Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 14 to 35, “Amendments to subpart 1 of Part 1B of principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2 of the bill is largely around how it is that permits are allocated. There are a range of things that go through all tiers of permits—tiers 1, 2, and 3 permits that are in here—but one of the critical changes that this Government is bringing into place is in terms of overturning the changes that the previous Government put in place in 2018 with the amendments to the Crown Minerals Act, as it was then, to explicitly restrict petroleum exploration permits to be allocated via public tender methods including block offer. This bill reverses this change, allowing for other methods to be used.

Now, obviously there’s going to be a lot of questions around these other methods—how it is that these are going to interplay; what the detail of this really means. What we know is that clause 14 of this bill removes sections 23(2) of the principal Act. In addition to reversing the ban on new exploration for oil and gas that our Government put into place, this removes the restriction on applications for petroleum exploration permits to only open block. This change allows for those other methods to come into play—for example, priority-in-time permits. I think this is a method for allocating permits that were in place before 2013. It was really only in 2013 that going to the mechanism of block offer really became the standard.

How is it that these two things are going to interplay? I think this goes to the crux of what we were talking about earlier in Part 1; it really gets down to that nitty-gritty detail. What we know is that since 2014, we have been seeing a long-run decline in exploration activity in New Zealand, and this is consistent with global trends in oil and gas investment, in exploration. It’s not just in New Zealand: 2014, I think everyone will note, is way before 2018, when the ban was put into place. This is actually about facing up to reality in terms of New Zealand’s energy future—that we’ve been seeing that decline anyway.

The first question for the Minister: is he envisioning block offers to come back into play? Is this a mechanism for allocation that he will be using, as was the case post-2013 and which became more of the norm of how we allocated permits in New Zealand? Of course, a block offer is when a Government identifies an area and goes out, essentially, to open tender, to the market, and invites people to bid in and say what they want to do in that area. Or are they going to allow the priority in time that, at any point in time, someone who wishes to have an exploration permit can identify an area where they’d like that and come in and apply for a permit in that area. This is one of the critical questions in terms of the balance and how the Minister sees that playing out in this new regime that he’s putting in place.

I’d also like to know the indications and the advice that the Minister has around the demand that there is going to be for these permits. He seems to be flying in the face of all the accepted wisdom in terms of the demand that sits out there for these permits, in terms of the appetite to come and invest and start exploration again in New Zealand. The Minister is hanging his hat on this being the answer to New Zealand’s energy security, so he must have some pretty rock-solid advice that there’s people sitting out there wanting—either through block offer or through a priority-in-time permit, or some other mechanism the Minister may be thinking of, which he can elucidate and inform the committee about, that there is going to be this international appetite that will be counter to what we’re seeing in other places—to come in and invest in New Zealand. It will also turn around the historical trend, that we’ve been seeing in New Zealand for over a decade now, in terms of exploration in this country. One of the things that we would like to know is all of those things.

In terms of the other application methods, other than this public tender that these amendments in Part 2 of this legislation allow, these will be in the regulations and programmes that will determine the detail requirements for the allocation methods. Given a lot of this detail sits below the legislation in terms of the regulations and the petroleum programme, I’d be interested, and I’m sure the committee would be interested, to hear from the Minister some of the detail that sits around what will be contained in those subordinate instruments that we are enacting and bringing back with these amendments in Part 2 of the legislation.

It’s fair to say that it’s very hard for the committee to make a call. I would have thought it’d be hard for all members, no matter what side they’re sitting on, without actually having the information and the detail that sits within that regulatory framework, to know how this is going to operate, because it certainly isn’t clear from the legislation. And the bill does not make any reference to the time frames in applying for a permit, for example, that sits in there—will this be in the regulations, will this be in the petroleum programme? What is that likely to be, when are we likely to know about it, how will the public have time to consult on that, and what is the detail? The committee needs to know that.

The other concern that certainly was made at the select committee was that adding additional permit allocation methods will exacerbate existing issues in regards to iwi engagement—so that was in 2013. The preferred method has been through the block office system, as cumbersome as this has been for iwi, particularly in Taranaki, to take part in—there has been a predictable way in which engagement has taken place through that block offer method. What will this look like if we have to go to this more ad hoc allocation method in terms of the priority time permits? What will the requirements for consultation be? What support will there be for iwi and hapū around that consultation? How long will they be notified in advance that there is a permit, and all those time frames? Some really important and fundamental questions to the operation of this legislation sit in Part 2. Those were very overarching comments—I will be back with some more specific questions around these clauses later in the debate.

