Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill

on behalf of Metiria Turei (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of Green co-leader Metiria Turei on her member’s bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. First, I want to thank all those thousands of New Zealanders who worked in 2009 and 2010 alongside the Green Party, the 2precious2mine coalition, iwi, hapū, and conservation groups to protect our most treasured places from John Key’s “dig it, mine it, and destroy it” plans. Because of the collective effort of New Zealanders everywhere, we stopped National from allowing mining corporates to plunder nature’s cathedrals: our national parks, marine reserves, and wilderness areas. Like so many New Zealanders, the Greens love this country. We will do everything we can to protect our wild landscapes and seabed from the permanent destruction this Government wants in order to generate a few more pieces of silver.

Before I get into the details of this bill, I want to acknowledge that although we won that fight on schedule 4 in 2010, the mining issue continues to divide communities across this country. Some mining in some areas, such as small West Coast alluvial goldmines, is not problematic. But where mining plans are destructive of our climate, such as Solid Energy’s plans to mine low-grade lignite in Southland and convert it to diesel, or Bathurst Resources’ plans to dig up the insect kingdom of the Denniston Plateau, then we will oppose those plans, and we have a strong track record of winning those fights.

The Green Party stands in support of all of those iwi, hapū, whānau, and community organisations who are fighting the plans of this Government and foreign corporates to mine and drill our seas, particularly in Northland and off the East Coast. Deep-sea oil drilling poses a significant risk to our oceans, and, as the Rena catastrophe demonstrates when we have containers still falling off the ship and oil still spilling from it, we do not have the resources to manage a disaster of this scale, much less one of the scale that happened to the Deepwater Horizon. So all of those who are fighting the oil drilling, deep-sea drilling, and mining plans, which put our marine environment at risk, have the Green Party’s full support.

It was the Green Party that brought John Key’s mining plans to the public attention in August 2009. We challenged the claim that it was just a stocktake of the country’s mineral resources. In October 2009 we revealed that that stocktake included Mount Aspiring National Park, among others, and in 2010 we dismantled the National Party’s fallacious economic argument. We showed that the minuscule mining royalties are not worth the damage to our economy. They are not worth more than our pride, or worth more than our sense of place and identity. By February 2010, we and the public had forced the Government to change its agenda. We had forced National to scale back its mining madness. Yet that pressure continued to mount. We had tens of thousands of New Zealanders marching down Auckland’s Queen Street, and making their submissions to the Government. We know that 40,000 New Zealanders signed the Green Party petition against mining our treasured places. These are our national parks; they are not National’s parks. These treasured places are too precious to mine.

Although we celebrated that victory in 2010, we know that more needs to be done, and hence this bill. It is only a wee bill, but it is a powerful tool for the protection of our most treasured places on land and at sea. That is why I expect that National will oppose it. John Key tried to quietly take away the protection that schedule 4 gives to our national parks, to our wilderness areas, and to our marine reserves. This bill would stop him. John Key tried to hide what his Government was doing by talking only to industry, and not to the people. This bill would stop that. This bill would require a Government to place legislation before this House before it could remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, and the protection that that schedule provides. A Government could no longer do that through an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Ministers of energy and conservation. It could not do it secretly. It would have to do it in the full force of the public gaze, even if that was done under urgency, as is sometimes the case with controversial legislation.

I expect that National members will oppose this bill, because they would prefer not to see 40,000 people on the streets of Auckland saying “No, leave our treasured places alone. You can’t dig them up.” That march was the biggest in a decade. We had iwi, the 2precious2mine coalition, Coromandel Watchdog, Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Greenpeace, and thousands of people marching down Queen Street to protect our special places. This small bill is the next logical step in carrying those people’s wishes into law. National has an agenda of “dig it up, drill it, cut it up, sell it”. I would be pleasantly surprised if National members support this bill, and I would certainly welcome that. We hope that members of this House will show their support for this bill to protect our most special, treasured places.

