Peck Mark: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7998] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 That is a typical speech of “never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. I say to the member who preceded me that had National treated its own member Maurice Williamson somewhat better it might have had good representation at the Commerce Committee. The member was at least upfront enough to say that he had not attended the select committee deliberations on this matter and I thank him for that. This bill does not extinguish anybody’s rights and— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Of course it does. 
MARK PECK 
: Well look if the member stopped chortling for half a minute and listened he might learn something. The bill did not extinguish anybody else’s rights either. What the bill does is protect the right of Glenharrow Holdings Ltd to go through the process that it was using and if it is going to the Privy Council then its right to do that is protected. That was the Government members’ wish as we were dealing with this legislation because there were some serious issues involved in whether Glenharrow had a case. If the member does not believe me I will show him a letter I received from Glenharrow’s legal advisers thanking the select committee for the way in which it conducted its process. I am proud of that because it is a complicated matter. 
That member’s party had the opportunity to deal with this when it was in Government. That Government in dealing with the Ngai Tahu claim—and not recognising there is a problem with vesting the pounamu to Ngai Tahu because other miners had rights that had not yet been fully realised—when it dealt with that particular bill set up the grounds for the grievance that we are now dealing with. For him to stand up in the House today and say: “This is a nail in mining’s coffin.” is being slightly too cute. This is a matter that that Government did not even have the ability to recognise at the time it did its legislation so we have had to deal with it. 
I congratulate the Hon Harry Duynhoven on the action that he took. He took a lot of flak in the media for what he had to do but it was right for people to be on notice that no further claims would be entertained. 
Now let me come to the issue as to whether there is a right. There is a right for Glenharrow to have its issue determined. Its issue is a claim to extend its mining right—not to renew but to extend. Currently Glenharrow has a 10-year right to extract pounamu. It wants to extend that to 26 years—that is what it wants to do extend it. It is not about an existing right but about an extension of a right. Glenharrow has a right to do that under the Mining Act because that is where it got its first permit from but Parliament in 1991 when Lockwood Smith was a member of a Government passed the Crown Minerals Act. 
Darren Hughes 
: He was on the front bench. 
MARK PECK 
: He was on the front bench and at that particular point it was envisaged that mining in this country would be dealt with under the Crown Minerals Act not under the Mining Act. There was a change in presumption presided over by the National Government around which the transitional provisions were not clear. This is why we now have the conundrum we have in the courts. Those who have action pending before 22 September which I think is the date— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The 19th. 
MARK PECK 
: Sorry 19 September 2002. They have their right to have those issues determined protected but no one else—a total of three people. That is as it should be because Parliament is right to pass law and is right to set up new regimes. 
 And that is the other competing principle. The other competing principle is whether Parliament has the right to make laws to alter things. Let me say that Parliament has jealously guarded that particular right not just in this Parliament but also for centuries. Of course Parliament has the right to change the law so that other issues around the granting of mining licences are taken into account. Let me tell members one. If minerals were found under my house I think I as the landowner have the right to question whether my peace and quiet and occupation of that land should be disturbed by mining. People now have a right to object when mining is undertaken. 
In concluding on these particular matters I come back to the issue of Ngai Tahu. One of the reasons we dealt with the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Bill and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill for Ngai Tahu was that their property rights were expropriated by Pakeha some 100-odd years ago. This nation was determined that that expropriation needed to be tidied up and it has been tidied up in those two particular pieces of legislation. Ngai Tahu has the right to manage its mineral deposits of pounamu. It is now up to Ngai Tahu as to what arrangements it will enter into with whatever mining companies that might be interested in extracting pounamu if any. The people of Ngai Tahu themselves may want to enter that market and may want to form partnerships to do so. That is their right. It is their right simply by customary use and practice which have been around for a long time. 
This is a good bill. The Minister did what he had to do. Those who had rights under the Mining Act and who were seeking to use their rights in accordance with the transition provisions have had those rights protected by this Government. I congratulate the members of the select committee who got their heads around the matter and I congratulate Glenharrow and Ngai Tahu on the way in which they dealt with this very difficult issue as this bill has progressed.