Estimates Debate — Vote Economic, Industry and Regional Development

Crown Minerals Group sits within the Ministry of Economic Development, which we are discussing at this moment. The Crown Minerals Group is responsible for administering the Crown Minerals Act, under which a number of mining companies have made seabed prospecting applications this year. There has been a notable growth in seabed prospecting applications this year, because the Government has made seabed mining a more lucrative activity. Changes in the tax regime and the Overseas Investment Commission legislation, and, of course, the Resource Management Act amendments currently before the House, make prospecting more attractive, because the financial gains are greater and the involvement of the community in the decision-making process will be radically reduced.

Of course, the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which gives the Government full legal and beneficial ownership of the seabed and foreshore, has opened the doors for mining companies by removing any opportunity for Māori to utilise the protections of Te Tiriti o Waitangi arguments to protect the foreshore and seabed from that activity, just as te tiriti arguments protected State forests from sale in the 1980s.

It was only a couple of months after the foreshore legislation was passed that Black Sand Exploration Ltd made an application to search for ironsand along 3,000 square kilometres of coast from the Kaipara Harbour to Taranaki. Ironsand is in very high demand at the moment, and New Zealand’s marine area is a potential source of that mineral. The Government has acknowledged that not enough is known about our marine environment to make rational decisions about its use and management, yet prospecting for minerals in the seabed is being approved, despite that confession. Without quality information and clear, long-term planning for the sustainability of the marine environment and its species, the environmental costs of allowing such mining will far exceed any fiscal gain that might be made from the selling off of our marine resources.

The Green Party is opposed to any seabed or foreshore mining in any significant marine habitat, and it is clear that most of the seabed prospecting applications now approved are right in the middle of a number of significant habitats, most notably, those of endangered Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins. There are currently three approved prospecting permits that I am aware of—one from Iron Ore New Zealand Ltd regarding an area off the coast of Taranaki, and two from Seafield Resources, which is looking for gold off the West Coast of the South Island.

Black Sand Exploration Ltd—whose application spurred the development of community organisations like Kiwis Against Seabed Mining—has had its application put on hold, but that application could be resubmitted at any time. Black Sand Exploration’s original application covered the exact same area as the gill-net ban that is in place along the North Island’s west coast to protect the Māui’s dolphin from further endangerment. There are only about 111 individual Māui’s dolphins left. They are critically endangered and remain at serious risk from human activities. There are endangered Hector’s dolphins along the West Coast of the South Island, where the Crown Minerals Group has recently approved gold prospecting permits for the seabed. Prospecting is the very beginning process for mining, and in and of itself it is not necessarily a threat to those species. But mining certainly is, and we simply cannot afford to add any further damaging human activities in those areas.

Gill-netting causes the most problems for dolphins, but there are other threats. Trawling kills Māui’s dolphins, and lost nets can cause havoc. Pollution threatens dolphins—and not only pollution from the sea itself. As dolphins can feed quite close to shore, nutrient-rich freshwater that discharges into coastal waters can cause algal blooms and other damage, and thereby threaten the habitat of those dolphins. Tourism has damaging impacts, as does invasive research. Now we have the added threat of seabed mining, which damages dolphin habitats and could lead to increasing rates of dolphin deaths.

We must have stronger protection measures in place that will restrict or prohibit human activities that threaten those endangered species. Fishing technologies must be subject to a sustainability test, and those that fail those tests must be severely restricted in their use. Zero by-catch limits should be set for endangered species like the Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins, and near-zero by-catch limits set for other species. Added threats like seabed mining must not be allowed to take place within those fragile habitats.

Firstly, I think it has to be recognised that Crown Minerals has been funded through the Ministry of Economic Development output agreement for many years—that is not something new. Crown Minerals administers the permitting regime, gives policy advice to the Government on the Crown Mineral Estate, and promotes investment in the mineral estate. The key point to note is that there is nothing new in promoting responsible investment in exploration and development.

The mineral estate has a multibillion dollar value, and the growth and innovation framework, which this Government follows, explicitly recognises the need to manage our natural resources responsibly. I point out to our Green Party colleague that Dr David Bellamy—someone whom I think the Green Party would recognise as a reasonable authority—has stated: “New Zealand has the most environmentally responsible mining industry in the world.” I think any Government would take some comfort from that, and I suggest that the Greens could take some comfort from it as well, if they were reasonably objective.

