Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

This Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is very important legislation because it expunges property rights without compensation. If a Government is about to expunge property rights without compensation, careful thought should go into that. I was not on the Commerce Committee that considered this bill, but I have examined the commentary, the report of the select committee, in some detail. I note that it is a split report. I note that National and ACT members have submitted a minority report to this House, and, therefore, the majority report is the view of the Government. Far from it being a careful consideration, I find it a sloppy piece of work. I will explain over the next few minutes why that is so, and why this bill should not be read a second time. It actually should go back to the select committee for the work to be done more carefully.

This issue is so important because when the High Court looked at this issue in 2000, it was not some inexperienced judge that looked at it; Acting Chief Justice Heron looked at it. He said that property rights that existed under the Mining Act 1971 and the Coal Mines Act 1979 were not automatically expunged by the Crown Minerals Act 1991. He pointed out that there was no automatic right of renewal of a licence, but he certainly argued that there was the right to apply for a renewal of a licence. That is critically important, because this legislation will totally expunge that right. Under the Mining Act 1971 a licence to mine was a property right. Under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the permits that are issued are not property rights. So these are important issues.

Of course, as the Minister of Energy has said, when this matter was taken to the High Court again, Justice Chisholm appeared to give a somewhat different decision. But if we look at the report of the Government members of the select committee, we see that it states: “Justice Chisholm disagreed, in the second Glenharrow decision, with the proposition that mining licence holders continue to have a right to be granted a new licence for the following reasons:”. Justice Heron, in the first case, did not say they had a right of renewal; he said they had the right to apply for one. There is a big difference.

If we look at the reasoning of the Government members of the select committee, as stated in the majority report to this Parliament, which we are debating in this second reading, we see that it is absolutely flawed. The Government members of the select committee said that Justice Chisholm, in the second court hearing, made the decision that licence holders do not have a right to be granted a new licence, for, first, the following reason: “if the court applied Glenharrow’s interpretation, this would mean mining licences can be perpetually renewed”. OK, but in the previous decision Justice Heron did not say they had a right to be granted a renewal; he said they had a right to apply for one. The first argument of the select committee is totally flawed because the issue is not about licence holders having the right to be granted renewals for perpetuity; the issue is whether they had a right to apply for a variation in the term of their licence.

The select committee then goes on to say: “the language used in section 77(2) of the Mining Act 1971 suggests the Minister has the right to decline an application suggesting that there is no automatic right of renewal”. That is exactly what Justice Heron said in the first court decision, and gives no argument why a licence holder should not have the right to apply for a variation on his or her licence term. The select committee then goes on to say: “The effect of the second judgment”—the committee having given those two reasons for Justice Chisholm’s decision—“is that there is now a court order saying the Minister of Energy cannot grant a new mining licence to Glenharrow.” What sloppy thinking! Of course people cannot apply for a new licence under a repealed Act. No one is suggesting that. The issue is about a variation to the term of a licence, and that is not an absolutely new licence.

That is why my view is the select committee has not thought through these issues carefully at all. Its own reasoning in the different paragraphs of its argument does not stack up. The committee points out that section 77(2) of the Mining Act 1971 suggests that the Minister has the right to decline an application, and that there is no automatic right of renewal—which is perfectly fair—then goes on to say that the effect of the second judgment is that there is now a court order saying the Minister cannot grant a new licence to Glenharrow Holdings. There is no logic in the analysis by the select committee, at all.

It gets worse. The select committee states also, in its reasoning, that “the concept that a new licence can be granted is not reconcilable with the scheme of the principal Act and the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, particularly the transitional provisions.” It says that on page 3 of the report. On just the next page the select committee, in referring to the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997, says: “The Act includes a specific provision that existing privileges, and the rights and obligations of holders of existing privileges are not affected by this vesting.” That is totally at odds with the argument the select committee has given on the previous page.

This is sloppy work by the select committee. The Government members of the Commerce Committee should be damned well ashamed of this report. This is a serious issue. Property rights are at stake. If the matter were clear-cut, we would not have two senior justices in our High Court, including an Acting Chief Justice, giving decisions that superficially appear at odds with each other. I am not sure that they are totally at odds, because both talk about there not being an automatic right of renewal. They both talk about that. The fact that the issue has been to the Court of Appeal, and may in fact end up at the Privy Council, shows there are important property rights at stake here. The Government members on the select committee should have done a better job in analysing the serious issues involved.