There’s a bunch of important questions there. Because this is a relatively modest and non-controversial portion of this amended piece of proposed legislation, the existing processes for hapū and iwi remain. They are provisions that are important to various stakeholders, certainly in Taranaki. The question as to what is the future of the block offer method—that will not be ruled out by this legislation, but the legislation introduces alternative approaches and processes for the allocation of an entitlement to reinvigorate, rediscover, recharge this indigenous resource called the gas industry. That’s all this portion of the legislation is doing. It doesn’t hobble the ability of tangata whenua to participate, providing that they’re very focused and they don’t pretend they’ve got a power of veto. The national interest of keeping the lights on goes beyond the interests of any segment of our community, and, let’s face it, this resource still does contribute to our electricity system.

I repeat: tangata whenua opportunities for consultation and engagement remain. Block offer options: they are enriched and augmented by other approaches. And I would say that the works programme today, in respect of the question offered by the former Minister, is out for consultation on this very day. On that basis, people can raise issues and have questions answered by the internet. But look, I’m looking forward to answering all manner of questions when I have my public meeting on Friday in Taranaki.

Could I just invite members—if we can get some question-and-answer dialogue going on, the Chair will certainly indulge that, rather than each speaker standing up and, perhaps, seeking to take up the whole five minutes and beyond. That way we might just get the proposed new method, which hasn’t really become in vogue yet, of extracting the right answers and information—bearing in mind, I understand it takes two to tango.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that opportunity, and, specifically, I would appreciate the Minister answering a little on the opening up of conservation land in Taranaki to mining. I wonder what specific advice he received from the Department of Conservation on how that would be managed. Obviously, we oppose the opening of conservation land for mining, but given that that’s the intent of the Minister, what advice was there on how that would be practically managed: would that include for the new tier 3 variety of mining, and would that include all other varieties of mining, as well? Could that potentially include some of the most intensive forms of mining? If it was goldmining, for instance, it could include the crushing of rock and the extraction of gold using cyanide, with tailings, and so forth. I wonder what the extent of that is.

The other question—which I’m happy to sit down to see if the Minister is happy to have a back and forth on it—is regarding the impact on Treaty settlements in this regard. I know that there are Taranaki iwi for whom important parts of their settlements involve conservation land and the management of conservation resources in Taranaki, and I wondered what advice the Minister has received on the impact on Treaty settlements. That’s some initial questions there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on, Mr Abel, if you’re of—

STEVE ABEL: OK, thank you, and just a follow-up on my colleague’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): But what I’ll do is this. The Minister is obviously taking advice, and if I have to wait to ensure that he is hearing the questions—

Hon Shane Jones: No, I’ve heard the questions, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right. Carry on, Mr Abel.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. The other one is to follow up on my colleague’s question in the last round on the statutory definition of “promote” versus “manage”. I think it would be useful for the committee to hear a response to that, because it did seem to be of some concern that in the instance of an existing, active mining activity of whatever variety, the question of promoting it became no longer the relevant question; now, it became a question of managing it. Could he clarify the statutory definition of “promote” where it applies to the management of a resource, and is there a need to make it clear that the Minister still retains a responsibility for managing existing mining activities?

Can I direct the Green Party member to clause 31, where section 50A is repealed—i.e., Taranaki conservation land, for the purposes of petroleum entitlement allocation, is being changed. In relation to the connection between Taranaki conservation land and tier 3, there is no gold, to the best of my knowledge, being mined in Taranaki.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I appreciate your guidance earlier, and I particularly appreciate your use of language in terms of talking about how we extract the answers, which is obviously what this debate’s about—it’s about how we prevent it. I’ve got a series of questions. My first is around the amendment of section 28A, which is the “Declaration that permits not to be issued or extended for specified land for specified period”. In the change of legislation here, it says “After section 28A(1), insert:”, and it goes on to new subsection (1AA), which is “The Minister may declare that, during a specified period, specified kinds of permits”, and it goes on to paragraph (a) there around “specified land”. Now, I just want to clarify—I know it’s in section 24, just to make sure we are clear, and, obviously, there was your previous answer around conservation land—“will only be granted in respect of specified land”; can we just confirm what that is?