In terms of Black Sand Exploration’s so-called mining proposal, let me quickly state a few facts. Firstly, there are no proposals currently before the Crown to mine offshore ironsands or mineral sands, which would include gold. There is a lot of heat around this issue, but there are simply no grounds for it. It is too early to speculate, firstly, whether a mineable deposit exists, and, secondly, if a resource exists, what the scale of it might be, and, therefore, what economic benefits might flow from it. Responsible exploration and mineral production has the potential, of course, to have a range of economic benefits, both regionally and nationally, but there is considerable exploration and appraisal work to be done before any meaningful assessment can be made.

It must be understood that mining permits under the Crown Minerals Act regulate only who is allocated Crown-owned minerals and the royalty returned to the Government from the mining of those minerals. The Crown has treaty partnership obligations under the statute, by which iwi and hapū are consulted, and areas that are of particular importance to the mana of an iwi can be excluded from any mining permit.

Secondly, public concerns about mining are about whether mining is compatible with communities where people live, and also about any possible adverse impacts of mining on the natural and physical resources of communities and their environment. Those concerns are addressed through the resource consent process of the Resource Management Act 1991, just as the environmental impacts of all industries in New Zealand are so managed. If the member has not picked up that there is some discussion around the way in which the Resource Management Act works in terms of development, then she must be living on a different island or planet than I live on. There are plenty of people who would say that the Resource Management Act gives sufficient protection—some would even say too much—in terms of development.

Although the Crown Minerals Act gives jurisdiction for prospecting and/or exploration, it does not give automatic permission for extraction and mining. Those applications have to go through the required processes for resource consents, which are made to the district and regional councils with responsibility for the geographic area concerned. I think we should have a little more light and somewhat less heat in these issues, because, as I have stated, the reality is that there are no proposals currently before the Crown. The application that the member has mentioned, from Black Sand Exploration Ltd, for example, has been declined because the applicant failed to provide sufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment to be undertaken, despite repeated requests from officials. If there is anything about the application being declined that the member does not understand, then maybe she could give me a note on it and I will explain it to her.

I look forward to the debate on Vote Economic, Industry and Regional Development, and I congratulate the Hon Jim Anderton on the good work he is doing in economic development. Up and down this country we have regions going ahead like they have not gone ahead for a very long time. That is why we have the lowest unemployment rate this country has seen for so long. This is not a “sit on your hands”, do-nothing Government, like that lot on the other side of the Chamber would be. I ask members to watch: when we get to the vote they will vote against this. They will say to business that they are against nearly $250 million going into economic development, that they are against helping business build capacity, and that they are against the Government being involved in helping regions with their planning.

On this side we applaud the Minister for the money he has in this vote that will help the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce support business clusters and incubators, because that creates economic wealth and jobs, and it allows regions that have suffered under National Governments in the past to move ahead as they have never done before. We are for this Government being involved alongside business in training, advice, and grants for budding entrepreneurs, for people who want to start up businesses, for small businesses, and for people looking to initiate exports, in terms of helping this country to develop and create employment opportunities.

I want to know why members of that party on the other side are saying they are against those initiatives. They are saying: “No, we will not support those. We’ll cut tax some time in the future. We’ll tell you what it will be in maybe 4 weeks, so that you get as little time as possible to read the fine print.” It is these initiatives that go out the window if they cut taxes. Opposition members will rubbish them at the same time as saying that they support economic development in the regions. Well, it just cannot be so. One cannot cut taxes and also go out and do the sorts of things that Jim Anderton has been doing—marching up and down the country, visiting region after region, and listening to what people have to say in terms of what they need.

We would not have a film industry that is going ahead in leaps and bounds in this country if we did not have such things as the Screen Innovation Production Fund, which receives $35 million extra in this Budget. Those things are creating skills, jobs, and overseas earnings for this country. It does not happen by sitting on one’s hands like the National Government did for so long. We saw regions going backwards at a rapid rate. What we have with this sort of policy and with this Minister is a proactive Government; not one that says it will give some sort of tax cut, maybe, but will not tell people about it for 4 weeks, in case they read the fine print and find out that it is a con. We actually have a Budget that says what we are going to do as a Government. We are using taxpayer funds cleverly, smartly, and we are seeing the results.

