Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill

As I was saying last night before the House adjourned, there are a number of good things in this piece of legislation and there are a number of things that do concern the Labour Party. We welcome the move for new national park and reserve land to automatically be included in schedule 4. We think that the new two-tier arrangement of allocating permits might make things a lot clearer and might draw a greater distinction between those projects that are going to have a far bigger environmental impact and those that will have a lesser one, providing a more robust one for the former and a slightly simpler one for the latter. We will tease that out at the Commerce Committee. It certainly seems reasonable. We think the pre-vetting of applicants first up is good. For those organisations or those companies that we may not want to come into New Zealand—because realistically, even if they put a lot of money into resource consents under this legislation, they are not going to get through—it is good to signal upfront that that is not likely to happen. Again, at the select committee we will have a look at the details of that, but I take on board the assurances from the Minister of Energy and Resources that that does not replace the other processes in the piece of legislation.

The areas where we have concerns are around the sharing of responsibility for decision making on concessions on conservation land. This is something that we flagged right back when the Government first announced it. And, let us be honest, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the schedule 4 mining issue where the Government had to back down, so as a kind of countermeasure it said “Well, now for concessions for mining on Department of Conservation land it is going to be half-shared by the Minister of Energy and Resources and half-shared by the Minister of Conservation.”, whereas previously the Minister of Conservation had sole responsibility for that. There has always been a contention in Crown mineral law that mining is treated separately from every other economic activity. I mean, tourism creates jobs in New Zealand as well, and tourism has to get concessions on Department of Conservation land. But they go through a process under the Conservation Act that involves the public and that involves notification, and mining has never had to go through that process because it goes through the Crown Minerals Act. That has always been a point of contention.

That is why the Minister of Conservation, when it came to the issue of Bathurst, which members have been talking about, said “Well, the Government is going to publicly notify these concessions for mining.” I notice in this legislation that it has not gone that far. What it says is that now the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation will have a shared responsibility for deciding whether or not these concessions for mining go to public notification. That is not what was promised, and I take on board what my colleague Damien O’Connor said, which is that if the Government wants to take the heat out of some of these projects, then do not make promises and then not keep them—do not shut people out of a process. That is a genuinely serious comment. A lot of what has happened around the Denniston issue has been that a promise was made and then not kept. So that is our concern in terms of that sharing of responsibility.

What I have been pleased about, as the Minister has indicated, is that he is prepared to try to work with the Opposition to find a way through. This has been a line call for us on this piece of legislation. There is a lot in here that is really good—that sharing of responsibility, and the introduction of an economic test for mining that does not exist for any other commercial activity. Why should tourism not get an economic benefit test when mining is getting it? These are areas where we think there is a little bit of unfairness, and there is genuine concern in the community. But what we are here to say today is that we will support this bill from its first reading to the select committee, and we will do that in good faith because the Minister has said that he wants to work with the Labour Party in Opposition to find a way through here. I think it would not be in good faith if we were to vote against a piece of legislation and then expect the Minister to continue to engage. But we do so with reservations. We do so with the reservations that I have outlined here, which we will want to see addressed if our support is going to be ongoing. I agree with the Minister when he says that the more consistency, the more bipartisanship, we can get on these issues—cross-partisanship—the better for everyone involved. So that is why we have taken the position that we have taken.

I just want to caution the Minister, actually. I watched his performance in the general debate today. He is giving himself enormous powers under this legislation. He is having half the say for concessions: whether or not they go ahead on Department of Conservation land and whether or not they are notified. When I saw him doing his merry dance in the House today, about how all this mining should go ahead and about how Labour and the Greens are Luddites for questioning anything, that is why the Minister of Conservation is now the only one who has responsibility. I do not think it is appropriate, frankly, for a Minister of Energy and Resources to stand up in this House and basically predetermine, effectively, the decision-making powers that he is giving to himself in this piece of legislation.

He needs to be very careful. I know it is a general debate. We all have a little bit of fun. But the Minister is granting himself enormous powers that do not currently exist. He is arguing that conservationists do not have to be concerned about the granting of powers, when he comes down to the House on a specific case. We take these things on a case by case basis, and we focus on process. That is what is appropriate. To come into this House, when you are going to have decision-making powers on Department of Conservation land, and basically dance up a storm and say “Well, you know, this should go ahead. You’re a Luddite if it doesn’t.”, then I think the Minister seriously needs to reconsider whether or not that was appropriate behaviour, given the powers that he is granting himself in this bill.

We will support this bill to the select committee, with reservations. We look forward to working with Jonathan Young and the Commerce Committee to find if we can get a way through where we are all comfortable, so we can have more of a cross-party approach to some of this legislation.

I am very pleased to stand and speak on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I say thank you for the comments from the previous speaker, Moana Mackey. Indeed it is important, for the benefit of New Zealand, that we have a very robust regime that is going to stand the course of time as we look at the sensible, responsible, and sustainable use of the resources that our country is endowed with.

Mr Clark made the comment that regarding people who go to Australia, we need to understand that they are going across there because of the opportunities through mining and minerals, and that is creating such an opportunity for those people. We have similar, if not better, advantages and possibilities here in our own country, where we can enable not only an increase in jobs, as we have talked about today, particularly on the West Coast, but also we can see an increase in revenue into our country so that we can do some of the things that we so often talk about in this House, with greater ability.

