Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill

I move, That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be now read a second time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chair, Jonathan Young, and members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering this complex piece of legislation. I also acknowledge the time submitters took to provide their views to the select committee. It is positive that the select committee had the opportunity to hear views about mining from so many perspectives.

This bill refreshes the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to support the Government’s objective of growing the mineral sector whilst ensuring even greater levels of health and safety and environmental oversight. New Zealanders rightly demand high standards from the mining sector. This legislation is a key element in providing that assurance. This bill does not seek to replace existing legislation in relation to health and safety and environmental management; rather, it better integrates the functions of various regulatory processes to ensure health and safety and environmental considerations are embedded throughout the process. The majority of submitters agreed with the proposal to consider the health and safety and environmental capacity of permit applicants before permits are awarded. Processes to ensure these matters remain on the agenda for the life cycle of a permit, such as annual review meetings with permit holders and information-sharing provisions between regulators, were also endorsed. I am confident that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will implement these changes in a way that does not result in undue delay in permit decisions or duplication of effort.

The report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was released while the bill was being considered by the select committee. The royal commission explicitly endorsed the proposals put forward in the review of the Crown Minerals Act, but it was clear that these needed to be strengthened. The bill as reported back incorporates further amendments that take account of the royal commission’s report and submissions that were heard on this. These changes will ensure that health and safety becomes an integral part of the permitting process, without introducing undue costs or uncertainty. This bill represents the Government’s response to two of the royal commission’s recommendations. A comprehensive work programme on the other 14 recommendations is under way.

As expected, the purpose statement generated a significant amount of interest throughout the committee’s proceedings. The purpose statement neatly encapsulated the Government’s desires for the sector. It intentionally promotes “prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand,” but recognises that any activity must be undertaken in accordance with “good industry practice”. Embedding such a balance into the purpose statement makes it clear that permitting decisions will consider health and safety matters as well as the potential economic return to the Crown.

This bill ensures the ongoing protection of schedule 4 land. This protection is enhanced by automatically including any land that meets the criteria for inclusion in schedule 4. Some concerns were raised that having Cabinet as the decision maker for the designation of high-value conservation land would erode the Minister of Conservation’s role as steward of the conservation estate. This is not the case. It has always been a matter for Cabinet to add land into schedule 4. The reforms ensure that this will happen as a matter of course. There was some objection to the Minister of Energy and Resources having a role in determining whether to grant access to Crown conservation land for mining and the inclusion of economic criteria in the decision into whether to grant a land access agreement. The bill retains these proposals, but ensures that the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources is limited to the small number of mining operations that have the potential to generate a significant economic return. Economic considerations will also take account of any direct impacts on other businesses that might be affected by the mining project.

This bill is part of a package of reforms that responds to the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the management of the petroleum resource. It introduces a requirement for permit holders to report annually on their engagement with iwi and hapū. Some submissions suggested that this requirement does not go far enough and that it should spell out detailed expectations on how permit holders should engage and the consequences of doing so. I am of the view that it is a matter for permit holders and iwi to determine how to engage at a local level. Embedding such expectations into the legislation would be too limiting, given the diversity of iwi views on mining and their willingness to engage with permit holders. This requirement must be seen in the context of a broader range of reforms aimed at enhancing the relationships between permit holders, the Crown, and iwi. Of note is the intent that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals will provide operational support to assist creating relationships at a local level in the interests of all parties.

I am grateful to the submitters and the select committee, whose thorough consideration has served to improve this legislation. The bill as reported back reflects the Commerce Committee’s agreement on the majority of amendments proposed and its response to issues raised by a wide range of submitters. It also includes a large number of technical amendments to improve the workability of the Act and bring it into line with modern drafting conventions. This bill is a key element in helping New Zealand realise its huge petroleum and mineral potential, while giving us the confidence that the regulatory system we have is robust. I am very pleased to commend the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the House.

I am very pleased to make a contribution on the second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. When this bill was originally introduced, Labour said that it would support its referral to the Commerce Committee, but we made some very strong views known at the time about the issues that we disagreed with and that we would need to have changed in order for us to support the further progress of this legislation. One of those issues was the new regime of joint responsibility that is being brought in. In our view the joint decision-making regime is a direct undermining of the responsibility and the role of the Minister of Conservation. I am amazed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has put up with it, frankly. I thought that he would have had a bit more pride in the position as Minister of Conservation, but it still remains. It is a mistake. It shows a really massive deficit in the understanding that the National Party has about the role of the Minister of Conservation, and that is obvious, actually, in the priorities that it has set, particularly in the budgeting area. So that joint ministerial responsibility is a mistake. I hope that, as the bill progresses through the House, it is removed.

The second area is the economic benefit test, which is, again, a huge indication of the lack of understanding that the National Party has of the value of the conservation estate—the value of not mining in areas that should be protected. Its framework of thinking is about the balance between conservation and so-called economic benefits that may be gained from exploration, without any acknowledgment that there are some parts of our country that are just too precious to mine. That is not part of the Government’s consideration or its thinking. So the area of joint ministerial responsibility should go, as should the way the economic benefit test overrides the intrinsic worth and value of the conservation estate.

I also want to make it very clear that Labour does not oppose mining. Our party started on the West Coast, an area that has at its heart mining—coalmining—so we have a strong history and have retained that link with the mining community. But there must be a regime around mining that recognises the environmental damage that can be done, as well as the inherently unsafe nature of coalmining, and I want to come back to that point later.