It even goes on. The select committee acknowledges: “In the second Glenharrow decision Justice Chisholm said that Ngai Tahu does not have the power to veto the variation application.” Again, that is at odds with what the report says on the previous page. All I can say is I commend the work of the ACT and the National members of the select committee in making their minority report to this Parliament, as it points out the serious issues involved in this case. What I have just quoted to Parliament from the Government members’ own report of their work on the select committee shows—far from what Minister Hodgson just said about careful consideration—the sloppiness of their work. Their report shows they have got themselves totally confused over the key issues of the right to apply for a variation to the term of a licence compared with an automatic right of renewal.

We clearly have a shambles here—an absolute shambles. We have a situation whereby, although this legislation protects the position of holders of mining licences who applied for variations to terms or renewals prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002, there are a whole lot of licence holders—an unknown number—who have not done that, because Crown Minerals told them they had no right to do it, when in fact, according to Justice Heron, they may well have had a right to do it. It is a disastrous situation. A Crown agency told licence holders they could not apply for renewals, and they did not apply; but they could have applied, and if they had done so, they would have been protected by this bill. Because they were given bad advice by a Crown agency, they did not apply, and therefore they are locked out by this bill. Their rights are expunged.

Worse still, this legislation will force everyone into the new permits system. The select committee was told—and this is horrific—that the officials could not tell the committee if and when the Department of Conservation had ever granted access to its lands for the purpose of mining since the 1991 Crown Minerals Act came into effect. This is serious. Property rights are at stake and the future of New Zealand’s mining industry is at stake. That is why National is totally opposed to this shonky legislation.

I stand to support this bill as one who worked, in a previous lifetime, for what is still New Zealand’s largest gold mining company, that of Macrae’s Mining Co., GRD Macraes. It has had various forms over a number of years.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: You had better get ready to go back.

That is rich coming from a 4 percenter who lost his seat. Instead of a lot of hot air and—

💬 Jill Pettis: Talk about digging.

—digging his own grave—instead of some of the dramatic extracts we have heard from Opposition members, I think it is pertinent to look at this bill for what it is. The Crown Minerals Act provides for the allocation and management of permits for Crown-owned minerals, and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments that, in my view, will improve the management and allocation of rights to Crown-owned minerals.

We should make the point in this debate that the mining industry makes a huge contribution to this economy. When I worked in the industry some years ago, I think the figures showed that gold alone was worth quite a bit more than our wine industry, for instance. But because it is a reasonably controversial industry, because it involves digging large holes in the ground, and because it raises the hackles of some, the economic and social contribution that it makes around the country is often lost. For instance, GRD Macraes has operations on the West Coast and Otago, and I would say that in its lifetime it has put several hundreds of millions of dollars into Dunedin and the Otago community alone, both directly and indirectly. So, as we go through this bill, I think it is worth our noting the huge contribution that the industry makes.

The bill will address issues that have arisen, as has been previously mentioned, as a result of a recent High Court decision concerning the transition from the previous regime, under the Mining Act 1971 and the Coal Mines Act 1979, to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 regime. Effectively, this bill removes the right of licensees to extend or renew their mining licences under the now repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. It also clarifies the requirements for extension of the duration of an exploration permit, providing that a permit remains current while an extension of its duration is being processed. I think the key point, despite the bluff and bluster of some members opposite, that should be reiterated is that the proposed amendments will not in any way be retrospective, and therefore any mining licence or variation applications received before the amendment is made must be accepted and processed.

The National and ACT parties have put a minority view. I acknowledge Dr Lockwood Smith’s view. I did not sit on the select committee that examined this bill, but I do know the industry relatively well. As I say, the industry makes a huge contribution to our economy. This bill will help, I think, to shed some light and some clarity on the permitting regime. What I learnt from my years in the mining industry is that one of the biggest battles the industry has is getting variations on permits. I mean no disrespect to our friends in Crown Minerals, but one has to jump through huge bureaucracies to dig a hole in the ground, extract a mineral, and process it. I believe that this bill will add some clarity. I think there are a few others in this House who have worked in the industry, such as Damien O’Connor, who comes from the heartland of mining, the West Coast. I ask members opposite and others to look closely at this bill, to do away with the hot air and the dramatic extracts, and actually to go through the bill and make their points. The proposed amendments will not be retrospective; therefore, any mining-licence or variation applications received before the amendment is made must be accepted and processed.

