Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Members, we come first to the amendments proposed to Part 1 of the bill. This is the debate on amendments to clauses 5, 8, 9, and 10 set out on Amendment Paper 343. This question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you for your guidance to help us in this, but as you’ve mentioned, it was 5 p.m. yesterday that this was presented. From this side, as we go through and we work our way to make sure we clarify and understand, I think for some of it, we may, potentially, veer in a few spaces because we’re trying to dig into the actual answer. I’d just ask for some guidance, but also some support, from you, as the Chair, that as we do, maybe, veer off, we’re not doing it on purpose; we’re just trying to make sure that we can get clarity and come to the places that we need to in this legislation—which is very unusual. It’s not unprecedented, but it is unusual for us to be coming into this space this afternoon.

I understand, which is why I made those signals early on, that we’re taking into account the fact that this was only presented at 5 p.m. and that there is some relevance across other parts of the bill—so there will be some leniency in the scope.

I draw the House’s attention to this Amendment Paper 343 because the contributions to this sensible amendment ought to be tight and they ought to be focused. If I can very quickly elaborate what is the problem that we have sought to remedy: the previous regime did not deal with a particular issue. The issue is that there are several ways how a person or an entity can move on from holding a permit. One is they can sell the permit; one is they can dispose of the script or the equity in an entity that holds a permit; of course, the other two involve the Crown: either have the permit taken off you or, indeed, a surrender back to the Crown.

If I could direct the attention of the various members who will speak on this issue: it became evident to us that someone departing, through a process of a share transfer or disposal of equity, may escape any liability whatsoever. Now, this is an important issue, that an entity or a person, having held these entitlements to derive economic returns from our natural resource base with rights allocated, if not originally under the Petroleum Act 1937 then certainly under the Crown Minerals Act, which we are amending today—so this corrects that loophole, which has actually existed for quite some time. The balance that we’ve sought to strike is to ensure that we don’t provide an unnecessary level of risk to the revenue base of the Crown or, at the same time, we don’t add to the chilling impact that has blighted this sector for quite some time. That is the balance that we’ve sought to strike in remedying the situation that we uncovered once we went to a more finicky level than was originally used.

Before I take the first call, can I please ask members to refer to the clause that you are speaking to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as the Minister did, I will spend a little time on the problem definition in this contribution, that one of the—we know that what this bill is doing, this Amendment Paper that we’ve got before us, is around the decommissioning regime and particularly the liability laws and the trailing liability rules that are around that. I think we’re in a relatively unique situation for this House, to have a recommitted bill with an Amendment Paper of this substance to go through.

These are big questions that sit in here that we do need, as a committee, some time to scrutinise. There’re some very important questions that sit in this Amendment Paper that is before us here. The Minister says that these are loopholes that are being closed for the betterment and to protect the public interest. Throughout all parts of this bill, we’ll be saying and asking and asking for an explanation from the Minister: why does that require ministerial discretion-making powers? That is what this Amendment Paper gives. It stops there being a statutory decision being made to one where a Minister or two Ministers—the Minister for Resources and the Minister of Finance—will make discretionary decisions and, as we will go into throughout various parts of this bill, there is no criteria for that decision making.

So the Minister needs to spend his time in the chair answering some very specific questions and outlining to this House—given he has brought an Amendment Paper that has only been before the House for a very small amount of time, given that this has been away from the House for nearly eight months and this has dropped with 24 hours’ notice, he needs to explain in some detail how it is that these discretionary powers are exercised.

Now, obviously, Part 2 of the bill does put into play those discretionary powers, but we can see, for example, clause 10 of Part 1: “to make decisions (with others) on whether to require outgoing guarantees and, if so, to determine what outgoing guarantees are appropriate”—we can see that discretion is coming in here and we need to start doing that.

Now, to say this Amendment Paper has had a unique passage to this House is somewhat of an understatement. This started out that the Government brought a bill to the House, it went away to select committee, and then an Amendment Paper was brought at committee stage around the decommissioning regime.

The Amendment Paper that we have in front of us scraps all of that; it puts aside both the original bill and the original amendment, and proposes a different regime. So this requires some solid explanation, because we are not talking about something trivial or small or, indeed, theoretical. This is about how we protect New Zealand taxpayers, and this is not a theoretical discussion. We know from the cost of the Tui clean-up, when our Government had to change the law because the previous National Government had left the door wide open, that New Zealand taxpayers had to fork out over $440 million to clean up, in that in that scenario. Our Government changed the law to protect New Zealand taxpayers.

The original bill that was brought to this House weakened those decommissioning obligations that we had put in place on the oil and gas companies. This Amendment Paper that we have before us today further weakens those protections for the New Zealand taxpayer, and this is serious, because what we do know is that we have total decommissioning costs for New Zealand oilfields of approximately $2.5 billion sitting ahead of us; we have $2 billion needed for four offshore fields, and nearly $500 million for 2021 onshore fields.

So this is no small or theoretical problem that we are discussing today. Our Government—when we were in Government—was not prepared to put the New Zealand taxpayer at risk. This Government has shown they are. They have bowed to the suggestions of the oil and gas companies and done what they wanted. They have further bowed to the interests of the oil and gas companies in taking eight months to sit with them, find out what they wanted, and then bring a bill back to the House.