Thank you, Eugenie Sage, for your introduction to the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill on behalf of Metiria Turei. This bill was conceived during the time back in 2010 when the Government was looking for feedback on its discussion paper Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Like most members’ bills, it was designed to draw attention to the schedule 4 debate and to raise the member’s profile. It has done that job and is now unnecessary, and I will explain why.

I also want to note that this Parliament should not be passing legislation unless it adds real value. Excessive, complex, and unnecessary legislation is an expensive indulgence, and the temptation for parliamentarians to pass bills just because they can, regardless of quality, should be resisted. At the time the bill was drafted, the Government was talking about mineral resources that were spread across our country and the large proportion of mineral potential in schedule 4 land. The Government talked about the dilemma that the location of our mineral wealth caused us, because sometimes the richest mineral deposits are in places where conservation, cultural, or tourism values are high.

New Zealanders want a more prosperous country. They often talk about the jobs and incomes that are available in Australia, and they want to go there not because it is a better country but because they believe that it is more prosperous and, because of that, that there are more opportunities. The jobs, the incomes, and the opportunities that are available in Australia are not there because their economy is stronger than ours across the board but because it is underpinned by mining. New Zealanders want a more prosperous country, but they also want to conserve our natural environment, and that is the tension.

In its discussion document the Government agreed with the average New Zealander, saying that it was determined to see living standards in New Zealand rise but that it did not want to see conservation values lost or our clean, green image sacrificed. The Government assured people that it would not be removing large sections from the protection afforded by schedule 4, but it was keen to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way, and was taking input from the community before making any decisions. As the discussion continued, the public of New Zealand made it very clear that they did not want mining on schedule 4 land. So the Government listened. The public had spoken, and Ministers Brownlee and Wilkinson respected public opinion and ruled out any changes to schedule 4 land. In fact, quite voluntarily, they actually improved the status quo by adding 14 more parcels of land, totalling 12,400 hectares, to schedule 4. They also agreed that in the future all areas given classifications equivalent to the current schedule 4, such as national parks and marine reserves, would automatically become part of schedule 4. So in the face of a public dilemma and discussion, which weighed up the economy and the environmental outcomes and—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I cannot hear the member.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not missing a thing.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me—I am on my feet, and the member will take a walk if she does that again. I do want to hear the member, so let us have a bit more decorum.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So in the face of the public dilemma and the discussion, which weighed up economic and environmental outcomes and came down on the side of the environment, existing legislation worked well. Communities and the public spoke out. They had their opinions listened to, and the Act delivered the outcome people wanted.

In the face of legislation that is working really well for the public, I am concerned that this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, might, contrary to its intentions, make changes to schedule 4 much easier in future. I am sure that that is not what Metiria Turei wanted. Let me explain. Under the current Act, the Minister of Conservation can remove specified land for schedule 4 through an Order in Council only once public consultation has occurred. The current Act has extensive consultation requirements under section 61(5), and the Government is at risk of judicial review proceedings if the Act is not followed. Only after a full consultation process and the removal of land can the Minister then approve an access arrangement with a purpose of prospecting, exploitation, or mining. However, if this bill was passed, the Government of the day could introduce a small amending bill to remove land from schedule 4. It could go to the House without any public consultation at all, and through the House without select committee scrutiny if passed under urgency. Finally, it would not run the risk of judicial review. It would be a far easier process than what we have in existing legislation. So working on the principle that the existing legislation is not broken and does not need to be mended, I do not believe that this bill should pass.

It was conceived and put into the ballot when the public were concerned that their opinions would not be listened to in terms of mining schedule 4 land, but their opinions were listened to and respected, and I believe that the present Act is the best tool to conserve schedule 4 land. It requires extensive public consultation, and any Government not following that process could face a judicial review. The Act worked successfully for the public last year, and we do not need any further legislation. I do not support this bill.

Can I begin my contribution in supporting the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill by congratulating the member who introduced it, Metiria Turei. I further congratulate the member Eugenie Sage, who brought it to the House today. The member made an extraordinarily considered and reasonable contribution, and I think it was blindingly obvious, actually, that members would support the legislation going to the next step.