We know, for example, that New Zealand at the moment, in terms of oil and gas exploration, is extracting from one basin out of 17, and that is the Taranaki Basin—an area in which I am one of the MPs. Not only are there countless jobs and opportunities for people in Taranaki and also around the country, but each year $400 million in royalties comes to the Government, and $300 million in company tax is collected from the revenue from these resources. So this is not some small amount. This is a significant amount, coming from one basin out of 17.

I believe it is incredibly important that we have a very robust, streamlined, and very good process in which we handle the Crown estate—the estate that belongs to all New Zealanders. This bill is moving towards doing that. I know that as we come to the select committee process, we will receive viewpoints from the sector that supports oil and gas, and no doubt we will receive submissions from people who do not. In that process we will discuss the different viewpoints, but I think at the final analysis the viewpoint that we need to always consider is what is going to be necessary and needful for the continual growth and sustainability of our nation here in New Zealand. Of course that is environmental, but also it is economic. We know at times that these can be competing values, but not necessarily all the time. We can balance these issues and do it in a very careful way.

I think that we can look to Taranaki and see how in that region we have, I think, very responsibly and carefully, progressed oil and gas exploration. We can see that progressing forward with this bill is going to be of benefit to the wider population of New Zealand. One of the things that I did just a few weeks ago was have the Minister of Commerce visit Taranaki. We drove down to South Taranaki where we visited one of the oil and gas installations. It was about a 60 kilometre journey. We had a small wager in the car, and the wager was this: if you can see any oil and gas installations during our trip down, of 60 kilometres, you will get $2. He arrived down there with no coinage in his pocket, simply because you would not have seen and you would not have known—[Interruption] Exactly, Mr Assistant Speaker. If you had been there you would not have seen or known, as well, because the profile of these installations is so low, and environmentally they are so well contained. In fact, the only one that he did see was one pointed out on the journey back.

This is a province—no doubt we will hear Opposition voices and all sorts of allegations coming forward that are unsubstantiated and unproven—that has handled exploration in a very sustainable and a very positive way. As the Minister of Energy and Resources said today, we have oil and gas, we have dairying, and we have tourism happening all in the same space, in a place that we love, that is clean, that is green, and that has a beautiful pristine environment, and this is what we can do in New Zealand.

This bill, which will be going to the Commerce Committee in due course, is going to create a regime where we can do that more effectively and also more responsibly. There are a number of aspects to this bill, which is full of detail, that are going simplify things. The two-tier system I applaud. I think it is absolutely fantastic that we can concentrate our resources on the more risky areas where we can focus in very closely on that, to ensure that every best practice is taking place and that every contingency is put in place.

I am very happy to support this bill. I look forward to its coming to the select committee, where I am sure we will have a very good process in working together to come to an answer and a resolution that is going to be to the benefit of all New Zealanders. Thank you.

It was interesting to hear that speech from Jonathan Young around the question of the importance of balance, as he described it. For the Labour Party, this is the issue that we previously dealt with within the exclusive economic zone legislation, which we had before the House. It is the question of this Government’s view that it is important to insert into this legislation some way of giving economic activity greater prominence. This comes in this particular legislation in what is clause 31 of this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, with the new economic test that will be applied for mining. As my colleague Moana Mackey has said, why just mining? Why not other sectors that have to get concessions? Why is mining being lifted out in this way? What that does is it raises concerns for people that once again the Government is trying to tilt the balance. In fact, the underlying problem here is the fact that the Government views it as something that needs to be balanced—the economy and the environment.

What is not understood by members on the other side of the House is that the two things are two sides of the same coin. They are not actually being balanced. You do not get to have the ability to exploit natural resources in a sustainable way if you do not have a sustainable environment in the first place, and if you do not actually protect and preserve the environment, so that it sits at the heart of the economy, and the heart of the natural economy particularly, in New Zealand.

So I guess from our side of the House that is why we are concerned—and my colleague Moana Mackey has already mentioned this—about that particular element of this bill, the introduction of this economic test. We, certainly, on this side of the House would like to see that addressed, for our ongoing support for this bill. We had this exact debate in the exclusive economic zone area. We got some movement from the Government in that, but we did not get all the movement that our side of the House would have wanted. So that is one of the two very significant issues that give us cause to say yes, we will support this to the select committee, but we certainly have reservations about that.

The other matter that we have reservations about, which Moana Mackey has also spoken about, is the question of the Minister of Energy and Resources having a decision-making role, alongside the Minister of Conservation, as to whether there should be public consultation on concessions. We on this side of the House have a strong position that that is not the way this should be done. We are telling the Government, in the spirit of the good faith that it has come to us in to say it wants this bill to have cross-party support, that on this side of the House we find that position difficult. We cannot support the bill through the full stages if that provision is going to remain in the way that it is, because we believe there is a reason why the Minister of Conservation has this role. It is conservation land. The Minister of Conservation is charged by the Government with looking after, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, the conservation estate.

Yes, the Minister of Energy and Resources may well have an interest in it, and I think anyone who has been around Government processes—

💬 Moana Mackey: Does the Minister of Tourism?