This is not a Government that is putting New Zealand first, that is certainly for sure. What we see is a Government that is prepared to put big oil and big gas companies before the interests of the taxpayers of New Zealand, with these watered-down provisions that we are going to be seeking answers about today in these decommissioning obligations that are there. It has been a torturous path to get here; it is going to require some unpicking, and our side of the House certainly will have a series of questions around why a Government thinks it is better to bow to the interests of the oil and gas companies than to stand up New Zealanders and to protect New Zealand taxpayers.

Just a short response. Can I encourage all contributors to identify what provision and what page they’re referring to, because I suspect they haven’t read the bill. On page 11, new section 41F clearly lays it out. This is why the answers, had they read the bill—you don’t need to address it in a generic way. Those answers lie in front of you. It’s just not reasonable for a recitation of a regime that’s long gone. We don’t need to hear arguments that were recited when this matter was dealt with before, prior to us discovering the loophole that had been left by the Jacinda Ardern regime.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order.

There’s no need for a point of order, Dr Megan Woods. I did give instruction at the beginning for contributions to refer to the particular part and clause that we were debating. I gave some leverage on that because it was an introduction to the bill, but I think, from now on, we come back and we’re very explicit about the part and the clause that is being referred to.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just seeking clarification. That ruling that you just made will also apply to the Minister, I take it, to be in the right part of the bill.

It applies to the whole committee.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t want to interrupt the flow earlier, but I did note that the Minister has a penchant for, effectively, providing objections from the chair during the contributions from members. It’s well understood that that is not an appropriate practice to adopt, and so I was just wanting to flag that with you so that perhaps we would get off to a good start and good tone, rather than having to draw that to the attention, moving forward.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I assure you that it did not escape my attention.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be referring to new clause 26B on Amendment Paper 343, which is the removal of sections 41AA and 41AB, which are to be replaced with new sections 41AA and 41AB, as outlined on page 3. It is important, of course, for context, to understand the problem that we’re trying to deal with here, and in that regard, a lot of my questions will prosecute the scale of the challenge that we face with decommissioning, because defining who is liable for those costs of decommissioning, which can be substantial—as has been outlined by my colleague Megan Woods—is very important, and so is how those liabilities will be met.

Noting that the Minister has obviously grappled with a lot of advice on this matter and has come back to the committee of the whole House a second time with his new amendment, which reverses the position of the bill that was introduced in November 2024 and makes it so that existing permit holders are absolutely liable for unmet commissioning—

Look, I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but can you please clarify which part—

STEVE ABEL: New clause 26B on page 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is that in Part 1 of the bill?

STEVE ABEL: Sorry, yes, we’re on Part 1, right—oh, shit!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes.

STEVE ABEL: I’d jumped across.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll come back to you in Part 2.

STEVE ABEL: Oh, you’re absolutely right—my apologies, Madam Chair. Yes, I’ve got ahead of myself.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on something the Minister said. The Minister said that if only we had read the bill, we wouldn’t be asking some of the questions that we were asking. Of course, this Amendment Paper was dropped on the Table at 5 p.m. last night, when no members were here in the House. It’s a substantial Amendment Paper. It might be about a narrow and technical issue, but there are 21 pages before we get to the explanatory note. We actually need to spend some time on this, and we’re going to do it clause by clause.

I want to direct the Minister’s attention right back to the start of this, and I’m going back to clause 5 on Amendment Paper 343—it’s page 1, clause 5—which is in Part 1 of the bill, and it inserts—sorry, it’s page 4 of the bill, page 1 of the Amendment Paper. What it does is it inserts clause 5(5), “a transfer of a participating interest in a permit or the transfer of a license or a participating interest in a license is effective on and after the date of the Minister’s consent to that transfer.” So there’s a couple of things that are interesting there. Now, we do need to explore what the Minister’s consent is. I understand, from the fact that the Minister went into this on his previous contribution, that perhaps that is addressed later on, and we’ll get to that.

The date, as well, is kind of quite interesting, because it just implies that until we know what the conditions of the consent around that are, there’s a degree of judgment, a degree of flexibility, a degree of, I suppose, a capacity for the Minister to delay the particular date of consenting to it, to accelerate the date. There’s a degree of discretion there for the Minister as to when that transfer might become effective. Of course, that then impacts everything else in the bill, because the transfer is quite important. What I want to understand from the Minister is the extent to which that Minister’s consent—which we’re going to discuss later—can be, I suppose, gamed, as it were, by shifting the date around. There’s a possibility that that could happen. I want to know what safeguards the Minister has in mind.

You know, when we give Ministers discretion to do such stuff, it does imply a degree of, of course, trust in the Minister’s judgment. And perhaps the current Minister in the chair is someone we would trust in that judgment. But what about the next Minister and the next Minister after that? We need to know what safeguards the Minister has in place around the exercise of what seems to be a discretion around the date of the consent.