In the purpose statement there is an indication of the flawed thinking that I referred to earlier. The purpose statement says that the purpose should be to promote mining activities. In our view, that language is wrong. It reduces the responsibility in other areas of mining and it does not truly reflect the best way for mining to be managed by the Government. So, instead of “promotion”, there should be phrases like “managed”, “facilitate”, or “regulate”. There are no references to health and safety, there are no references to sustainability, and there are no references to environmental principles. This is a big gap in the frame of the Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges, who has just resumed his seat. It is not surprising that he has got a bit of a gap in his knowledge at the moment, because he is new to the job, but his predecessor, the Hon Phil Heatley, had it for a while and did not seem to get a grip on it, either. So the two issues that we raised right at the start—that of joint ministerial decision-making and then that of the economic benefit test—have not been addressed, and the purpose statement itself indicates the deficit that the National Party has in valuing our conservation estate.

The submissions that we heard—and I managed to sit on this committee quite a number of times as it went through the process—expressed some very strongly held concerns about the issues that I have raised about the fact that this bill totally undermines the mandate that the Minister of Conservation has as the guardian of the conservation estate. It is totally undermined by this legislation, by that joint ministerial decision-making role. The submissions in that regard I think have been largely ignored by the Government, and that is a big shame. Labour sees the environment and the economy as two sides of the same coin and when we are developing policy that might affect them we have to view them as a whole. This is not a balancing game; this is two sides of the same coin and they need to be viewed as a whole.

I just want to refer to the second part of the select committee activity, which was instigated by the committee who called for further submissions as a result of the report from Pike River. I think that the committee responded to the recommendations of the Pike River report in a very responsible way and I want to pay credit to all the members of the select committee. This is a very difficult issue for us. We were being asked as members of Parliament to look at one of the biggest tragedies we have ever had in New Zealand and make some legislative amendments. I think that the way the select committee went through that part of the process was not just to its credit—not just to the credit of the select committee, and it was—but to the credit of our whole Parliament and, frankly, I think sometimes we could do with a bit more of that sort of work. Those health and safety issues, the mining regime issues, were taken very seriously and as a result a number of amendments have been made to the legislation.

Our minority report, which we have put in with the select committee report, itemises the areas that we oppose, but actually there were some areas of the legislation that we support and I just want to take a minute of the House’s time to outline those, because even though we are going to be voting against this bill in the end because of the problems that I identified at the start of my contribution, there are some parts of this legislation that are very good. The move to enshrine schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and automatic inclusion of certain areas into schedule 4 is a good move and Labour supports that. The introduction of the two-tier system for permanent management with all the complex higher-return petroleum and minerals operations being classified as tier 1, and therefore because of their nature subject to a more stringent permitting process and a high-level pre-vetting of applicants—that is a good move and Labour supports that.

We also support the improved coordination between the Crown minerals permitting regime and health and safety and environmental regulatory functions for tier 1 activities. That is what it is in the bill. We support that, but we are committed to saying that it should not necessarily be limited just to tier 1 applications. Integrating health and safety into the permitting process to ensure consistency and collaboration amongst the regulators to ensure that health and safety is considered right throughout the permitting process as a general condition of permits—that is a very good move. The process of revocation of permits has been simplified and Labour supports that as well, as we support increasing the penalties for offences under the Act. So there are some good things in this bill and we welcome them and, as I say, we support them.

However, we will oppose the bill and that is with some regret. Had the Government had any understanding of the importance of our conservation estate, we would not be debating this legislation. It completely undermines, and demonstrates the lack of understanding of, the intrinsic value of the conservation estate in and of itself. We should not have the joint ministerial responsibility in these matters. The Minister of Conservation has the legislative mandate under the Conservation Act and it is being weakened by this legislation, and the economic benefit test totally ignores the value that the conservation estate has and gives to our country. So I look forward to the rest of the debate. I am glad that I have been able to put on the record the parts of the legislation that Labour supports, because too often that gets overlooked in the debate. I regret that we were not able to get those fundamental changes so that we could support the progress of this bill even further.

Malo le soifua. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. May I first acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Simon Bridges, for bringing this bill to the House.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He didn’t. Phil Heatley did.

Well, he is sponsoring it. He is sponsoring it; we know he did not bring it. It is an important bill, because this is part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to grow the economy, to provide jobs and opportunities for our families, and to provide for our families and our communities out there, and it is something that this country, our fellow countrymen and women, are in agreement with and support.

This bill is about streamlining and simplifying the Crown minerals regulatory regime, and it is really about providing better coordination of the regulatory agencies. It is based on amending the Crown Minerals Act, obviously, and it has three objectives. One is to encourage development of Crown-owned minerals so that they contribute to more growth in our economy, which is important, again, because of job opportunities. It is also to streamline and to simplify the regime so that it is in line with our regulatory reform agenda of bringing down red tape, removing bureaucracy, and improving efficiencies in our economy. Finally, it is about the coordination of those regulatory agencies.

It introduces a two-tiered system for permit management, and it distinguishes between those relatively small, complex, high-return, high-risk petroleum and mineral activities, as opposed to the larger low-return, industrial, small-business and hobby mineral opportunities. Because of the high-risk nature of tier 1 opportunities, they will be subject to a more hands-on, more coordinated management and regulatory regime, as opposed to the sort of simpler tier 2 regime.

I want to—and I do not do it often—commend Ruth Dyson, the last speaker, for her contribution. I do not always agree—oh, she is about to fall over as she leaves the House. I do want to commend her, because, as she said, she opposes the bill, but she did point out parts of the bill that certainly Opposition members agree with and that they would support. But they are not supporting the whole bill. Therefore, they are not supporting economic growth, and they are not supporting our communities and our families out there.

