Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7627] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 This is a very serious issue because today in this Chamber the Labour Government has set a new precedent. It has made a mockery and a farce of the commencement date. 
This bill was first introduced to the House on 18 December 2001. I remember that at the time I asked what sort of Labour Government would introduce legislation at Christmas time that took away people’s property rights. The Labour Government got the gold and the coal miners and the mining industry operators got shafted. 
They were further shafted when this bill was referred to the Commerce Committee because before the select committee even had time to receive submissions and look at the substantive issue the Minister in charge of the bill at the time Harry Duynhoven introduced a new dimension to the bill. As was pointed out by the ACT party’s Rodney Hide and by my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith that Minister introduced another commencement date for a bill that was under consideration by the Commerce Committee. So we have a bill that was introduced on 18 December 2001 and that eventually came to the House for its Committee stage in August 2003 but before that date the Minister in charge of the bill at the time had already announced that no matter whether Parliament agreed that the legislation should be passed he was adding a new dimension to the bill and the date of 20 September 2002 5 p.m. was inserted in the bill to be the operative date for the extinction of the right of a mining licence holder to apply for a new mining licence. I wonder whether that is an example of the expression “going Dutch”. As Rodney Hide was saying Harry Duynhoven was looking after himself and forgetting about the rights of the mining licence holders. 
It is an outrage that we now learn that under a Labour Government the title of a bill need not even attempt to describe its content. The commencement date has also started to take on the appearance of a farce because what is the point of Parliament passing this legislation in 2003 when the substantive provisions of it have an operative date of 2002? That indicates the disrespect that the Labour Government showed to the select committee which hardly had time to deliberate and debate the substantive issues. The Labour Government rode roughshod over the select committee in introducing another commencement date for the substantive provisions of the legislation. 
I would like the Minister in the chair Chris Carter to take a call and explain to the public why Parliament should take the trouble of sitting through this Committee debate on the commencement clause which is meaningless. Regardless of whether the bill is passed it is already in operation. The substantive part has nothing to do with the stated commencement date of the bill which is the day after it is subject to the royal assent. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to the public whether those precedents are now being set by the Labour Government: that the title does not reflect the substance of the bill and that the commencement date is meaningless.