Williams Andrew: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. Once again New Zealand First will be the party in this house with a level sense of reasoning and balanced judgment on this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill.Jonathan Young: Once again?ANDREW WILLIAMS: Once again. Because we tend to be the party that has the sensible balanced common-sense views on these things. We have said in the past that we see merit in aspects of this bill because we do understand that New Zealand is sitting on significant resources significant natural resources that the people of this nation can benefit from. I do not think any New Zealander really would say that we should not be doing the best by our people so that we are more prosperous than we are today and can pay for the services that are required of this nation.Having said that we have always said as a party New Zealand First that any such mining or any such taking of resources must be done in an environmentally sustainable way and must be done so that the environment gets the benefit of the doubt but that at the same time we do not give away economic opportunities in this country. Our party supported the exclusive economic zone bill; others did not. Again we said that we had the fifth-largest economic zone in the world and we had to take advantage of the opportunities out there responsibly and take care of those opportunities.But we are in two minds on some aspects of this bill and we do wonder—and I have spoken to the Minister of Energy and Resources—why this particular aspect about protesting on the high seas has been put in under this particular bill because we do have some concerns. Our caucus discussed this on Tuesday and we just could not understand why it was put into this particular bill. We New Zealand First feel that it should really have gone in under the Maritime Transport Act and it should have been incorporated there. If there were going to be some provisions under controls on the high seas in some form or other it should have been done under the Maritime Transport Act.I have looked at the Maritime Transport Act and there are already provisions in that in terms of duties of the master where: “The master of a ship shall—be responsible for the safe operation of the ship on a voyage the safety and wellbeing of all passengers and crew” and further the master must “be responsible for compliance with all relevant requirements of this Act and regulations and maritime rules made under this Act”. So there already are provisions that could have been beefed up to ensure that for anyone going to sea the master of the vessel—I have got a small launch and I know that if I take people on my launch I am responsible for their safety I am responsible for the vessel and I am responsible for insurance on the vessel. I know that at the end of the day I carry the can. We cannot understand why the Government did not look to perhaps beef up some of the provisions of the Maritime Transport Act if it had concerns about this area. Furthermore under the Maritime Transport Act section 65 talks about dangerous activity involving ships or maritime products and it says: “Every person commits an offence … which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person or to any property irrespective of whether or not in fact any injury or damage occurs.”These sorts of provisions are therefore there and we feel that in a sense this is already covered. It is covered to a certain extent but it could have been perhaps that that particular Act could have been amended. So we do have some concerns that this bill is perhaps being railroaded through for other purposes to do with mining or drilling or exploration offshore and it could well be a little bit of a smokescreen to perhaps hide activities that are not necessarily in the interests of good lawful everyday protest.I can remember—and I know the Hon Simon Bridges was born in 1976 so he cannot personally recall this—and we all remember the HMNZSOtago and the HMNZSCanterbury or those of us of who are of that age heading off to Mururoa atoll in 1973 when Simon was still the twinkle in his father’s eye—well not even that probably. I think as a nation we were all very proud of those two frigates going off to Mururoa to uphold our protest against nuclear testing. We as a nation said there was a right for us to go and protest on the high seas and make our voice known. I do not think anybody in this country would ever say that that was a wrong decision. We made it and had we not done that—and the Minister has said: “Oh well you can protest outside their head offices and go on the footpath outside their building.” We could have stood outside the French embassy here in Wellington or we could have gone to Paris and stood in the Champs Élysées but it would not have had the same effect as having a New Zealand warship at Mururoa. That certainly really brought it home on the international stage.Likewise some of us were around at the time in Auckland in 1979 when the USSHaddo submarine came up the harbour and there was protest at that. Again that was all around the antinuclear protest period and again that was very effective because there was a sufficient protest on the harbour to say we did not want those nuclear vessels coming into port. That was a very strong message. Again it would not have been the same just standing outside the US consulate and having a few flags and banners.It is part of New Zealand’s psyche—the right and the freedom to protest to be able to go wherever you wish whether it be on land or sea and have your say. But having said that we agree it must be done in a safe manner and a responsible manner. The master of the vessel and the crew are responsible for the safety of those people on the vessel and it must be done in a responsible manner. We do feel that there needs to be a little bit more thought from the Government on this. Perhaps it needs to just think through the whole Maritime Transport Act. Perhaps it needs to withdraw this and take this out of this particular bill and look at how perhaps provisions can be rightly done so that responsible protest is not stopped in what we see as a law-abiding country where we do uphold the right of law but we also uphold the right of free protest. So in that respect we are having difficulties with it.Having said that we support aspects in terms of the mining aspect but we also say as New Zealand First—and it has got a huge amount of support around New Zealand—that any resources taken whether it be via the Crown or via private mining must end up returning greater royalties to the place where they are taken from. We released a policy just a month ago where 25 percent of all royalties taken by the Crown in any part of New Zealand—25 percent of those royalties—must go back to the region from where they were taken so that the people who are perhaps affected by any mining or any taking of resources actually get a benefit from it. It does not just all disappear into the central treasury in Wellington and the places that are affected by it do not see the benefits.So at this point in time New Zealand First regrettably is not going to be able to support this bill unless the Government really has a bit of a rethink and really looks at it and decides what it is after here. Is it after responsible consideration of our very very important minerals and resources in this country or is it looking at other ways of stopping the rightful freedom of speech freedom to protest and the freedom of every New Zealander to go about their actions in a reasonable law-abiding manner? At this stage unfortunately New Zealand First cannot now support this bill.