I just want to make a quick point about the sad tragedy, of course, of Pike River, the coalmine tragedy. It led to the royal commission and some of the recommendations that were made by that commission. Cabinet took those on board and, obviously, Supplementary Order Paper 152 will be tabled. It will require the Minister of Energy and Resources to take into account the view of appropriate health and safety authorities. I am sure that the Hon Simon Bridges will do that in his decision making before issuing tier 1 exploration or mining permits. Secondly, it will ensure that tier 1 mining activities do not start until the health and safety regulator is satisfied that those safety and health requirements are first met.

So it is a good bill. It will deliver for New Zealanders. It will deliver some of the economic growth that we see across the Ditch in Australia in terms of its mining and exploration activities. Those are some of the activities and economic operations that we would like to see in this country, and this bill will deliver some of those benefits. Thank you.

Before I call the next speaker, can I just remind members that it is not in order to refer to someone leaving the House. It is actually covered under Speaker’s ruling 24/4, which refers to the absence of members, and was given by Speaker Algie. The reality is that many members have to leave the House because they have other commitments.

The member who resumed his seat, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, currently has probably just about run out of crocodile tears for the families of New Zealand after issuing that view that this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill would be the silver bullet to save the economy, as he was depicting it. Look, we know that the mining industry in Australia to which he referred adds something to its economy. The truth is that it is a fraction of the wealth generated over there. Economic settings play a far bigger part in that story, and this Government has an absolutely shameful record—a shameful record—on the economy. It is the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years. That is what is hurting our families. That is why people do not have jobs. [Interruption] That is why 30,000 jobs have gone from the economy in the last year, Mr Bridges. David Shearer, the leader of the Labour Party, has asked from the beginning for a clean, green—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just say that the member is making a forceful speech and that, obviously, there is a lot of noise. The Speaker will not allow a speaker to be drowned out.

I thank you for that intervention, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that my voice is a little quiet, so I will try to speak over the member if he gets too noisy again. David Shearer said from the start of his time that he wants a clean, green, diversified economy that produces sustainable jobs. That vision is very different from what this Government is delivering. It is delivering a weaker economy with 30,000 fewer jobs than the year before. It is delivering an economy focused only on the primary sector. We need a strong primary sector in this country, but we do not need a monoculture. We need other industries to prosper also. I note that only recently I looked up the statistics again and saw that non - primary sector production in this country is down 10 percent under this Government. That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful, and jobs are going with that. Inequality is growing because there are not sustainable jobs in this economy.

The next point I wish to cover is around the fact that we did support this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee because we wanted it to be explored further, but we supported it to the select committee with some clear concerns. This Government has refused to address those concerns and those of submitters, and so we are now forced to oppose this bill. This bill could have been a better thing. This bill could have actually delivered jobs in a sustainable way that cared for families, looked out for New Zealanders, looked out for the environment, cared for health and safety concerns, and benefited the local economy. But this Government is not interested in those things, it seems. It is interested only in its mates and those who are behind the scenes trying to push through legislation that benefits one little segment and leaves the rest for dead.

Labour does not oppose mining. Our history is linked with the West Coast mines, but we believe that mining should be responsibly managed with good environmental stewardship and a long-term view of the industry and the country. Labour supports mining where it is done in a responsible, safe, and environmentally friendly way. We accept that we are going to need windmills. Windmills are made out of material that is mined. We need thermos flasks, which are made out of material that is mined. We need those things that are produced through steel, and steel is produced out of things that are mined.

Those things can all be done in a sensible and responsible way, but this Government’s mismanagement in the mining sector is another factor. Look at Solid Energy—the poster organisation for this Government. We have photos of Bill English turning over the first sod on the lignite project with Don Elder. Solid Energy is not doing that project now, and that is because it took on debt. Solid Energy was encouraged to take on debt by this Government. It was a billion-dollar company, an award-winning company under the previous Government—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this member is exuberant in the delivery of his speeches, but the substance of his speech is totally off topic from the bill that is being considered this afternoon. Can we ask the member to please come back to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was listening, and the member could perhaps just narrow it a little bit. I know it is a big debate because you are talking about Crown minerals, but let us just try to keep things within Standing Orders.

As I was saying, this Government has run Solid Energy into the ground, and that is because of a lack of oversight and a lack of concern for how this sector is run. That is my point. This sector is being run in a shoddy fashion. It is not looking out for the interests of New Zealanders. Labour’s bottom lines on mining are—since that member asks—that there must be capacity to respond to accidents quickly, and we have seen failures in that regard; there must be clear liability so taxpayers do not foot the bill for mistakes, and we have seen this Government time and time again hand over responsibility for mistakes to the taxpayer; there must be robust protection of the natural environment, and we do not see that here, either; and there must be a benefit for the local economy. Solid Energy, if we needed any illustration, shows, with all of those people put on to the dole queue, that that is not happening under this Government. The local economy is suffering because of the mismanagement by this Government of the sector.

Labour is opposed particularly to there being joint ministerial responsibility for mining on Crown land. This Government is determined to take the teeth out of the Minister of Conservation’s mouth. It is undermining—if you will excuse the pun—the Minister of Conservation at every step, and the powers and role of the Minister are drawn into question. We agree with the concerns of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who stated that the Minister of Conservation will remain accountable for the conservation estate but is no longer in control. Labour is concerned about the economic benefit test to mining of the Department of Conservation estate. You have only to look back to those tens of thousands of people marching down Queen Street to get a really clear picture that the public is opposed to mining on sensitive land. This bill, with its test there, says “even if an activity is not compatible with the objectives and purpose of the Conservation Act, the activity could still go ahead.” That shows you where this Government is sitting on this issue. It is not making that balance. It talks about balance, but it is presenting an unbalanced piece of legislation. It is failing to deliver on jobs in the economy. [Interruption] We have a little sideshow over there—it is a bit like the cycleway, which was the big jobs project that never delivered.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Don’t want jobs?

