Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill

Was my microphone not working? You did not seem to hear me the first time I called.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not hear the member, actually.

I have never ever been accused of being too quiet, so that is a first. I am speaking on Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, which is specifically in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Before I address my primary comments in relation to Part 2, can I say that the lack of ability to debate some of the more substantive issues in Part 1 is a cause of frustration to me. I was sitting in the Chamber from the very beginning of this bill prior to the dinner adjournment, I sought a call at every single opportunity, and I had only one, so it was immensely frustrating, actually. We had three Supplementary Order Papers amending Part 1 that we did not get an opportunity to talk to, and, obviously, Part 1 is the primary substance of the bill.

Part 2, like a lot of the bill, has some—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I can hear people on my right and my left who do not have the floor.

There are some parts of the bill that Labour said right at the very first stages of the debate in the House we agreed with. I suppose that really highlights the even more frustrating feeling I have than that of being denied the call earlier in the debate, and that is that on serious issues such as this—where we have the conservation estate, values that many New Zealanders hold dear to them, and investment opportunities, which are very important as well—we should whenever possible try to reach agreement.

Where it has not been able to be reached, it is not because of lack of goodwill, and I have to say that when I have sat on the Commerce Committee looking at this bill I think every single member of the select committee that heard submissions on this bill tried really hard to understand the different perspectives that were raised, the different points that were being made, and the pros and cons that submitters raised. In many instances, accommodations were able to be made, but on this Part 2 the very fundamental point is that this, once again, is undermining the role of the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has been the voice, the conscience, and the advocate for our public estate since the Conservation Act was introduced in 1987. In the same way, the recent reforms of the Resource Management Act are the first time since the very first time we had an environment Minister that our environmental standards are being lowered, by Minister Amy Adams. That is exactly what is happening in this bill in relation to the Minister of Conservation. For the first time ever, the status, the advocacy role, the decision-making power, the mandate of the Minister of Conservation is being weakened. And it is for nothing. It is not for the betterment of any value, or any piece of land in New Zealand. It is not for any gain at all.

I find it a very frustrating occasion and a very sad occasion in an area that is as important as this, where, had we worked together, and had the latecoming Easter Sunday brainwave of the Hon Simon Bridges been referred to the select committee for debate and discussion, we may have heard a lot more than we have during this debate. The select committee and members of the public have not even been shown the courtesy of knowing for sure whether there is a legal opinion that was presented to Cabinet Ministers or the full Cabinet in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 205, which has recently been passed. This is an area that should have been considered rigorously and carefully, with solid public input. The submitters whom I heard were overwhelmingly opposed to the mandate of the Minister of Conservation being weakened, but that is exactly what this part does. It extends the decision-making power to the whole of Cabinet. It once again says that the Minister of Conservation is not a decision-making person any more, but that decision has to be shared around. What happened to the time when we recognised the importance of that portfolio, the status and the responsibility that it carried with it, and we gave that role to the Minister on his or her own? The National Party has said: “No, we’re not going to have that. We need to make sure that we have Steven Joyce and Simon Bridges and”—heaven forbid—“the Hon Chris Finlayson running the show.” They will be making the decisions alongside the now seriously demoted Nick Smith. This is a significant weakening—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.

—of the role and it is not to anyone’s advantage.

💬 Moana Mackey: Mr Chair—

Oh, I thought the member was seeking another call.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Moana Mackey was seeking a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, I see. In that case I will call the honourable member Moana Mackey.

Part 2 of this bill, the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, is in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Had I been able to take further calls to speak to my Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1, I would have addressed some of these issues as well, such as the dilution of the powers of the Minister of Conservation and what a significant change that is. I would like to say that there are some aspects of Part 2 of this bill that we agree with, in terms of the automatic addition of new reserve land into schedule 4. We agree that is a good change. That is appropriate. We welcome that change. But, unfortunately, as we see right throughout this piece of legislation, wherever we get an advancement or an improvement, double-whammied against it is something that is so bad that we cannot support the improvement. That is a real disappointment because there was a real opportunity here to, yes, streamline and modernise a piece of legislation that is important for our economy and our environment, and that has, unfortunately, not occurred. What we have done is—as my colleague Damien O’Connor said on the debate on Part 1—created this false idea that somehow this is going to assist industry by skewing things so far towards it that it is not going to have to face the same level of hurdles that it faces under the existing legislation.

The reality is that the existing Crown Minerals Act has worked just fine. We have mining activities going ahead on the West Coast and in Taranaki. We have heard about how great Taranaki is—well, that all occurred under the existing legislation. It was not too difficult, too tricky, or too burdensome for industry to be able to go ahead under the Crown Minerals Act as it stands. Instead what we have done is we have made the bill so skewed in favour of industry and away from protecting our conservation values that we are going to have people far more concerned. Because if you get the process right, then the overwhelming majority of people are happy to let it play out. If they trust the process, if they trust that the protection of conservation land is going to be paramount and that the Minister of Conservation is going to be able to exercise his or her powers as the custodian of that conservation estate to ensure that it is protected for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders, and if you have a process in place that adequately addresses the environmental concerns and the health and safety concerns that come up in the mining industry, then most people would say to let that process go ahead. And if a mining activity is then consented, that is good. And if that process says no and that, in fact, the risks are too great or it is not believed that the risks around the environment or health and safety, etc., have been adequately addressed and that it is not going to go ahead, then that is fair enough as well, and industry accepts that. That is the position we have now with the current Crown Minerals Act.

When the Government comes in here and rips the guts out of this legislation, rips the guts out of the Resource Management Act, and passes a piece of exclusive economic zone legislation that is appallingly inadequate, it is not helping industry at all, because the public no longer trust the process. When they do not trust the process, they are going to want to have more input into it. They are going to want to have more scrutiny.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: They don’t trust the Government.

That is right; they do not trust the Government either. They are going to be more likely to appeal and to try to get that fair process through the rights of appeal than they would otherwise be. They are going to protest and they are going to complain because they no longer trust that the process Parliament has put in place is going to adequately address the very real concerns. This is not helping industry at all. In fact, it is a false economy. When I look at the shared decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources, I have never seen an area more ripe for judicial review than giving the Minister of Energy and Resources half the say in decisions on conservation land. When the Minister of Energy and Resources stands up in this Chamber and does a merry dance about Bathurst Resources and about Denniston, then gives himself overwhelming powers to make decisions on Department of Conservation land, including around Bathurst, and then tries to tell us that that is not going to open the Government up to judicial review, that is la-la land stuff. If the industry thinks that that is going to help it, I think it is going to be sorely disappointed.

The best thing we can do for industry, environmental groups, and the public is to get a process in place that addresses those concerns—a process that the public has faith in so that they know that when they go through that process, part of that process has to be public input and right of appeal. Part of that process has to be that. As we have seen with the Resource Management Act, most consents we do not have any problems with. Yes, there are going to be some where there are concerns, but usually and often that is around the way the Government has handled things, and the way the Government has handled the Denniston issue has been appallingly bad, promising things that it then did not deliver on. It has been that project that has been used as a test case because of those points. It has been the way the Government has handled these issues and these processes that has lead to overwhelming public concerns, and that Denniston issue basically has been used as an example of bad process, bad interference by Government, and bad promises being made that were not upheld.

So I very, very strongly believe that these changes we are making, and the changes we are making under the Conservation Act, are not going to help industry in the way that the Government thinks they are going to. They are going to undermine environmental values and undermine health and safety values. I have to say here that we do support the Supplementary Order Paper on Pike River. Again, that Supplementary Order Paper was allowed to go to the select committee and more submissions were called for. That is the correct and proper process when you introduce a significant Supplementary Order Paper. We thank the Government for allowing the select committee to consider that Supplementary Order Paper and not doing what it did with Supplementary Order Paper 205 and just dumping it on the Committee beforehand—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill, no progress on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.