So if the Minister could perhaps just talk a little bit about the safeguards that are there—and perhaps they are there later in the bill. Of course, only having gotten it, you know, perhaps ready today as we all arrived back here, it’s a little hard to know what’s going on here, so just some advice on that. Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to clause 10 in Part 1 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. The Amendment Paper is amending “Section 5 amended (Functions of Minister)”—we’re on page 2 of the Amendment Paper.

Section 5 is the amended functions of the Minister. What we have, through clause 10, is “After clause 10(2) (page 7, after line 2), insert: (2A) After section 5(c), insert: (caa) to make decisions (with others) on whether to require outgoing guarantees and, if so, to determine what outgoing guarantees are appropriate:”. So, although the bulk of ministerial discretion and decision-making powers are covered in Part 2 of this bill, what we can see here in clause 10, in Part 1 of the bill, under the functions of the Minister, is we are starting to see the introduction of these discretionary powers—and even in this very short inclusion, around (2A)—“(caa) to make decisions (with others)”. Which others? This is not spelt out. Who are the other people?

We see, in other parts of the bill, that that’s the Minister of Finance, but the Amendment Paper doesn’t say “with an other”—it says “with others”. So who else? It’s plural. Who else is envisioned as being a decision maker in that amended clause, “on whether to require outgoing guarantees and, if so, to determine what outgoing guarantees are appropriate:”? I would seek some of the policy thought that the Minister can share with the committee that went into this clause 10(2A) amendment, around what were the criteria around that. We know that discretionary powers need to be a little bit more than the whim of a Minister. It’s not a statutory decision that’s being made as defined; it’s a discretionary power that’s being granted here. Surely the Minister has had some discussions around parameters, around criteria, and what will guide decision making—what will be the principles that guide his decision making in this area? I look forward to the Minister elucidating further on that.

Yes, thank you. Look, it’s really a remarkably succinct response I offer. Answers will be revealed as we work in a methodical way through all parts of this Amendment Paper. It is probably superfluous at this stage to go into answers on both of those points when we will get to the necessary detail as we plough through the remainder of the bill.

Thank you. I do just have a follow-up question for the Minister on that, given we are on Part 1, and we are asking questions about clause 10 of the bill. We will get to further parts of the bill at a later date, but given the short period of time that the House has had this bill, can the Minister please refer us to the clause where those parameters or criteria are defined, that we’ll get to in subsequent parts of the bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Related to this statement—and noting, as my colleagues have said, that it is interesting to be looking at an Amendment Paper on a bill that’s already been reported back—the point that Dr Megan Woods appeared to be making that I think the Minister was responding to, but I’m not sure, was the relationship with outgoing guarantees and when they are appropriate. I realise that in Part 2, there is a definition of an outgoing guarantee, but the question here is about the Minister’s functions. So it is the Minister’s function now to make decisions on whether to require outgoing guarantees or not, and this seems to be a very big power and a new power for the Minister to have. So it would be very useful for the Minister to comment on—doesn’t have to go on exactly about what outgoing guarantees are—the nature of this new power and whether or not there are any constraints in Part 1 of the principal Act, the principal Act as amended by last time we were in the committee of the whole House, or this Amendment Paper. Are there constraints on those functions that he can point us to?

I appreciate the Minister’s position, but he’s kind of just said, “Well, trust me.”—“Trust me.” Perhaps we might have a little bit of concern about that, because the particular history suggests that things get changed around quite dramatically from time to time. It’s a little tricky to just go with it, because we are dealing with an Act and then the bill which amends the Act, and now this Amendment Paper which amends the bill which amends the Act—so there’s the amendment to the amendment. It is actually complicated, and the speed with which we’re having to deal with it does mean that we’re going to have to do a little bit more than just take the Minister’s word for it. All we’ve asked for is which clauses. We don’t need to debate them now, but if he could indicate those clauses, that would be very, very helpful.

I’m conscious that—please pull me up if I’ve raced ahead too far. What I said to the committee when I referred in my first contribution: sections on pages 10 and 11, essentially, provide the detail, and I accept, Madam Chair, by the time we get to those pages, we’re probably not able, without the leave of the House, to come back to clause 10. But having been pulled up myself many times in this House for talking about the wrong part of the bill—not this bill—I want to be absolutely sure you don’t chide me. Can I suggest, for ease of understanding, that elements of the reference in clause 10, where people may want to understand, well, what will the determination be based on—I direct their attention to pages 10 and 11.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m now going to go backwards and talk about clause 8 in Part 1 of the bill. Amendment Paper 343 deletes the new section 2C(1)(c) inserted by clause 8—that’s page 6, lines 14 to 20. So if we have a look at 2C(1)(c), that’s in the “Determination of permit tier status”, and this is a significant part of how the legislation will operate. So determination of permit tier status 2C(1)(c) is: “at any time that the permit is partially surrendered under section 40(2) if—(i) the partial surrender results in the permit applying to an area not exceeding 50 continue continuous hectares; and (ii) the permit holder, in the application lodged under section 40(1)(a), states that the purpose of the application is to satisfy the requirements of a Tier 3 permit as set out in section 2B(2A).” Now, according to the Amendment Paper, there is no replacement for what is being deleted in this section. So I just would like the Minister for Resources to explain to the committee, first of all, why that is being deleted, what the impact would be, and what the policy rationale is for the removal of that clause. Just to repeat, that’s clause 8 of the Amendment Paper.