There may be a job here or there digging on conservation land, probably for the lawyers, I would suggest, Mr Lotu-Iiga, but actually the real thing that needs to be addressed is the fundamental settings in the economy.

A proper plan would address the fundamental problems in the economy, Mr Lotu-Iiga, and that would get jobs back on track. A sector plan is needed. This Government has produced none of that. This reliance on the extractive sector and on primary produce—you know, New Zealand is reliant on those things. Our agricultural sector, for example, is about the same size as Denmark’s, and has been for a long time, but its export per capita now is three times that of New Zealand. Denmark has had a Government that is prepared to be hands-on with the economy, that is prepared to actually take the issue of jobs in hand, and that is prepared to grow the economy and not see wages fall year after year after year, like they have under this Government. This Government does not care about the workers. It needs to adopt better legislation that actually addresses environmental concerns, that addresses health and safety concerns, and that really looks at the issues that are presented to select committees and considers what submitters say, so that legislation can be improved for the benefit of every person in this country.

Labour did support this bill going to select committee, to give the select committee the opportunity to hear from those submitters and to make this into better legislation. Unfortunately, this Government—this arrogant Government—like it always does, ignored those submitters, stepped away from the advice that was given, and is determined to press on with its own vision, which is not delivering jobs for this country, which is not delivering jobs for New Zealanders, and which is seeing our economy stutter.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare i tēnei rā. Many happy returns to the mining industry. However, this second reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is not an occasion for celebration unless you happen to be a mining company—it will really work for them. This is because this bill is designed for mining companies. It reflects their values and the tunnel vision that sees conservation land, communities, and tangata whenua as barriers to be removed or manipulated so that they can reap the coal or gold or oil and gas, which they sell to a population living beyond its means and needing to focus on more innovative alternatives. This bill is the miners’ bill. It is also the Government’s response to the 30,000 people who marched down Queen Street and the more than 30,000, the 39,000, who made submissions against the mining of schedule 4 land. So the Government lost the media war. It was seen to have to back down on the issue, but, like any strategist, it had another plan. That plan was amendments to the Crown Minerals Act, and here we see them.

This bill is a betrayal of many conservation values. We heard that at the Commerce Committee. There was a range of submitters from a lot of different groups who talked about the real betrayal of the 2010 uprising of popular support for the conservation estate and how this bill legislates that betrayal. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, as mentioned by the previous speaker, Dr David Clark, summarised the most disastrous issue in this bill. She summarised it by saying that the joint ministerial powers will undermine and weaken the Minister of Conservation. To quote the parliamentary commissioner, “It cuts across the fundamental separation of functions and powers, whereby the Minister of Energy and Resources grants permits for minerals and the Minister of Conservation grants access to the conservation [land]. The Minister of Conservation will remain accountable for the conservation estate, but not in control. His or her core role as guardian of the conservation estate will be undermined.” That is what this bill entrenches. That is not the only issue, but it is probably the most disastrous and the most seriously identified issue that went through our select committee process.

However, there are many clauses we have concerns about, and I want to start with the Treaty issues. This bill claims to improve the relationship between the Crown, miners, and tangata whenua, but what it does is in fact one of the worst forms of tokenism. There is a Treaty clause, a standard Treaty clause, in the Act—which is generally ignored by the miners, and we have got experience of that in my home area of Hauraki—but there is also a new invention called iwi engagement reporting. This is a tokenistic annual report that a mining company must do to show that it has had a conversation with somebody from tangata whenua. It was opposed by Ngāi Tahu and a number of Taranaki iwi that submitted, on the grounds that it is a breach of the Treaty, that it is tokenistic, and that it has no robust Treaty framework. The Green Party supports those claims. It is outrageous that it is called an improvement, when all it is is tick-the-box tokenism. The mining industry at the select committee said “Oh, no, we’re going to have a better relationship. We assure you. We promise.”, but there is nothing to make sure that that happens, there is nothing in regulation, and there is nothing in this that represents a robust Treaty framework.

I move on now to some of the other aspects of the bill, including the issue of the purpose. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate and attract miners. It has abandoned all pretence of regulation and balance in favour of promotion and facilitation of one industry at the expense of others. The purpose lacks balance and leadership, and although a lot of the bill seems to be full of minor, innocuous detail, you have got to look at the embedded drivers. You have got to look at what the bill is set up to achieve. What it is set up to achieve is to convince the public. Although it is appearing to protect schedule 4, in fact it changes how the levers of power are delivered through a range of mechanisms. The stated focus is for a more efficient allocation and a fair return to the Crown, but, overall, it is a fast tracking of the minerals and petroleum development within a weak context of the other values and rights that New Zealanders feel so strongly about. New Zealanders have expressed passionate opposition to petroleum and mining development on vulnerable land, and this is being ignored. It is being ignored and was ignored at the select committee.

The role of the Minister is equally unacceptable. The role of the Minister is to help the mining industry as much as possible, and that role definition continues to be problematic when you look at the joint decision-making clause. Ministerial joint decision-making is a major political shift away from the idea that the Minister of Conservation should be able to talk about who should have access to the conservation estate, based on an assessment of values enshrined in the Conservation Act. Those things are being literally undermined. So it cuts across, as the parliamentary commissioner says. The compromise suggested at the select committee, which was that joint decision-making would apply only to “significant” applications with “the potential to generate a significant economic return or that are high risk.”, completely fails to address the core issues of concern, which are mining in significant areas, and mines that have potential to maybe make money for some foreign mining company but will do nothing for the values of the conservation estate. So the Minister of Conservation will be weakened considerably on these core issues that the public identified. In terms of the provision for public notification where the conservation Minister deems a proposal is significant, it is inadequate, because all mining activity on conservation land should be publicly notified. There are people who want to know; they should have a right to have a say.

