Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Clause 2 states that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. There is nothing particularly unusual about the wording of that clause. That is quite common for legislation, but what makes it particular is that this bill in fact extinguishes property rights that are an issue currently before the courts.

In terms of the commencement of legislation that is going to do something as dramatic as extinguish property rights, I think, and National would argue, that the legislation should allow time for the court to sort out what those current property rights are, rather than simply stating that on the day after which this bill receives the royal assent we are going to change those property rights.

Admittedly, the legislation preserves the position of some people, but, of course, this could even come into question, because what the legislation basically says is that it protects the position of those who had applications in prior to the date on which the member Harry Duynhoven announced this legislation would be introduced, which was in 2002, so that their positions will be determined by the court. People who did not lodge applications for variations to their licences, extensions to their licences, or renewals prior to 5 p.m. on 20 September 2002 will be caught by this legislation.

National would argue that this legislation should not commence until the court has decided the issue of those property rights, for two reasons. First, any decision of Mr Duynhoven is open to question right now. If Mr Duynhoven’s position in this Parliament were to be void, then any decisions he made while his position was void would be null and void. That is the first issue. The second issue is that the New Zealand Crown Minerals Agency was busy telling licence holders that they could not apply for renewals under the Crown Minerals Act if they held licences under the old Mining Act, or the Coal Mining Act of the early seventies as well. So a number of people, because of advice that might have been wrong, may not have applied for extensions or renewals to their licences.

If the advice they were given was wrong, and that cannot be determined until the Privy Council considers this issue, then at least they should be given the opportunity to be able to apply for renewals or variations. This legislation prevents that. That is why National will argue that for this Act to commence on the day after which it receives the royal assent is unfair, because some people were advised that they did not have the right to apply for renewals. The court has suggested that they may have had that right. This legislation expunges any such right from the date on which Mr Harry Duynhoven said that it would no longer be available.

Any consideration by this Parliament should suggest that that is unfair. What would be more proper is for this Parliament to allow the court process to sort out whether the right did exist and whether those licence holders had the right to apply for renewals, extensions, or variations, because that matter is currently still before the court, and therefore, this Act should not commence until such time as it has been ruled on by the courts.

I also rise to oppose the commencement date. The reasons are quite simple, as my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith has pointed out. If members look at the press release put out by the Acting Minister at the time, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, at 6.30 p.m. on 20 September 2002, they will see that by doing that, this legislation came into being. Putting out that press release brought into question the whole issue of property rights covered in the body of this legislation, and this legislation came into being.

The question I have for the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, or any other Labour member who wants to take a call, is: why would the Government proceed with legislation when the Minister himself and his tenure in this Parliament are under question at the moment? Why would the Government allow that process to proceed? This is quite apart from the fact that the legislation rules across what has commonly been strongly defended in this Parliament, by both National and Labour Governments, over the whole history of the Parliament. That is why we have had continuous democracy in this country for longer than most other countries. I think this is the longest-serving continual democracy in the world, but if that is not so, it is one of the longest. One of the reasons it has endured is simply that this Parliament, regardless of what party has been in Government, has upheld the principle of property rights.

For the first time in the history of this country this socialist Government is breaking that rule. I know, Mr Chairperson, that you are quite knowledgeable on this topic, because I see that you were on the select committee. I can tell that the members of the select committee would have studied the ramifications of the submissions put forward very closely and very carefully. Why is it that today this Parliament and this Government are allowing this process to proceed, given the amount of ambiguity around the particular issue, and given the pending court action that will almost certainly follow? We need only go back to what Acting Chief Justice Heron said at the time. We can see that a whole range of political and legal issues needed to be resolved with regard to whether the legislation would stand up and whether it would be robust.

Why are we proceeding with this legislation? Why are the Green Party members of this Parliament supporting this legislation at this point in time? Why is the Labour Party wanting to get this legislation through today, and not defer it until some of the issues where, clearly, there is a huge amount of ambiguity are resolved one way or the other? Why is it not upholding that long-served principle in this Parliament of maintaining property rights? Maybe the Minister of Conservation will take a call to explain. We on this side of the House are absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that this Government is interested in proceeding with this legislation under the current circumstances, and allowing this bill to take effect once it has received the royal assent.