I support the bill. As I close, I say again that the industry provides an immense number of jobs and dollars for the economy. It is considered by some to be a messy industry and a controversial industry, and I know that some in this House are bitterly opposed to it. I am not one of those members. I am one of those members who think we can have a robust minerals industry—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Tell that to the Minister of Conservation.

—that is not exploitative of our environment. We can have business and can preserve the environment, as long as there are tight rules. The genius to my right will tell us in his speech the secret to his 4 percent success rate. That member said: “Tell that to the Minister of Conservation.” Well, I believe that we can have a robust mining industry, but I also believe that we have to have very, very tight environmental laws and a very, very tight environmental framework, so that if the industry breaks the rules, the industry gets nailed. As with any industry—manufacturing, farming, or any industry around this country—it must adhere to the rules. I am proud to have been associated with a company that, I believe, does adhere to the rules, a company that has taken a quite unique and flexible view to mining, that has engaged with stakeholders right around the country, that has attempted just to get on with the job, and that makes a huge contribution to this country but does not blow its own trumpet. That attitude should be acknowledged. I commend the bill to the House.

I would like to start by acknowledging Lockwood Smith’s comments. He is absolutely right; this particular bill expunges property rights. It not only does that, but it also does it in a rather peculiar way, based on one particular case and one particular issue—that is, the case of the greenstone mining company Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General and Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu. Ngāi Tahu received the land and the resources from the Crown under the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act. That particular Act was fair enough, but the Government forgot to include some very important clauses. The case arose out of the Crown Minerals Act that repealed the old 1971 mining Act, and the different treatments of mining licences and permits. The transition period between the two Acts did not successfully deal with the change of ownership of land from the Crown to Ngāi Tahu.

The trouble was that the rights that existed for greenstone miners were not extinguished by the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act. A grandfather clause in that Act stated that the Act was not to affect an existing privilege as defined in the Crown Minerals Act. The Crown Minerals Act also contained a grandfather clause stating “… every existing privilege shall continue to have effect after the date of commencement of this Act as if the Act which applied to the privilege before that date continued in force …”.

The problems arose as a result of the court case, which was in front of Acting Chief Justice Heron, one of the top men in the legal system. He found in favour of Glenharrow Holdings in supporting an application for the renewal and variations of its mining rights. It was not a case of renewing them, but the rights to apply. I believe the select committee got it wrong in the paragraphs that Lockwood Smith read out. He was absolutely correct—it was not a case of Justice Heron getting it wrong, but of the select committee getting it wrong.

The Crown Minerals Act is essentially anti-mining and anti-private enterprise. It does not recognise miners’ needs for security. Mining industry leaders say that the effect of the appeal court judgment will be to close mines and effectively it will be a disincentive to invest in mines. The mining industry will have less capital to be able to explore. It will also affect the Government-owned coal mine, Solid Energy. Its rights will come up for renewal, and this particular bill will affect it. When that issue arises, the Government will have to deal with it, as well.

💬 Shane Ardern: It will simply introduce its own legislation for that.

Yes, it probably will. It is interesting to note that as the appeal court decision stands, the Government will not have to pass this retrospective legislation—Associate Minister Harry Duynhoven ensured that. He issued a press statement—and I have a copy of it here—that basically took away all rights for miners to reapply for their licences and extension of their licences. He did so by issuing the statement around midday on the day and giving them 5 hours to apply. It states: “Anyone who applies for a new licence or a variation to the terms of an existing licence after 5 p.m. today”—that is, 19 September 2002—“will no longer be covered by the Acts that were repealed in 1991.” Does that not sound very familiar? It is basically a parallel to the late Rob Muldoon’s Government by press release—in which case, he was taken to court.

Governing by press release is a great example of this Government’s contempt for our parliamentary process. The Government is very fortunate that the appeal court decision has saved Mr Duynhoven and his Government from a very embarrassing court case, because there would have been one for sure.