One of the most Machiavellian aspects of the bill is the provisions on Orders in Council. If you look at the supposed protection of schedule 4 as it exists, that sounds all very well. But if you want to add to schedule 4, instead of going through the process via the Minister of Conservation, Cabinet will now have the power to remove land from national parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and scientific reserves that are not in schedule 4. So this gives unprecedented control to the higher ranks of Cabinet, over and above the powers of the Minister of Conservation. You can guess that the status of the Minister of Conservation is not as strong as that of the Minister for Economic Development. It is not as strong as a number of other powerful Ministers, so we will see what happens to the conservation values. So although we have ostensibly protected schedule 4, additions will be via this process and it will be interesting to see whether in fact we can get any.

Net economic benefit—clause 31(6) proposes to add economic benefit to matters requiring consideration. Again, we sought a definition from officials; they worked hard to provide it. We sought clarity because we are concerned that without full cost-benefit accounting, the idea of net economic benefit will be narrowly defined in terms of particular immediate economic benefit. The quantification of cultural, community, and environmental values at the moment is badly understood, whereas net economic benefit can be used to privilege the mining industry.

The one part of the bill that we did support, along with everyone else, was this Supplementary Order Paper 152 on making sure that the Pike River recommendations were included. If the only good thing in this bill is that the workers get more safety, that is a good thing. We support it. We believe that workers—both tier 2 and tier 1 miners, all of them—should have the best possible protections under law. If we have learnt nothing from Pike River, we should have learnt that, and we fully support that Supplementary Order Paper. It needs to be there. We are a little concerned that the tier 2 miners get less protection because, supposedly, they are doing a smaller job. They are underground and they need protection; they should have the same level of protection.

We are also very concerned about the length of permits. We oppose any increase in the length of the excavation permits, as these are often granted with nil public input and nil accountability to local communities. We do not see any justification for the bill lengthening these permits, except for the convenience of the mining companies, but, then, that is what this bill is about. It is about how to make the Crown Minerals Act more convenient for the mining industry. It is about how to facilitate the industry’s access to a whole range of land, including the conservation estate.

Our speakers in the House have talked about the wonderful economic benefits. I live in the Coromandel; our economic benefits come from our visitors. They come from the aquaculture industry. They come from annual returns, which are $350 million a year from our visitors. They come for beaches. They come for beauty. They come for the uniqueness of our area. They do not come to see holes in the ground on a regular basis. They are actually attracted to our area for its absolute contribution in terms of the environment. We stand for the environment, and the people who came to the select committee stand for it. What was disturbing to see was both the tangata whenua concerns about consultation and the submitters, who passionately believe in protecting those values for future generations, being completely ignored, and the setting up of this bizarre and unprecedented control by joint ministerial powers. We will rue the day that we created this kind of double jeopardy. It is not where this country wants to go. We saw the people marching the streets, saying “Protect the land.”, and it is now being ignored under the bill. This bill is a disgrace.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.

This bill is another step in the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. The natural resources industry is now one of the major export earners for the New Zealand economy. This industry contributes taxes and royalties to the New Zealand economy. There is huge potential in this sector and an opportunity for the creation of highly paid jobs.

During the select committee process we received more than 500 submissions, and 44 submissions were heard in person. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Commerce Committee, Jonathan Young, and the members for their work, and I would also like to acknowledge the officials who helped during the select committee process. Some amendments have been suggested by the select committee, which are being considered. I hope this bill will help to grow this industry in the future. I support this bill.

I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. As we advised at the first reading, New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going through to the committee stage. We have some reservations about some aspects of the bill, but we do fully support the intention of it. This bill is all about the natural resources and the Crown-owned minerals of our nation, which are a very, very important part of our economy. New Zealand First recognises that economic development and economic growth are 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 ensure that we do get it right.

In terms of Crown minerals, something in the order of $2 billion has been received by the Crown since 2008 from royalties on minerals, so it is a very significant amount of money coming to this nation. It is virtually the equivalent of what the National Government gave back to the wealthy 10 percent of New Zealanders in taxes—$2 billion—a few years ago. We certainly need these royalties to offset the $2 billion that National so swiftly gave away when it came to office in 2009.

In terms of the royalties, however, New Zealand First does have some concerns that the royalties disappear into a big black hole in the Crown coffers and do not necessarily benefit the location from where the resources are taken. As a result, New Zealand First put out a policy a few weeks ago called the regional royalties policy, whereby under New Zealand First we would return 25 percent of all royalties back to the region that the resources were taken from. This has had huge support from around the country, and many, many organisations have advised us that they think it is a very sensible move that we have put forward, in that it would help a great deal of economic development around the regions. It would also help many of the regions that are financially strapped to provide the necessary infrastructure. For instance, you can imagine that many of the rural roads have been cut off now from a significant amount of funding, because of the roads of national significance taking priority, particularly some of the motorways and various things that the Hon Steven Joyce would love to roll out everywhere. As a result of that, many of the rural communities are suffering on their roading. If, in that situation, 25 percent of the royalties were returned to some of those local authorities and to those regions in order to help support their infrastructure, it could offset some of the costs, for instance, of roading in some areas that is deteriorating as a result of heavy vehicles and trucks and those sorts of things for the extraction of the minerals and resources, forestry, and even getting into all sorts of other areas of taking resources from New Zealand. So we believe that it is a very important policy.

