Robertson Grant: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I want to respond to just a couple of the things that have been said tonight. The first is that this bill the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill is a complex bill. That came to us from Nicky Wagner. I just want to reiterate that the complexity of this bill is something that the member may wish to reflect significantly further on if she just looks at the one truly operative clause. It is the one operative clause— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How many lines? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well six in the actual clause and then two immediately before it in the preamble. So that is difficult! To reiterate what it actually says is that this means that lands can still be added to schedule 4 and I think that is something that presumably National would like to see able to be done by a Minister. But if land is going to be removed then we would think that a Government like National interested in democracy would think that bringing that issue back to the House for there to be legislation would be something it would support. I would suggest that if National does not support this bill that is a true testament to how it feels about New Zealanders’ environment and a true testament to just how out of touch it is getting with New Zealanders. New Zealanders have shown time and time again that they want our conservation land protected they want our coastlines protected and they want our national parks protected. It is part of being New Zealanders.  
This Government does not seem to have got it because as Nicky Wagner told us National members went out to New Zealand looking for feedback. Well they got it all right—50000 people down Queen Street and thousands of submissions on the proposal. They got the feedback but they are not listening. If they were listening tonight they would support this bill. All this bill does is put in place a regime that reflects that concern that New Zealanders have. 
I have to pick up Maggie Barry’s comment about whether the consultation process is adequate. Phil Heatley thinks that adequate consultation is asking John Key how his day was. That is what Phil Heatley thinks is public consultation. Simon Bridges might extend public consultation just a little bit further—perhaps to the senior citizens’ lounge in Tauranga. That will be public consultation. It is not enough—it is not sufficient—when we are talking about New Zealanders’ land land that New Zealanders value. There is no way that a bill like this should scare National members. They should be prepared to support this because it is in line with New Zealanders’ values. It is in line with what New Zealanders want for our— 
Louise Upston 
: Like you’d know. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: What is that? No she is not repeating it. Louise Upston knows that this is in line with New Zealanders’ values. National is out of touch on this issue. National has to get over the idea that the economy and the environment are in some kind of eternal struggle and that they have to battle it out in order to work out the future for New Zealand. It needs to get with the programme that New Zealanders actually see the economy and the environment together. Of course we want sustainable economic growth but we are not prepared to see schedule 4 land—land that has been put there because it is of value to New Zealanders—tossed away in the search for some minerals that might be there. 
The process that National went through when it was doing the stocktake that we heard about earlier was quite instructive for the National members’ views on these kinds of issues. A stocktake was undertaken 2 years ago they told us to identify the conservation tourism and cultural values of schedule 4 areas and to identify areas possessing significant mineral potential. The Government then went on to tell us what the four main conclusions were of that stocktake that was to identify the conservation tourism and cultural values. There were four main conclusions. One of them was that New Zealand is mineral rich another was that there is plenty of mineral potential the third was that the mineral potential could be developed and the fourth was that the information on mineral potential is limited. Can anyone see what is missing from that? It is anything about the cultural or tourism values. That was what drove the stocktake. There was no way the Government was going to be put off until it faced those 50000 New Zealanders and New Zealanders right around the country who opposed this.  
We support this bill. It is a good bill. It should go to a select committee so that the New Zealand public can have a further say. The fact that the National Party is opposing it tonight shows that it is out of touch with New Zealanders’ views on conservation on how we look after land and on how we develop a sustainable economy. Its being out of touch like that will be remembered by New Zealanders.