But then we heard from Nicky Wagner. Well, Nicky, explain to us—I think it will come as great news to the public of New Zealand that National never had any serious intention of mining schedule 4 land, that that was not its intention, and that actually what it was doing was seeking feedback from the public. Well, it got it. Fifty thousand people marched down Queen Street, and that was an unheard-of demonstration of people across the board, from all manner of professions, backgrounds, and ages, who said: “Not yours to mine”.

When we have the opportunity to have this sentiment put into legislation, to reflect the public feedback that the member who has just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner, so clearly wanted, and got, they are saying no. They are saying they will just leave it as it is because all they were doing was seeking public feedback. They do not want that overwhelming public feedback put into the law. Well, I do, and I am very pleased that Labour will be supporting this legislation, because the public do not have any faith in what Nicky Wagner said. We think it was more than just floating the idea out there to get public feedback. We think it was a real proposal, and the public responded.

💬 Maggie Barry: They don’t have any faith in what you said. That’s why they voted you out.

Maggie Barry is again showing her true inclination—to dig it and mine it. She will not be supporting the legislation. I think she should go back to doing something where she can retain her integrity and credibility, rather than coming here and voting against legislation that protects our schedule 4 land from being mined. That is a really important thing to do, and nothing that member says will stop the public understanding that.

Then Nicky Wagner said that actually another reason for voting against this legislation is that it is unnecessary, excessive, and a regulatory regime that is too complex. It has two clauses in it. I do not really see how having—

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s really only got one.

Well, no. It has got the access clause, to be fair. It has got the title, then it has got the commencement, and then it has got clause 3, where the principal Act is named, and then it has got clause 4, “Access arrangements in respect of Crown land”. You could not actually have a bill that was less complex, less bureaucratic, and less of a regulatory regime. All it says is that we do not want National to mine in schedule 4 land. It is the most precious land, and that has been determined because the land has been put in the schedule and therefore it should be protected. It is in a different category because of being placed as schedule 4 land.

Finally, the member made the point that it would be very easy, under this bill, for land to be removed from schedule 4. Well, she cannot have read the final clause. Perhaps it was a bit too wordy to wade through—it is all of six lines long. But, right in it, it says that this allows for amendment to schedule 4 “to add to, but not remove, any Crown owned land referred to in subsection (1A).” This specifically says it cannot be removed. It can only be added to as a result of this legislation.

It does not really matter whether the National Party was serious about mining land in schedule 4 or whether it just wanted public feedback, because, overwhelmingly, New Zealanders said no to that proposal. Whether it was floated or seriously proposed, what this legislation does is respect the view of the public, and puts it in legislation so that we can all have confidence that the genuine view of the public and our desire to see schedule 4 land properly protected from mining are retained.

National opposes the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. National is committed to developing our resources while protecting our environment. The Crown Minerals Act regime is being reviewed at the moment. The regime, of course, is 20 years old now. It is being reviewed to ensure that we do have the right balance between economic benefits and exploration, and safety and environmental concerns. We do take these concerns very seriously.

National has made good progress in improving energy, minerals, environmental, and safety regimes. For example, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is currently before the House. In fact, it is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. That piece of legislation sets up an environmental management regime in the exclusive economic zone, which is an area that, of course, Labour neglected in the 9 years that it held the Treasury benches.

There is also the establishment of the High Hazards Unit within the Department of Labour, which, of course, is a dedicated unit of inspectors who have the responsibility of regulating health and safety practices on oil and gas platforms, and also in geothermal installations, mines, tunnels, and quarries. After the 2010 consultation on schedule 4, National decided that all national parks and other types of high conservation value areas listed in schedule 4 will remain protected from mining.

This member’s bill is unnecessary, as the Crown Minerals Act already provides sufficient safeguards for schedule 4 land. Section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act requires public consultation before any Order in Council is made to add or remove land. The consultation process during 2010, which was on the proposal to remove land from schedule 4, found that the public generally opposed the proposed changes. As a result the proposed changes did not go ahead. The consultation process therefore, I submit, was effective. The Act also prevents land that is classified as an ecological area or islands in the Mercury Island group from being removed from schedule 4 through an Order in Council. National opposes this bill.