It would also benefit the likes of the Chatham Islands. Our Commerce Committee heard that the Chatham Rock Phosphate company wishes to extract phosphate from the Chatham Rise. About 1 percent of the area of the rise is to be extracted—a very small part of the rise—but it would be something in the order of 25 million tonnes of phosphate over the next several decades to make New Zealand 100 percent self-sufficient in rock phosphate or superphosphate. It currently comes from Morocco and Algeria and various other dodgy places, when New Zealand could become self-sufficient in it, which would therefore reduce our importation requirements. It would be very significant for the Chathams if, for instance, 25 percent of the royalties taken from the rock phosphate were returned to the Chatham Islands to help pay for their infrastructure for the relatively small population there. That would give them ongoing guaranteed income from Chatham Rise. Therefore, it is a very sensible policy that we certainly hope the Government will take up and implement in due course.

We are supportive of the fact there is a two-tiered system for permit management so that the higher-risk, higher-value minerals that perhaps have more significant effects will have a higher level of permit management requirement, rather than those that have a lower risk and lower value that do not present the same effects. Swift and decisive action is also possible under this bill for non-compliance, and 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 who do not meet the standards. 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, ministry time, or the time of the courts in terms of applications. They will be sifted out early in the piece to certainly improve the process.

It is interesting that the bill includes a requirement to report the engagement with iwi and hapū, called the iwi engagement report. That is required 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 very much have an iwi engagement between these two parties all the time. We do wonder how that report will necessarily be effected, and we will watch that with interest. We certainly feel that in terms of the minerals of this country and in terms of the extraction, this must benefit all New Zealanders and it must be for the benefit of our nation so that our nation can go forward most certainly.

The bill streamlines a 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 interests. It also complements the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which was put into place last year. So in terms of that, this is a good move to line this bill up with that Act, which was put through in 2012.

However, New Zealand First’s position is always that we support economic development, but it must be in terms of the environment and in a sustainable manner. The environment must always be given the benefit of the doubt if there is something at risk of impacting on that environment. We must ensure that the “100% Pure New Zealand” image is not tarnished in any way, and so it is important that aspects of this bill are closely scrutinised to ensure that that “100% Pure New Zealand” image is maintained.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going through to the select committee. We are doing that so that this bill gets full and robust consideration, and so that the people of New Zealand have an opportunity—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s been to the select committee.

Oh, it has been to the select committee. Oh, sorry. This is the second reading. Sorry.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This is the second reading.

Yes, sorry—to have full input into it. We believe that that is important. Every New Zealander stands to benefit from this bill, and New Zealand First will be supporting it.

Ni hao. Xie xie. I rise to support the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. The bill will encourage the development of Crown-owned minerals, which is crucial to New Zealand’s economic growth and standard of living. I believe that New Zealand is rich in mineral resources. However, we have not done what we should have done many years ago, and that is to have a good understanding of our mineral resources or mineral wealth. This bill is a move in the right direction.

As we can see in Taranaki, mineral exploration boosts the economy and creates jobs. Mineral exploration contributes $2 billion to the economy in Taranaki, second only to agriculture at $4.6 billion. Exploration sustains 5,090 jobs in Taranaki, compared with 3,720 jobs in agriculture. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Gidday, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, that’s what the Aussies say—gidday, mate.

They say it in Wainui too, on occasions.

I am surprised at the lack of enthusiasm shown by the Government benches for this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I would have thought that those members would want to debate it seriously. I thought my colleagues in New Zealand First would want to debate it seriously, too. Just a bit of naughty advice for them: it never pays to use the first reading speech notes for the second reading, because that sometimes tends to indicate things are going to happen that are not.

This bill has been to a select committee. The Labour Party supported it going to the Commerce Committee so that people could have their say on it at the select committee. We have listened to what the people have said and we are voting against it now, because there were a number of questions that were open and they were not properly answered by the Government or by the amendments.

There is a series of bottom lines around mining. Some of the bottom lines are the capacity to respond to accidents quickly. That has not been addressed in this legislation. There has got to be clear liability so that the taxpayers do not keep on fronting up for mistakes, either directly or indirectly, as we have seen Solid Energy has as far as Pike River is concerned. It should never have bought that. It should not have taken off the private sector the obligations around Pike River. We know it did it in an attempt to grease up to the Government, which we now know it is in so much trouble with. There have got to be robust protections for the natural environment—and it is clear that that is not in this legislation—and there has got to be a benefit for the local economy.

With all due respect to Dr Yang, the previous speaker, saying that in our most mineral-intensive province, Taranaki, mining is half the value of agriculture just has to emphasise the risk and the relative rewards. We have got to make sure, when mining does proceed, that there is not risk—that the rest of the economy is not being placed at risk.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: It’s oil—it’s not even minerals.

Having said that—and I see my old friend Catherine Delahunty, not Eugenie Sage, is interjecting—I have been a person who has been quite supportive of the mining industry, and very unsupportive of the mining industry on the Coromandel. I have got a history of doing this case by case and looking at the value of different propositions. What I have found is that there are some things that are just absolutely pointless. Trying to get gold out of the Coromandel has, over the years, caused enormous environmental damage. People who want to do it more are, I think, nuts, as are, though, people who say there will never be a use for the lignite that is in the South Island at the moment.

I know it is somewhat controversial, but, as Minister for State-owned Enterprises, I certainly did not object to Solid Energy buying farms and, effectively, the mineral rights to lignite in Southland, because what is sitting under there is 400 years’ worth of transport energy for New Zealand. I am just going to say that again slowly: there is 400 years’ worth of transport energy for New Zealand. But I am the first to accept that we are a long way away from the science that is necessary to get that released.