There are a range of areas in this legislation that I am sure will be well thrashed out as we further debate it, but there is one issue that has not been touched on yet, and it certainly is relevant to the commencement date. With regard to mining, why has a different set of rules been applied to a range of other topics that have been canvassed by my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Lockwood Smith in their previous contributions? Why have we suddenly got to the point where those property rights can be extinguished, without compensation, just by passing legislation like this? How is that? That is setting a new precedent. I do not think that has ever happened in the history of the Parliament. One would probably have to go back a long time. I do not see any members shaking their heads to say that I am wrong. Some members who have been here a long time would know. Certainly some members on the other side of the Chamber would know, because they are well practised at it. Are we now setting a new precedent, whereby a Government can legislate like this across property rights, without compensation, and without looking at the ramifications?

I shall take a very short call on the commencement date. Although the bill states that it will come into effect when it receives the royal assent, in fact it has already come into effect. It came into effect on 19 September 2002, at 5 p.m. That was the date the Associate Minister of Energy, Harry Duynhoven, put out a press release that shut down any possibility of people applying for an extension of their licences. Licence holders who had not applied by 5 p.m. on that date were deprived of their property rights. Those property rights were extinguished with that particular press release. So we are here today, basically, either to confirm that press release, which, effectively, is governing by press release, or to debate a bill that, really, is unnecessary because of that particular press release. The commencement date of the bill should be the date of the press release, and that was 19 September 2002.

I would like to contribute to the debate on the commencement date. I am appalled that the Government can, with the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, put this legislation into force so swiftly and with virtually no consideration for the courts. I remind members who are not familiar with the bill that the Glenharrow Holdings case makes it clear that lots of things around these issues of mining are not included.

In fact, that company went to court. In 2001 there was a case, Glenharrow Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General, where the decision upheld the property rights of miners who had gained licences under the Mining Act. It also made it clear that those licensees were able to continue to apply for extensions to their licences under the Mining Act. The case went on to the Court of Appeal, which has not yet reached its decision. How can this Government move so swiftly, having this bill come into force upon it receiving royal assent, not listening to the courts, and certainly not listening to the miners, who, incidentally, I would have thought were traditionally Labour Party supporters. In fact, are any miners Labour Party supporters? If there are any Labour Party supporters at all on the West Coast, I will be surprised. I am surprised that, in the face of a court decision, in the face of miners—who are traditionally Labour Party supporters—being harmed by this bill, and in the face of the lack of consultation, the Government can bring this legislation into force.

Dr Nick Smith brought up the point earlier that, on the one hand, when it comes to the issue of private property rights in terms of the public ownership—as everyone believes—of the foreshore, seabed, and beaches, there is extensive and endless consultation with Māori, there is recognition of a court decision, and the Government does listen to the only voters it has left, those being radical Māori, but, on the other hand, with this bill it ignores its supporters, the miners. It listens endlessly to radical Māori on the foreshore and seabed issue. With this bill it ignores a court decision, yet on the seabed and foreshore issue it heralds a court decision. With this bill there is no consultation with miners, Labour’s traditional supporters, but on the foreshore, seabed, and beach issue there is endless consultation with Māori on private property rights, behind closed doors, in private, so that New Zealanders who have a stake in our beaches have no idea what deals are being done and what is being sold down the road.

That is what I would like to raise. How can the Government bring in a commencement date that means the bill will be enacted so swiftly, without any consideration of all those things? I would appreciate the new Minister in the chair, Rick Barker—the green Minister—when he has finished reading the bill, responding to my questions. Why has there been no consultation? Why is the Government flying in the face of a court case? And why is it flying in the face of its traditional supporters? That is what I would like to know. I am interested in the Minister in the chair—if he could pause for a moment from reading the legislation and catching up with us here in the Committee—answering those questions for me. Does he have any idea what the Court of Appeal will report back when it finishes its consideration of what is put before it? Does the Minister even care what the Court of Appeal will come up with, or is he too entrenched in this Government, which rides roughshod over the process by legislating retrospectively in virtually 30 percent of the legislation that passes through this House? I could list it all, including the fisheries legislation and the “Harry Bill”. Has he no respect for the courts?

I move, That the question be now put.

It is very clear to this side of the Committee that this Labour Government does not have any respect for Parliament. We have had a set of revolving Ministers in the chair; it just depends whose turn it is. It would appear that their attention span is about 10 minutes, because then another one has to be brought in. Not one Minister has stood up to speak to this bill. The bill was brought in by the Hon Harry Duynhoven; he has gone. When members on the Government side get an opportunity to speak, all that they do is move that there be no debate. What sort of Parliament is that?