Exactly. Anyone who has been around Government processes over the last few years will know that in any situation like this, the Minister of Conservation will speak with their colleagues, and it will not just be the Minister of Energy and Resources. It will be the Minister of Tourism, or it might be the Minister for the Environment. It is very important that the Minister of Conservation does that. It is part of doing their job properly. But, ultimately, the decision should lie with the Minister of Conservation because of the nature of the land that we are talking about. Again, as Moana Mackey said earlier, the speech we heard from Phil Heatley today indicated exactly why it is dangerous for the Minister of Energy and Resources to have that role, given the kind of advocacy we were seeing from the Minister when he spoke today. On this side of the House we have significant concerns about the idea that that will be changed.

The Government made such a shambles of its work around mining and schedule 4 in the last term of Government that it actually left itself in a position where this was what it felt it had to do. It had to find some kind of way of improving the odds, as it were, for the extractive industries, and it has now come into this House with a bill with two areas where it tried to do this: one around the economic test, and one around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources alongside the Minister of Conservation. We on this side of the House do not believe those things are useful. We also do not believe that they are necessary in this kind of legislation, if the Government is prepared to come at this from the point of view that the environment is what lies at the heart of enabling us to do things in our economy. We cannot simply see these things as a balancing act, especially a balancing act where the Government puts in place legislation that will weight that balance in favour of the economy and against the environment. So we do have significant concerns on those grounds.

As other speakers have already noted, there are elements of this bill that the Labour Party does support. We certainly like the idea that there will be the automatic inclusion of protected lands in schedule 4. We think that it is something that will be very useful. We think it is a process that most New Zealanders would like to see occur, and we think it is the kind of legislation we would like to see before the House.

Also, in relation to the idea of pre-vetting applicants so that they are screened for health and safety and environmental capability, this is important. This is important because New Zealanders expect this House to set up the most robust regime possible where there will be extractive industries involved. New Zealanders want to know that if we are going to undertake this activity, it happens on New Zealanders’ terms, and it happens along with the rules that we would expect to protect the environment that New Zealanders feel so much for and that is so integral to who we are as a country and to our brand overseas, as well. So we have to set up robust regimes. Putting in place a pre-vetting process will allow us to make sure that if there are players in the extractive industries who do not meet the kind of standards that New Zealanders would expect, then they will not be able to get here. So on that count, we think that is a useful provision. The streamlining of processes is also something that, obviously, we want to look at in the Commerce Committee to see exactly what that means, but we obviously support the idea that those processes are clear, and also the idea of a two-tier system for mining permits. We need to make sure that in land where there is particular value, we have a highly stringent process. We like the idea of strengthening that. If it is still possible to protect those values with a different process for the second tier, then we can also go along with that.

So for those reasons, this is a finely balanced call for the Labour Party, but Mr Heatley has come to us and said he wants to put in place an enduring piece of legislation, something that will actually help develop in New Zealand a shared understanding of how things will work in our natural environment: what role the industry has, what role the Government has, and how we will ensure environmental protection. We welcome that approach, but we caution the Minister that if there is going to be cross-party support for this kind of legislation, it has to be based on the idea that the environment that we have is protected and that the role of the Minister of Conservation is understood. The conservation estate is there for a reason. New Zealanders have over generations said that we want to protect this land around us, to provide us with the kind of natural environment in which we can both have recreation but we can also support, where appropriate, people entering that environment and using the resources. But we cannot have a situation where the balance is tipped so far in favour of the economic considerations that we leave those environmental ones behind.

So, on balance, the Labour Party is supporting this bill to the select committee, but we do so with serious reservations and a clear indication to the Government that if, on those issues around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources and also around the economic test, if we cannot actually work together on those and find a solution, the Labour Party will be unable to support the bill in its future stages.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te whare. I am very pleased to get up and talk about this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. There are serious issues in it, and much of it, to use a cliché, is in the detail. The Green Party will not be supporting it, although there are parts of it, when it is divided into different bills, that we will support. There are several quite good ideas, but, unfortunately—more than the issues named by the Labour Party—there are some serious problems in the detail, which those of us who have lived through trying to address mining on the ground are not happy about.

Fundamentally, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is flawed in its key goals, which are to promote the Government’s programme to facilitate and promote petroleum and minerals development above all other functions. In fact, the Government has a plan via this bill and other measures to make extractive exploration, drilling, and mining the rescue plan for a recession, despite the relatively low employment opportunities, high risks, and costs. For goodness’ sake, this week has shown the risks and costs associated with this industry, which are paid for both by the environment and by communities. Those communities are people who have believed in the boom and have been hurt by the bust.

What is the problem with this bill? There are multiple problems. The Labour Party mentioned the issues around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources—that is one of the problems—and the issues around maximising economics above all else, but there is more. The bill is seen as a key element in the Government’s Petroleum Action Plan. It is the first step, which is to explicitly state the position that the Government is pro the development of petroleum resources. The regulatory impact statement for this bill suggests a figure for the future royalty income from yet to be discovered fields, based on anticipated new production coming on stream from eight known petroleum basins—eight—and we have currently developed only one such basin. This petroleum development will include risky deep-sea oil drilling—an incredibly unpopular and dangerous move, at the moment being advocated by companies who need to be vetted and who have not been vetted, such as Petrobras, which has many communities opposing it—not to mention the controversial and dangerous fracking, which was debated in this House, and will continue to be.

