O'Connor Damien: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is astounding that we can hear a rant from a Minister about upholding rights from a party that implements so many wrongs.I object to this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill exactly on the basis that the Minister of Energy and Resources speaks of—rights. If I were a mining company or a landowner in this country I would be worried about this bill because it does a couple of things. Firstly it assumes that mining rights are above all else and that we should drive through anything to make sure mining occurs.The last brainwave that the National Government had was “We should mine schedule 4 national parks.” Nick Smith agreed with it. National members thought that was going to save this economy and drive us forward. Well we very quickly saw them turn tail and scarper off with their tails between their legs when they started to understand that New Zealanders who also understand rights know that there are some values in this country that need to be upheld. These are not just selfish property rights but responsibilities towards landowners.The Minister of Conservation is a landowner on behalf of the rest of us. He probably does not appreciate the job he has but that job is to protect conservation land. What this bill does of course is say that the landowner the Minister of Conservation does not have the right because he—or she—has been irresponsible with that right and blocked mining. Well I know that on my patch down there on the West Coast a lot of people make comments about the Department of Conservation but I also know that Labour in Government supported by the Greens—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Put mining in national parks.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —here he goes; he should keep his mouth shut—opened up and developed more mines responsible mines than this National Government has done in its whole time in Government. It makes lots of noise but it does not make much by way of progress. In fact the mining industry was outraged by the inept and stupid way that the National Government handled the whole schedule 4 issue because now what we have got is anyone who has any concern about mining jumping up and down and objecting to any sensible mining proposition. National has skewed the whole debate and the balance around mining.What we have also seen here is that we have got property rights perhaps under threat and that the Minister for Economic Development Mr Joyce—well good God would you trust anything with Steven Joyce? I certainly would not trust my second-hand car with him let alone the conservation estate of this country or the future drive of our economy.We need mining. Labour supports mining. We appreciate the jobs and the benefit out in the regions but we also know that it must be done responsibly. There are a number of proposals in the pipeline now Bathurst being one of them. I think with adjustment—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Do you support it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yeah of course I have. I have always supported Bathurst.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Your colleague Maryan Street says “Leave the coal in the hole.”Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No we do not. Can I say that we support a process that is absolutely robust. I have been there and talked with people on the ground and I got changes put in the proposition by the company to make sure we have better environmental outcomes and I support it. That is under the current regime—a robust regime. This dumb Government thinks that it has got to tip it on its ear and hand all the rights to the Minister for Economic Development because he or she knows best.We cannot trust the economy to this National Government. We are seeing what is happening now. It is flogging off the silver selling it to its mates and setting everything up to benefit a few people at the top at the expense of poor people who pay GST who are trying to find a job who are stuck on a benefit and who are now going to be kicked around because the National Government thinks that if we kick these people into work then the whole economy would be better off. There should be members at the back there ashamed at what is going to happen to people who want a job but who are now going to be forced out into a job of 10 hours a week.Let us come back to mining. Let us bring things back down to earth. There have been some very pertinent points made by my colleagues about the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming in. I will stick to land for the moment. Let us take a look at the issue of property rights and the fact that the Government is now saying that the rights that the Minister of Conservation upholds and implements on behalf of each and every one of us over conservation land should be compromised by a mining company or a Minister who might be pressured by a mining company. I do not accept that.I have seen the Minister of Conservation—under pressure yes no doubt—make changes force changes and implement trade-offs to ensure beneficial outcomes for conservation and to allow mining to proceed. That is the way it should be. It should not be for the Minister of Conservation to be bullied by some Minister who has got a mate who wants to set up a mining company. That is what is going on in this economy at the moment.So I am not supporting the bill because I do not want Auckland investors or Chinese investors or American investors to get absolute carte blanche and the right to come down to the West Coast rape and pillage our region and walk away and leave it. We need proper environmental safeguards. We need the Minister of Conservation to protect the conservation estate. We cannot rely on Nick Smith so we are going to have to have robust laws that ensure that the next Minister of Conservation can protect areas like the West Coast like Kahurangi National Park like all the national parks around this country because the National Government—through the back door no doubt—will continue to try to open up the door for mining on schedule 4 areas. I can say that—Jonathan Young: Come on Damien. Tell us the whole story.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No no no. I know what is going on here. I accept that yes there are provisions in this bill here to uphold some of the requirements and the protection for schedule 4 areas but I also know that you are rolling over the Minister of Conservation. Yes you are.The bill does implement and insist on—we hope—some better standards of health and safety before any mining proposals go ahead and we acknowledge that. It is needed and no project—no prospecting—should go ahead without the most robust levels of health and safety. I am not going to go on. We all know why we need that and it is a sad sad outcome.Let us go back to property rights. Farmers up until 1992 of course had no ability to object to mining. Up until 1992 the people who had the mining rights had the right to go and mine regardless. The bill was changed—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who changed that law? Who changed it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: National changed that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Good job.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is right. National changed that. It was a good job. It said that the owner of the land be it the Minister of Conservation or a farmer ultimately had the right to say no to a mining proposal on the land because they owned the land. The owner of the mineral rights under the land which is the Crown had no superior rights. That is the way it should be. We should ensure that be it a farmer be it the Minister of Conservation or be it a State-owned enterprise the person who owns the land should have the ultimate say as to whether or not the mining proposal goes ahead.I think that whether it be Magna Carta rights which I hear of from time to time or normal property rights in more recent legislation—there will be a few over there in the National Party who probably refer back to the Magna Carta—I do not necessarily accept them as a mandate for property rights of today. Farmers now are looking at issues like pylons on their land whereas in the past the Public Works Act ensured that the pylons could be put on land—a bit of goodwill and “She’s all right.” Now farmers and the Minister of Conservation are looking at the rights on their land and judging them assessing them and protecting them.As the Minister of Conservation now looks for more commercial opportunities on the conservation estate and he cuts back the budget and fires people from the Department of Conservation it is inevitable that the pressure will build to trade off those values for mining. There will be some in my West Coast electorate who do not like me saying that but they do understand property rights and they do understand—