Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity this evening to speak on the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. This is significant; as I’ve read through and looked at this legislation, it’s a challenge for us as we look and approach our commitment to ensuring no new mining as we look at our conservation spaces and places.

I just want to reflect really briefly, because, I think, for myself, as the member for New Plymouth, and with Egmont conservation space on my doorstep, it’s significant to reflect briefly on what’s going on for me in my part of Aoteroa and what is happening. Earlier this year, we had the Taranaki maunga deed of redress ratification that was signed and now has gone out to all eight iwi around Taranaki, to look at what it means in terms of redress of this piece of conservation land, of this significant landmark, of this maunga, of this ancestor that sits in the centre of the region that I am part of, that, for all New Zealanders, no matter what ancestry you are, plays a significant role and connects people deeply to that space and the conservation space that there is. So we have Egmont National Park.

In terms of the back story of that and what minerals are there and what it is, we look back a number of years ago, back to the 19th century, when this piece of land was confiscated and was taken. There are a lot of reasons around why that was taken from Māori in the confiscation of that land with the Taranaki wars. And this piece of land is so, so, so significant to tangata whenua, but it is also so significant to myself and others who reside in this part of Aotearoa. That’s why we need to look at what it means in terms of this Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. When I look at Taranaki and I look at what we are looking to do there, not only is it a change of name, it is reclaiming the name that never was it, as, once this is agreed to and people sign it, it will be Te Papakura o Taranaki, in terms of returning it to what was theirs.

But we look at this legislation—and it’s to prohibit new exploration, prospecting, and mining activity on conservation land and waters to protect the landscape’s natural features, indigenous plants and wildlife, and scientific, cultural, and recreational values on public conservation land. That is a good drive and purpose for what we should be doing and could look at doing. But also, I am aware that there is some overreach that is here. When I look at Treaty settlements, when I look at what we’re doing in Taranaki and what it means for their eight iwi, I’ve reflected on the South Island and the conservation estates down there and around pounamu and what it means for indigenous gathering and mining of certain cultural taonga and what that looks like and how do we actually protect what it means for Māori in terms of finding the ways and abilities to actually find and connect with what is rightfully theirs, but also the cultural experience that goes along with it.

We are serious, as a Government, around ensuring mining only occurs when and where it’s appropriate. At this point in time, we don’t feel comfortable to support this legislation. We are doing work, and work is being done right through, to ensure that we get the balance right. We believe that the beauty of our conservation estate—it’s one of our ancestors who have created these spaces for us to enjoy—is important and is key. But, at this point, we aren’t in a position to support this legislation. For that reason, I’m unable to support this legislation to the next reading.

Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, although we don’t support it. I’d like to firstly actually pay respects to Maureen Pugh, the West Coast MP, who’s going through a pretty tough time at the moment. Our thoughts go out to Maureen, and I know she would love to be here and be speaking on this bill herself. So, all the best, Maureen—we are thinking of you.

A third of New Zealand’s land is in the conservation estate, and 81 percent of the West Coast is in the conservation estate. The West Coast is incredibly mineral rich, and to have a complete ban on mining in it would be quite a significant impost on that economy, but, worse than that, it actually has a huge impact on New Zealand as well. Even on the previous bill, I know one of the members on the other side was talking about transitioning, and, actually, to transition away from fossil fuels we need much more minerals than we currently extract to make that transition. Mr Speaker, I have this very handy book which I can recommend to you. It’s published by the Minerals Council of Australia and it’s called 30 things, and it lists all the minerals and things that you would not expect. I have used electric vehicles before, from this book, and I’ve talked about what’s in mobile phones, but today I’m going to talk about what minerals are used in medicine.

I’m not sure you’d be aware of it—you may well be—but lithium, for example: it’s a very important psychiatric drug. It was actually discovered by what were American Indians; referred to now as “First Nations people”. There was a lake in California in particular that had a high lithium amount, and it was well-known by American Indians that when people weren’t feeling very good, when they were blue or depressed, they would go by that lake and they would feel much better—turned out that there’s quite a lot of lithium content in that lake, and that’s led to the discovery of lithium being used as a psychiatric drug, which is well used today. So lithium is used in medicine.

Titanium, of course—anyone who’s had a hip joint or something like that, knee joint or whatever: that’s titanium. It’s used in reconstructive surgery, or even in plastic surgeries it’s quite often used. Silver—I’m not quite sure what it’s for; I can tell you it’s antibacterial and aids healing. Who knew? Also, platinum for pacemakers and medical apparatus. Copper: kills surface microbes and reduces infections—and electronic devices, of course. Uranium, of course—I always notice with a smile when I drive in from the airport: Wellington’s nuclear-free, so clearly there are no X-ray machines in Wellington. Well, actually, there are, so it’s not nuclear-free. Nuclear medicine’s quite an important part of cancer treatments in this—[Interruption] Yeah. Niobium, which is for medical devices—don’t know what. Gold: cancer treatment. We use gold in cancer treatment—I know it costs a lot of money, but—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is pretty fascinating, Mr Smith, but at some stage—and I’ve probably been pretty generous—could you mention the bill?

I know you’re enjoying this—well, yes, I am. This is because all of these minerals come from the ground. They come from the conservation estate. Lithium is on the West Coast. I’ve actually flown over a lithium deposit; we know it’s there. Is it able to be mined? Is it economic? We don’t know. Will we ever know? This bill will not allow us to mine those minerals, if it’s successful.

It’s also aggregate, of course, and trying to get aggregate out to build our roads. A lot of people in this House are very concerned about climate change. Does it make any sense trucking aggregate from the East Coast over down to the West Coast to build our roads? No, it does not.

So this just goes too far. We’ve got adequate regulations to control the environmental impacts of mining—and there are impacts on the environment from mining; we all know that. The fact is we need to mitigate those and ensure that restoration of mining sites is done to a standard that we all expect. So it’s with regret I actually cannot support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. And can I say, if people have ever said that watching Parliament is boring, then the previous speaker just proved that wrong. And I was upset, Mr Speaker—you know, we’ve known each other a long time and I don’t get upset with you, but calling on that member to cease, I thought, was—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Eagle, you’re not making a commentary on my ruling I hope.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I’d just get that in.

But look, that’s where the good news stops on this, because the Government has made it clear that we do not support this bill, and for good reason. We have a substantial work programme already in place, and our position is that there are no new mines on conservation land—that was announced back in 2017 from the Speech from the Throne. In saying that, we do remain committed to ensuring that mining only happens where and when appropriate, according to robust regulatory standards. And that’s why we’re undertaking the review, the stewardship land review, and the Crown Minerals Act review. So work is under way. And the point there is to say, and I do feel with members’ bills that sometimes—and can I acknowledge the member for putting up the member’s bill, but the intentions are being covered in our work programme. That’s the point I wanted to make. There is significant work there under way to reclassify 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land—that’s actually 9 percent of our land area and almost 30 percent of DOC’s estate, the Department of Conservation. That will add further protections and preserve conservation and cultural values from the adverse effects of activities on conservation land such as mining.

So that’s, in summary, the big no. If I look at this Government’s commitment—I want to just pick up a couple of points on what I’ve said. We remain committed to ensuring that mining only happens where and when appropriate, and according to those robust regulatory standards.

I want to just acknowledge our Minister of Conservation and the policy work that’s going on at pace. And look, I’ve talked to officials about this programme and said, “These are the things that will need to be undertaken.” One of the examples has been actively engaging with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and that recognises their deed of settlement, and also the Ngāi Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act of 1997. The emphasis there is: look, let’s do as much of this work upfront. I know what it’s like to put member’s bills together. You put a lot of effort and energy in—I’ve had three in my time which have been converted into Government bills. I think if that’s the case, you get a much better and more thorough process to support the mahi being done. So rather than leave it to the select committee, as a member’s bill would do, we get a much more robust process through officials being charged to do it through the Minister’s work program.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: But when?

I hear the word “when”. Look, any final decisions on a Government bill haven’t been taken, but I want to reiterate that the required legislative and policy work is very much under way and progressing according to those commitments made in 2017.

Can I finish, Mr Speaker? I don’t want to go back to the previous speaker about some of the education around—or some of the facts around—what minerals are used for, rather just to emphasise that I hope that the member who’s put this forward can see that, hey, the time frame might not be in this term, but they will appreciate that the mahi that is being done is thorough and we do get a piece of work where it can be supported from all parties across the House. That would be the challenge, I think, to finish off—it’s to say: let’s have a piece of work where all parties can come together and say they commend this bill to the House like I am doing now. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve got a degree of sympathy for the Hon Eugenie Sage, who is the member that has had this bill drawn from the ballot. She is a committed, passionate, and principled environmentalist. I don’t always agree with everything that she says or does or any of her policies, but I admire her passion and her commitment to the cause, and our Parliament, I think, is going to be a lesser place when she leaves at the end of this parliamentary term. She’s done an exceptionally good job as the chair of Parliament’s Environment Committee, particularly her stewardship of the reforms to the Resource Management Act.

So when we came to the Speech from the Throne, those of us that were there back in 2017 in the full flush of the Ardern Government—I’m sure that the member the Hon Eugenie Sage was as surprised as many of us to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the Prime Minister was making a commitment on behalf of her new ambitious Government to cease mining on the conservation estate. Some of us knew that actually that was a commitment that was going to be much harder to achieve than perhaps the then Prime Minister and her new Government had ever imagined. And so it has come to pass.

There are some very big issues around the nearly one-third of the nation’s landmass that is administered and looked after by the Department of Conservation. It’s 8.5 million hectares. It’s a very big piece of territory, of dirt, if you like, and there are different degrees of the conservation estate. Not all of it is pristine. Not all of it is magnificent virgin native bush. Some of it is actually pretty scrubby, if I have to describe it in that regard. So when this Speech from the Throne was made and this bold, ambitious declaration was made, as were so many other bold declarations, we knew on this side of the House, actually, that the Government of that day was going to have enormous difficulty in fulfilling their grand promises. And they, true to form, simply failed to deliver not only on this promise but on so many of the others. In fact, hers was a Government, Jacinda Ardern’s Government was a—sorry, Dame Jacinda Ardern’s Government was a Government that was full of promise but woefully inadequate on delivery. And so there’s some irony tonight—and this is partly why I have some sympathy for the Hon Eugenie Sage—because here tonight it’s actually going to be Labour MPs who vote this bill down.

Now, on my side of the House we’ve been consistent. It’s not National that’s flip-flopped. We’ve always had the view that mineral extraction on the conservation estate should be addressed case by case. We’ve always had that view. It’s the Labour Government members who have changed their view. What I would like to know from the remaining Labour speakers in this debate is: what has changed from the time when Jacinda Ardern made that grand promise in the Speech from the Throne that was read by the Governor-General of the time? What has changed? Where did they go wrong? Why haven’t they been able to fulfil their promise?

Now, I kind of know the answer. It’s kind of a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It’s because it’s a whole lot more difficult than they had at first imagined. And there’s an old saying, about the linkage between a strong, growing, thriving economy that enables good environmental stewardship to take place—because we have the ability to fund the environmental stewardship that is needed. And the old saying goes something like this: “It’s very difficult to be green when you’re in the red.”—and we’re in the red. We’re deeply in the red. We are in recession. And it’s very, very hard to be green when you’re in the red. So our economy and our environment, they are inextricably linked together—always have been, always will be.

In the National Party, we take a practical environmentalist view. We take the view that decisions should be made on the basis of not a simple binary decision that it’s either good or it’s bad. We want to look at the whole range of aspects. We want to consider individual case by case examples relating to the conservation estate and the stewardship land as well. So I’m offering the National Party’s point of view, which has been consistent all the way through—case by case—unlike the Labour Party who have flip-flopped on this.

Debate interrupted.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I’ll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day. Good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)