Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7878] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven could have got to his hind legs and explained the problem we were having a moment ago with what “existing privilege” meant because I finally did find it defined in Part 2 of the principal Act and it is exactly what I feared. It relates to privileges granted under the old Acts; the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 and the Petroleum Act of 1937. 
Why Part 2 of this bill is so important is that it is possible the courts of this land may rule that licences issued under those original Acts—the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 and the Petroleum Act of 1937—could be extended and could be varied. In fact the court in the case of  
Glenharrow Holdings Limited 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 ruled in Glenharrow’s favour originally and suggested that the 1991 Act did not extinguish those rights to vary licences or renew licences or at least the chance to apply to have those licences renewed. 
What is so objectionable about this legislation is that despite the court not having finally concluded on whether holders of those mining licences could seek to have them extended or could seek to have them renewed it is quite clear someone could not apply for a new licence altogether under those old Acts. But the issue is could someone with existing privileges or existing rights seek to have them renewed or extended? 
What is objectionable about this legislation in Part 2 is that the Government is moving against such licence holders and in clause 22 is going to legislate those possible rights away before the court has ruled on them. The Government is saying: “OK for those who have made applications up to the date Mr Duynhoven made this decision how the court rules on their applications will be left up to the court.” That is done in new section 111 in clause 22. 
But applications where people did not happen to apply prior to that date will be ruled out. Their property rights will be extinguished by clause 22 and we object to that. We object to property rights being legislated away without compensation. If members look at clause 24 there is no compensation. What is unfair about it is that some people got applications in against advice because the general advice was that the 1991 Act had extinguished their rights under the old Acts—the rights to renew licences under the old Acts. Some people thought that that was not right. They went to court and got an initial ruling in their favour—not from some beginner judge but from the Acting Chief Justice who ruled in their favour. 
The courts have not finally decided on this issue because a subsequent hearing questioned the judgment of Acting Chief Justice Heron. Justice Chisholm questioned Acting Chief Justice Heron’s decision although he did not rule totally against it if one looks at the fine details of that ruling. What Justice Chisholm said was that licences cannot be perpetually renewed. Acting Chief Justice Heron did not imply that. All he said was that people had a right to apply for renewal. He did not say they would automatically be granted renewal. 
What is objectionable about Part 2 is that the Government is not waiting for the courts to sort out that issue—to tease it through. The matter is still before the courts and the Government is saying that it will not wait for that that it will rule across that and make it that anyone who does not have an application in by Mr Duynhoven’s date of 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 will be ruled out. It is a bit rich that the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven who had to rely on this Parliament to keep him in his job brings into this Parliament legislation that rules people out. If other citizens of this country did not have their applications for renewal in prior to Mr Duynhoven’s date they would have been ruled out. They do not have a Labour Party sympathetic to business to rule in their favour in the way that it did for Mr Duynhoven. It stinks.