Duynhoven Harry: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7883] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 First I think it is important to put this matter into scale. Before 19 September 2002 and before the press release that I sent out there had been five applications for new mining licences and three applications for new mining licences—there had been five applications under the Mining Act and three under the Coal Mines Act one of which has since been withdrawn—and 10 applications for variation out of the 171 licences under the old Mining Act. That puts it into scale. 
Second a number of comments have been made and Mr Eckhoff has continued down that track that this measure was grossly unfair because it cut off a whole lot of people. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: It cut off Glenharrow. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes and the member specifically talked about Glenharrow Holdings. Well first of all Ngai Tahu had the pounamu resource vested in it by an Act of Parliament passed in 1997 under the previous Government. That effectively prevented any further application by Glenharrow Holdings for example in that area. However its existing right to continue for the term of its licence was protected. What we have had since then of course is the work of the judges. 
I was very interested in the issue raised by Sandra Goudie who talked about injustices over property rights from the Mining Act etc. and the learned Law Society’s opinion. I am sure she would agree that the justices on the bench—the four judges of the Court of Appeal—were also relatively learned. They confirmed that when the Crown Minerals Act 1991—again passed by the National Government—repealed the Mining Act the right to apply for new mining licences under the Mining Act ceased. In other words the first five of the new licences applied for—the ones that Mr Eckhoff and others have talked about—were null and void under that ruling. The Minister could no longer issue mining licences under the Mining Act. The Minister’s powers were then governed by the Crown Minerals Act. The Court of Appeal held that the term of a licence is not a condition for the purposes of section 103D(3) of the Mining Act. 
Then we move on to the issue of compensation. “Why no compensation?” asked Sandra Goudie. She said this is awful; this is terrible. The bill that is currently before the Committee expressly removes the right to apply for a new mining licence or to vary the term of a mining licence as of the line drawn in the sand by myself on 19 September 2002. It also provides that no compensation will be paid for the removal of those rights. The right to be granted a new licence or to extend the term of a mining licence is a right created by statute. Prior to the High Court decision in the  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney-General  
2001 case it was the Crown’s view that those rights had been extinguished in 1991 by the coming into force of the Crown Minerals Act. That is why the minerals industry has been quite straightforward about this issue. Sure it recognises that there are one or two aggrieved parties; of course it does. But it had been until that time convinced that the Crown Minerals Act did what it said it did. But we had a judge who said: “Sorry I don’t think it does.” 
No provision for compensation was given in 1991 by the National Government for the extinguishment of those rights. So let us not dance too much on the head of a pin folks; let us continue with the regime that was carefully thought through I presume by the previous National Government and make the technical amendments necessary to make it work.