My next question is, if I flip the page and look at section 29B, which is—if I’m flicking through the Act here, 29B: “Process for considering application under public tender for conditional exploration permit”. What the Minister is inserting here is, “After section 29B(1)(a), insert: (ab) the offer specifies a date that is the latest acceptable reassessment date;”. Now, I just want to understand—the Minister could explain—what that actually means, “the [last] acceptable reassessment date”, because that sort of sounds like we’re holding on for dear life to the latest moment, to one minute to midnight or whatever it is. I’d like an answer for that.

My next question—I’ll just keep firing them through—is on the amendment of section 40. Looking at the Crown Minerals Act section 40, if I flip my page here, which is the “Surrender of permit”, and the Minister will be adding in “Replace section 40(9)”, and it goes on with a whole series of statements there. The question I have is right at the bottom there—sorry, looking over there, they add: “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003.”

Hon Shane Jones: This is in Part 3.

GLEN BENNETT: Is this Part 3?

Hon Shane Jones: Yeah.

GLEN BENNETT: Oh, I’ve run ahead. OK. Well, I’ll leave those other three questions for you, and I’ll come to that one when we get to there.

That was actually correct. That was actually still Part 2, clause 26.

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, no, it wasn’t. Clause 40, he was talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Clause 26. Anyway, we’ve got ample time to clarify that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the things I’d just like some clarification on is an earlier answer that the Minister gave. Am I to understand correctly that the Minister is saying that the amendments to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Regulations 2007, that this is the work programme that he is saying is currently out for consultation and that this is the work that is currently being consulted on? That would be good to clarify because, of course, after the passage of this legislation, amendments to those existing regulations will be required. Just some clarity, and also some time lines, around: if they’re out for consultation now, what is the expected time line to those regulations?

One of the things—I’m happy to stop for the Minister to hear the questions while he receives advice, if that’s useful, Mr Chair? Just saying I’m happy to pause so the Minister can hear the questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Are you ready, Minister?

Hon Shane Jones: Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like is to understand more around the tier 3 permits. This is, of course, a new mechanism that’s coming through in this legislation. When we have a look at the process to consider application for tier 3, which is: the application for a tier 3 permit “must provide to the Minister”—that’s all specified. Then we have: “Before granting a permit, the Minister must be satisfied—(a) that the applicant is highly likely to comply with and give proper effect to the work programme, taking into account—(i) the applicant’s technical capability;”. I’d just like some more detail on what it is that will be considered when making that assessment around the applicant’s technical capability? This is, of course, something that the Minister will be considering in terms of a statutory decision. What are the criteria around technical capability that will be put there?

Then, “(ii) the applicant’s financial capability;”—now, I won’t be moving into decommissioning, because that’s clearly in Part 3 of the bill—what will be taken into consideration, anything over and above the ability for decommissioning in terms of the financial capability of the applicant there? These, of course, are tier 3. And, around that, “(iii) any relevant information on the applicant’s failure to comply with permits or rights, or conditions in respect [to] those permits”—what are the things that will be taken in consideration when the Minister is making decisions, and any other relevant information? What does he see? What is the advice that he’s got that might be other relevant information that will come to bear on that decision making?

Then we go over to clause 25, which is the revocation or transfer of those permits. One of the questions I have for the Minister is that it spells out in this clause: “The Minister may revoke … or transfer the permit to the Minister (in replacement [of] the permit holder) if [he] is satisfied that the permit holder has contravened—(a) a condition of the permit; or (b) [the] Act or the regulations.” One of the things that I’m unclear about, and it doesn’t seem to be clear, is how that interacts with the earlier clause that I’m talking about. If you have had a permit revoked—if the Minister has revoked or transferred that permit back to the Minister—can you reapply for a permit? Can you reapply for the same permit in the same place if you go on to satisfy the Minister, or is that ruled out? What about someone who has had a permit revoked? Can they apply for a permit over a different area if they have failed to comply with the conditions of an earlier permit? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some comments that the Minister made a couple of answers ago, and I’ve got some questions off the back of those. I think that prior to asking the questions, it’s important to remember the context in which the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee received and heard submissions for and against this bill, and the speed at which that happened. The specific comment that the Minister made was about this being non-controversial.

