Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Good morning, members. Members, when the committee suspended last night, it was debating Part 1 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 13, “Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act.” The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you say, last night when the committee concluded, we were having a very broad-ranging debate in terms of the purpose of the bill. There are still many questions that we have from material that the Minister has introduced into this debate around energy security.

To start off, this morning, I just do want to move on to another couple of pieces of Part 1 of this Act, one of which is the clauses in this bill that pertain to the tier 3 permits that are covered off in Part 1. Now, in terms of the size of the tier 3 permits, one of the things that we heard at select committee—we had many people asking why it was that the size of the area that was eligible for a tier 3 permit was decided on; that this seemed quite large in terms of what would be seen as a hobbyist permit, and some of the submitters were questioning that. I’d like to ask the Minister about the policy context, the advice he received—what was the policy context for settling on the size of the permit area that is before us in this legislation?

The other important piece that we will have many questions on in this part of the bill, in Part 1, is the provisions that are in here in clause 12, and that is around the Minister having the power to issue a Government policy statement. Now, this is a new mechanism that will come into play through this legislation; we haven’t previously had this. Obviously, we have Government policy statements in a range of areas, but I think there are some questions, given that this is a new mechanism that could be brought into play, for the Minister to inform the committee on. First of all, what is the time frame that the Minister is thinking of? Has he begun work on the Government policy statement, and when would he be thinking of introducing this? If the work hasn’t begun, where in his work programme does this work figure?

The other important question we have is that a Government policy statement is a place where a Government rightly sets out its strategic priorities and the work programme and the way in which it’s going to get to its outcomes. I’m assuming that the Government policy statement would be aligned with the purposes of this bill, but we also have another piece of legislation in this jurisdiction, and that is our climate response legislation that sets out very closely our emissions reduction plans. I’d like to hear from the Minister how it is that he intends to ensure that we have synergy between these two strategic documents that any Government will need to work from. How will the Government policy statement interact with the emissions reduction plans that the Government does adopt? We know, of course, that the Government is due to adopt new emissions reduction plans by the end of this year for emissions budget 3. What work has the Minister done to ensure that we are aligning what is happening under this legislation with that other strategic intent of Government?

What we know, from advice from the Minister’s officials, is that this legislation is going to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. There have been several pieces of advice that have been provided to the committee in terms of what the impacts on emissions budgets 1 and emissions budgets 2 will be, but, of course, we have emissions budget 3 coming—and the extent to which the Minister has been working with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that there can be those interactions and those alignments. The advice that we received from officials is that there will be a million megatonnes of carbon dioxide in emissions, as compared to the baseline for the second emissions budget for 2025 to 2030, and another 0.6 to 1.4 megatonnes for the third emissions budget. What mechanisms will be in place in that Government policy statement to ensure there is alignment with different pieces of Government policy?

As I said, there are a range of other questions that are still outstanding in regard to changing the purpose statement. Certainly, the Minister opened up a range of areas which just sparked the inquisitive nature of the Opposition and a range of questions that we’ve had time to percolate overnight that we’ll come back to on that material. Those are two very specific questions around clause 12 and the tier 3 permits, which are covered off in new section 2BA, inserted by clause 7. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, I just want to echo my colleague Megan Woods’ expression of the usefulness of the Minister opening the conversation more broadly. One thing I wanted to specifically pick up on was the frequent justification for this policy being around the so-called energy crisis. A big part of that assertion—the deeper detail of that—isn’t gone into. One of the causes of the energy challenges we have is to do with the infrastructure around gas and its declining state.

Now, the other question that the Minister raised last night was the increase in the importation of Indonesian coal. I wonder if he has available the latest figures on Indonesian coal imports for this year, and whether he could confirm that, in fact, they are significantly lower than they have been historically. If we actually delve into this question of a problem of energy infrastructure and signals being sent in the energy sector as to the trajectory of New Zealand’s energy intentions, it is true, and the Minister rightly points out, that the effect of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration was to send a very strong signal to the industry that there was not a future in that industry. By doing that, it opens the landscape to those other forms of energy that we are interested in: renewable energy being the obvious one. The effect of this legislation, I put it to the Minister to respond, is that it is basically sending a signal to the fossil fuel industry that we would like them to be back in business and we would like them to invest in new infrastructure, and the effect of that will be to lock us into decades more dependency on gas and oil and coal, which the Minister also advocates for.