I just want to add a little bit to what my colleague Megan Woods has talked about, and that is this Minister determining the tier status of a permit: “The Minister must determine the tier status of a permit”—if I can get that phrase out—“… on first granting the permit”, and so on.

By deleting that clause determining the tier status of a permit, does that mean that the tier status of a permit is no longer determined anywhere? Is it just something that doesn’t exist anymore? By deleting that, the Minister has left several unanswered questions about, obviously, what the tier status of a permit is, but is there a clause somewhere else in this Amendment Paper that actually does say how the tier status of a permit is to be determined? It says it is determined by the Minister—this is in the amendment bill—but is it now determined, perhaps, on a factual basis? Is there another way it’s determined? Or is the idea of the tier status abandoned altogether? Or is there something in the original Act that does it?

There is a lot of confusion around this particular clause, and it looks so innocuous in the Amendment Paper. It just says, “In clause 8, delete [this]”, but, in actual fact, when we dig into it, it turns out that there is a wee bit more substance in it and a few unanswered questions there, in terms of what is actually going on with this deletion, what problem it was supposed to solve in the first place, but now, if other problems are introduced by the mere fact of the deletion, that’s all getting a little bit complicated. But this is, indeed, as we said, going to be complicated, and we’re just going to have to try to deal with it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister for Resources prepares his thoughts to tell us why that part that clause is being deleted, what the policy rationale is that sat behind it, and how it is achieving the policy intent that he’s told the House is the reason why he’s bringing this Amendment Paper to the House in this highly unusual fashion in the way in which this bill is progressing, I’d also like to know if there’s a reason why there’s nothing that it’s being replaced with. To simply remove a chunk of an amended piece of legislation that’s gone to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, that hearings have been held on, that submitters have had the chance to submit on—I can understand sometimes that we need to have clauses of bills that need to be tweaked and fixed, and there might need to be the odd word changed, but to simply just remove quite a large portion of this clause of the bill is quite unusual.

If this was at select committee, Madam Chair, as you will know, there would be quite a discussion with committee members about whether or not that was the right thing to do, and the implications for further on in the bill. We know in these Part 1 bits, where you’re doing things like setting up the functions of the Minister and determining the tier status of permits, that these have long flow-on effects into a piece of legislation.

I just want to hear from the Minister the why—we’ve already indicated and we’re waiting for him to give us an explanation on why it was done—but also further to that why it wasn’t replaced.

I think it’s important that I remind the committee that this bill not only deals with elements of the oil and gas industry but it also creates a new level of permissiveness for mining. This particular change gets rid of duplication. The power remains solely with the Minister in the event that a tier 2 permit, which is quite restrictive, might then be changed to a tier 3 permit, which, in the bill, is, essentially, a type of hobby mining. But it’s propelled forward by a policy set of impulses that wants to see an acceleration of mining in New Zealand.

It may just be that I haven’t had the bill very long, but that didn’t really inform me a great deal on what the policy intent was. So I’d like the Minister to clarify, given the answers that he’s just given, whether or not this only applies to hobby mining permits, as he indicated in the answer that he just gave, because I can’t see anything in that “clause 8, delete new section 2C(1)(c)”. New section 2C(1)(c) states: “at any time that the permit is partially surrendered under section 40(2)”, because this is the determination of permit tier status. This clause in the amendment bill that the Amendment Paper is amending does not specify it’s around hobby mining. So I’d just like the Minister to clarify to the committee whether he is indeed informing us that this entire determination of permit tier status is confined to that narrow window.

The Minister has a way with words, but I just wonder if his way with words sometimes fails him. In particular, the Minister said—and this has got me even more worried now—that a lot of what was going on in here was “the impulse to allow more mining”. Now, I accept that the Minister was searching for a word, but “impulse” has got me deeply worried. I’m really hoping, Minister, that, in actual fact, it’s more than just an impulse here—that it wasn’t just that the Minister woke up one night and had a bright idea. If that was the case, Minister, I don’t think we actually want to know! I am concerned now; in fact, I am just going to say, Minister, that perhaps every time the Minister speaks, I get a little more worried.

In terms of this, Minister, I do want to understand now this tier 2 to tier 3, and he mentioned hobby mining. I think having mentioned hobby mining, I do want to understand from the Minister what is meant by “hobby mining”? Is this just some kid digging in the backyard? Or is it a farmer having a crack at what she thinks is some deposit on her farm that might actually hold minerals of some worth? What is actually the distinction between hobby mining and proper mining? That’s a distinction that the Minister seems to have brought into this debate. Perhaps he didn’t really mean to; perhaps it was just an “impulse”, but a little bit of clarification around that so that we can be sure that what is going on with this deletion is actually worth it.

I thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister—look, I think it’s—what are we? Part 1, clauses 8 to 10. Specifically, I want to drill into—and that’s a pun—the trailing liability protections and the problem that the Minister is looking to solve and the confidence with which the Minister is looking to do something completely different to what we’ve seen done in the past. I speak from experience, being one of three—no, I think he’s gone—who live in Taranaki at the moment, and I have seen the knowledge on the ground being disregarded when we’ve seen the likes of Tui and Tamarind and what that cost taxpayers. What should have been a $150 million clean-up then became a $443 million and then a two-hundred and something million.

My question is: from those lessons learnt, is the Minister confident that the amendments will give him the discretion to protect and pre-empt when we see companies not only flipping shares—not permits—and then how sophisticated they are in avoiding decommissioning costs and the way that that affects the wider community?

A follow-up to that question is: if the Minister is confident—having lived in Taranaki for most of my life—what has happened differently in the same agency that existed when Tui and Tamarind were creating those problems? What capacity does he see surrounding the amendments to the bill that he’s making so that not only can the sector get confidence but, obviously, that those who live around these companies and their activities have confidence that we’re not going to have to foot another bill? Also, given that the Minister’s amendments—I’m not sure that they’re ambitious, but they’re looking to solve a problem and a gap that’s clearly been identified. What support does he see and what gear-up of that particular agency is there to ensure that what the gap is will never happen again?

Without delving into the innards of Part 2, I do respect the contribution that’s been made, because the circumstances of the incident, the Tamarind brouhaha—the answers don’t just lie in this bill; they lie also in another piece of legislation administered by the Environmental Protection Authority. I don’t want to cut across what the honourable member has raised—but I’ll address it when we get into the innards of Part 2—but her point is extremely well made, that, sadly, the last regime spent $300 million more than should’ve been necessary.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 10: after clause 10(2), there will be inserted “to make decisions (with others),”—it would be good to understand the definition of those “others”—“on whether to require outgoing guarantees and, if so, to determine what outgoing guarantees are appropriate:”.

It’s a question as to the discretion of the Minister here, in so far as one of the feedbacks that came in the supplementary analysis report was that it would be useful to have further analysis of the guardrails to support ministerial discretion, to address any risks or perception of risk of regulatory capture, and to ensure discretion is exercised in a consistent manner. It specifically referred to consultation on proposed changes, particularly with iwi and hapū, but I wonder the extent to which the Minister has this discretion and the ability to make determinations about outgoing guarantees and what outgoing guarantees are appropriate. It just seems like a very broad ambit—and understanding what the basis for those things will be.

There will be a strong enthusiasm—and the Minister has clearly expressed a great enthusiasm for trying to bring back this dead industry that had its final nail in the coffin placed by the 2018 ban but was already well on its way to departure—to not put in place barriers to that industry, to the extent that the Minister might be encouraged to not place burdensome or onerous expectations in this area on that industry. That would be a significant concern, given that where those guarantees were not appropriate, the cost would fall to the public purse. So I wonder if the Minister could elucidate us on the parameters around which that sort of discretion will be exercised?

I’m always trying to be useful. I thought it could be useful at this stage to remind the Minister for Resources of the outstanding questions that still haven’t been addressed that had been put to him in the chair, given the unique nature of this committee stage with a bill being recommitted. We’re still waiting to know which “others” in clause 10(2A) of Amendment Paper 343—“others” plural, where in other parts of this Amendment Paper it only talks about the Minister of Finance. So who does he envision are the other people, and what is the policy intent behind that? Is it specified anywhere in the Act, or is that, again, just an impulse that the Minister will act on?

Clause 8: we’re still waiting to find out is this just confined to hobby mining, or is it indeed the whole gambit of things covered by the Crown Minerals Act? The Minister, in his answer, indicated that it was hobby mining. That’s not my reading, but, as I said, I may well be wrong. We’ve only had this bill for a very short period of time, so I would seek clarification from the Minister who has penned this Amendment Paper and brought it here. It is important that we understand the forensic detail and thinking.

What we’re also wanting to understand and we haven’t had any answers from the Minister on is why it is that there is a clause that is being removed and not replaced with anything, that I asked the Minister of in new section 2C, which is what clause 8 of this bill does. So there are many, many unanswered questions that are sitting out there.

I have another one to add to the list, that we have in clause 10, amending section 5, which of course is the section of the Act which is the functions of the Minister. One of the things I’d like the Minister to let us know: when considering those functions of the Minister—and particularly the new clause 10(2A), inserted by Amendment Paper 343: “After section 5(c), insert: (caa)”—we received advice in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, the Minister received advice, everybody received advice that what was happening in terms of the reversal and the changes to the decommissioning regime, which is the subject of this Amendment Paper, would reverse the additional protections for some Taranaki conservation land, and iwi were concerned that this would undermine rights in existing Treaty settlements if mining is once again allowed on those tracts, or adjacent tracts, of land. So whether or not the undermining of Treaty settlements was something that the Minister considered when he was considering that clause 10 section of this bill, which are the functions of the Minister—because that is the kind of thing that when a Minister is thinking about their functions, they do need to think broadly about those things.