The sequestration—I have witnessed a number of interesting arguments between Don Elder and David Parker, some public and some not, on sequestration. There is no doubt that it will happen one day, but whether it is 10 years away, 15 years away, or 30 years away, the technology has got to be done before we can use that lignite, unless we are going to follow the silly approach that Bill English wanted, which was to burn lignite. I mean, burning lignite in pellets is just nuts. It is a total waste of energy, it is polluting, and it causes all sorts of gas problems. The other thing that has to happen before the lignite can be used properly is that we have got to get the technology for hydrogen fuel cell batteries, which are powered off the lignite, moved along as well in order to use the power, the energy, that is sitting underneath the ground. So what you are hearing from me is that I think there are occasions—and a lot of occasions—when the energy that we have in New Zealand can be used, and used carefully, used properly, and used responsibly.

What we were hoping for—and the reason that we supported sending this bill off to the select committee—was that the Government had its head around this legislation. I might say that although I disagreed with him, I thought that Phil Heatley actually had quite a good understanding of it. I mean, he was wrong in a number of areas, but he had worked hard, he cared about it, and he was a responsible Minister of Energy and Resources. He was on Steven Joyce’s “rah, rah, rah, let’s dig it up” team, but in the end we have had him replaced by someone who appears to have no interest in the area at all and who, to date, has shown no real understanding of it.

The point I am making is that we gave the Government the opportunity and the encouragement to try to build—well, I think it is fair to say that we will never get a consensus in this Parliament on this issue, you know. While you have in this Parliament John Banks and Catherine Delahunty we will never get a consensus on mining in New Zealand. Throw in Damien O’Connor and it gets more complicated still. But what I was hoping for was that, at least across the major parties in New Zealand, we could get a level of consensus that would bring us to some legislation that could be enduring and that people could have some certainty about, and that that certainty would mean that where it was appropriate and where proper care had been taken, then investment would be made, and it would be made in the sense that it could be ongoing and enduring.

But what we have had from the National Government is that it is not interested in that sort of approach. What it is doing, despite blowing the trumpet of being pro-mining, is taking decisions in its legislation because it knows that the Labour Party will signal changes to it, policy differences, and the fact that the legislation will not be enduring. What that means is that the very investment that it wants is actually less likely to happen, because people who are making investments, especially in the current economic climate, are going to say: “Hang about. Hang about. We’re going to wait and see whether our investments will be worthwhile or not.”

In a funny way, we are getting the policy objective of the Greens through the legislation of the National Government, because instead of building a major party approach to it, what it is doing is going off with a radical mining agenda that has no certainty, and that in fact, everyone knows will not continue. The result of that will actually be that mining will not occur, because the businesses will not be prepared to put in the hundreds of millions of dollars that is necessary to start the mines. I think that as a policy outcome the Greens could well be happy with that, but what I am concerned about is that proper planning, proper safety measures, and a proper approach to the environment will not happen in the longer term, because of the radical approach taken by the Government, especially by Steven Joyce, who we all know just does not care about either real jobs—jobs that pay well for New Zealand workers—or the environment.

I am pleased to take a second call on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I was very disappointed to hear the comments made by Mr Mallard. This is an important bill for New Zealand’s future.

Dr Clark alluded to the fact that this is not a silver bullet. I agree with you. This is not a silver bullet, but this is an important initiative in the overall growth and development of our economy. The sad thing is that if it were up to Labour, it would have its foot on the throat of the economy and it would put a bullet straight through the heart of it. That is the reality of it.

This is an important bill, and it is important for New Zealand to make sure that we start developing our mining sector in a responsible manner. We cannot rely on one separate sector or one individual sector. It is important that our economy is developed overall. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

I understand that the next call is a split call.

Can I just acknowledge and applaud my colleague Trevor Mallard, who summarised the situation very, very well. The truth is that the National Government’s management of mining issues has been inept—completely. It charged off with a policy that said it would mine national parks. Everyone in New Zealand, other than the radicals on the fringes, objected to that. As Mr Mallard said, it actually swung things back into the Greens’ camp.

The Labour Party and I support mining. We support responsible mining and we support safe mining. We have not always had that. That is why we supported the bill going to the Commerce Committee, where there was some good consideration. I got an email from someone who said: “We won’t have any mining under a Labour-Greens Government.” Well, the truth is that there were more mines opened and more mining development under the Labour-Greens Government than we are seeing under National, but we did it in a responsible way. The fear is that with these changes we may step backwards, into a position that is not sustainable, and, as Mr Mallard said, we would end up with further change.

Certainty is what the National Government offered mining in 1997 when it said schedule 4 and national park areas were out of bounds. That was supported by the Labour Government because it offered the industry certainty. That is what is needed, as Mr Mallard said, to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars. We have always supported mining that is responsible. When it comes to conservation land we have said that schedule 4 land is out of bounds, and we have allowed and negotiated with mining companies to mine on conservation land very, very cautiously.

The issue of whether two Ministers should be involved is a bit like saying to the farmer who owns the land with mineral rights on it: “You are going to have to compromise as to whether mining is going to occur there.” The National Government would not dare say to the miner or any other landowner: “You have got to compromise the decision.” It would say that there are some property rights involved.

On conservation land, the Minister of Conservation is responsible. The issue my colleagues have raised is that the Minister of Conservation should ultimately be responsible. I do not have a problem with that, because I know of numerous examples where the Minister has negotiated, and the Department of Conservation has negotiated. Yes, it has taken some time; yes, there has had to be flexibility; and, yes, there had to be some environmental guarantees, and that is what we expect.

I do not want some Auckland-based mining company, with the support of Steven Joyce, coming down and raping and pillaging the West Coast and leaving it with environmental degradation. I want responsible mining, and I want the Minister of Conservation to be able to put in place protections that ensure we have proper environmental protection in place, be it on conservation land or be it on private land.