One of the immediate effects of those signals to the market, if you like, in his capacity as the “Mātua of Mining”, in his own terminology, is that Minister Jones has scared away the offshore wind industry, because he has so forthrightly advocated for deep-sea mining, sea-bed mining, off Taranaki, with huge destructive impact on the seafloor. The wind industry explicitly made it clear—

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance? Relevance?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I deem it’s relevant—if he’s comparing it to windfarms, he’s able to ask that question.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister did really elucidate at length about the energy system being the justification for this legislation. The effect, I put it to you, Minister, of this law is to send a message, in fact, to the renewable energy industry, and certainly in the instance of the offshore wind industry, that there will be new investment in gas and oil—we’re back into the old burning fossil fuels mind-set; we’re not so committed to the actual transition to renewable energy. That was the most powerful impact of the decision made in 2018; the bolder decision made, consistent with our climate commitments, was to say, “We are saying there will be no new exploration for oil and gas and coal.” That’s my first key question.

The other point I want to pick up on is the specific one that my colleague Megan Woods just raised about the tier 3 categorisation permitting quite huge areas of land to be mined for gold more readily—50 hectares. Now, what is mining for gold, albeit with sluicing boxes and 10-horsepower machinery as a maximum? What does mining for gold in a 50-hectare area of riverbed look like, Minister? How disturbing and impactful is that? And if you’re going to visit your local river, what is the effect on the other uses of that river, for recreational purposes, but also, more importantly, for the biodiversity that lives and depends on that river, of some local character being able to turn up there with his 10-horsepower diesel engine and dig up the floor of the river to mine for gold?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is getting a bit broad of the conversation—can we link it back to—

STEVE ABEL: It’s Part 1.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s tier 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. Thank you; OK. Thank you, I stand corrected.

STEVE ABEL: Sorry, can I just complete, Madam Chair—make another call, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can. Sorry, I stand corrected on that one.

STEVE ABEL: Part 1 has the permission for easier permitting of goldmining.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, OK. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: There is a quite huge area that miners will be allowed to exploit. It creates a new and quicker permit pathway, but what is the evaluation that has been taken on the impact of that, of this supposedly small-scale goldmine that, in fact, covers potentially vast areas of highly vulnerable or highly sensitive ecological regions, and the obvious thing being riverbeds? That is the place where people are going to want to do their gold sluicing, use their riffle boxes, set up their 10-horsepower engine, and what is the wisdom of allowing that?

Is it the expectation of the public, Minister, that they are going to walk down to their local beach to perhaps go and do some whitebaiting or do some fishing or simply have a swim in the local river, and find that somebody’s been given this very quick-to-get permit that allows them to be shovelling through the river bed looking for flakes of gold with a 10-horsepower engine banging away in the background? Is that really something that the Minister wants to be encouraging, and is that really something that should be so readily permitted without input from other members of the community and other members of the public?

It could well be that it seems like a low-level activity but, in fact, has quite a significant localised impact on people who also have interests in that particular river, and that particular riverbed, not to mention what the ecological evaluations of that are. What was the advice the Minister received on the impacts on our vulnerable fauna and flora that are dependent on those freshwater river ecosystems of this sort of goldmining that the Minister is advocating? Thank you.

I think it’s important that we respect the conventions governing contributions—and they need to be tightened up. They need to come back and focus on the black letter meaning of the proposed law.

Now, the former Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, posed a couple of questions. Let me start with the Government policy statement. Obviously, the passage of the legislation, as the member rightly identifies, will give status to this new instrument—and I need do nothing else than direct her attention to the relevant part—and this enables the Minister to initiate a body of work to create such an instrument. That body of work, in many respects, will be at the discretion of the Minister, and this Minister is terribly overworked at the moment on shepherding through this bill despite considerable opposition, inversely related in some cases to the content of the bill. But I direct her attention to new section 12(2A). Now, why it’s written in a slightly different colour means that it’s a fresh addition, and what it says is that the “Minister considers appropriate”. The Minister at this stage has not decided to initiate consultation to create such a body until such time as the law is passed. I don’t need to elaborate, because I covered last night what may or may not be relevant in terms of the broader debate.