Yes, the word “others” obviously refers, as the Hon Megan Woods has already adverted to, to the Minister of Finance. Now, why would that be the case? Largely because there are liability questions at stake here, and the person ordinarily charged with having responsibility for managing what the Crown signs up to and its fiscal impact is the so-said Minister I just referred to.

In respect of clause 8, I repeat what I said: it avoids duplication, and when we get further down the track into Part 2, I’ll be able to point to the necessary sections. I accept that the amendment bill has not been held particularly long, but as a community of parliamentarians, it’s important that trust is exhibited. Yes, there will be large decisions to be made by Ministers, but that’s what we are: we’re public officials accountable for our decisions.

Look, first of all, thank you to the Minister for making an attempt at answering that question about “others”. But the Minister is someone who is known for his ability with language—I think, someone who prides himself on his ability with language and of knowledge of how language works. I’m just going to point out to the Minister that “others” is a plural.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s right; words matter.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Words matter. “Others” is a plural. The last time I looked, the “Minister of Finance” was a singular—I won’t say entity—a singular person. So unless something changed about the nature of the Minister of Finance—I mean, I’m sorry, Minister, that is just not going to fly. It might need to say, “with another”, or something like that. I know it only seems minor, but words matter in law, and as soon as we’re using a plural, we do need to worry about it. So perhaps there is someone in addition to the Minister of Finance who is going to be making that decision with the Minister; perhaps there is not.

But if it is just one person, Minister, I’m very, very happy to put together an Amendment Paper to the Amendment Paper to ensure to take that “s” out. It would be an unusual thing for an Opposition Amendment Paper to be accepted for an Amendment Paper to a Government bill, but perhaps the Minister might be happy to do that. Alternatively, as the master of words that he is known as, perhaps he could let us know who the “other” of these “others” is, other than the Minister of Finance?

Listen, we are prosecuting this particular clause deeply because it has a very significant impact on an issue that we know is a big problem for this industry: decommissioning. Particularly as the industry is in its sunset era, it all the more becomes the concern that if the Minister’s ambitions for attracting back the oil and gas industry fail, then we are going to be on the hook for the cost of decommissioning. Particularly, the companies, as we know and in the examples we’ve been given, go belly-up, they haven’t got the funds to deal with the mess they’ve left behind, and the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

I would just really appreciate if the Minister could give us absolute clarity as to what advice he got on the perception of regulatory capture and the risks of that perception, with the combination of these two wordings that are achieved through this amendment to clause 10, whereby in section 5—the functions of the Minister—the duty to “attract permit applications, including by way of” is associated with “by way of making decisions on whether to require outgoing guarantees”. That seems to be a direct contradiction in the duty of the Minister responsible for protecting the common interest and the common good from the risks of decommissioning not being covered, in terms of its costs and in terms of its impact on people, on the environment.

I would just really appreciate if the Minister could give us some clarity, given that in advice received, the risk of regulatory capture was specifically pointed out as something that should be addressed.

I repeat again that the parameters within which a ministerial decision or a determination might be exercised will be dealt with when we get to Part 2. I have articulated to the Hon Dr Megan Woods the specific sections. The underlying question that is raised of a policy character, presumably, goes to the point: why have you posited with a politician holding a Crown warrant the responsibility for making these determinations, and could that person act in such a fashion that that person endangers the very things that people feel need to be managed risk-wise very, very fastidiously? I say once again that the essence of this bill is that the power will be with two Ministers. The parameters will be dealt with in Part 2, and I would urge members to race there as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We still have outstanding questions. The Minister has not told us whether or not the clause in this section, in terms of clause 8, section 2C, is just confined to hobby mining. He indicated it in an earlier contribution. We’ve been asking whether that is the intent of this Amendment Paper that he has brought and whether indeed it is just confined to there. We’re not even concerned who the second “other” in the “others” is, in terms of the Minister of Finance—we know that.

I’d like to hear from the Minister in the chair whether or not he’s going to accept the very kind offer of my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell to put forward an Amendment Paper to clear up that misunderstanding that seems to have creeped into the amendment to the amendment to the amendment in an effort to tidy up this bill, to specify that that would just be the Minister of Finance. So clause 10(2A) would then be: “After section 5(c), insert: (caa) to make decisions with the Minister of Finance”—so replace “others” with “the Minister of Finance”. If the Minister is telling the House that is what it is, it is not what is indicated in the wording that is in the Amendment Paper in front of us. It’s a plural; he’s talking about a singular. So we would like to know that.

One of the things, as well as the Amendment Paper being presented to the House, was the annex to the regulatory impact statement to go along with this legislation. One of the things that I think is incredibly important—we’re only in Part 1. We’re talking about the functions of the Minister. We’re talking about the permit tiers—very fundamental parts of the building blocks of our Crown Minerals Act (CMA). The annex to that regulatory impact statement makes the very important point that “Changes to the Minerals Programme for Petroleum will need to be made. The Programmes are considered secondary legislation that interpret the CMA. The Programmes have specific consultation requirements, as set out in the CMA, including public notice and submission requirements. There is currently a process underway to update the Minerals Programme to align with changes being made through the Bill, as [with] … earlier legislative changes that have not yet been incorporated.”