We are seeing regions like Northland, which used to have record levels of unemployment and very little hope, going ahead like no one would believe. We are seeing the East Coast of New Zealand going ahead like no one would believe, because we have a Minister who went there and asked: “What do you need to improve this region of yours that suffered high unemployment and stagnation for too long under National?”. So we developed a strategy, we have transport infrastructure going in, we have capacity being built, and we have people working alongside Government.

I want to hear members of the business community say that they do not want this $250 million, and that they want some miserable tax cut instead. There is an expectation that one can have this and a tax cut. Well, it does not work that way; it has never worked that way. National Governments, have a record of sitting on their hands, doing nothing, and leaving it to the market. National cannot say it will give some sort of tax cut, as well. This is evidence of the enormous difference between National, and the Labour and Progressive Government.

We say we are here to help, and we are here to listen. We do not just march in and say: “This is what you have to have.” We ask what taxpayers’ money needs to be spent on, and that is exactly what this Budget gives: $30 million for promoting New Zealand businesses and their products and services within New Zealand and internationally, so that we support the development of international trade and attract new, high-quality investment. That is what the Minister has talked about, and that is what this vote is about. National will not have a word to say on this, because it is embarrassed. It is embarrassed by the fact that this Government is actually making a difference out there in the economy, and that this Budget makes a difference.

💬 Judith Collins: Ha, ha!

We get the little giggles from Judith Collins, who has been sent in to prop up the National Party ranks, which are very depleted at the moment. We notice that its economic spokesperson is not leaping to his feet to talk about this, because he knows, and Dr Brash knows—wherever he may be—that one cannot have economic development and have a tax cut. One cannot have this portfolio producing what it is producing and have a tax cut. But National members do not want to talk about that.

There is huge competition on this side of the House to speak on this particular vote this afternoon, because Labour MPs represent the key provincial areas in New Zealand, and we know that so much has happened in our areas that we are excited and delighted at the growth we have seen in our patch. We know what it was like in provincial New Zealand under those Tories in the 1990s. It was grim. It was terrible. I am very proud to represent the seat of Whanganui, and I remember what it was like in my patch in the 1990s. It was awful. Everything closed. It was shocking, and there was a shocking waste of our most valuable resource in this country: our people. But this Government was elected in 1999, and we reinvested in our most valuable resource—that is, our people.

Sadly, I have only 5 minutes, but I know my colleague Mr Duynhoven is busting to speak.

One of the very tangible ways that this Labour-Progressive Government—this progressive Government in every sense of the word—has poured money into provincial New Zealand, and where my area in particular has benefited, is through major regional initiatives. There will be a formal announcement, and the Hon Jim Anderton is coming to our region next week as part of that announcement. Ruapehu, Rangitīkei, and Wanganui all worked together to get $2 million worth of funding to help further regional and economic development, and tourism development in particular. We have some wonderful tourism sites and potential areas for the sympathetic and wise development of our tourism sector.

That initiative has worked because this Government has also worked with the tourism sector, instead of alienating it like those Tories opposite did when Murray McCully was the Minister of Tourism—the years of the golden handshakes. But, no, under this Labour-led Government, this Labour-Progressive—in every sense of the word—Government, money is being put into the provinces. We are benefiting.

We have some of the highest rates of employment we have seen since most of us were kids, and all that money in those wages and salaries is being reinvested in the community. We have houses going up, businesses expanding, and new businesses being established. I have to say that it is wonderful when one is moving around one’s electorate now, compared with what it was like not too many years ago. Some of us remember but, sadly, some people have forgotten.

I have to say that anybody who thinks they can work out their economics to continue to spend money and invest at the rate this Government has invested in New Zealand, yet still have tax cuts, is just talking voodoo economics. It is just like being at home. We cannot buy a new house, a new car, and new carpet, and have the landscaping done, all in one year. It is just not possible. When we run our own budgets, we all have to live within our means. Why is it that some people out there in society believe that they can throw money around like a man with no arms and there will be no consequences? Of course, there would be consequences.