New Zealand First will emphatically support the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. The Crown Minerals Act, as it now is, would have been a sleeping dog, but this Government would not let it lie. It has obviously been willing to compromise conservation values in favour of the exploitation of resources. Nicky Wagner said that National wanted a prosperous country—and so do we all. The difference is that some of us will not do it at any cost.

There is no harm, however, in encouraging the sustainable use of New Zealand’s resources, and I emphasise the word “sustainable”. There is no need for a policy, either, of absolute prohibition on the use of the country’s resources. But the sustainability bar must be high, and in the case of conservation land the bar must be so high as to be virtually a prohibition where large-scale mining, in particular, is concerned.

I want to refer to section 61(2) of the existing Act, in which the Minister in deciding upon an access arrangement must have regard to certain things. Included are the objectives of any Act under which the land is administered, the purpose for which the land is held, policy statements, management plans, and safeguards against any potential adverse effects. It sounds all right, until you realise that, in fact, that is not only not a comprehensive list of what should be given regard to; it is in fact a very weak section altogether. If that is all a Minister did, then I think most members of the New Zealand public would regard that as a wholly inadequate process of consideration.

I also want to refer to section 61(5), which I think is even weaker. I totally reject Nicky Wagner’s description of the consultation process under that section as being comprehensive. It is anything but. Let me read it you. First of all it says that the Minister of Conservation must consult “to the extent that is reasonably practicable,”. Who on earth knows what that is, other than the Minister? That is highly subjective, and it is so wide that a Minister could decide whatever they like in terms of what is adequate consultation.

Section 61(5) goes on to say: “having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case,” and only “those persons the Ministers have reason to believe are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected” are those who need to be consulted. So this is not a section that provides for comprehensive, widespread, general public consultation. The consultation process is in fact not modern at all, let alone comprehensive. In fact, as far as I am concerned it really means that the Minister need listen only to his or her mates. That is, I think, exactly what has happened with this Government.

A modern consultation system requires comprehensive information processes, explanation—which means consultation genuinely pursued—and the consideration of submissions. There is nothing like any of that in this section of the Act. So we cannot have any confidence that there would be any consultation at all under this section. The Act is so deficient in these various ways that really it needs a complete overhaul. For those reasons, amongst others, this bill should be opposed.

But this bill is about process, not about substance. Hence National should really be supporting it if it really is interested in process and consultation. The bill asks only that if land is to be removed from schedule 4, then it should not be done by a Minister, especially given the deficient processes detailed in the existing Act. Exploitation proposals should, as this bill means, go through Parliament and be fully debated in public. That is necessary now, given the Government’s record. So New Zealand First does, as I said at the beginning, fully and emphatically support the bill as it now is.

I rise to speak against the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, for much the same reasons as my colleagues. I do not see that there is any need for new laws. The bill is unnecessary. The legislation that we have currently covers the concerns of New Zealanders adequately, and that was proven when we listened last year. It has been proven time and again that when the public speak, we listen. We use the existing legislation well, and there is no need for this bill.

I would imagine that there are some small amendments that can be made. We are looking at some of the things that we are doing at the moment with the Crown Minerals Act. It provides sufficient safeguards for schedule 4 land, but we are looking at fine-tuning aspects. I think that along with our overall commitment to develop resources while protecting the environment, the regime that we are reviewing under the Crown Minerals Act, which is over 20 years old and does need a bit of a tweak, will ensure that we continue to balance economic benefits of exploration with safety and environmental concerns.

There are places in New Zealand that need careful and considered exploration. I look at Pike River and I see that the Pike River 29 may not be the only casualties; the economy of the West Coast will be too if we do not have the fortitude to look carefully at what we have. Although I appreciate that the Greens and, to a certain extent, Labour as well do not really want to go too much further into mineral exploration, the West Coast and other parts of New Zealand deserve to be given the opportunity to look at what they have and to use the resources they have to continue to keep their young people there and to keep the skills within their communities and environment. So I urge that we do not do blanket bans and shut down the prospects we have for mineral exploration. I think that prospecting and looking at these things is what is required. Adding in unnecessary laws does no good at all. Section 61(5) of the Crown Minerals Act does require public consultation before any Order in Council is made to add or remove land. These things work—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: And adequate consultation.