In respect of the point about tier 3, I think the tier 3 references tidy up an area where risks are minimal and potential is broad, because we are going through a period of time where this Government believes that there is more that can be contributed—which is why we’re passing this bill—to our economic endeavours from oil and gas and minerals activity. That’s the philosophical basis; that’s the mandate that we have. Now, it’s arguable as to what is an appropriate size; sadly, I probably think it’s too small, but being from time to time of moderate character, I followed advice and I think that it’s a good balance between stripping red tape but enabling entrepreneurialism and those who are willing to risk their own time and resources at a relatively harmless level to boost the prospects of that part of New Zealand. There’s really not much more I can say to that.

The other thing that I’ll just wind up on: this legislation is not called the “Climate Response Act”. That legislation is under the leadership of another Minister. Now, in certain nightmarish moments, I do contemplate being the Minister of Climate Change.

Hon Member: Nightmarish indeed.

Hon SHANE JONES: There you go—there you go; I defer to brighter minds than my good self. For those reasons, I’m saying that we’ll park the elements of that Act and come back to this Act. This Act simply opens the gate, legitimises, tries to reinvigorate by creating certainty in the statute for those who may or may not use their own money, their own time, their own entrepreneurial energy to make a go of our indigenous resources. That’s all the statute does, and all the Minister’s doing is promoting that because this is a legitimate part of our energy security journey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his contribution there, and while I appreciate it, I’m sure there are many—and indeed the planet—that appreciate that he’s not the Minister of Climate Change. That was not the question that was put to the Minister.

The Minister was asked how the instrument of a Government policy statement (GPS) in this area would interact with other legislative instruments, such as the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions reduction plans that exist under that legislation. Ministers who have responsibility for particular instruments that they are putting in place through legislation do have to think about how they interact across the broader suite of Government and other policies that the Government has. While no one is suggesting that he is the Minister responsible for the emissions reduction plans, it is important for this committee to understand how it is that the instrument of the Government policy statement in this area will interact with those instruments. Surely, the Government has thought this through, and the committee needs to know what the mechanisms are that will be put in place, when there are considerations of what will be in those very detailed emissions reduction plans.

I do have some further questions pertaining to the GPS. One of the things that we know is that, across Government, there are a range of Government policy statements in a range of areas, some of which contain mandatory requirements for consultation and some have discretionary requirements for consultation. The legislation that we have before us is silent on whether or not it will be a mandatory or a discretionary consultation requirement that will sit with this Government policy statement. I’d like to hear from the Minister where his thinking is. What does the consultation look like? Will it be a mandatory regime or will it be a discretionary regime? Who will be consulted? What will be the opportunities for public input into that? While it may not be something that the Minister is planning on implementing tomorrow, as this committee is considering whether or not we should put in place the power for a Minister to have an instrument such as a Government policy statement in this area, we do need to understand how it is that the public are going to have input into that. We do know that the regulator will be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), as it stands at the moment. That will be the responsible agency. What are the conversations that he’s had with MBIE around the consultation obligations, and, also specifically, who will those consultations be with?

One of the other questions that I want to come back to the Minister on: the Minister talked at length last night, and he’s come back to it this morning, around the issue that he sees in the changing of the purpose statement. What we’re doing in Part 1 of this bill, that little change as he sees it—we on this side of the Chamber would differ in terms of the purpose of the bill as being instrumental to energy security in New Zealand. He referred to it last night; he’s come back to it this morning. My colleague Steve Abel asked him the question around volumes of Indonesian coal—a claim that he and many of his colleagues actually repeatedly made—but there’s been a range of data that’s been put up to debunk the myth that members of this Government keep touting. It’s a very thin reason—but doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny—for some of these legislative changes.

Given that the Minister sees that this change that he’s putting in is vital to New Zealand’s energy security—we’re all concerned about New Zealand’s energy security—the question I have for the Minister is whether he has received advice from his officials that any new oil or gas, in particular gas, that could be found through these changes would not be available until 2035, and that this would be the expected time frame in which any new resource would be available to be used. How does the Minister see this solving New Zealand’s immediate energy challenges? What is he working with colleagues on? Obviously, he’s not the Minister for Energy—he’s the Minister for Resources—but what is he working with colleagues on in terms of that more short-term piece? Quite clearly, this is not the quick fix that the Government has tried to sell. Make no mistake about it, the Minister was very clear last night that he’s taking his advice from industry. He’s not listening to officials. He’s disagreeing with that and taking advice of what the industry are telling us. I think this committee needs to understand, if we’re not likely to see any of this resource until 2035, what it is that we’re looking to see.