One of the most serious consequences of tax cuts that will impact on people in my electorate in particular is what will happen with mortgage interest rates. A large number of people in our Labour-held electorates have significant mortgages. The first thing they will feel the pinch about will be the increase in their mortgage interest rates. They might get 7 bucks a week extra in a tax cut from those Tories over there—and it is pushing the boat out a bit to say $7 a week—but I will probably get $70. I do not need $70 extra a week, but some of the people in my electorate who are on low to middle incomes most certainly do. But under the Tories’ plan, it will not work out like that. They work on the principle of “To those who have, more shall be given”.

We on this side of the Chamber believe that we should give people a hand up, and one of the ways we can do that is by investing in the whole community, by investing in health by lowering the price of going to a doctor and of picking up prescriptions, and by introducing income-related rents. People in my electorate are now hundreds of dollars—and I do not throw that figure around lightly—better off a year since income-related rents were introduced. Families in my electorate are hundreds of dollars better off because of the Working for Families package.

That was a very interesting speech from the Labour member for Whanganui. Of course, she covered things like housing, health, trade, and suchlike. I remind Labour members of what has happened to the cost of housing during the term of this Labour Government for people in Wanganui, Gisborne, Timaru, or Auckland. Housing prices have now gone beyond the ability of young New Zealanders to buy a house. Young people are totally unable to buy a house now, and that is why they are going to Australia. What has happened to interest rates for young people who are trying to buy houses? Interest rates have gone up and, of course, the amount one pays has gone up. Whereas in 1998 people could borrow $100,000 or $150,000 to buy a house, now they have to borrow $300,000 to $350,000, and the amount paid on interest is doubled. It has gone up by 100 percent compared with what it was in 1999. The utter failure of this Labour Government is no better exemplified than in so far as housing is concerned.

The member from Whanganui spoke about going to the doctor. Well, what has happened about going to the doctor these days? When New Zealand First was in Government, we introduced a scheme whereby young children up to the age of 6 got free health care. Is that still the case today under a Labour Government? No, they are paying through the nose. The cost of health care has gone up for the young family in Wanganui, Timaru, Gisborne, or Auckland. It has soared as a result of the failed policies of this Labour Government.

New Zealand First policy is very clear: we will restore the situation for people with young families and with children under 6. In fact, we will take it further. It is one of the New Zealand First planks of this election that that primary health care goal should be extended to young children at primary school, as well. [Interruption] That will be the best investment to be made for anybody—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can the member please keep to the topic of economic development.

I am responding, Mr Chairperson. You had no complaints about the member who spoke before me, so you should have no complaints about me. She raised the question of primary health care, and I am prepared to continue with it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That issue was raised by Jill Pettis. I ask you to have one law for both sides of this Committee. She raised the question of primary health care; I am taking it up. Now, if you do not like it, and if Labour does not like it, I am not surprised—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will see that I am on my feet. Every member has the right to counter any debate, but not for the length of time the member was doing. I gave him good, ample time. I accept what he says, and I understand his frustration.

So I have made my point that New Zealand First will introduce a policy that is far better than Labour’s current failed policy, which is not even carrying out the policy it inherited from a New Zealand First Government way back in 1998. We care about young children; Labour does not. It is as simple as that.

As far as the way in which money is being spent in the regions, what about spending a bit more money in Auckland? After all, Auckland’s population has increased by 50 percent in the last 18 years. Its population has increased by 50 percent, but have we had a 50 percent increase in the Auckland region in hospitals? Have we had a 50 percent increase in schools? Have we had a 50 percent increase in roads—in anything? No!

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Yes, more than.

No, there has not been a 50 percent increase in roads in Auckland. For example, Auckland’s population in the last 18 years has increased by the size of Wellington’s whole population from year one. Have we had the same number of schools or the same number of hospitals in Auckland that exist in Wellington?

💬 Hon Members: No.

That is the arithmetic. Auckland’s population in the last 18 years has increased by Wellington’s total population on a region by region basis, and it is well behind in terms of funding.

Now, that member has explained that all the money is going into the provinces. I say good on the provinces for getting something and for getting growth. But I also remind that member, and I remind the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, that we are now facing a $10 billion deficit in trade, and it is not surprising we are facing that deficit if this Labour Government is spending money, and allowing Auckland and the regions to borrow money on credit, as if it were going out of fashion.