We object particularly to the new functions of the Minister of Energy and Resources under the bill. It is clearly stated that the function of the Minister is “to attract permit applications”—not to look at them on their merits, not to look at sustainability, but to attract permit applications. The functions of the Minister under the bill fail to require him to consider the appropriateness of those applications at all, or to consider the sustainability of the resource that is being proposed for extraction. So this is a huge bias, which the Crown Minerals Act already had, but this bill increases, reinforces, and promotes that bias. Whatever the oil, gas, and mining industries want, the Government has made it really clear it is going to do its absolute best, except for a few little token things, to make sure they get it. Unfortunately, this will not result in the economic nirvana, the golf course nirvana, that “Planet Key” wants to create. What it will do is put at risk the fact that our economy is our environment and that our people deserve real sustainability in their employment, which is not ever to be found if you have any ability to study history in terms of mining.

In response to the Government’s request for feedback on a discussion document on schedule 4 in 2010, submitters—and there were thousands; more than 30,000—requested that in future all national park and high-value conservation areas should be automatically added to schedule 4. This bill does this, and I think some people have gone “Great progress! Fantastic!”, and we wanted to believe this too. But we had a look at this, because it is not as simple as that that land will just be included. The land is going to be included through a process by which it is granted conservation status, but the decision making in classifying this land was solely the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation, under the conservation, reserves, and wildlife legislation. My colleague Eugenie Sage will talk about this more. However, this bill now makes it a process by which the Governor-General will perform this role by Order in Council.

I talked to my colleague the former member of Parliament Jeanette Fitzsimons about this today, because I wanted to understand it. She has lived schedule 4, she wrote the amendments to schedule 4, and what she told me is that this effectively means that Cabinet will now have input into the decision making over this land. Therefore, that means that instead of it being the Minister of Conservation having a primary role, whereby it is automatically added to schedule 4 if advocated for by the Minister, the Minister of Energy and Resources and other Ministers, especially of higher status in Cabinet, can now determine, using economic criteria rather than conservation criteria, whether that land should be protected or not. So, sadly, although it looks like progress, it is not. It is about changing the process for what would have been a good idea and giving Cabinet, through the Orders in Council, power that previously belonged to the Minister of Conservation.

That is actually similar to the whole issue of joint decision-making. It is in line with and it is consistent with the idea that the Minister of Energy and Resources should jointly decide the future of the conservation estate, an issue that caused an outcry when it was first mentioned by this Government. I can see the Government’s consistency in this bill. It is completely consistent; it is just totally wrong. It is absolutely not going to help us make good decisions for the future of our country, because it takes away the idea that conservation has any intrinsic value and that our land should be protected for future generations. There is only one driver, and that driver is maximising profit.

When it comes to the tier one and tier two stuff, we are not objecting to that at all, so long as tier two is robust and we do not have any exploration faking as hobby mining—things that do go on in our experience. We do see the value in separating out those tiers.

We are very interested in something the Government has made up in this bill called iwi engagement reports. New section 33A talks about how a company is required to annually produce an iwi engagement report. What is it? What does that mean? What do tangata whenua now have to respond to? Is this some kind of—there is no robust Treaty framework around them. It is just an engagement. You ring up someone; they are engaged. Is that an engagement report? Do you tick the box? What does it mean? We are not satisfied with that. That is not robust and it is not as strong as the Conservation Act. So we are very concerned about what iwi engagement, with absolutely no clarity and no robust principles, actually means. The former Crown Minerals Act talks about the Treaty of Waitangi principles; it does not go into any detail. This is worse, because it just talks about iwi engagement. Engagement is not marriage. The Treaty is supposed to be about a relationship that is actually binding on the Crown, and this is certainly not it.

We are also concerned about the durations of permits as set out in new section 35, where it talks about extending permits for exploration and prospecting, which might seem like a minor detail. I have lived through this personally; it is not minor. They can prospect—from 2 years—for 4 years now, and they can explore now up to 15 years. That is not minor for communities, remembering that communities under this bill do not have any power to participate in decision making, which is very concerning.

The extension of permits also is very interesting. It talks in the same clauses about extending permits. If it is wished, the Minister gets discretion on these things, and you just sort of see that the extension for the permit can be for any period that the Minister considers necessary to enable the permit holder to carry out more work. So there are lots of little clauses like that where the Minister and the mining permit can just be extended. There can be an appraisal extension, and it is all in the hands of the Minister, so long as the Minister has regard for things like maximising economic return, and maximising economic recovery. My other favourite one is: “Any change to a work programme determined by” the negotiation between the miner and the Government, possibly using this mythical person called an “independent expert”—I do not know who that is, I would love to meet them—“must be limited to what is reasonably required to ensure that economic recovery … is … maximised.” Get my drift. This is about maximising economic return, doing anything the industry wants to make sure that it can extend permits so that it can do this.