Also, I would like to hear the answer to the question that Steve Abel put around volumes of Indonesian coal. This is a much-touted reason case for why this would be used, but I think what we’ve heard in terms of actual facts that have been put out there, not by the Opposition but by various independent commentators, is that this is just simply a myth. I would actually like to hear from the Minister on that. I know we’ve heard through the case of interjections from many members of the Opposition that they’re exploring other options such as nuclear power. We heard last night from one of the members over on the Opposition benches. I’d like to hear what it is that the Minister is thinking.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify the interjection from the member opposite: no, we do not support nuclear energy, you’ll be happy to know.

Miles Anderson: You were talking about it, though.

STEVE ABEL: Because one of your good people mentioned nuclear energy, and I responded to that and said nuclear energy is not a good idea.

Miles Anderson: Come on, Steve!

STEVE ABEL: I mean, come on, Miles.

Hon Shane Jones: Order!

STEVE ABEL: Indeed, thank you, Minister—order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call order, thank you, Minister.

STEVE ABEL: I have a couple of amendments to put up relating to Part 1. I just want to return to the broad point about the very negative impact on the energy sector of reinstating the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. It definitely sends a message—to the world, in fact—that we are not serious about the energy transition. Given that is so touted as the basis for this, I have an amendment to clause 4 to put that we firstly—and this was discussed last night also—get away from this idea that there is anything good about promoting that most harmful substance in terms of climate damage, which is—

Ryan Hamilton: Coal.

STEVE ABEL: —coal, and oil and gas. The members opposite are saying that coal is the worst. That is a very interesting assertion. I wonder if the Minister can tell us, in terms of that assertion, whether in fact, once you account for fugitive emissions from the extraction of fossil gas, it is a higher carbon intensive fuel than coal. And what about how the Minister mentioned important details. Last night, the Minister mentioned liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Minister specifically talked about LNG imports. What advice does the Minister have on the impact of the emissions of LNG, and how does it compare to coal?

Ryan Hamilton: What about indigenous gas?

STEVE ABEL: Indigenous gas—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Fossil gas, you mean, yeah?

STEVE ABEL: I mean fossil gas. That’s a ridiculous term—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Questions will be directed to the Minister, not to each other. Thank you. That’s the purpose of the committee stage. Interjections are fine, but I don’t expect members to be answering questions. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: Madam Chair, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Take a call.

STEVE ABEL: Can I clarify, Madam Chair: is it correct that I have an ability to respond to an interjection from—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m happy about that, but there’s no obligation on the member to answer.

STEVE ABEL: I appreciate that, thank you. I just think there are some myths being touted about the nature of our energy sector that are important to clarify. Fossil gas is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. It should correctly be called fossil gas, as opposed to the other sort of gas that the members like to give special status to, which is biogenic methane, which is a particle and it has exactly the same effect on climate change as fossil methane. The members opposite like to separate out fossil methane from biogenic methane. Rather than call it natural gas, let’s refer to fossil gas and biogenic methane, if that’s how you want to categorise it.

I’m proposing that we remove this amendment which turns from “manage” to “promote”, as this legislation does, and we keep it as “manage”. It is appropriate, certainly in the case of the climate crisis, for us to be not promoting fossil gas exploration—that’s the first amendment. The second one is to clause 5. Currently, the overarching effect of this legislation, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, is to amend the Act to expand exploration beyond onshore Taranaki, which is the current restriction. This amendment that I’m putting up to clause 5 would in fact retain the Act’s definition of the onshore Taranaki region, thereby not make the expansion into offshore oil and gas exploration. It is a bold amendment. It is one which I call on the Minister to seriously consider, for the greater good of the community and the climate and life on this planet—that we actually need to not be reopening that 4 million square kilometres of exclusive economic zone to the interests of vested overseas fossil oil and gas companies. That is a disastrous move—Madam Chair?

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

Steve Abel’s actually made a call for another call, and I believe you’ve got another Amendment Paper?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. The amendment is to retain the definition of onshore Taranaki rather than get rid of it, so that we keep in place that world-leading ban on offshore exploration.

