Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7623] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Clause 2 states that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. There is nothing particularly unusual about the wording of that clause. That is quite common for legislation but what makes it particular is that this bill in fact extinguishes property rights that are an issue currently before the courts. 
In terms of the commencement of legislation that is going to do something as dramatic as extinguish property rights I think and National would argue that the legislation should allow time for the court to sort out what those current property rights are rather than simply stating that on the day after which this bill receives the royal assent we are going to change those property rights. 
Admittedly the legislation preserves the position of some people but of course this could even come into question because what the legislation basically says is that it protects the position of those who had applications in prior to the date on which the member Harry Duynhoven announced this legislation would be introduced which was in 2002 so that their positions will be determined by the court. People who did not lodge applications for variations to their licences extensions to their licences or renewals prior to 5 p.m. on 20 September 2002 will be caught by this legislation. 
National would argue that this legislation should not commence until the court has decided the issue of those property rights for two reasons. First any decision of Mr Duynhoven is open to question right now. If Mr Duynhoven’s position in this Parliament were to be void then any decisions he made while his position was void would be null and void. That is the first issue. The second issue is that the New Zealand Crown Minerals Agency was busy telling licence holders that they could not apply for renewals under the Crown Minerals Act if they held licences under the old Mining Act or the Coal Mining Act of the early seventies as well. So a number of people because of advice that might have been wrong may not have applied for extensions or renewals to their licences. 
If the advice they were given was wrong and that cannot be determined until the Privy Council considers this issue then at least they should be given the opportunity to be able to apply for renewals or variations. This legislation prevents that. That is why National will argue that for this Act to commence on the day after which it receives the royal assent is unfair because some people were advised that they did not have the right to apply for renewals. The court has suggested that they may have had that right. This legislation expunges any such right from the date on which Mr Harry Duynhoven said that it would no longer be available. 
Any consideration by this Parliament should suggest that that is unfair. What would be more proper is for this Parliament to allow the court process to sort out whether the right did exist and whether those licence holders had the right to apply for renewals extensions or variations because that matter is currently still before the court and therefore this Act should not commence until such time as it has been ruled on by the courts.