Robertson Grant: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): The call I want to take on this particular part of the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill will focus on clause 14. I want to be very clear what this clause is about. It is amending what is already a very bad part of the law which was passed only 6 weeks ago to restrict the rights of people to protest. John Key loves to go around on the world stage shake hands with people like Barack Obama and show up to events that are about opposing nuclear proliferation and about celebrating New Zealand’s place in the world as an antinuclear country. He has his photograph taken and he says he supports this. Well where do Mr Key and Mr Bridges think New Zealand’s status in the world as a country that stands up against nuclear weapons comes from? It comes from New Zealanders on boats and in dinghies getting out there in the 1970s and the 1980s and saying: “We’re not prepared to see the world go about destroying itself. We want to make sure that we stand up for people and the planet and we’re going to get out and protest in those boats and in those dinghies.”That is the kind of dissent that has led to good law in New Zealand. It is the kind of dissent that has led to New Zealand being respected on the world stage and this Government is prepared to chuck that away because some corporate interests have asked it to do it. That is the bottom line here—corporate interests dictating New Zealand’s legislation again. We had it with Warner Bros we had it with Skycity and now we have it with companies that do not want to see protesters too close to them and this Government is prepared to sacrifice all that history of protest in New Zealand all that history of dissent in New Zealand to appease these companies.Chris Auchinvole: Not much history of oil protests.GRANT ROBERTSON: It is as simple as that Mr Auchinvole. That is what has happened with this law.That is bad enough—trashing New Zealand’s reputation and selling off our laws one more time—but what is more this Government cannot even make a case for why it is expanding the legislation and potentially doing something that actually goes against our international obligations. I am wondering whether the Minister has had the time to have a read of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s website because what that says is: “States do not have any special rights to the water column above the continental shelf; so New Zealand does not have special rights to the fisheries above the continental shelf beyond the EEZ or to control other activities such as shipping.” That is an exact quote Minister from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.The Minister could get on his feet and actually explain how it is that he is passing a law through this House tonight that appears to go against what New Zealand is actually allowed to do when it comes to the continental shelf. But the Minister does not seem to care about that. The Minister does not want to actually get up and explain whether he is even allowed to make this law. So he is selling the law off and he will not even explain how he can justify expanding that to a massive extra 1.7 million square kilometres—1.7 million square kilometres extra. We do not even according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade actually have the right to make any law in that area and yet the Minister comes to this Chamber with this bill. As Moana Mackey says we will be back here in a month with yet another amendment bill after Mr Bridges makes the sensibledecision to put it as a standing item on the Order Paper so we can just keep coming back to it and he will have to correct another mistake.There are other matters about the continental shelf that the Minister does not appear to have taken into account. The continental shelf overlaps with other countries’ jurisdictions. We actually have an agreement with the Australians around where the continental shelf overlaps with us. It is around Lord Howe Rise through to the Three Kings Ridge. We have that agreement. The problem for the Minister and the problem for the Government is that we do not have that agreement with other countries around where the continental shelf overlaps with their jurisdictions—Fiji and Tonga for instance. We have not done anything about that when it comes to other areas the Kermadec Ridge being one of those. So the Government has two areas where it appears to be actually breaching international law about whether it can even put this up.These are the issues that would be discussed at a select committee. In fact they would have already been discussed at a select committee and we would now no doubt not be looking at amendments to the law because the Government had stuffed up. But instead at 11 o’clock on a Friday night we have got a bill being shoved through the House not in the interests of New Zealanders nor even of our Pacific neighbours whose territory this impinges upon but in the interests of the corporate sector—in the vested interests of those for whom this Government the National Government seems to believe they are governing.That is what we see time and time again. We saw it with Skycity and what a shameful shabby deal that was. We saw it with Warner Bros. Our laws are for sale under this Government. What is more we are going to have to pay to change the law in the case of Skycity because of the compensation arrangements that have been put in place there. If we want to change the gambling laws we will be paying for it. Now under this law we have a situation where we have been pushed into changing the law to ensure that the corporate interests are kept happy. We are not protecting New Zealanders’ rights to protest. [Interruption] The Attorney-General likes to interject on these matters. He is living in his own golden age over there—the Attorney-General the saviour of the art scene a legend in his own Twitterverse. But he is sitting there today as the right to protest is limited. He is sitting there today as the right to dissent is limited.What kind of Attorney-General is that? Why do we not have an Attorney-General who stands up for the rights of New Zealanders to protest? Why do we not have an Attorney-General who actually comes to this Chamber and says to his Government: “No way I am not accepting this. New Zealanders have the right to protest.”? Instead we have an Attorney-General who sits on Twitter trying to come up with his own achievements in the arts sector and he does not care about a bill before this Committee that severely limits what New Zealanders would see as their basic rights.This bill is deeply flawed. This amendment bill to the Crown Minerals Amendment Act is deeply flawed. New Zealanders right across the country have expressed their concern about this and they have been dismissed by people like Chris Finlayson and the Prime Minister. Geoffrey Palmer Dame Ann Salmond who is the New Zealander of the Year—John Key will have his photograph taken with Dame Ann Salmond but when she signs a letter that says this kind of law change limiting the right to protest is wrong suddenly she is dismissed. She is totally taken out of the picture.This is absolutely poor lawmaking. It is shabby lawmaking. It is sloppy lawmaking. We are back in front of this Committee with an extension to this legislation and once again the Minister needs to get up and answer the question that a lot of New Zealanders want to know: who is behind this? Who is behind this change? Which company has asked for it? Who has come to Simon Bridges and put the pressure on him? There areimportant aspects of this law which Simon Bridges is responsible for for protecting the rights of New Zealanders. It seems to us on this side of the Chamber that Simon Bridges has caved. He caved straight away. As soon as someone has come to him and asked “Can you please extend out this already bad law?” he has caved. He has said: “Yes I will take it out to the continental shelf. That is fine.” Even if New Zealand does not have a right to make a law in that place he will take it out.This bill and clause 14 of this bill are typical of this Government. They are typical of a Government that is no longer governing in the interests of New Zealanders. It is governing in corporate interests and overseas interests and in the interests of its mates not in the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. This clause should not pass.