The final amendment would extend that principle—because we’re talking up to clause 14—to clause 14, clause 15, and clause 16. It would delete clause 14, page 7, lines 35 and 36; clause 15, page 8, lines 1 and 2; and clause 16, page 8, lines 345 and 346. It removes the provisions relating to the repeal of references to the onshore Taranaki region. It would thereby retain this prohibition on oil and gas drilling and prevent future oil and gas exploration outside onshore Taranaki. In fact, we need to also be not issuing new permits for onshore drilling in Taranaki, for onshore exploration and fracking. There is strong opposition to this, which we’ve heard for many years from people in Taranaki, to the ongoing exploitation of their region for gas, and that is something that also should have been prohibited and should be prohibited. But, in terms of this immediate legislation, these amendments would give effect to not getting rid of that ban. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of very specific questions—it won’t be a long call—for the Minister in the chair. This is in relation to the tier 3 permits. Clause 6(2A) says, “In this Act, Tier 3 permit means a permit that—(a) authorises mining for gold in the bed of a river, or on the foreshore; and (b) does not authorise mining for any other mineral;”. One of the issues that we have under the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, of course, is the pounamu extraction in the South Island. What I would like to know from the Minister—we know that alluvial mining is one of the critical areas in terms of pounamu extraction in the South Island rivers—is whether or not pounamu would be covered under these tier 3 permits.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen carefully to the debate this evening and this morning and over a few questions for the Minister. I understand that we have traversed it, but I’d just like the Minister to be really clear with the committee and with the public in terms of, right at the start there, when it talks about moving it from “manage” to “promote”.

Now, last night the Minister said that this is to signal that New Zealand is open for business, but then, when we look at the regulatory impact statements, we look at a lot of the paperwork that came through in select committee, I want the Minister on record to confirm with this committee the reason he wants to promote this industry when the evidence shows—and if you want to look at the regulatory impact statement, amendments to the Crown Minerals Act relating to petroleum exploration and mining, which is on the Table in front of the Minister, in terms of page 17, it has a very clear graph which shows in terms of the decline. If I look at it carefully, it has been on the decline for a long time, but we look at that peak of 2014 and it has declined rapidly since then.

So often in this House, the Minister has accused myself and others of being “woke”—which I’m very proud of, by the way; very proud of being woke. If you know the history of the word and where it comes from, it’s actually an honour to be called woke, and I appreciate the Minister calling me that, because it is an honour if you understand that. But the question I have—and the reason I’m asking the Minister about this “promote” thing—is because it feels to me like it is the Minister virtue signalling. It’s appealing to the Minister’s voter base and, I guess, to the coalition agreement, but when you look at the hard evidence, when you look at the information that is in front of the Minister, and you look at the evidence that was in front of the select committee, when you look at all of the evidence—if you want to do the work and do the research—the fact that you want to bring “promote” back in is something that actually isn’t possible, because what are you promoting? That is my question.

At least with “manage”—because manage is also an active word where it’s actually, “How do we as Government ensure we carefully and sustainably and in a way that actually is looking to the future ensure that we are looking after our people and our planet?” I really want to understand why on earth the Minister wants to put “promote” back in there. Why would he do that, when I hope that he clearly knows that there aren’t going to be people rushing back and going around the world to do it. An example is OMV, who, obviously, is one of the big players. It has been on the market for sale, and it’s not because of New Zealand; they have looked at their whole portfolio and are looking at greening what they do and looking at their whole Asia-Pacific portfolio, looking at moving on, not because of Aotearoa but because they are looking to the future.

I really want to understand from the Minister: is it virtue signalling? Is it just because it’s a coalition agreement? Is it just because it’s income for his mates? I don’t know. I don’t understand. If you can look at the hard evidence of what is happening in terms of fossil gases, it seems absurd and outrageous for him to put that word back in. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We’re getting to a point now where repetition is defining the contributions. I think I’ve given, with the greatest respect, a very lucid response to the former Minister, but, unlike other contributions, she has actually posed quite a coherent question. She’s posed the question as to who owns pounamu, greenstone, and she’s correctly identified that, through the Doug Graham, Jim Bolger Government’s full and final settlement with the Ngāi Tahu tribe, pounamu is vested in the Ngāi Tahu people. In the event that a fossicker and in the event that a long-suffering miner—sadly, undervalued by former Governments but turbocharged by the matua. They have no right to take, sell, or extract that pounamu, and there are already cases where legislation has been called upon and people have been penalised for doing that.

In respect of a reference that was made to coal, levels of utilisation, for fear of protracting more irrelevancy I invite the members to write me a letter and I will respond formally with those details, because I think it will bring in the broader debate a level of clarity sadly missing from the Opposition’s conception of energy security.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll call the Hon Dr Megan Woods. We are homing in on a couple of things now. I have been listening to last night’s debate and this morning’s, and we’ve covered a wide range of issues. I’m looking for new information backed up by clauses.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that clarification around the pounamu collection. It’s always a hot issue in the South Island, around how our mining legislation interacts with that Ngāi Tahu settlement Act.