My first question is, really, to know how he reaches the conclusion that this is non-controversial, especially given the context of just some excerpts from a couple of submissions. One submission from Te Kotahitanga Marae in Herekino, stated, “full and unwavering opposition”, and also went on to state that it “threatens the very land we live on and the future of our people.” I’m interested to know how the Minister would suggest that that is non-controversial. Secondly, a submission from the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand details international scientific consensus that the use of fossil fuels for energy consumption is the leading cause of climate change, responsible for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of those two submissions alone, I’m interested to know—there are plenty more I could share—how the term “non-controversial” could be used in relation to this; and also, what the threshold for “controversial” would have to be, given the context of just that tiny sample of submissions.

I have further questions on that process. There was a theme that came through in, if not all, the vast majority of submissions: what the need for speed was with the movement of this legislation; whether the Minister has a sense of the total volume of submissions that were received—given the very, very small window of time—what that very large number of submissions was; what the percentage of those submissions that were in opposition were; and also, whether the Minister, particularly in the context of the excerpt from Te Kotahitanga Marae that I shared, could give us any examples of iwi submissions that were made in support of the changes suggested in the bill. Thank you.

I want to deal with the question—it was a very detailed question—as to what’s the importance of the expression specified. It’s an administrative term and it pertains to the area that will be circumscribed as being available for extractive or exploratory or prospecting activity. It will be specified in such a way that there is no doubt as to where the boundaries are.

On the question of Māori submissions, I’ve covered that off and I’m the first to admit that the submissions reflect a wide array of passion and perspectives. However, that lay within the purview of the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I salute them for their service. However, I have already pointed out, for the purposes of allocating entitlements under this statute, the provision enabling Māori engagement to take place has not changed.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your clarification just to understand, because I was speaking in my previous call to clause 26, which talks about section 40 being amended.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member’s right. You were referring to clauses 20 and 26, which are in Part 2. You’d be welcome to carry on your questioning or you might want to reiterate your question.

GLEN BENNETT: Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the clarification. The reason I want to understand is because there is, obviously, a series of additions—

Hon Shane Jones: Section 40 is in Part 3.

GLEN BENNETT: It is, yes.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: But clause 26 isn’t.

GLEN BENNETT: It is clause 26. Thank you. Thank you very much. I just want to understand, because what it does, if I look at the Act which I have in front of me, is it actually adds something new in terms of—and I understand that in the current Act as it stands it does say the permit was granted before 21 August 2023—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, just what section are you on now, Mr Bennett?

GLEN BENNETT: Sorry, I’ve just been talking about—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Clause 26.

GLEN BENNETT: Clause 26, which then speaks to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you—thank you.

GLEN BENNETT: I think, on my paper it’s page 12 I’m looking at. What I’m seeing and wanting to understand from the Minister is currently, yes, it does have in replacement section 40(9)(b)(i) “the permit was granted before 21 August 2003 and was a permit other than in respect of petroleum;”, and then it goes on to add something which isn’t in the original bill. I just want to understand why the Minister has chosen to add the next part, in subparagraph (ii), which is “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003.”?

Now, currently, as it stands—I know it is in a previous part—but why is that being added in terms of “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003”? Hopefully, my question is clear, because I just don’t see it in the current legislation, but I see it being added to this new piece. I want the Minister just to clarify why that is being put in there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a very specific question and proposed amendment in response to the Minister’s response to a prior call by my colleague Steve Abel. This is about clause 31, in Part 2, which is on page 13 of the bill, and it was about the repeal of the restricted access to Taranaki conservation land. I’d really like to hear from the Minister, because we haven’t had a response, about what advice he has received from the Department of Conservation (DOC) on this, and if he has considered that advice in making this decision to repeal section 50A of the Crown Minerals Act.

I really want to point that out, because we have a proposed amendment to delete clause 31—this is on page 13, lines 10 and 11—which would have the effect of not repealing section 50A. I’m really keen to hear from the Minister about any advice from DOC and whether that has been considered in his decision to proceed with this clause. Thank you.

Glen Bennett. Oh, sorry, the honourable Minister. How I missed you, I’ll never know, Mr Jones.

I can revert to volume, but for fear of being censured again, I’ll behave.

Look, I think the point that’s made about the Taranaki conservation land—obviously, in the development of any policy there is advice sought from a range of Government departments—but the point that this provision makes is that that land will now be made available. I accept that not everyone is of a single mind in that regard, and the fact that advice may have been drawn from Government departments is just part of the policy-making process.

