacturing sector that supports mining activities around New Zealand, whether it’s in Otago or Coromandel; Waihī or on the West Coast of the South Island; or Waikato, for example, where they do coal mining; or Port Waikato, where they recover and mine ironsand at Tahāroa and turn it into steel at Glenbrook.

Minister, “from time to time” sounds like, “when the Minister gets around to it”, and what this Government have signalled is that they’re not really interested in getting around to helping business, unless it involves handing out money for green projects like an electric arc furnace here or money for a wood-fired boiler somewhere else in order to get some headlines. So Minister, would you explain what you think the implications are of switching from “attract” to “time to time”; and what criteria you would make, or a Minister would make, to determine when the time is?

By my count, there’s probably three areas of questions that are currently under way.

First of all, there was a question from the member that’s just taken a seat, Simon Court, in an earlier call around the work programme in terms of the critical minerals list. As the member has rightly identified, this is work that our Government currently has under way and it is work that is progressing. It is work that a future Labour Government, after the election, will certainly be looking to further progress. It’s been a priority for us. We established this programme of work under our Government. It’s not work that was under way when we came into Government, so it’s work that we have been able to progress there anyway. Not that that is particularly relevant to the legislation that we have in front of us. It isn’t seeking to make any changes that would impact on that.

The second line of questioning—I’ll go through an order of the clauses that have been brought up on the bill. So there’s clause 5, which the member that’s just taken his seat has asked around the impact of section 5 and how that will operate. Well, section 5, as it is in the primary legislation, in the Crown Minerals Act, currently requires the Minister to “attract permit applications, including by way of public tender”. This is interpreted in the minerals programme as an expectation that there will usually be an annual petroleum exploration permit round or a block offer.

So if you put it together, there’s been three tranches of Crown Minerals Act (CMA) reform. Of course, we made the initial tranche 1 changes that needed to be made immediately after we made the decision to end offering offshore oil and gas exploration permits. That was the immediate change, and the commitment was that we would go through a fuller process for the longer-term changes that needed to be made.

So the clause the member is talking about in his talk about gold isn’t really relevant, because this is about the interaction that is there in terms of the block offer or the petroleum exploration permit round and the interaction there. Clause 5 of the bill alters the function of the Minister from “attracting permit applications, including by way of public tender” to “from time to time to offer permits for application by public tender”. This is done to remove the expectation that there will be that annual block offer as a matter of course. It will enable more discretion in the timing and frequency of future block offers, if there were to be any. Because, as the member will know, prior to the changes that we made under the petroleum programme, there was the expectation of the annual round of block offer.

The other clause of the bill that there has been some questions about, of course, is clause 14 of the bill and this is around decommissioning. So when I say “tranche 3”, this is what we would formally call “tranche 2” of the changes to the CMA but we did do the immediate work that we needed to do around decommissioning. This was really in the wake. We’ve made two changes around decommissioning. There was a hole that we had to plug when we immediately came into Government around the provision of permits.

We found, when we came into Government, there was a big wide open door that had been left by the previous Government, which resulted in the taxpayers of New Zealand having to pick up a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars for decommissioning of a project that they never should have had. This was the responsibility of the permit holder, but adequate protection for taxpayers had not been put into previous changes of the legislation. So we brought changes to the House to protect the taxpayers. This is further strengthening those decommissioning provisions that need to be there.

One of the holes that was left was actually the ability of a transfer of a permit to have the same level of scrutiny as the granting of a new permit in terms of their ability to pay for their decommissioning. I think everyone should—most right-minded people would—agree that if someone is coming in to do business in New Zealand by way of extraction, they have the ability to actually finish the process and pay for their own decommissioning and not leave the taxpayers of New Zealand holding that bill.

So this is further strengthening around those provisions there. It was made for consistency with other provisions that are being made with this bill, just to make sure we’ve got that belts and braces to the protection of New Zealand taxpayers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister a question in relation to an answer that she gave earlier to a question from my colleague. She mentioned that New Zealand had record low coal importation in relation to the climate change commitments that we were actually talking about earlier. I wonder whether the Minister could actually reflect on that answer and, please, tell me whether the record low coal importation in the last quarter of last year that she quoted was because New Zealand has in fact had record high rain and water, which literally means that our hydro lakes are full and we didn’t have to actually import extra coal—and that in relation to the record high coal importation of previous years, for example, I think in 2020 there were more than a million tonnes of coal that were imported, and in 2021 it was close to 2 million tonnes of coal that were imported.