I am going to ask a very specific question pertaining to the work programme for tier 3 permits, which are covered off in clause 7, “New section 2BA inserted (Work programmes for Tier 3 permits)”, but I would just like to remind the Minister that there are a couple of questions that are still outstanding that we on this side of the Chamber are very eager to understand. One is the way in which the Government policy statement will interact with other Government instruments, like the emissions reduction plan (ERP). We’ve had the Minister address that and say he’s not responsible for the ERP. We absolutely accept that, but what we want to know is how the instrument that the Minister is putting forward in this legislation will interact with those other Government instruments that they need to work with as a Cabinet.

In terms of the work programmes for the tier 3 permits, it’s very specific. The permit holder can mine for gold—we’ve established that. Section 2BA(1)(b) states, “the permit holder may only use the following equipment: (i) unpowered hand tools: (ii) riffle boxes and associated equipment: (iii) powered equipment not exceeding a combined total of 10 horsepower (or the equivalent of 10 horsepower) at any one time: (iv) other similar equipment that is consistent with small-scale non-commercial gold mining:” Now, while there is a great deal of specificity within these provisions, I think there are some questions. There’s quite a lot that is in there in terms of what that could be.

I’d be interested to know about the 10 horsepower, in terms of the powered equipment not exceeding that. What was the policy rationale for settling on that as the level at which the equipment could be used within these tier 3 permit areas? Is it that there is belief that there’ll be minimal environmental disturbance? Is it the most efficacious tool for that type of mining? What was the policy rationale that led the Minister to make this inclusion, this very specific inclusion, in the legislation? And while we have that very specific information in new section 2BA, it also says “(iv) other similar equipment that is consistent with small-scale non-commercial gold mining:”. I’d like to hear from the Minister, while he is discussing with his officials, what were the kinds of other equipment that were covered off here? I think it’s important for the committee to understand that, because this part of the legislation brings it really tightly in and defines very closely the power that this equipment can have.

We then have “any other similar equipment”. What does the Government have in mind when they’re inserting this provision, and why is it needed given the provision above it that does give very tight restrictions around the power that can be used? Then there is subsection (2)(b)(iv), “equipment permitted by regulations:” What regulations is this referring to? Can the Minister give a list of what the other regulations are that are contributing to this? Then there is, in subsection (2)(c), “a work programme that is otherwise in accordance with requirements specified in regulations.” I assume that will pertain to subsection (1)(b)(v), but I’m really looking to get into the detail of what is contained in clause 7, which inserts that new section. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to be very specific about these points in the bill because I’m hearing what you’re saying and we have a number of amendments that are specifically proposed for changes in the bill.

The one that I’m talking about is a new section 12C. This is on page 7 of the bill, to do with Government policy statements (GPS). Now, this is a really interesting change to the Crown Minerals Act that I’d really like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on, because, prior to the change in 2023, the purpose of the Act was to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s actually addressed the GPS, so I perhaps think the member could ask some really specific questions around the changes in the Amendment Paper that the member would wish to see. Thank you.

LAN PHAM: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Chair. What this Amendment Paper seeks to do is, basically, amend the provisions relating to the Government policy statement and introduce a new requirement to publicly consult on any new GPS that may be put in place.

Now, why this is really important and why I’d love the Minister’s comments on this, about the public notification aspect, is that we heard really clearly at the Environment Committee just the other day from the Climate Commission how off track, for our second and third emissions budgets, we are heading. I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts as to whether—because this has such serious implications for our climate emissions and the public’s concern about whether we will be on track to meet those emissions—there is a case for the Minister to consider public notification of this Government policy statement, if he is to actually put one in place. If so, what would be the time lines that the Minister is actually considering to put such a policy statement in place? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Like my colleague Lan Pham, I do have a very specific question in relation to section 1A, the amended purpose, and the proposed amendment from my colleague Steve Abel, which is to replace “promote” with “manage”. I want to come back and do a little bit of a deep dive, but very briefly—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good.