Adequate consultation. This has worked in the past, and it will work again. Have faith in democracy and in the ability of some politicians and political parties, Mr O’Rourke, to listen to what the people say, because that is what we do, and that is why we are back in Parliament for a second term. That is part of the lesson you could learn here, coming in in the party that you have.

Our consultation process has been effective and will continue to be so, and I think that we have proved that time and again—democracy at work. When we look at what happens in the Act, it prevents land that is classified as an ecological area, or islands in the Mercury Islands group, for example, from being removed from schedule 4 through an Order in Council. These are precious places. These need to be protected, and they are adequately protected.

National is making great progress in improving energy and mineral resources regulation. There are a raft of things. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is currently before the House and will go through one of the select committees that I sit on. It is an important environmental regime. The robust process it goes through at select committee level ensures that the legislation that comes before this House is actually able to do the job it is designed to do.

The High Hazards Unit, which we established within the Department of Labour, is another excellent device. It is a dedicated unit of inspectors that oversees and regulates health and safety practices on oil and gas platforms and, as well as that, in geothermal installations, mines, tunnels, and quarries.

These are measures that we have brought in that are doing the job and doing it well, unlike this proposed bill. After the 2010 consultation on schedule 4 we did decide that all the national parks and the other types of high conservation value lands that are listed there will remain protected from mining. We have said that, and we are sticking to it. We listen to people. I think that the public consultation process is very adequate. I do not think we need this bill. I think it is unnecessary, and that is why I speak against it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I want to respond to just a couple of the things that have been said tonight. The first is that this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, is a complex bill. That came to us from Nicky Wagner. I just want to reiterate that the complexity of this bill is something that the member may wish to reflect significantly further on if she just looks at the one truly operative clause. It is the one operative clause—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: How many lines?

Well, six in the actual clause and then two immediately before it in the preamble. So that is difficult! To reiterate, what it actually says is that this means that lands can still be added to schedule 4, and I think that is something that, presumably, National would like to see able to be done by a Minister. But if land is going to be removed, then we would think that a Government like National, interested in democracy, would think that bringing that issue back to the House for there to be legislation would be something it would support. I would suggest that if National does not support this bill, that is a true testament to how it feels about New Zealanders’ environment, and a true testament to just how out of touch it is getting with New Zealanders. New Zealanders have shown time and time again that they want our conservation land protected, they want our coastlines protected, and they want our national parks protected. It is part of being New Zealanders.

This Government does not seem to have got it, because, as Nicky Wagner told us, National members went out to New Zealand looking for feedback. Well, they got it all right—50,000 people down Queen Street and thousands of submissions on the proposal. They got the feedback but they are not listening. If they were listening tonight, they would support this bill. All this bill does is put in place a regime that reflects that concern that New Zealanders have.

I have to pick up Maggie Barry’s comment about whether the consultation process is adequate. Phil Heatley thinks that adequate consultation is asking John Key how his day was. That is what Phil Heatley thinks is public consultation. Simon Bridges might extend public consultation just a little bit further—perhaps to the senior citizens’ lounge in Tauranga. That will be public consultation. It is not enough—it is not sufficient—when we are talking about New Zealanders’ land, land that New Zealanders value. There is no way that a bill like this should scare National members. They should be prepared to support this because it is in line with New Zealanders’ values. It is in line with what New Zealanders want for our—

💬 Louise Upston: Like you’d know.

What is that? No, she is not repeating it. Louise Upston knows that this is in line with New Zealanders’ values. National is out of touch on this issue. National has to get over the idea that the economy and the environment are in some kind of eternal struggle and that they have to battle it out in order to work out the future for New Zealand. It needs to get with the programme that New Zealanders actually see the economy and the environment together. Of course we want sustainable economic growth, but we are not prepared to see schedule 4 land—land that has been put there because it is of value to New Zealanders—tossed away in the search for some minerals that might be there.