So when people say there are only a couple of bad things in this bill, they have not read it. I know they have not. They have not read the detail, because the detail is extremely interesting. The royalties detail—well, the royalties are not really going to be defined in the bill. They will go through the regulations process and we will have less control of them, but there are interesting provisions on how you can renew a permit but still pay the same amount of royalty, even if the rate of that royalty has changed. This is, again, like a continuation of the ludicrous situation we saw with Newmont Waihī Gold where it did not have to pay any royalties because it got its licence in 1987. Again, the royalties are there to facilitate the miners. They have a permit, and they only have to go to the modern royalty rate if they change the mineral. Well, how often does the miner going after a particular mineral actually change a permit for a new mineral? It does not happen.

We would just like to say that we are very concerned about Part 1B, because although we like the idea of notification and we like the idea of moratoriums, significant money proposals will be decided and defined by two Ministers. This is not it and we cannot support it.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Every time the Green members stand up in this House they keep complaining about what the Government is doing for job creation and the growth of the economy, and whenever the Government tries to do something, they will again stand up and object to it.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Phil Heatley, on bringing in this bill, which will help to create jobs and grow the economy. I commend this bill to the House.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which was introduced by Minister Phil Heatley yesterday in the House. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. Like some of the other Opposition parties, we do have some concerns in some respects to it, but there are areas where we do fully support it.

This bill is all about the natural resources and the Crown-owned minerals of our nation, which is a very, very important part of our economy. New Zealand First does recognise that economic development and economic growth is required for our country to succeed and prosper, and for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. Therefore, it is most important that we get this right, and it is most important that this Parliament passes legislation to get this right. In terms of Crown minerals, we heard from the Minister that since 2008 something in the order of $2 billion in royalties has been paid to the Crown, which is a very, very significant amount of money. It is about the same amount of money as the taxes that the National Government gave back to the wealthy and the rich, but it is a huge amount of money, so we do have to be very cognisant of the fact that royalties from our extensive potential mineral wealth in this country will have a significant impact on the prosperity of the people of New Zealand.

We are supportive of the fact that there will be a two-tiered system for the permit management, so that the higher-risk, higher-value minerals, where there are perhaps more significant effects, will have a higher level of permit management requirement, rather than those that are of a lower risk and lower value, which do not present the same effects. Swift and decisive action is also possible under this bill for non-compliance and, therefore, it is a good thing that non-compliance will be acted on and that there is swift decision-making to address that.

The bill will also have a process to sift out applicants that do not meet the standards and it will basically vet applicants in a sensible manner in the early stages so that people do not waste time, do not waste Resource Management Act time, and do not waste a lot of Crown time or ministry time or time of the courts—the Environment Court or whatever—in terms of applications that simply will not fly.

It is interesting that the bill includes a requirement to report the engagement with iwi and hapū, called the iwi engagement report, each year. We were wondering whether the iwi engagement report was another name for the engagement between the National Party and the Māori Party, because they seem to have very much an iwi engagement between those two parties. We do wonder whether, had this sort of iwi engagement been in place in some other legislation such as around the State-owned enterprises with the sale of the power companies and the energy companies of the country—had there been a bit more iwi engagement—perhaps the Government today would not be in its embarrassing situation of the water rights issues with the rivers of New Zealand with iwi and hapū. Perhaps, had there been more iwi engagement in the early days, the Government would not find itself in strife now, wondering how it is going to succeed with its asset sales programme when, basically, most of those power companies are now subject to potential court litigation by iwi and hapū throughout New Zealand.

This bill streamlines the system for industry and community. Community consultation and the aspects of that in this bill are good, as it provides for and ensures community consultation in relation to Crown minerals. It also complements the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which was put in place just a few weeks ago in this House and which came from the Local Government and Environment Committee, in terms of our 200-mile zone and the continental shelf. In that respect, it is most important that this legislation is complementary to that legislation in terms of the potential of minerals in the exclusive economic zone.

As an example of supporting our economic development in this country, we were given illustrations at our select committee of the vast potential out there in the economic zone, if it is done environmentally and sustainably so as not to affect the environment in any major or significant way. One of the aspects that I certainly noted was the likes of the Chatham Rise between Canterbury and the Chatham Islands. The vast Chatham Rise, which is one of the world’s largest depositories of phosphate, has sufficient phosphate there so that even if only 1 percent of the Chatham Rise is mined and taken, it would make New Zealand 100 percent self-sufficient in superphosphate for our agricultural industries. It would be a huge, huge bonus for New Zealand to be able to do that, compared with the present time when most of our phosphate comes from Morocco, Algeria, and other sources. You never know what those sources are going to be like in years to come, and when our agricultural system is so dependent on those sorts of fertilisers and things, to become self-sufficient in those minerals would be a huge bonus for our economy. There will be many other similar examples.