In summary, I would like to reiterate Lockwood Smith’s comments about the select committee getting it wrong—that is absolutely right. The fact is that this legislation is no longer necessary, because Harry Duynhoven’s press release basically stopped everybody from reapplying and reasserting the property rights they had prior to that press release. Unfortunately, this Government does not care about people’s property rights. All it cares about is trying to close gaps in the legislation that it had created and left, simply to avoid its responsibilities. For us, sadly, this bill is a shambles. New Zealand First cannot and will not support it at this stage.

United Future had initially hoped to be able to support the Government on this bill. However, as it stands, it does not fit into the overall policy framework of our party in relation to its interface with the Conservation Act. I will endeavour to explain why. This bill is an amendment to the principal Act, which is known as the Crown Minerals Act. The principal Act sets out in section 66 to provide that where access arrangements have not been agreed between a mining permit holder and a private landowner, then, by way of Order in Council, the Government can intervene on the grounds of public interest by referring the matter to an independent arbitrator.

The general law concerning such agreements is also quite clear—namely that a full, fair, and adequate sum of money must be paid to the landowner, so that he or she is compensated for loss of the use and enjoyment of the land in question. Other conditions could also be imposed on both parties under the Resource Management Act, whereby, for example, they would have to address issues relating to environmental damage, reinstatement of the site following closure of the mine, etc. Those are the general rules, and they are normally thrashed out between the parties until agreement is reached. However, a situation could arise where the owner of the property refused to deal with the mining company at all, or only on conditions that were grossly unfair and unreasonable.

A different situation, however, might arise when we are talking about valuable minerals such as oil, gas, gold, or uranium. In such cases, it might well be in the public interest that the matter go to compulsory arbitration, so that both sides of the issue can be coolly and objectively assessed and a decision reached that is consistent both with the private property rights of the landowner concerned and the public interest. That is when section 66 kicks in to create a win-win situation for everyone.

However—and this is where the essential difficulty arises for United Future—any land held or managed under the Conservation Act is specifically excluded from those provisions. That, in our view, is an untenable provision. It has to be remembered that 33 percent of all New Zealand land is controlled by the Department of Conservation under the Conservation Act, and that includes virtually all New Zealand rivers, lakes, and streams. It also includes everything from pristine conservation areas and National Parks to a variety of rubbish land.

In relation to that land, a completely different set of rules comes into play. The Conservation Act established the Minister of Conservation as the advocate for conservation. He does that through 13 regional conservatories, each of which has a conservation advisory board made up of people nominated by the Minister. That is all well and good, but if the Minister is personally the advocate for no less than one-third of New Zealand’s land area, plus most of its rivers, lakes, and streams, the question needs to be asked, to whom exactly is he or she advocating? Is it not true that in the normal course of events an advocate goes to a court and argues his or her case before a judge or an arbitrator? So who is the judge or the arbitrator under the Conservation Act? Sad to say, it is the Minister of Conservation, so under that Act he or she acts as both judge and jury. Does that constitute due process?

But wait, it gets worse. The public of New Zealand, the mining companies, the energy generating companies, and tourism operators never get to hear exactly what the Minister in his or her role as advocate gets to say to the Minister in his or her role as sole judge, and there is no right of appeal. That lacks common sense, transparency, and balance. As far as United Future is concerned, it is therefore unacceptable, and a matter that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government.

I want to draw the attention of this House to just how serious this problem is, because we are talking about a major systemic problem in the way the Conservation Act has been set up. Since 1987, no new hydro-generation projects or tourism facilities, such as hotels, have been permitted on that one-third of New Zealand that is controlled by the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation. Furthermore, to quote from the minority National and ACT view on this bill, officials were “unable to advise the committee if and when the Department of Conservation has ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991.” Someone said to me that that is not an accurate statement. If it is not accurate, why was it in the report? If it is not accurate, let us have the accurate information from the Government. So I challenge the Government—if that statement is inaccurate, let us have a list of all of the mining projects that have been granted on conservation land since 1991.

All of this all amounts to a gigantic shooting of ourselves and our economic future in the foot. If the Conservation Act had been enacted at an earlier date, we would have no Manapouri hydro scheme, no Hermitage, no tourism facilities at Mount Cook, no visitors’ centre on Mount Egmont, etc. etc. As matters stand at present, the reality is that international mining companies are bypassing New Zealand and heading off to places like Western Australia, where there are proper, transparent processes, manuals, and policies in relation to mining on conservation land. If we are to attract such people back to New Zealand and maximise the benefits to our economy of mining activities, then, in United Future’s view, we must review these matters so that the system provides firstly, certainty of process rather than outcomes; secondly, fairness; and, thirdly, transparency.