The process that National went through when it was doing the stocktake that we heard about earlier was quite instructive for the National members’ views on these kinds of issues. A stocktake was undertaken 2 years ago, they told us, to identify the conservation, tourism, and cultural values of schedule 4 areas, and to identify areas possessing significant mineral potential. The Government then went on to tell us what the four main conclusions were of that stocktake that was to identify the conservation, tourism, and cultural values. There were four main conclusions. One of them was that New Zealand is mineral rich, another was that there is plenty of mineral potential, the third was that the mineral potential could be developed, and the fourth was that the information on mineral potential is limited. Can anyone see what is missing from that? It is anything about the cultural or tourism values. That was what drove the stocktake. There was no way the Government was going to be put off until it faced those 50,000 New Zealanders and New Zealanders right around the country who opposed this.

We support this bill. It is a good bill. It should go to a select committee so that the New Zealand public can have a further say. The fact that the National Party is opposing it tonight shows that it is out of touch with New Zealanders’ views on conservation, on how we look after land, and on how we develop a sustainable economy. Its being out of touch like that will be remembered by New Zealanders.

It is my privilege to rise to support this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, which is being brought to you from the Green Party. This bill would better protect our most precious conservation areas from mining. Today it is receiving its first reading and it is very heartening, indeed, to hear the support that is coming from across the House.

We want to protect our national parks, wilderness areas, and marine reserves because they are our most precious conservation areas. Any decision to allow them to be prospected or mined should be made by Parliament through an Act of Parliament, not by Ministers acting alone. Notwithstanding what this side of the House has been saying, a judicial review is not going to cut it. It relies on a decision being made after a decision has been made. It also assumes that we must trust our Ministers, and, frankly, I am not sure that that will cut it with the New Zealand public, either.

We need this bill because our most precious conservation areas need greater protection. The Government has a clear agenda to mine it, drill it, dig it up, sell it off, flog it off—whatever.

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: Shoot it!

Yes. Let us take coal, for instance. We have just had a massive demonstration about Bathurst Resources. Solid Energy has got 6 billion tonnes of lignite for urea briquettes and diesel that it is currently exploiting. There is deep-sea oil prospecting, and, of course, there is also fracking. New Zealand is on the cusp of a large expansion of the fracking industry, which, to date, has seen approximately 30 to 40 wells fracked in Taranaki since the early 1990s. A huge amount of the country is open to fracking, with permits that allow it currently standing at 4.5 million hectares, added to another 6 million hectares to be considered for fracking at the moment. In the last year we have seen a 170 percent increase in the rate of new wells, compared with the average rate for the previous 18 years.

Several oil companies are also very interested in New Zealand’s oil and gas resources and have indicated that fracking will also be on the cards. TAG Oil, for instance, has $120 million budgeted for exploratory wells and is pursuing what it itself describes as a very aggressive programme, and it has stated that it will be applying for consents very shortly.

The East Coast, Hawke’s Bay, and Horizons regions are just about to consent their first wells, and we are entering a new stage in fracking history in New Zealand. The Gisborne District Council has admitted that it does not have the expertise to regulate fracking, and in a recent report, after investigating the Canadian situation, is asking for standardising resource consent conditions. The Government has wiped its hands of this. It has left it up to small councils, which have no resources to decide these issues. That is why we need protection for our most precious areas.

This bill is simply about adding another layer of democratic protection to what we have and hold for all New Zealanders. It is simply about making sure that this Parliament, the elected people of New Zealand, gets to make a decision about whether schedule 4 should, in fact, be exploited, and whether, in fact, that will benefit New Zealanders.