So we’re in this very sticky situation that we’ve got a clear as mud situation of what this Amendment Paper is actually doing, who is making the decisions, and what permits, what tiers it actually applies to. The Minister can’t give us this clarity, and this is the very basis for secondary legislation and how that is going to be passed, so we’re in a very serious and dire situation. The Minister doesn’t seem to understand the Amendment Paper that he’s brought to this House, or certainly can’t articulate what it means to the House.

We are waiting for the Minister to tell us some of the fundamental things that we need to proceed to Part 2 of this bill, where we can discuss in detail the criteria that the Minister may or may not use. The Minister tells us that we need to trust him and trust needs to be put in politicians to make decisions—couldn’t agree more. But part of that contract is that you have a Minister capable of coming to the House and answering some fundamental questions about the legislation they’re bringing, and that’s not what we’re seeing here. We’re having a Minister that thinks that hyperbole is a substitute for an answer to a straight question.

We will keep asking these questions because they are important. I’d also like to know, as well as who the “others” are, and whether or not it’s just relating to hobby mining, whether or not the Minister considered whether this would be in contravention of Treaty settlements.

Despite my best efforts, the parent bill does not extirpate the reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, so that’s a fact. Secondly, I repeat, in respect—clause 8 takes out a duplication. The original contribution pertained to what we are calling tier 3 hobby entitlements for mining. It became evident in the 2021 legislation—just remember who was the Minister in 2021—there already existed an entitlement, and we are taking this route because it built on something that someone before me had already put in the law. That’s why we call it duplication.

Well, the Minister has told us that this is a duplication—a duplication of what? I mean, this is the difficulty. We’re just left with a deletion here and we don’t have a detailed, clause-by-clause analysis which could perhaps have been helpful. We just don’t have anything much to go on except what the Minister can tell us. So he’s asserted that clause 8, deleting new section 2C(1)(c), removes a duplication, but a duplication of what? And where can we check the particular duplication? Because we would like to see—he’s asserted this, could he please tell us exactly where that duplication is so that we can be sure that taking this out does in fact eliminate a duplication?

OK. I will repeat it again very slowly. In the parent piece of legislation exists section 2. That section was in the 2021 legislation. It already gives enough authority for the necessary changes, if necessary, to be made in terms of a tier 1, 2, or 3 permit needing to be changed. When the bill was first introduced, it introduced—with a specific reference to—hobby mining, which is tier 3. We have now worked out and decided, because of the existing provision entered into the law in the 2021 legislation, it’s now unnecessary, because it represents a duplication.

For fear of trivialising the House’s time, this is the fifth attempt that I’ve had to explain something that was passed by a Minister prior to my arrival.

Thank you to the Minister for clearing it up. It wasn’t that hard; we could have got there sooner.

In terms of the Treaty, the Minister, in his last contribution, talked about the Treaty settlements. What I want to know from the Minister is what advice he received around these changes, and, given that there has not been consultation with iwi on this Amendment Paper 343, whether this is undermining rights in existing Treaty settlements. We know, and the updated regulatory impact statement makes it very clear, that the Minister had his officials—and we’ll come to this more fully later—talking extensively with the oil and gas industry, but there was no consultation on the Amendment Paper with the iwi who were concerned. So I ask whether he’s had advice on whether or not this Amendment Paper could undermine the rights in existing Treaty settlements, bearing in mind that this was part of the initial advice that was provided with the original Crown Minerals Amendment Bill—the need to consult with iwi—because of those Treaty settlements.

OK, getting very good at this repetitive approach. The parent legislation contains a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. It also enables engagement, as the member has said, between the different tangata whenua communities. They have been engaged with in relation to the parent bill, and, as I’ve said, that bill does not contain a deletion of the Treaty of Waitangi reference, so in the future, the engagement will happen. This highly technical matter was not the subject of consultation in a detailed way. It was dealt with with a great deal of confidentiality. In terms of providing a Māori dimension, I interviewed myself.

This is a very serious issue that I think the committee does need some more detail on from the Minister for Resources. We have an amendment bill that he tells us was consulted on in a very confidential manner. Well, the committee of the whole House will be wanting a list of who it was that was consulted with. But whether or not it’s in the parent bill, what we’re debating here today is Amendment Paper 343, and the Minister’s own documents that have been released with the bill and his officials’ documents that have been released with the bill make it patently clear that iwi and hapū were not consulted on this Amendment Paper. So the question becomes whether or not the Amendment Paper that is before the committee is an undermining of those Treaty settlements.

It’s not about the parent bill, and it’s not about the original bill that was brought before the House, which was consulted on, but the point of the matter that the Minister needs to answer is whether or not the Amendment Paper that we are voting on today constitutes a contravention of the Treaty settlements. The Minister can’t just skirt around that. It’s a serious issue that the House deserves an answer to, because if we were at select committee and this bill was going through its normal process, Ministers can’t just circumvent scrutiny of their legislation by withdrawing a bill at third reading and dropping an Amendment Paper and not expect there to be scrutiny in the committee of the whole House. This is a question the House needs and deserves an answer to: does the lack of iwi consultation on this Amendment Paper constitute an undermining of the Treaty settlements in that area?