SCOTT WILLIS: —into the Minister’s interest in super-critical and super-hot geothermal resource, which he mentioned last night. I think this does show where we have some common interest across the House when we are looking at minerals and when we are looking at how we either promote or manage. I’m interested, firstly, to hear more from the Minister about how the Government intends to support—is it support or manage—the investigation into super-critical geothermal resource, super-hot geothermal resource; where does that balance lie? And is the current funding arrangement a promotion or a management of that resource? How does that sit with the Minister? How does the Government view that?

Although it may be coming into some detail, we do need to know something about that actual resource, because what we understand and what the Minister referred to last night was the value of the power that we may be able to gain from such investigations. I’m interested to hear some detail, actually, about what type of temperature differential there might be in that super-critical, super-deep, super-hot geothermal resource and how we might manage those high temperatures—how that might be managed. Because we are thinking about what the climate impacts of the resource extraction is, how would carbon capture and storage be used for that resource? I’m not going to go much further, because I think the Minister has given us an opportunity to look at this really interesting subject, but I want to come back to whether this is promoting or managing, and where we can look for consensus or agreement across the House, we certainly should.

One last point I would make is that we are sitting here debating the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill while COP29 goes on; when we are trying to reduce emissions and meet emissions budgets, and, if we are opening up the fossil fuel sector but not looking at our renewables and our lower emissions sector, we are going against the global current. If the Minister could come back to me specifically on the geothermal question: super-hot, super-critical; and on whether the Minister sees this as promotion, currently, or management. What is the Minister’s position on this, and why is this so important for us? Thank you.

Look, I think early next year would be a great time for a proper briefing in terms of the geothermal matters, which I’ll undertake rather than burdening this particular portion of the bill’s passage—but I think it’s a good point.

On the question of equipment regulations, well, all former Ministers know that regulations promulgated under legislation generally happen after the legislation has passed. Obviously, regulations that are superfluous will be struck down, I should imagine, by my colleague Mr Seymour as I work with him to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose, but, at this stage, the provision enables the promulgation of regulations as we go forward. They could cover things like metal detectors, as something figuratively that will be needed by the Opposition to search for votes.

Now, we don’t need to go down to a finicky level of antennae radars—those matters can be addressed at a detailed level with the passage of regulations—but I say again: regulations are passed once the statute has been enacted. They are like a backstop. If a regulation is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, it can be struck down as ultra vires. All members of the House know we have a Regulations Review Committee, and in the event that a regulation is described or found to be egregious—there’ll be very few of them as far as I’m concerned, because I’m pro-industry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister, from a perspective of common law and statutory interpretation.

The Minister previously has discussed at length the terminology of “promote”, and this is clause 4—the terminology of “promote” and “manage”—promoting being an active word and also being forward leaning. I would argue that both manage and promoting verbs are both active words, but I would agree with the Minister that promoting is indeed anticipatory. However, when we’re looking at the Crown Minerals Act, which this is a part of, you can’t read section 1A(1) without also reading section 1A(2).

This is a new perspective that requires clarification, because in section 1A(2) of the Crown Minerals Act, it says “To this end”; ergo, subsection 2 pertains to the statutory interpretation of subsection 1. “Manage” and “promote” will have very different connotations in this case, because “manage” has an operationalisation perspective that “promote” does not have. I want to ask the Minister whether he has received any advice from his officials on how one would interpret section 1A(2)(c) and (d) of the Crown Minerals Act in the context of promotion.

Like the Minister said before, any regulation that he set aside that isn’t in line with the legislation will be struck out because it is ultra vires. In that case, would then the effective management and regulation that is not pertaining to promotion but pertaining to the existing management be struck out? Promotion essentially is a sales and marketing perspective. It doesn’t pertain to when something is actually approved. So it will be really important to get a clarification on that and the Minister’s intent from the perspective of what potentially will occur later on in the court of law.

The second question I have, which is also to do with something my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned before, is to do with when we’re looking at either offshore mining or if you’re looking at panning for gold in rivers and what that would affect in terms of other people’s enjoyment of that area. I want to ask if the Minister has received any advice from a common law perspective, because it’s not in the regulatory impact statements, around public nuisance and negligence.

Now, we have seen recently in the court of law that this is a significant area that has got people from Aotearoa interested in, particularly when we’re looking at the case of Smith v Fonterra. In this case, has there been any advice that the Minister received from the officials on what that would mean in the common law perspective, where potentially anyone could then take these companies or these areas to court and the liability that it would create in the context of public nuisance and negligence? Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 214 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to amend clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to insert new section 12C in clause 12 be agreed to.