This bill is not restrictive. There is flexibility there. It is simply saying that these are the things that we hold dear. We have had it mentioned before: 50,000 New Zealanders marched to protect schedule 4 and oppose mining in schedule 4 places, and to some extent the Government did listen. In the Hauraki Gulf, where I am from, Great Barrier Island had the schedule 4 mining removed. It was no longer under threat. We ask that that side of the House, that the National Party, support us in this bill. It is for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and it is something that we all must do.

I rise to speak against this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, I am afraid.

We have heard a lot about the “most precious” land in the country that we talking about here—the “most precious”. But what exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about a couple of square kilometres? Are we talking about 100 square kilometres? No, we are actually talking about one-third of the land mass of New Zealand in schedule 4 in the Department of Conservation estate—one-third, or 89,564 square kilometres—so we are talking about one-third of the country, almost. In square feet, roughly 365,000 square feet, I think, is the figure. So what we are talking about as the “most precious”—every hectare—is one-third of the land mass of New Zealand.

When we are talking about a regime that allows the country to grow and make some progress, then I think the arrangements we have in place at the moment, whereby that area is very well protected—but also we have the ability through the Crown Minerals Act to allow the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to amend that schedule through a clear and open process—are very sufficient. This bill, which is all about making it more and more difficult, is unnecessary and out of tune with the needs and requirements of this country, so I oppose this bill. Thank you.

I just wonder whether the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, understands that not all Department of Conservation land is in schedule 4.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He doesn’t know that.

Oh, so all Department of Conservation land is in schedule 4. Oh dear! I mean, if that is the level of knowledge in the National Party and the depth of understanding of this bill, the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill, then no wonder it is voting against it. National members clearly have no idea what it actually does. The Minister of Energy and Resources is actually in the House. I am disappointed he did not take a call. I know he is gutted that he was on House duty while one of the bills in his portfolio area was going through on a members’ day. Two bills in his portfolio area are going through on a members’ day, and he has had to sit there and listen to the kind of drivel that has come from Government members who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. However, in saying that, he did admit that he drafted their speeches, so I think that also speaks volumes.

I want to congratulate the Green member Metiria Turei, who brought this bill to the House, and Eugenie Sage, who spoke to it at the first reading. But I do have to say that it is actually a little bit sad that we even need to be passing this legislation. Although Labour will be supporting it, it is actually really disappointing that we have now got to a position where we no longer have the kind of cross-party agreement that says this land is so deserving of being protected that it is in schedule 4 and it is not going to be touched, particularly for processes and activities like mining. That consensus has now been broken by the National Party, and here we are putting legislation in place to do everything we can to protect this land, which has high conservation value. We should not have to be here doing this.

The National Party can try to rewrite history once again and say it was only “putting it out there for feedback” around mining on schedule 4 land, but everyone knows that is not true, and everyone knows the only reason that plan did not go ahead had nothing to do with the National Party listening, had nothing to do with the National Party seriously taking on board the concerns of New Zealanders, and had everything to do with 50,000 people marching up Queen Street saying “It is not yours to mine. It is not yours to mine.”

💬 Denis O’Rourke: That’s how they do their consultation.

Well, exactly, and apparently that is the kind of consultation that the National Party requires.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They have focus groups, as well.

That is true; Mr Mallard says “They have focus groups, as well.” But the reality was that 50,000 people should not have had to take to the streets of Auckland to protect land that was put into schedule 4 for a reason.

💬 Scott Simpson: It was only 30,000 a few minutes ago.

Oh, so now apparently there were not enough people marching up the street, and we are undermining even that community activity. That shows the arrogance of the National Party on this particular issue.

National says that this bill is unnecessary, because it has listened. Well, if National has listened, and if we do not have to worry because it is not going to go there ever again, then why not pass the bill into law? Why not pass it into law and say to the people of New Zealand: “We are quite happy that these kinds of decisions have to go before Parliament in order for them to go through.”? Have the actual conviction to put that in place and say that we are prepared to do that, instead of doing it through a process that is far less transparent than coming through this Parliament, and that is not often widely notified. Anyone who has served on the Regulations Review Committee knows you get these complaints that come to the Regulations Review Committee because the Order in Council process has been abused—because it has been used to try to keep controversial issues away from Parliament, and to keep controversial issues away from having to be put to a vote and be debated in the House of Representatives.