I propose that the debate on this motion now close.

I really want to dig into these tiers now. I’m sorry; I apologise for having my laptop on my desk, but I’ve used it to pull up the Crown Minerals Act. I’ve gone back to section 2C because that’s where—I shouldn’t say damage because that’s not the right thing. So the bill amended 2C, but now Amendment Paper 343 to the bill takes the new 2C out, and that means that the original 2C stands—is that the case?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What page are you on?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill replaces section 2C—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, but what page are you referring to?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, I’m sorry—on page 6 of the bill. It’s clause 8 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh yeah, cool.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There’s a 2C sitting in the Act; clause 8 of the bill replaces 2C. Clause 8 of the Amendment Paper deletes new section 2C(1)(c). So we’re taking out that bit. Oh, it only takes out section 2C(1)(c)—this is the complication with having something delivered at—which is on the partial surrenders and so on like that. What I’m finding complicated here is the stuff around tier 3 permits. The tier 3 permits are the new permits. So they’re brought in by this bill; they’re new to the Act, and they seem to be this area which is less than 50 hectares. That’s sitting in the bill itself.

I’m sorry, Minister. I know that it’s clear and easy in your mind, but this has been dumped on us at the last moment, and we are genuinely trying to sort our way through this to understand what is going on here and why you’ve put the new 2C in and now you’ve taken the new 2C out. We just don’t quite get it, and you said you’ve explained it clearly. I’m just going to assert that we are doing our best to follow this and we would really like—

Simon Court: You’ve got three degrees. You must understand it by now.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, take a call—take a call. So I would like to hear from the Minister on that one.

Simon Court: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is that a point of order?

Simon Court: No, I’m taking a call, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Was the member continuing to speak?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I was finished, yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If you’re not taking a point of order, continue.

I want us to contemplate a situation where an Act is already in existence. That Act has a section 2C. That Act was delivered under the stewardship of a Minister in 2021, and it had some redeeming features in it, right—modest. Then—because the air is thick with redundancy, and these contributions are proving the air is right—the amendment bill was introduced with an additional clause. It has now occurred to the Government that that additional clause is redundant; therefore, it has been removed, but section 2C, delivered in 2021, still stands, and it addresses the issues pertaining to the transition of various mining entitlements. I really can’t say much more, and I’m quite confident that the former Minister, having realised that she’s the architect of this, now realises what I’m talking about.

Thank you very much. I want to move on to a new clause of Part 1, and that is clause 9, which inserts new section 2D(3) into the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. What this does is it, in clause 9(2), new section 2D(3)(a), replaces “the day after the date of the notification”—and that’s on page 6—with “the date of the notification”.

I want to know what the rationale for changing it to the day of the notification from the day after. When we come to the commencement, there are actually some serious and quite technical questions that we’ll ask, at the appropriate time, around the use of moving from a statutory start date to a statutory instrument - driven start date. But why is it, in clause 9 of that amendment bill, “the date of the notification” rather than “the day after”?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, there’s still a number of questions on Part 1 that the Minister for Resources hasn’t been able to answer and that we’re still waiting for answers to. I think that given the nature of the way in which this Minister is choosing to legislate, with a very atypical process of what has happened in terms of the recalling of this bill from its third reading, and with a very substantial Amendment Paper being put back to the committee of the whole House and not having it go through a select committee phase, it is our job, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise this Amendment Paper 343 in the committee of the whole House.

It is also the job of the Minister to answer the questions. As I have pointed out in previous contributions, the fact is that what is in this bill actually becomes really important in terms of the secondary legislation in that the minerals programme for petroleum is a piece of secondary legislation that is drawn from interpretations of this Act. The regulatory impact statement that the Minister himself has had tabled in the committee here tells us that they’re considering this Amendment Paper. We still have unanswered questions on the very fundamentals of this bill, so I think it would be useful for the House and for the passage of good legislation for the Minister to be able to explain his own legislation.

Point of order, Mr Chair. Sorry to do this. I’m just seeking a bit of clarification on how debate on this Amendment Paper goes. We have been concentrating on the clauses in the Amendment Paper that relate to the Part 1. Do we then move a separate closure motion for just those clauses, or how does it work? Because I’m concerned that if we accept a closure motion now, it closes the debate on the entire Amendment Paper, not just—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No—there is Part 2 and Part 3 to go to as well.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Right—OK. So in that case, the motion that is on the floor now is just relating to the clauses relating to Part 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: OK—thank you. I appreciate that clarification.

Let me repeat again: this is the debate on amendments to clauses 5, 8, 9, and 10, set out on Amendment Paper 343, and a couple of other debates on that. Just to note, there are other opportunities to ask other questions in Part 2 and Part 3, and, actually, some of those questions might be relevant to those particular parts there as well. We are keeping an eye on relevance and repetition. Acknowledging members have now moved on to clause 9, which, as far as I understand, is new, we are looking for new material.

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 343 be agreed to.

The amendments are agreed to; therefore, Part 1 as amended stands part.

Amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 343