However, New Zealand First’s position is always that although we support economic development and we want to see appropriate development of the minerals in this country—and New Zealand does sit on significant mineral reserves—we want to ensure that it is done in an environmentally sustainable manner. It must be done in an environmentally sustainable manner, because we are but the temporary guardians of New Zealand. We are very fortunate to be in a very unique part of the world—one of the most remote countries, in a sense, in the world—in the South Pacific. We pride ourselves on our tourism and on visitors coming to this country—and, indeed, on our own people living here—and on the clean, green “100% Pure New Zealand” image. In fact, that whole image results from our economy having massive input in terms of tourism, the dollars, and the economy that benefits from that tourism, and from the funds that flow from our environment. So we cannot in any way put that at risk in terms of Crown minerals being abused or taken in such a manner that would put that environment at great risk. The last thing that I think all New Zealanders, regardless of your political position and regardless of your stance, would want to see would be the image of New Zealand, the wonderful vistas and scenery, and the wonderful environment we have—and the unique environment, in so many ways, around New Zealand—being put at risk because of exploitation and inadequate controls over how minerals would be harvested.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. We are doing that so that this bill gets a full and robust consideration, so that people will have an opportunity to have input on this—so that the people of New Zealand will have full input in this—and so that, basically, any of the pitfalls, any of the negative aspects of the bill, any of the risks, and any of the oversights, perhaps, that may not have necessarily been included in this do have an opportunity to be fully fleshed out. I am sure that our Local Government and Environment Committee will put a lot of effort into ensuring that that happens in order to ensure that the people of New Zealand come out of this and that the Crown comes out of this with a very good outcome, in an Act that is sustainable and has legs. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I would just like to say that New Zealand’s economy is a small economy, and this sector already makes a significant contribution. However, it could make a greater contribution.

The general debate today was about jobs. We often talk about Kiwis having to leave New Zealand to pursue jobs in the mining sector in Australia. Well, we actually have an opportunity to continue to grow this sector and provide more jobs for Kiwis back in New Zealand. Growing this important sector and looking after our environment are not exclusive of one another.

I look forward to receiving this bill at the Commerce Committee. I commend this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and to confirm, as my colleagues have done, that Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee, but with some very serious, although perhaps not fatal, reservations, pending further consultation with the Government in an effort to find a way through, because there is also much in the bill that we think is sensible, pragmatic, and worthy of support, subject to submissions being received. I would like to give just a quick background on the purpose and nature of the bill, and then some more detail about Labour’s approach to it, and I would like to then turn to some of the broader economic development issues around the mining sector at the current time.

This bill, as members will be aware, amends the Crown Minerals Act to make several important changes. It adds a new purpose section to promote the efficient allocation of minerals. The word “efficient” is always an interesting one in legislation, because in economic terms there are many different definitions of “efficiency”, and they often have to be balanced against welfare and competition issues. Productive, allocative, and dynamic efficiency all have different effects and different meanings in law.

Two tiers of minerals permit are created, with more stringent than current requirements for high-value mining and less stringent requirements for less valuable mining. We will be looking carefully at submissions to see whether that might have the undesirable effect of creating a race to the bottom by incentivising less valuable mining practices, and there may be some precedents to take note of in the fishing industry in regard to so-called low-value catch.

The initial assessment of health and safety and environmental capability is going to be added on top of current requirements, which seems reasonable. Tier one permit holders must report annually on engagement with iwi. Royalty rates will be amended. The bill makes it automatic for new protected areas—for example, national parks—to be added to schedule 4, which is sensible enough, it would seem.

The bill provides for the joint ministerial approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation for mining on Department of Conservation land, and that is one of the provisions that we have very substantial reservations about. The current system, which requires the Minister of Conservation to consult and then make a decision, is in our view not broken. It may well be that there is a way through for the parties to come together to achieve the sensible fine-tuning of the system through this bill without that requirement, and that remains to be seen. But without movement on that point, I think my colleagues have already signalled that Labour would find it very difficult to support the bill at the second and third readings.

Labour sees the environment and the economy as essentially two sides of the same coin. Of course interests must be balanced, but really, often they are interdependent. If we do not value our environment and the services that it provides to us, over time our standard of living will degrade and our economy will degrade with it. We are dependent on our land, our water, and our air to sustain our life, our society, and our economy, and we should protect them for both their intrinsic and their instrumental value.

Labour does not oppose mining. There has been a bit of phooey. I mean, not even the Green Party opposes all mining, and Labour certainly does not. As members have noted, some of Labour’s history—our DNA, our birthplace—is from the mining communities of the West Coast of the South Island. So we feel it pretty keenly, just as we felt passionate anger, really, and sadness for the workers being laid off from Spring Creek Mine and for the families that are being dislocated. We could see the despair in their eyes when they came to Parliament yesterday, and the Minister for Economic Development would not do them the courtesy of even reading the paper that they had prepared to try to save their jobs. I have to say, I found that extraordinarily arrogant and insulting to hundreds of families who are just at their wits’ end.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Even by your standards?

Well, there is “The Maestro” sticking his head up. How many screw-ups does that member need to make before he is a little bit more judicious about interjecting in this House? Good judgment does not come on the end of a cigar, Mr Coleman.

💬 Grant Robertson: Putting the smoke into smoke and mirrors.

Smoke and mirrors, my colleague has suggested—an apt title for “The Maestro” of Mt Albert, but that is another matter.

Labour supports mining where it is done in a responsible, safe, and environmentally friendly way, but we are concerned that some of the provisions of this bill may run counter to that objective. Labour’s bottom lines on mining are that there must be capacity to respond to accidents quickly, as well as to prevent them wherever possible; there must be clear liability established, so taxpayers do not foot the bill for mistakes; there must be robust protection for the environment; there must be good, strong benefit to the local economy—not only the jobs—and the royalties system needs to be appropriate, etc.