If we really have nothing to fear, then what is the harm in sending a strong message to the people of New Zealand that the Government has listened, it does recognise that this land is highly valued by New Zealanders, and it does not have further plans to mine on the schedule 4 land? The reason is that we cannot have confidence that the National Government does not have further plans. There is currently a review of the Crown Minerals Act under way, and schedule 4 land will be part of that. When you have the Minister of Conservation handing over half the responsibility for the protection of the Department of Conservation estate to the Minister of Energy and Resources, that sends you a very, very strong message about how the current National Government views the value of that conservation land. Does the Minister of Energy and Resources not have a conflict of interest when dealing with these applications, given his role in rapidly promoting oil and gas exploration? Just that image of the energy Minister of the time, Gerry Brownlee, sitting there with the diminutive Kate Wilkinson next to him, trying to convince us that somehow she had equal power in this decision, when she was not allowed to speak at the press conference—she did not say anything, and Gerry Brownlee completely took charge—spoke volumes about the priorities of this Government.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The number of calls has expired, but the member in charge of the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill does have a right of reply, should they desire it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh!

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should call, then.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Just in case there was a spare slot. It wasn’t a takeover, Eugenie. Better me than a Tory.

I thank members of the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party for their very considered and comprehensive contributions to the debate on the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. I thank New Zealand First for outlining the defects of the consultation process in the current Crown Minerals Act, and thank the Labour members for their quite incisive speeches.

Tonight National has cemented its reputation as the Government of environmental destruction. Despite the protestations of the supposed Bluegreens, this Government has done virtually nothing about environmental protection. We have got the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environment Effects) Bill, which members have referred to, yet the defects in that bill are glaringly obvious from the whole raft of submissions that have come in, shredding the bill as it is currently drafted. We have got a review of the Crown Minerals Act, which is promoting the use of New Zealand lands for mineral development. We have got a Government that is bombarding our wild places and natural areas with plans for more resource extraction, more environmental damage, the destruction of whole habitats, and the loss of our children’s and great-grandchildren’s inheritance.

I feel sorry for those members of the Bluegreens who are watching around the country, who have to watch their National MPs embarrass them with their attacks on sound legislation and their attacks on nature—members who do not even know what is in schedule 4, and the fact that it is restricted to our most special natural areas: national parks, marine reserves, wetlands under the Ramsar Convention, some of the Coromandel, and some of our wilderness areas. We live in a smaller and smaller world, a global community, where we depend absolutely and utterly on nature for our economies, for our wealth, for our health, and for our very lives, and yet this Government, on the benches opposite, fails to recognise that. We must be much more careful about how our human activity impacts on nature, and this bill is an effort to secure proper protection for our most precious natural areas so that they have some kind of future. That is what it is all about—whether we devastate and destroy our precious public lands and our marine reserves to allow often multinational companies such as De Beers and such as Newmont Waihī Gold to enrich their shareholders and to impoverish present and future generations.

Tonight we are considering whether to strengthen the legal protection over our greatest natural treasures: our national parks, wilderness areas, forest parks, marine reserves, and Ramsar wetlands. It is these areas that provide us with clean, fresh water, with healthy soils, with flood protection, with food production, with unique biodiversity, and with a flourishing tourism industry. It is this environment that drives our economy, so why not protect our greatest natural resources and also our greatest economic resources? The Greens will, Labour will, and New Zealand First will; this Government will not. This Government fails to understand that New Zealand Aotearoa is a biodiversity hot spot and that it is one of the world’s greatest treasure chests of unusual and fascinating life forms. We have got species that we know and love—the kiwi, the kauri, Powelliphanta, the pekapeka, the native bat, the tuna, and all sorts of animals that this Government is keen to see mined. We have got magnificent landscapes, rich forests, and a unique marine environment. We want to protect these precious places. Over many generations New Zealanders have fought to have them in national parks and protected lands. I commend this bill to the House for the strengthened protection that it will give to those precious places.