I appeal to all parties in Parliament in saying that we must endeavour to create a situation where on the grounds of public interest, and as with privately owned land, individual projects on Department of Conservation land can be taken to an independent arbitrator, judge, or similar. That would enable all sides of the arguments, including those relating to conservation, to be taken into account in a proper, structured, and, above all, transparent manner. I am convinced that in many instances we would be able both to allow mining activities to proceed, and, in conjunction with those activities, to add net benefit to the conservation estate itself—in other words, it would be a clear-cut, win-win situation for all, and, in particular, for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people.

Accordingly, I renew my request to the Government that the provisions of the principal Act as they relate to private land be extended—and I know another bill would probably be necessary—to also embrace land held or managed by the Department of Conservation. I would like to see the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the overall operation of the Act, so that we at last have proper manuals, procedures, and policies in relation to mining on the conservation estate. Until that request is acted on, United Future is left with no option—in the interests of balance and common sense—but to oppose this legislation.

I would like to commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Mr Copeland, for a very good speech. He made some excellent points. In assessing the situation here, I declare ACT strongly opposes this bill. National also opposes it—and we had a very good speech from Lockwood Smith—as does New Zealand First. It appears that the minority Labour - Jim Anderton coalition Government is dependent on the Greens to pass this legislation. It is green legislation. It is anti-mining legislation, as the previous speaker so eloquently reminded us.

Many people do not realise the size and importance of the mineral mining industry in New Zealand. I believe it is the quiet achiever of the New Zealand economy. The Minister whose name appeared on the bill, Harry Duynhoven, put out a press release just last week, stating that for the first time mining export receipts have surpassed $500 million in a single 12-month period. That is fantastic, but the untapped potential is enormous. The Institute of Geological Survey and Nuclear Sciences put out a very good report in 1999, which I am sure Mr Copeland is very familiar with. It estimated that at today’s prices, there is $86 billion worth of mineral wealth in 16 minerals alone in New Zealand. We know about the GRD Macraes mine at Macraes Flat.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Have you been there?

Yes, I have, and I hope the member has, too. It is a very good enterprise.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: I worked for them.

I know the member used to work for that company; he used to be based in Perth, and worked for it. He used to come and lobby me when I was in the forestry industry. But what is he doing? He is sitting on the fence here, and trying to have a bob each way. If he went back to the mining industry and told it he was supporting this bill, he would be kicked out of the office. There is no doubt about that.

The mining industry has a huge potential in this country. It is estimated that there is $30 billion worth of gold alone in the Hauraki field. And what has this Government, and also the previous Government, done? It has closed down the whole of the Hauraki field to mining. The problem we have in this country is that 70 percent of our mineral wealth is within the Department of Conservation estate. That department is meant to be the Department of Conservation, not the “Department of Preservation”. It is meant to be the steward of the conservation lands that we hold. Modern mining techniques can have a minimal impact on the environment, and the wealth generated can give a net conservation benefit many times greater than any impact that mining may have. We are not a rich country and we cannot afford to turn our back on $86 billion of potential wealth, but that is the curious situation we have got into.

I note from the Commerce Committee’s report that the committee actually asked the officials whether they could give it one example of a case where the Minister of Conservation, in exercising his powers under the Crown Minerals Act—in which, essentially, he is given veto rights, without any right of appeal—has, since 1991, granted access to the conservation estate to a mining operation in New Zealand. They could not find one example of a case where the Department of Conservation, through its Minister, had allowed access for mining.

Of course, we have the Pike River coalfield, which has all its resource consents. But what is the problem? The Department of Conservation will not grant access for mining, and the Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, sits on his chuff, drags his feet, and tries to wait it out, when there is a tremendous amount of wealth and jobs to be created by that coalfield alone. Hopefully, he will be forced into making a positive decision on that issue. It is overdue already, and I hope he is listening—wherever he might be—because that is certainly one project that should go ahead.

