4. Question No. 4—ConservationHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 4—Conservation4. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by the Government's position in the 2017 Speech from the Throne that there will be no new mines on conservation land; if so when does the Government plan to implement a ban?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Yes. Earlier this term we announced a significant work programme to reclassify 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land as a means to further protect land with conservation and cultural values. Stewardship land makes up about 9 percent of New Zealand's land area with almost 30 percent of the land administered by the Department of Conservation. The reclassification of stewardship land is an important step to protect conservation values from the adverse effects of activities on conservation land which includes mining. There is still a process to work through to further develop and fully implement the broader policies of having no new mines. As a Government we remain committed to ensuring mining only happens where and when appropriate and according to robust regulatory standards. This includes properly protecting the biodiversity cultural historical and scientific values found from public conservation land.Hon Eugenie Sage: Will she consider establishing a moratorium on new mining activity on or under conservation land until the review of stewardship land is completed as a step towards implementing the commitment in the 2017 Speech from the Throne; if not why not?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can commit to is the work that we are currently doing with regards to stewardship land and the policy objectives. Because what this means is with 16 percent of the West Coast for example of the South Island likely to be reclassified as national park this will mean that new access arrangements to mine Crown-owned land may no longer be granted on that land.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she support blasting and mining for gold under the habitat of an ancient and threatened species such as Archey's frog—which is very sensitive to vibration—as OceanaGold wants to do with its Wharekīrauponga mine in Coromandel?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We all know that Archey's frogs are at risk. That application is before the council at the moment and may or may not be publicly—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry I think the member's trying to refer to something which is before some other judicial body which she's allowed to do. But I want to listen really carefully to it and I can't if there's so much noise from my left.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Speaker. The application is before councils to make a decision on whether that will require resource consent and be publicly notified. If that is the case I have been assured by the Department of Conservation that they are working through the pile of information that has been submitted with that application and they will be making a submission to that consent application.Hon Eugenie Sage: Will the department be free to make the submissions it would like to under the Resource Management Act on OceanaGold's proposed Wharekīrauponga mine—unlike under a previous National Government when the Minister influenced departmental submissions?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I take my role seriously with regards to this and I am working alongside officials in this particular matter.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that with a biodiversity crisis there is a need to act with urgency to ensure that conservation land and the habitats and ecosystems it supports are protected from the impacts of new mining activity?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by the work that the Department of Conservation are doing given that the process that has brought us to the reclassification of stewardship land has taken nearly 30 years and I applaud the work that they are doing in this regard.Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Question No. 5—sorry a point of order.Chris Bishop: I wonder if you could go away and just reflect on one of the supplementaries—I think it was the second to last supplementary from the Hon Eugenie Sage—then in relation to an assertion in the supplementary question about the actions of a former National Government with regards to the Department of Conservation. Sir you've been very hot on the fact that members are not allowed to assert things as fact that aren't in fact facts in supplementary questions. That clearly was an example of that and it wasn't brought up by you.SPEAKER: I don't think I need to go away and look at it. Speaker's ruling 191/2 I think it was makes it clear that other parties shouldn't be brought in unnecessarily into questions. I did think about it but then I thought about the actual principle of what was being said and Ministers giving their department's opinions or instructions is not what I would see as a negative thing; it's what their job is.