Labour is opposed to there being joint ministerial responsibility for mining on Crown land. The conservation estate is given to the Minister of Conservation to ensure that land is protected, and that role should not be confused by the addition of joint responsibility. Consultation already occurs and is required between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources—

💬 Grant Robertson: Tourism?

—and for tourism and for other purposes. That occurs at the moment. The system is not broken. It does not need a radical shift of this nature, which would drive the outcomes away from a conservation and economy balance and much more towards an open-cast future, and that is not something that we think is desirable or appropriate.

We are also concerned about applying the economic benefit test to mining on the conservation estate. Mining on the conservation estate should occur only where there is an adequate environmental offset, so that the net environmental value of the land is not damaged as a result. The reason for that is death by a thousand cuts. The accumulation, or the cumulative effect, of repeated development activities can simply undermine the value of the estate over time. It is very important that the conservation estate is protected. That is what it is there for, and the policy framework has to reflect that—a far cry, members of the public who are listening would observe, from the shambles that was the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Here was a magisterial attempt to bring large tracts of the southern oceans within our jurisdiction, yet the paucity, the weakness, of the environmental protection embedded in that bill was a shocker, and it was not saved by a big, late Supplementary Order Paper. It is still a matter that is going to require a big, bold fix-up when the Government changes in a couple of years, if not before.

Labour would also like to see that any concession agreement for mining goes up for public consultation, whereas the current bill proposes joint responsibility for the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to decide whether there should be consultation. I cannot think, and Labour cannot think, of any scenario where we would build a new mine without it being a notified activity. Mining is just too substantial.

Parts of the bill that Labour does support include making the inclusion of additions to protected lands such as national parks automatic. The pre-vetting aspect is useful, and the streamlining of the process to make it more understandable is useful. I really do not think that any reasonable member of this House would disagree with those provisions. The key to the select committee process and hearing from the public will be to see whether members of all parties can come together to do what is sensible and to resist what might be tempting but ultimately unwise.

This debate is occurring—if I might make a quick aside—in the context of Spring Creek Mine being mothballed, effectively closed for the time being, and a large proposal from Bathurst Resources to mine on land on the Denniston Plateau. The Government has argued that Spring Creek Mine is closing because of world coal prices. The same coal prices, of course, apply to Bathurst Resources, so there is no logic whatsoever in that argument. In fact, what has happened is that documents provided from Solid Energy make absolutely clear that what is going on here is that to maximise its short-term value, it is being dressed for sale. It is in black and white. Board documents prove it. Therefore, those 300-odd mining families would not be in the horrible position they are in now if it were not for the privatisation programme. It is wrong. It will stop under Labour, and the public still has time to sign the petition that would end it now.

This is a useful bill, potentially, but it is a bill that will challenge members on all sides of the House to come together to do what is wise and to compromise, so that we can do what is in the public interest without ruining our environment. Thank you very much.

The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is an important bill to help progress the Government’s Business Growth Agenda and the Petroleum Action Plan, which is about encouraging the development of Crown-owned minerals and helping to unlock the economic opportunity for New Zealand through Crown-owned minerals. By streamlining and simplifying permitting regimes, making it easier to access these minerals, we help to further progress economic growth.

We know that the energy and resources sector is very important to this country. Oil is our fourth-largest export, with approximately $3.5 billion of exports going through that sector. It also employs a lot of people, and it is important to make it easier for opportunities to be explored and for further employment to happen through this sector.

If there is a perfect example of an opportunity that is being held up through a regulatory mechanism, it is the Bathurst Resources project, which would see 225 people gain employment. Many of those people have just lost jobs and would benefit significantly if a particular project was to be expedited through a regulatory regime.

It is appropriate that through this bill we re-examine the regulatory regime and make it easier to simplify and progress important projects that have huge economic potential for the country. I endorse the bill and look forward to it coming back from the Commerce Committee in due course.

I understand that the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

As my colleagues have said, Labour is supporting this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, with considerable reservation. We are willing to support its referral to a select committee at this stage, because we feel that the issues the bill is, ostensibly, dealing with are important. They are important to New Zealand’s economic development, they are important for the stewardship of our natural environment, and we intend to hold the Government to account. We will be subjecting this bill to scrutiny at the select committee, and we look forward to having debates there.

This bill comes to the House against a backdrop of political debate about two huge issues for New Zealand: jobs and the environment. As Grant Robertson was saying earlier, this Government’s philosophy about economic development and the environment is that you trade off one for the other, and if you want jobs, then you have to be willing to sacrifice the environment. It is a 20th century philosophy, or maybe even a 19th century philosophy. Let us look at those two issues, and let us look at the Government’s track record, because that is the context in which we should consider this bill.

On jobs, the Government wants to say that if you want more jobs and if you want economic development, then you should support mining and you should support extractive industries at any cost. This is the Government that has presided over the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, and it is absolutely unwilling to countenance a range of policy options that have been discussed in this House over the last few days and the last few weeks that would give more support to our manufacturing sector, which delivers thousands and thousands of high-value, skilled jobs. But this Government is apparently content to allow them to haemorrhage away, as one industry after another announces mass lay-offs, and skilled New Zealanders leave this country for jobs across the Tasman. The Government has—you just look at the statistics for the last 4½ years—an appalling record on job creation. Its idea of job creation is hiring more people in Work and Income to harass people who are on welfare benefits. That is this Government’s idea of job creation.