I also support the submission that was brought to the Commerce Committee—I believe it was judged to be out of the scope of the bill—from the Buller District Council that said: “We must have some royalty—some income directly from mining, back into local communities.” We have said that we in the Labour Party want mining if there is benefit to the local economy. Well, we do have jobs, as we know. The issue is the sustainable benefits that are enduring beyond the life of the mine. It is a fair question that submitters should put to the committee—and I see that it has been rejected by the committee—that a portion of the royalties and levies from mining go back to the local community. I think it is a very reasonable proposition. It is one I still want to discuss with my colleagues. As the bill goes through the Committee stage, we will wait and see what happens.

Labour is not supporting this bill, on the basis of that joint decision-making. I understand what can happen when the Minister of Conservation has sole responsibility. It can allow mining—responsible mining. Why this Government, like it did with the national parks mining proposal, wants to stir up a hornets’ nest, add uncertainty to the mining industry, and then stir up every anti-mining person to campaign against it, as happened in the past, is beyond belief. It should have responsible legislation that Labour would have supported all the way through. Not content with that, it wanted to put a stick into the hornets’ nest and say that the Minister of Conservation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. One of my proudest moments as a New Zealander was when I was marching with 30,000 other Kiwis. It was great. I was at the front, holding the banner, marching down Queen Street. What we and tens of thousands of New Zealanders were marching for was a value—that we love and want to protect our environment. It is not something that we balance off, as the National members say it is. It is a core Kiwi value.

We love the environment. We love that we can go tramping or hunting or even just for a bush walk, and we do not want to put it at risk. We are not going to trade it off. In fact, it is the heart of our economy. It has been since time immemorial, and it always will be. So Kiwis stood up. They told the Government that its plan to mine our most treasured places was not on. They were not going to stand for it. The Government backed down—rightfully so—and we congratulate the Government on backing down.

But now the Government has adopted a different strategy, which my colleague Catherine Delahunty touched on—a slow, methodical, grinding, bulldozer approach, using the powers of finance, legislation, regulation, and the signals Government Ministers can put into their speeches and directions to Government departments. The Government is slowly grinding down our treasured places, and for what? A strategy that is in tatters—a strategy that was never going to deliver the type of prosperity Kiwis deserve or want. It is a strategy that is a lazy, risky gamble.

It is lazy because it hopes that someone else will do the work, or someone else will find some oil or gas. There is no vision. There is no plan. There is no method to get there. There is no innovation. It is a gamble because we know that risking our environment risks the rest of our economy. It puts at risk our valuable “clean, green” brand, which has been valued at over $20 billion. It puts at risk our tourism and our aquaculture.

It is risky for our environment. We do not want to put our environment at risk of deep-sea drilling and a massive oil spill, or the types of tragedies we have seen. It is a risky, lazy gamble, and the benefits are overstated. We have got the fourth-lowest royalty and tax rate in the world. We know that there will be hardly any jobs for New Zealanders. This sector has got the lowest job-creating potential of any sector of the Taranaki economy. Of course, we know that when it comes to the likes of deep-sea oil drilling—your TAG Oil—all of the profit is going to go overseas. So we think there are better ways, and we wish the Government would get off picking the one horse—this sector—that is going to deliver the least of any other potential sectors, and do something about it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What do you say we should do?

What would we do? We would prioritise the clean, green economy. This is something that PricewaterhouseCoopers has said is worth $22 billion to our economy. The Greenpeace report said we could be saving $600 million a year in electricity. The Pure Advantage report said we could see 50,000 jobs in clean energy. What is the Government focusing on? A handful of jobs, mostly for foreigners, with all the profits going offshore. The Government is picking the wrong horse.

You can see in this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, what the Government is doing. The whole purpose is about picking winners in the oil, gas, and fracking sectors. It is about disempowering communities. It is about the function of the Minister, and this is one of the key clauses in the legislation. The function of the Minister is not to be independent oversight, with the best interests of the country at heart; the function of the Minister under this legislation is to attract permit applications.

I do not know whether any other members felt a bit embarrassed that our Prime Minister was off in Brazil grovelling to the Brazilians and hoping that Petrobras would come back. This is what we are doing—an embarrassing strategy. You can see it with the schedule 4 decisions, in which we are seeing a weakening of these protected—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think a number of us were just tolerating the abusive comments from the Hon Simon Bridges when we thought they were directed to the member, but the last three of the comments he has directed to you. Calling you a loser or an empty vessel, Mr Assistant Speaker, is not appropriate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, at this hour of the day that is correct. I just ask members to calm it down. I did have to indicate earlier that this dialogue and interjections across the benches mean I sometimes cannot hear what the member is saying, so please cut it down.

I think the honourable Minister is embarrassed. The plan is in tatters. You have got Petrobras walking out, you have got Apache Corporation walking out, and, amongst other things, mining prices have collapsed so much that Solid Energy is in strife. Coal companies are leaving the country. The whole plan is in tatters. That is why it is ridiculous that we are passing this legislation just to facilitate more mining and gas. We are seeing the weakening of the power of the conservation Minister, which was slightly improved in the select committee but not enough and not in actuality. We have got tokenism in iwi consultations. There are a couple of improvements—the ability to put a moratorium into effect, or ban specific mining types—and we have Supplementary Order Paper 152, which effects the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, but the fact is that there are better options for this country.

I was at a wind energy conference last night and I asked them to imagine what they could do, and how we could get some of those 50,000 jobs Pure Advantage talked about, or the $22 billion PricewaterhouseCoopers talked about, if we had a level playing field. If the Government was giving the clean energy sector the type of support—not subsidies, just support—it is giving to the oil and gas industry, we could do wonderful things with our clean energy sector. That is the hope and the vision the Green Party brings.