I just want to go back to an earlier question, because it was a very important question and I’ve sought some advice. It had to do with clause 24: was there a process for assessing whether or not a person’s, if I can use that word figuratively, appropriateness or capacity to comply—is that being taken into account? The things relate, obviously, to what is the technical capability—as the former Minister has referred to, I think; will their financial capability be taken into place? Yes. And would one study their past behaviours? That criteria, whilst it may not be totally outlined legislatively, obviously it’s within the code of practice that we would expect the Civil Service to apply.

The overall test in terms of an applicant’s ability to comply with the work programme is such that there are cases where, if they don’t comply, they don’t get a permit. But, at the same time, the whole purpose of tier 3, and the references that are being made here, is to ensure that it’s not so burdensome that it squashes entrepreneurial resolve and actually ends up hobbling the industry. Quite straightforward and riddled with common sense, I’d have thought.

I thank the Minister for talking more about the criteria that will be applied for that decision making in terms of the suitability of applicants. One of the things that I am interested to know, that the Minister didn’t address, is whether if someone has a permit revoked, this will rule them out from holding a permit either in the same area or in alternative areas; whether there’s a time frame around that or what the Minister would need to be satisfied that someone had gone on the appropriate redemption arc in terms of the ability to hold a permit and what that would look like.

That’s actually a very important point. Now, as in other statutory regimes, one smudge against an entity’s name should not condemn them to permanent exile. We have cases, for example, in the fishing industry where there may have been infractions in the past, but people consider the changes that they may have made, the efforts to improve their capacity to comply. I think that the former Minister is well aware, and I’m sure the more sentient members of the Opposition will appreciate, that the test is “likely to comply”. These are judgments that are made by the Civil Service within the confines of the law on a regular basis. I don’t need to recite examples where there have been cases of infraction but people have tidied their act up and they’ve been able to continue on. Indeed, the gold—I won’t talk any more about gold because I actually want us to focus on Taranaki.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister for that, and I do point him to the clause of the bill that I am asking questions on, which is clause 19 which inserts a new section 29AB, the “Process for considering application for Tier 3 permit”. While the Minister says these are considerations that bureaucrats need to take into consideration, what we’re talking about here is actually ministerial decision-making. What we have in new section 29AB, the “Process for considering application for Tier 3 permit”, (1) and under number (2), is it’s the Minister that must be satisfied. These are decisions the Minister will be making, not his officials—not bureaucrats that will be making these.

The Minister refers to “one smudge” not being out; I think the committee needs to have more of an understanding from the Minister what the kinds of considerations are that the Minister himself will be taking into account, because this isn’t something that is being delegated out through this legislation; this is something that the Minister will be doing themselves. In terms of that, any other relevant information—I’m still unclear whether or not, if you have contravened a previous permit, that rules you out either in coming further down the line and seeking another permit on that same area of land or whether you decide that if you’ve lost a permit in that area, you’re going to go and apply for a permit across the road. I’m still not clear whether that is something the Minister will countenance, and given there is a lot of power being given to the Minister with a new class of permit that’s being introduced through this section of the legislation, the committee needs to know this detail.

The Minister can’t simply say, “My officials will take that into consideration”, because the Minister has brought to the floor of this House a piece of legislation that is saying these are things that he has thought through, these are things that he is seeking permission to do, and this is how the committee can be satisfied, the kinds of things that will be taken into consideration.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. As was alluded to or spoken to by my colleague Reuben Davidson, obviously, there was a rushed process, and we understand the reality of that, but I’m going to be speaking to replacement section 35, inserted by clause 22, the amendment around the “Duration of permit”. I just want to understand from the Minister—I apologise if this is offensive, but it feels like this was done on the fly, in terms of being done very quickly and the expectation of officials to get it right. Therefore, would there be a chance or an opportunity maybe for us to consider some amendments? When I look at replacement section 35, inserted by clause 22, the amendment here, “(8A) A Tier 3 permit expires”, it’s got “10 years after the commencement date”.

Now, when I look at the duration period in section 35 of the original Act, there are so many different time frames in this. If I look at the Act, four years is one of them. Then there’s 15 years when it comes to petroleum. Or, if we look at other minerals, other than petroleum, it’s 10 years, which, obviously, is consistent with what is in here. Then it talks further on about a mining permit of 40 years. I don’t want to give the Minister opportunity to extend this—God forbid!—but, in terms of the consideration, when the Minister did obviously signal what he wanted in the legislation, and then what actually appears, has there been any consideration given to this Act, which, obviously, is more than 30 years old—there have been changes over the years—in terms of whether these duration time frames are right?