What that extraction in foreign countries relates to in terms of climate change pollution and emissions and the fact that they have to be shipped to New Zealand to power our plant in Huntly—you know, considering the fact that the Labour Party’s backbone is the union—is it in Blackpool?

Stuart Smith: Blackball.

MELISSA LEE: Blackball. That was actually started by the mining towns and the unions who represented those miners—whether she considers that perhaps having a reserve that is mined in New Zealand will be better in terms of carbon emissions versus what we actually import from overseas.

I will take a very quick call here to point out that the issues being raised are completely out of scope. This is about the regime and very specific changes that we are making around the New Zealand Crown minerals regime and the way in which that is administered in New Zealand. The member Melissa Lee is asking about importation. That is out of scope of this bill.

But what I will point out to that member—I probably did answer a question and point out that it was beyond what we doing in this bill, but I pointed out the fact that a 32-year loan and the burning of coal in New Zealand was something that I celebrate. What we do also know is that the year before that, it was because of the failure of our gas to provide electricity to New Zealand. It wasn’t so much just the hydro levels; it was also the fact that there were outages in our gas infrastructure as well, which to me points to the need of why we do need to look at how security of supply looks like in the 21st century in New Zealand.

This bill—bringing it back to the bill, Mr Chairman—is actually about setting up the regime for the 21st century. And I’d also like to point that member to the fact that we have a union movement, given she’s so concerned about it, in New Zealand that is utterly concerned with what a just transition for its workforce looks like. It is a union movement that is engaged in the jobs of the future, and making sure that we are putting in the effort to do that. It’s why we saw our mining union attend the launch of the announcement around New Zealand Steel moving from coal to electrification. They celebrate that move because they know that jobs in the future need to be protected, and if we stand by and wait for cliffs, that will not happen and we are not a Government that are prepared to do that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. That was a fascinating insight into the workings of the Minister’s mind! I want to come back to the bill, Minister. Clause 14 amends section 41, the “Transfer of interest in permit”. You made a good point: that it’s important that an operator in the oil and gas industry decommissions a well, decommissions offshore equipment—whether it’s on the sea floor or whether it’s a rig—that they fulfil their obligations to their community and to the environment by making sure that all of those hazards are mitigated, as far as is practical. So it is fair enough that a Minister would have decision making as to whether the transferee is highly likely to comply with the conditions of the permit, particularly when it comes to decommissioning.

Minister, you refer to—without using the words, I understand—the “Tui problem”, which is where an operator sold its interests in a New Zealand business to an overseas company, which then defaulted on its obligations. Minister, I understand that that business has since been sold and that the new owner has in fact made a commitment to fulfil a great proportion of the obligations to decommission and clean up in addition to what the Crown has had to contribute. But that must surely be a very, very rare occurrence.

Minister, in previous amendments to the Crown Minerals Act that you referred to and which this clause 14 further amends, you make the point that a much more rigorous regime has been put in place. But, Minister, isn’t it correct that the regime is now so onerous that it imposes retrospective penalties on directors and on companies, including jail time, if they fail to meet their decommissioning obligations—that it has essentially sterilised interests in oil and gas development in New Zealand? And that even if a company was to sell its oil and gas interests as a going concern, still pumping oil and condensate from New Zealand’s reservoirs, whether its offshore or onshore Taranaki, still getting gas out, supplying it to New Zealand consumers, including businesses and manufacturers—even if they sold their business as a going concern with an existing revue stream, the new owner of the business, even if they decommissioned to the requirements of the permit, the Minister could still insist that the sellers before, the directors of the company that originally owned it, were still liable for any rats and mice or potentially a very, very large bill?

Hasn’t that completely sterilised interests in investing in New Zealand oil and gas? And doesn’t this section 41 amended by clause 14 of this bill, “Transfer of interest in a permit”, further undermine the willingness of international and local investors to actually get our energy out of the ground and supply it to businesses that need it?

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 be agreed to.

The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading