Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

This is a bill that is set to come into force on 1 July 2025. This is a bill that is going through this committee stage while the world is meeting at the Conference of the Parties (COP), where we are discussing what the world’s climate obligations are and how, as a planet, we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. Meanwhile, back in New Zealand, this Government is passing legislation that takes us backwards. It’s passing legislation that puts at risk our membership of several international organisations of countries we would like to align ourselves with. It puts us outside of where we would see ourselves with like-minded nations. This is yet another shameful step on the path. It also puts New Zealand at odds with its Pacific neighbours. For the Pacific nations that put up for COP at Baku, one of the key things they see is around the financial arrangements that are going to be required in order for them to address climate change. Certainly, New Zealand backtracking on its obligations is something that is going to be taken very seriously.

From 1 July next year, New Zealand will have set itself on a path that puts itself backwards. What did the Government hear about this? Well, the Government heard a lot about this from its own officials. I want to make it clear to New Zealanders, and ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, to respond to how it is that this Government can put so much at risk. Not only our reputation and our climate plan, but it is putting our very trade arrangements at risk. There was advice that was provided to the Government that was inadvertently released, and it was tried to be shielded, from the first regulatory impact statement, in terms of what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) had told the Government were the implications of the passage of this legislation. MFAT assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligation of several of New Zealand’s free-trade agreements not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of encouraging trade or investments. These obligations prevent parties from reducing environmental protections to advantage domestic businesses.

In black and white, this Government was told our free-trade agreements with the EU and the UK are being put at risk because of the passage of this legislation. From 1 July next year when this bill comes into force and when this bill becomes the law of New Zealand, our free-trade agreements are put at significant risk. What does the Minister have to say about how New Zealand is going to protect its prosperity from 1 July when this bill comes into force? What is the plan of the Government to mitigate that? They have been told by their own officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that this is a likely implication. They also have assessed that reversing the 2018 ban, which is estimated to increase our carbon emissions, would be perceived as New Zealand not intending to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. Is it the intention of the Government —and the Minister can tell us—from 1 July when this bill comes into force, that New Zealand is intending not to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement?

That is the advice that the Government has received from its own officials, and we need some answers too, because as soon as this bill does commence on 1 July next year, that is the future that New Zealanders are facing from a backwards-looking Government that has no plan, that is putting everything at risk. It is putting New Zealanders at risk and it is putting our trade at risk as well.

Before I take the next contribution, can I remind members that this is the “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. I didn’t want to interrupt the previous member. It’s quite a narrow debate, so just to keep that in mind.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some really specific suggestions for the title. I want to pick up, firstly, the very clear fact that this bill threatens to lock us in to a fossil fuel - dependent future that we know we actually need to be steering away so clearly from, and instead we’re heading towards it.

My first suggestion to amend the title is the “Crown Minerals Amendment (Shoddy Process) Act”. I say “Shoddy Process” because it has such serious implications—not only for Aotearoa but for the world—that it is an absolute disappointment that the submission process for this bill was four days. It’s an insult to New Zealanders; it’s an insult to democracy. Then, there were only two days of public hearings as part of that as well. I want to quote Victoria University professor Dean Knight. He called this “a meaningless opportunity that doesn’t do justice to the importance of the policy and the legislation.” He said it was “bad lawmaking”—which it is, hence the suggestion of my title clause—“and they know it”, because you can’t look at processes like this and think it is getting to positive outcomes. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) with this—

💬 David MacLeod: Title and commencement.

On this title clause—which I’m suggesting; thank you—the PCE said, “The advice accompanying the bill does not provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of costs and benefits from repealing the ban”. He talks about New Zealand’s policy always being that all countries should be doing everything they can to reduce emissions, and that MPs must now decide whether removing the ban is consistent with doing that. I’d really like to hear the Minister for Resources’ thoughts on that specific title clause suggestion and whether there has been a very clear decision made by MPs in this Government to move away from that.

The other suggestion that I wanted to pick up on is a very important one, and this is about how, overwhelmingly, children and young people of today, but also future generations, will bear the burden of living with these climate impacts. On this, I want to suggest another potential title clause amendment, that it could be the “Crown Minerals (Rights of Children Violation) Act”. What is really clear is that this Government, and future and past Governments, have been signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for over 30 years. The Government has a real, clear duty to these rights of the child, and we actually have a duty to make decisions in the best interests of the child under article 3.

Now, I want to pick up on this because UNICEF made a really clear submission to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and they actually had a young person—Thomas Blakie—come in and talk about his concern, and his concern for young people and those who will come after us, and the implications for them with this bill. He said, “We want to have a say on designing our future and the future of generations to come—my children, their grandchildren, and their grandchildren after them.” A UNICEF report called A Threat to Progress talks about how children are disproportionately affected because “they are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards compared to adults.” They talk about how this interplay of physiological, psychological, and behavioural factors, and the dependence on caregivers, means that children are more susceptible to detrimental health impacts of climate change.

I would really like to hear whether the Minister would consider really fronting up with what this bill is about and the implications for children, for young people, and the really concerning process which has led to where we’ve got to at this stage. Thank you.

The question is—

💬 Steve Abel: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just started voting—sorry. No one stood up and I just started the votes. The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 214 be agreed to.