I mean, personally, obviously, this side of the committee would want, if and when this bill does pass, to see those time frames shortened, because we want to move on and transition to renewables. We want to transition away from our reliance on having to dig things out of the ground. My question to the Minister is: given that he is making some quite major changes to the Act, is there any consideration to maybe consider whether this duration period in replacement section 35 is actually fit for purpose in 2024 and going forward? And would it be important, maybe, for us to review it—if we’re here now, why not look at it and see what we could do to actually improve this but also look at how we speed up the reliance on fossil fuels?

Obviously, any reference to a Minister has the capacity to delegate down to the Civil Service. In relation to the last contribution, the man said that he may or may not have an amendment. If he wants to table an amendment, that’s up to him.

One piece of information that I am still waiting on the Minister for, and it would be appreciated if we could have that information, is that clarity around the programme that he said was out for consultation: whether they are the amendments to the regulations that will be required by these legislative changes; if that is the case, what is the time frame, in terms of the conclusion of their consultation, and when we can expect to see those new regulations put in place? Or is this something else that’s out for consultation? It is a genuine question.

Going back to the core, one of the things that this part does, in terms of the new allocation methods, in terms of there being different opening periods—I think that is something that will require some change. In terms of prior to 2018, when the changes were made, New Zealand was using the block offer system, which was quite a regimented system. There was some certainty around time frames, but this is bringing in alternative allocation measures through these amendments to the legislation here in Part 2. The bill doesn’t make any reference for time frames when applying for these permits, where this was predictable under a block offer system.

There are still some live questions around what that will look like under a more ad hoc system where people can come and they can apply for a permit. What do the time frames look like? I think that is something that many people will want to know and something that needs to be answered. There were some suggestions made through the course of the submissions at the select committee. People were talking about bifurcated regimes in terms of onshore and offshore. Is this something the Minister is considering or is he considering there will be one regime that will go across both sorts of permits? It’s something they’re really keen to allow for.

Also, section 23A(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 allows for applications, of course, to be made to the chief executive. This is, unlike the previous clause that I was talking about, where the Minister will be making a decision, something that will actually be going through to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and the detail of that application process will be set out in the regulations. I circle back to how I started this contribution and this question: is that the regulations that are currently out for consultation?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was actually struggling—I was physically writing my amendment; that’s why it took me a moment to get to my feet. I think this is important. Given the Minister for Resources has offered for me to put an amendment on the Table, I am going to propose an amendment, which I will pose. Also, I agree, and in no way was I trying to undermine the Minister in terms of delegation—I totally understand that, in terms of delegating this work to the officials—I think the officials need to be commended for the hard work they do to support the work of Ministers in and of this Parliament.

What I am looking at is an amendment to amend section 35 of the Act, “Duration of permit”, in new subsection (8A), inserted by clause 22 of the bill, to replace it with “A Tier 3 permit expires—(a) five years after the commencement”; removing the “10” and putting “five years” in there. The reason I want to propose that amendment is that I think this is an interesting space for us to be in, in terms of the tier 3 that’s being inserted into this bill. I feel like it’s just giving it a bit of time and a bit of space for us to reflect, and a bit of time and space to ensure that this legislation, once it becomes an Act of Parliament, is actually—not fit for purpose, but the reality would be, in terms of when you look at the potential damage that could be done or potential of the consequences. I read earlier about streams and rivers, and, of course, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that they are swimmable and they are usable.

I will continue writing my amendment as quickly as I can so I can get it on the Table, to look at it being five years, rather than 10. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was actually delaying getting up because I was hoping the Minister for Resources—and it looks like he might be updating us in terms of those critical questions around the regulations that are currently out for consultation and whether that is the 2007 regulations, so I’ll allow the Minister.

Yeah, consultation is available till February 2025. There will be, as is sort of consistent with the approach of this Government, ample opportunity for stakeholders to have their say—and, of course, I’m talking about the petroleum programme work, which is a regular feature of this part of our natural resource economy. It’s difficult to see what else I could say other than that. I have a sense that my capacity to answer questions has been exhausted because they’re getting repetitive.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 214 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 14, 15, and 16 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 31 be agreed to.

The question is that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.