About 3 to 4 weeks ago I asked the Labour Government when it was going to put some controls on our balance of trade. It was a $6 billion deficit in trade then, it went up to $8 billion, and it is now $10 billion. Clearly, all the Government wants to do is to see New Zealand get into debt and more debt, so long as it can try to win the election on the basis of things being good. But there will be a time of paying the piper very shortly after the election, and New Zealand First looks forward to working with any other party to make sure we act responsibly in the best interests of New Zealand. As we have done in this debate, we have abstained from voting. As a responsible, non-aligned party, we are prepared to work with any party and, if necessary, to take the third option of sitting in the middle and approving votes as they come, one by one, as we have shown today.

💬 Darren Hughes: Who’s your favourite?

Our favourite is the New Zealand public. Our favourites are New Zealanders, I tell Mr Hughes. That will come as news to that member for Otaki. But we favour New Zealand—first. That is who we favour. [Interruption] That is also something new for Mr Cunliffe, one of the spending Ministers.

It is always a pleasure to follow my New Zealand First colleague. The junior Government whip made a very interesting interjection when he asked the New Zealand First member who his favourite was—who New Zealand First would go with. I think that is a really important question for the New Zealand public, because the New Zealand public very clearly heard New Zealand First the last time that party thought it was in that position saying to them: “Vote for us, and we will put National out.” But what did New Zealand First do? It went back with National.

However, I want to talk about regional development issues, because I think that they are really important issues. I am delighted to have been part of a Government that for more than 5 years straight has seen, in every quarter, the regions in this country prospering in positive growth. Nowhere is that more exemplified than in Taranaki.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Harry Duynhoven has just over 4 minutes remaining.

💬 Dail Jones: If he wishes.

In answer to Mr Jones, I do wish to continue my speech. It is always a pleasure to follow someone from New Zealand First, because it gives one quite a lot of debate material. The New Zealand First member had just been gleefully telling the Committee how New Zealand First was determining who would be in Government, perhaps, after the election. I want to remind the public of New Zealand that the last time New Zealand First members thought they were in that position they told the public to vote for New Zealand First to get rid of a National Government. And what did they do? They put a National Government back in.

I return to the topic of this debate, which is industry and regional development. I am absolutely delighted with the tremendous progress that has been made not only in my own region of Taranaki but also throughout the country and the regions, where we have seen economic growth second to none. We have seen huge development. Regions like the Waikato, Taranaki, and Whanganui—all sorts of regions in the country—have done extremely well under this Government. I can tell the Committee that in my own region—and in every one of our regions, actually, not just my own region of Taranaki—under this Government we have had a total, complete period of economic growth. We have seen quarter after quarter of continuing economic growth right throughout the country and the regions. This has meant that for the last 5-and-a-bit years in Taranaki we have seen continuing growth in all sorts of areas—engineering, film, and all sorts. We have seen continuing growth and, therefore, continuing employment. We have not only seen employment; for the first time in my political career, which now spans 15 years in total—with, regrettably, a 3-year break, which you might remember, Mr Chairman—we have the problem of attracting people to the region to fill jobs. The problem used to be finding enough work to attract people and getting them to stay. Now it is finding enough people to fill the jobs we have. In all skilled areas we simply have shortages. We will take any fitter-welders, engineers, electricians, and plumbers—skilled people who add value to the economy. We will take tradespeople any time in any place in this country.

This Government has been a partner with private industry. Our regional development policies have added a huge amount to that growth. The total investment in Vote Economic, Industry and Regional Development is now close to a quarter of a billion dollars. Contrary to what the National Party keeps telling us, 94 percent of that $250 million actually goes to delivery. Only 6 percent—a small percentage—goes into the bureaucracy making it happen. I tell the National Party that it can promise all the tax cuts it likes, and promise them on the base of no borrowing, etc.—it is not saying that, but it is leaving that impression by saying that tax cuts will come out of cuts to the bureaucracy—but such a small percentage of the New Zealand economy is spent on those involved in the bureaucracy that National is simply misleading the public if it is saying that savings will come out of the bureaucracy. It will either borrow and leave debt for our kids, or it will cut services. That is all that can happen. One cannot simply invent cuts. Mr Ardern can leap up and down all he likes, but he knows that what I am saying is the truth, just as his Taranaki predecessor did some years ago on the same sorts of issues. I am very proud to be the member for New Plymouth in this case.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Crown Research Institutes agreed to.

Vote Employment agreed to.

Vote Housing