Street Maryan: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9316. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill which amends the Reserves Act 1977. I am caused a great deal of concern by this part of the bill and I wish to continue the theme that my colleague Moana Mackey outlined earlier. As the chair of the Regulations Review Committee I am very aware of the process of scrutiny which is the only process of scrutiny that regulations have in our Parliament. Many members are aware of that but as Moana Mackey said many members of the public are not and are not aware of the checks and balances that are available through the scrutiny of regulation. The point of this is that clauses in Part 4 hand over the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation from primary legislation to regulation. Regulations do not come before this House for scrutiny. Primary legislation like this like a bill does but regulations do not. Regulations are promulgated by Cabinet. They are taken to the Executive Council where the Governor-General signs them and they become once the Governor-General has signed them Orders in Council. So they do not ever come to this House for scrutiny. The only way a check or balance can be applied to them is through the Regulations Review Committee which scrutinises every regulation and every Order in Council that the executive—that is the Government—promulgates.So I have great difficulty with these bits of Part 4 that divest the Minister of Conservation of the responsibility for declaring that land is or is not a nature reserve or a scientific reserve or declare that a reserve must be held for the purpose of a nature reserve or a scientific reserve—and that particular clause is subject to a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 210 from the Minister of Energy and Resources anyway. But in addition in clause 69 section 47(1) of the Reserves Act is amended to say: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council”—this process I have just described—“made on the recommendation of the Minister (a) set apart the whole or any specified part of a reserve as a wilderness area: (b) vary or revoke any order made under this subsection.” So by regulation something that was a wilderness area may not be or become or remain a wilderness area if I read this correctly. If I am reading it wrongly I invite the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment to correct me but it seems to me that in section 47(1)(b) as amended: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister … vary or revoke any order made under this subsection.” That includes setting apart the whole or any specified part of a reserve as a wilderness area.My particular worry about this at the moment is enhanced by a visit that I paid over the Easter break to a very famous wilderness area around the Dart River. There is a proposal on the books that the Minister of Conservation is taking upon himself to decide on which is whether or not a tunnel should be built excavated dug—mined if you like—through those mountains in that wilderness area in order to cut down the travel for tourists to Milford Sound by about 5 hours each way. I use this as an example because Iam concerned that if it is possible for the status or the setting apart of the whole or any specified part of a reserve or wilderness area to be revoked by regulation then this Government is seeking to deliberately lose control of parts of our environment that are hugely valuable. Not only is this particular part of New Zealand—around the top of Lake Wakatipu and Glenorchy and that area surrounding the Routeburn Track—a World Heritage area but it is recognised as a wilderness area. And should that status or the purpose of that be able to be amended by regulation alone then all of a sudden it may be possible for people to be confronting activity in that area such as excavating a tunnel or putting down oil drilling equipment or whatever—mining equipment of any sort—and setting that into the environment without anybody knowing except the Regulations Review Committee.That is a serious serious consideration for this Parliament to make. That such a thing might be possible by regulation absolutely flies in the face of what this Parliament should be doing. It should be protecting and upholding and enforcing and enhancing by primary legislation laws that protect our environment and not allowing potential destruction of our environment and the overturning of primary legislation by regulation to proceed and to be passed in this way. This is a real concern. It is not about only the potential damage. I hope I am not reading too much into it. I am an optimist by nature but I am deeply concerned that there is a sinister agenda behind this.I am concerned also not only by the content of this but by the process that is exemplified by this particular part of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Part 5 in amending—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 4.Hon MARYAN STREET: Sorry—Part 4. I beg your pardon. I flipped the page. Part 4 which amends the Reserves Act 1977 should be something that allows proper scrutiny and the alteration of legislation that should be the remit of the Minister of Conservation to administer protect and uphold having been passed by Parliament should not be subjected to Orders in Council which do not get parliamentary scrutiny. So I have deep deep concerns about Part 4 on content and on process. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 4 be agreed to.