Let us look at the environment. This is the Government that gutted the emissions trading scheme. We are no longer a leader. We are no longer a fast follower. We are just a kind of disinterested, passive observer when it comes to dealing with the challenge of climate change.

The Government brought in some ridiculously weak legislation to deal with the environmental regulation of the exclusive economic zone. It spent months and months in its first term of Government trying to engage New Zealanders in a debate about mining conservation land, mining of schedule 4 land, and was firmly rebuffed by the public on that issue. It has systematically underfunded the Department of Conservation, and this is the Government that refuses to do anything significant about protecting the last few remaining Māui’s dolphins. So it does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to environmental issues and the environmental stewardship of our nation, and yet it comes to this House and says to New Zealanders: “If you want jobs, if you want economic development, then you have to support our agenda on extractive industries.” Well, I do not think that is the way New Zealanders see it. It is pretty clear that most New Zealanders want economic development, but they are not prepared to sacrifice the natural environment that we treasure in this country. They want safeguards in place. They want reasonable controls in place.

I think that when this bill is debated at the Commerce Committee, the public will see that there are provisions in this bill that are simply about tilting the playing field all the way downhill to Rio Tinto - Zinc and other mining companies. As my colleagues have said, there are two issues that we are particularly concerned about, and unless they are resolved we will not be supporting further progress on this bill. The first is joint ministerial approval, and the second is the economic benefit test. My colleagues have discussed both those issues. Unless we see satisfactory resolution, we will not be supporting the further progress of this bill. Thank you.

I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

The Green Party is opposing this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill because it makes a fundamental attack on conservation legislation. In the schedule 4 debate in 2010, when 50,000 people marched down Queen Street in support of protection of national parks and not opening them up to mining, the National Party sought to get out of the can of worms it had opened by promising that there would be public consultation on access applications on conservation land. Certainly, this bill introduces and makes provision for that, but the bill substantially weakens the process for considering access applications on conservation land because of its provision for those decisions to be made jointly by the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources and because of the introduction of the economic benefits test.

We have seen this week that Ministers Joyce and English were putting pressure on conservation groups and environmental interests that are quite legitimately involved in a case before the Environment Court on the resource consent applications for the Bathurst Resources mine on the Denniston Plateau. The Ministers have been putting pressure on those objectors to withdraw. It is obvious that the Ministers and others on the National benches have not been to Denniston, are not aware of the outstanding landscape and biodiversity values on the Denniston Plateau, and are not aware of the significance of those coal measure ecosystems, which are protected as conservation land. The risk is that if you have a joint decision-making power, as the bill provides, you will have the Minister of Energy and Resources and his views overriding those of the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation. We have already seen that with the Māui’s dolphin decision and the Minister for Primary Industries and that department’s views overriding the Department of Conservation’s views about the need to protect Māui’s dolphins. Where you get that joint decision-making power, the user department’s views prevail.

The other major defect in the bill is the way in which it amends section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act. It is section 61 that sets out the matters that the appropriate Minister must have regard to in considering whether to agree to an access arrangement—that is, the objectives of any Act under which the land is administered, and the purpose for which the land is held by the Crown. The bill, in clause 31, introduces an economic benefits test, and requires the Ministers to consider “the economic and other benefits of the proposed activity in relation to which the access arrangement is sought”. That is a fundamental weakening of conservation legislation, because it means that the Ministers will be weighing up the economic benefits as well as the conservation purpose for which the land is held.

We know under this Government that economic benefits always triumph over nature, and that the short-term gains of opening an open-cast coalmine on the Denniston Plateau would potentially triumph over the biodiversity values. That is despite the fact that the Denniston Plateau is becoming increasingly popular as a mountain biking destination and as a place where people go to recreate and to look at the outstanding landscapes—the rock tors, the gullies, and the stunted vegetation—that are special to coal measure ecosystems. By introducing this economic benefit test, that will override conservation values. That is why everyone, particularly conservation groups and anyone concerned about the future of conservation land, should be concerned about this bill, because it cuts across the protective provisions that exist in the Conservation Act.

Yes, the public may get the opportunity to make a submission on access arrangements if the proposed mine is significant in the Ministers’ opinions, but this weakening of the application of the Conservation Act potentially means that it will be much easier for those mining access applications to be approved. That is one of the reasons the Green Party is opposing this bill, because it is an attack on our conservation legislation.

I am privileged to take the final call on the first reading of this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Roughly 2½ months ago I was fortunate to be up in Northland. I was attending the Northland economic summit there. My honourable colleague the MP for Northland, Mike Sabin, had organised an economic summit where over 250 people from the community, in the business sector, the iwi, and the local community, were present. There in the afternoon we had an opportunity to hear from Minister Heatley, and he began to talk about the opportunities of this Government, and it was in line with the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. He talked about the opportunities for business growth and the agenda of this Government. In particular, he also talked about the Taranaki example: that mineral exploration boosts the economy and creates jobs, and that mineral exploration also contributed $2 billion to the Taranaki community. He talked about improved regulation to encourage responsible exploration. This is a great bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be reported to the House by 30 January 2013.

Motion agreed to.