I come back to the minority report of the select committee. I was not a member of the committee, but an excellent minority view is presented in the commentary on the bill. The High Court decision of Justice Heron made the outcome quite clear. Then there was the case of Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General, and the decision in that case upheld the property rights held by miners who had gained licences under the Mining Act. It further made it clear that those licensees were able to continue to apply for extensions to their licences gained under that Act. Then what happened? It is recognised that the bill does protect the court-won gains of Glenharrow Holdings, specifically protecting its licences and those of a number of other people who had applied for an extension to their licences prior to the decree that was issued by the Hon Harry Duynhoven on 19 September 2002.

I put it to the House that that decree was ultra vires. The Minister made a decree that, effectively, retrospectively stripped away property rights. We know that the Hon Harry Duynhoven is the Associate Minister of Energy with delegated responsibility for mining, and I know that when he got that appointment the Hon Pete Hodgson made the point that Harry Duynhoven was in charge of everything under the ground. The question now is whether Harry Duynhoven has a right to sit in this House. Therefore, what is the date on those proclamations and decrees issued by Harry Duynhoven? Are they legal in law? What is their standing? I would like someone from the Government side of the House to clarify that point. This issue must be a huge embarrassment to the Government. Not only was there a retrospective decree by the Minister, stripping away property rights that had been protected by the courts, but we now have the spectre of a question of whether that Minister was eligible to hold a ministerial warrant, by virtue of the fact that under the Electoral Act Harry Duynhoven is probably not entitled to be a member of Parliament.

Section 55 of the Electoral Act is very clear. It has been reviewed by Parliament about four times, and this House has deliberately and consciously retained sections 55(1)(b) and (c) of that Act in all of those reviews. The Act states quite clearly—spells it out quite clearly—that a member cannot swear allegiance to a foreign principal State. That is the situation, and Mr Duynhoven fails that test. Quite frankly, I do not think this is a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine; I think that is what the Act states. The law cannot just be changed as a convenience to a member. The law is the law. We might not like it. Certainly, we concede it is unfair—and I do that—but the law is the law. If Parliament—the body that passes the laws—does not uphold the law, how can we expect the public to have faith in our courts and our lawmaking institutions? This issue is an inconvenience and an embarrassment—it is—and Mr Duynhoven is a good colleague. We all acknowledge that, but that is the law, and we cannot just change the law in that way. Clearly, this legislation is bad. I believe the decree made by Harry Duynhoven is ultra vires, and I would like someone from the Government side of the House to try to clarify that point.

In conclusion, I make the point again that we should encourage mining in this country. In the early days of our pioneering era, following European settlement, mining gave a huge boost to this country’s economy. Sure, a lot of damage was done; it was very rough. But if one goes to the countryside today one finds those scars cannot be seen; in many places they have been totally healed. With modern techniques, mining can be carried out in a very, very environmentally responsible manner. I repeat again that there is $86 billion worth of wealth in this country in 16 minerals alone, 70 percent of which is in the Department of Conservation estate—and the Minister of Conservation, under successive Governments, has denied access for mining every time it has been sought. We could not be given one example of a case where the department has allowed access to the public conservation estate for mining.

I am pleased that the member for Whanganui is quite happy to see me take a call. That member has not turned up to a single “flatulence tax” meeting anywhere in the electorate, despite the fact that there have been many of them up and down the country.

We are here to talk about the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and I intend to do so. Once again, I say it is an outrage to have a socialist Government that cares nothing for property rights, development potential, jobs, or anything else that makes the country work. In fact, the old cliché “If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, tax it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it to get it moving again.” could never apply more than it does to this bill. As my colleague said, the bill itself—or the work that was done in the Commerce Committee—is very sloppy. All that I need to do is to refer Government members to the first reading debate, when the Hon Paul Swain said—

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the member to withdraw the statement he made about my not having attended any public meetings in my electorate on the “flatulence tax” issue. I have not attended any because there have not been any.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is an issue for debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has inadvertently misled the House in this sense: yesterday I was at a public meeting in the city of Wanganui on the subject of flatulence. The meeting had been advertised in the Wanganui Chronicle. If that was not a meeting in her electorate—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The member was invited?

I am sure she probably was invited, but if she was not I will take her word for that. However, the fact is that she may have misled the House with her statement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All members are honourable members. Their word is their bond, and if it is found to be otherwise there are other courses of action.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that has not come off my time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, it has not.