There are things to debate, because we are discussing the commencement date, which—[Interruption] Jill Pettis is now trying to pick me up for a dinner date. No thanks, I say to her; it would be a cold day in hell before I did that, but I appreciate the offer. I know how sad it must be for her to find a man in her caucus to go out to dinner with her.

Clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” One would think that when this bill came into force the principal legislation would be changed, but if we read on we discover that, no, it was changed on 19 September 2002. Mr Brent Catchpole of New Zealand First is quite right. Only a Labour Government could think it could legislate away time. It is very interesting that the bill came from the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who thinks he can legislate away the Electoral Act and secure himself a place in history. I say to you, Mr Chairman, that I am speaking to the commencement clause. If you want to wave your arms around, indicating the size of the fish you caught last weekend, or anything else, and bragging to Jill Pettis, that is your business, but I am speaking to the commencement date.

The date of 19 September 2002 is significant because that is when the “former” Minister, the “former” MP for New Plymouth, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, put out the press release. Imagine the significance of that date in terms of our Parliament and our legal process! He announced his legislation before it was written. He announced his legislation before anyone saw it. He announced it before it came to Parliament. He said: “I’m the Minister. Some time in the future, if I’m still an MP, if I’m still a Minister, I will bring a bill to this Parliament and we might pass it, but in the meantime I am the Minister, I am God Almighty, and I’ve changed the law.” And that is what happened, because the real commencement date of this bill, under this Labour Government, is 19 September 2002, not the day after it receives the royal assent.

In fact, what we are doing here is legislating a lie. That is what this Government is doing. It is legislating a lie, because this bill and this decision came into effect last year. It is just that poor old Harry Duynhoven had not caught up with that, just as he had not caught up with a few old minor, technical details in the Electoral Act. The Dutch Minister in the Labour Government announced the commencement date of this bill, and it is not when it passes through the House; it is 19 September 2002. We on this side of the Committee say it is disgusting that the property rights were taken away, it is disgusting that the courts were overturned, it is disgusting that it was done by press release, and it is disgusting that it was done by an MP who, under New Zealand law, cannot sit in this House now.

So we are given a pass-the-parcel approach in terms of Ministers sitting in the chair, and not one of them is prepared to discuss why this legislation “comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, when, if we read further back, we discover that it commenced on 19 September 2002.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is a very serious issue, because today, in this Chamber, the Labour Government has set a new precedent. It has made a mockery and a farce of the commencement date.

This bill was first introduced to the House on 18 December 2001. I remember that, at the time, I asked what sort of Labour Government would introduce legislation at Christmas time that took away people’s property rights. The Labour Government got the gold, and the coal miners and the mining industry operators got shafted.

They were further shafted when this bill was referred to the Commerce Committee, because before the select committee even had time to receive submissions and look at the substantive issue, the Minister in charge of the bill at the time, Harry Duynhoven, introduced a new dimension to the bill. As was pointed out by the ACT party’s Rodney Hide and by my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, that Minister introduced another commencement date for a bill that was under consideration by the Commerce Committee. So we have a bill that was introduced on 18 December 2001, and that eventually came to the House for its Committee stage in August 2003, but before that date the Minister in charge of the bill at the time had already announced that, no matter whether Parliament agreed that the legislation should be passed, he was adding a new dimension to the bill, and the date of 20 September 2002, 5 p.m., was inserted in the bill, to be the operative date for the extinction of the right of a mining licence holder to apply for a new mining licence. I wonder whether that is an example of the expression “going Dutch”. As Rodney Hide was saying, Harry Duynhoven was looking after himself and forgetting about the rights of the mining licence holders.

It is an outrage that we now learn that, under a Labour Government, the title of a bill need not even attempt to describe its content. The commencement date has also started to take on the appearance of a farce, because what is the point of Parliament passing this legislation in 2003 when the substantive provisions of it have an operative date of 2002? That indicates the disrespect that the Labour Government showed to the select committee, which hardly had time to deliberate and debate the substantive issues. The Labour Government rode roughshod over the select committee in introducing another commencement date for the substantive provisions of the legislation.

I would like the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, to take a call and explain to the public why Parliament should take the trouble of sitting through this Committee debate on the commencement clause, which is meaningless. Regardless of whether the bill is passed, it is already in operation. The substantive part has nothing to do with the stated commencement date of the bill, which is the day after it is subject to the royal assent. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to the public whether those precedents are now being set by the Labour Government: that the title does not reflect the substance of the bill, and that the commencement date is meaningless.

I move, That the question be now put.