To get back to the bill, I point out that it is a sloppy piece of work, for the reason that in the first reading the Hon Paul Swain said it would not be retrospective. That is what he said. Yet that statement is clearly contradicted by clauses 22 and 23. Those clauses absolutely contradict that. The wider constituency in the mining industry was led to believe by a Minister of this House that the bill would not be ultra vires. That is what the industry was told. Yet when we look in the bill, we see it is ulta vires.

The select committee, in the minority report, also stated it had asked the officials of the Department of Conservation whether they could advise the committee as to whether the department had ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991. That is a simple enough question to answer; there would be no difficulty in finding an answer to that if the officials went back through their records. So they went back through their records and found that the answer was no, access has never been granted. The Hon Ken Shirley made a very good point when he said that there is something like $86 billion worth of minerals tied up in New Zealand at the moment, under the ground, and that most of that is on Department of Conservation land.

How is it that the Government goes around the country talking about growth, jobs, and lifting us back into the top half of the OECD, yet brings to this House legislation that runs like jackboots right over the top of all those objectives and over property rights? How can that be? I invite a member on the Government side of the House to take a call and fill me in on that. Maybe I have missed a bit somewhere. Maybe the Government has been talking about something that we have not caught up with. My colleague Pansy Wong, at the time that this bill was being promoted, said that the National Party members of the select committee were absolutely outraged that the bill absolutely ignored the High Court judgment—the judgment of the Acting Chief Justice at the time, Justice Heron. He was the Acting Chief Justice, not somebody who was just a new appointee and who may not have been up to speed with the issue. This bill totally ignores that judgment. It has not taken it into consideration at all—not under any circumstances.

This bill goes right across property rights, and right across what the High Court found—right across what that finding stated about property rights with regard to the 1971 Act—and it brings us to a situation where the only conclusion that those in the mining industry can come to is that this Government cannot be trusted. We cannot trust it. Whatever it says, it will not do. Regardless of what the issue is, the Government will rule over the top of it, because there may be a fringe group out on the hard left that the Government needs to support it in a vote, just like the one we have in this House today. It is interesting to note that at last United Future has taken a stand and said that it will not support this legislation, which is not good for growth or for the things that United Future was led to believe that this Government would support. Therefore, United Future will not support this bill. Well, what do we know? We are back to Jim Anderton and the Greens—back to that team again. We will see some fostering of friendships there in the next few days, because Labour will need those votes more and more over the months to come.

This bill also flies right in the face of what international experience shows us. I was recently away at a conference in Western Australia, where at a town called Karratha, about 1,500 kilometres north of Perth, $10 billion worth of ironsand per year is extracted and exported to Japan, mainly. At the per tonne price that the Western Australians are paid for their ironsand, that is billions of tonnes of material. We would think that that would have a huge environmental impact. We should think about how they manage that in a way that will not have an everlasting, totally devastating impact on the Western Australian landscape.

The Government members on the opposite side of the House should hop on a plane—instead of flying to Fiji for their usual junket away—and go and look at that.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Careful!

Careful about what? Those members should hop on a plane and go and have a look. They should investigate what the Western Australians do there, and look at the Australian law. The Western Australian Government is a Labour Government, as well. I tell those members to go and see what the Western Australians do. They will find that Western Australia’s economy is strong, robust, and growing faster than New Zealand’s because Western Australia has sensible laws. Employment in a place like Western Australia has strong growth. The place is going ahead and prospering, on the back of a commodity—ironsand—and is doing so in a way that protects the environment.

Here we have members on the Government side of the Chamber who carp away at me because they do not like what I am saying. Yet they take absolutely no notice of those international examples that are there for them to go and look at. Why did the select committee not have a look at that before it came back to this House with stupid legislation that is retrospective, that runs like jackboots over the top of property rights, that brings no clarity to those involved in this industry, and that gives them no faith that this Government will protect them in any way at all, let alone encourage them. Why does that member, who has been yelling at the top of his voice back at me, not go and talk to the Department of Conservation about how many permits have been allowed? Why does he not do that? Maybe the member will take a call and answer those questions after I have completed my speech, but I doubt it.

At the moment $500 million dollars per annum of exports come from our mining industries, and there is the potential for that to grow 10 times. This Government is standing in the industry’s way, as it does with most things that are profitable, most things that potentially could help it to carry out the social programme which it wants to carry out, most things that would create jobs, most things that earn revenue, and most things that are sustainable.