Shirley Ken: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8004] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are debating the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill which stands in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven—recently returned to this Parliament under urgency by his colleagues with a vote majority of 5. 
Phil Heatley 
: By the skin of his teeth. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The lowest majority in this Parliament! That was a disgraceful episode. I raise that matter not to get at Harry Duynhoven at all but to point out that this is butt-covering legislation. It is retrospective butt-covering legislation which has become the wont of this Labour Government. Whenever there is a problem or something messy or whenever the courts make a decision the Government does not like it rushes into retrospective butt-covering legislation. We have here a clear High Court decision—I refer to the  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v 
 Attorney-General 
 case—that the Government did not like so on 19 September 2002 by Government decree the Minister acted in a way that retrospectively cancelled property rights. The Minister we heard possibly should not have been in Parliament under the vacancy clauses of section 55 of the Electoral Act but be that as it may I believe he acted in a very disgraceful manner and now we have this retrospective butt-covering legislation. 
The Government calls the legislation a review of the Crown Minerals Act. I believe that the management of Crown minerals in this country has been disgraceful for a long time and I regret that a National Government brought in the Crown Minerals Act in 1991 which was fundamentally flawed. My regret is that this bill does not address those fundamental flaws in any way whatsoever. Here was an opportunity to give a bit of encouragement to the mining industry and I do observe that Harry Duynhoven is a champion of the mining industry. He believes in it but unfortunately the majority of members in his party do not share his belief. They are anti-development and anti - wealth creation—unlike that Minister who appreciates those things. Of course at every turn they try to nationalise everything and kill any initiative to create wealth in this country. 
One of the real problems and it does relate to this bill is the lost opportunity we had in the New Zealand mining industry. I repeat again that a very good report from the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd in 1999 showed we had in those dollar-of-the-day value terms $86 billion worth of mineral wealth in this country. What has happened? Predominantly it is all tied up under the Department of Conservation estate. Over 80 percent is under land in the Department of Conservation estate and unfortunately the Crown Minerals Act effectively gave the landowner veto rights on access terms. So since 1991 how many access grants has the Department of Conservation as an agent acting on behalf of the Crown granted in that huge area—the over 80 percent of land under the Department of Conservation estate? I have asked that question and the answer is—not one. I have asked Ministers in the chair to name one and they have consistently failed to cite or name one Crown grant made by the Department of Conservation. 
There are some appalling examples in which developments have been frustrated. We know of the Macrae’s Mining Co. situation in Reefton where a very promising gold potential has been severely truncated. I ask the Minister who is in the House now about the Pike River coalfield which is a major development for New Zealand with premium coal—a big export earner—and wonderful coking coal for steel production when blended with other coals. Everyone is geared up for major development in that field and it is hugely important to the West Coast and to the economy at large. The Pike River Coal Company has its resource-use consents but the Department of Conservation will not grant it access over a few hectares of land. Under the terms of what is sort of a net conservation benefit the company is prepared to buy up and grant to the department whole catchments of prime pristine conservation lands but the department will not give it access to a few hectares of land even when there will be insignificant environmental impact. 
That is an appalling situation but unfortunately it happens right around the country. Under a National Government mining was closed down in the Coromandel area and I regret that. That resource-rich area of Coromandel is locked up and as a country we are turning our back on that mineral wealth. National members here should reflect on that; that was a bad decision. It was a wrong decision and we do not want to see any more. 
We are not a wealthy nation and we should be using our mineral resources. Potentially we have a very good mining industry in this country. A single gold mine at Macraes Flat just out from Palmerston is owned by GRD Macraes. The member for Otago is here and I am sure he knows that company very well. It is a very responsible mining company using top technologies. How many members in the House appreciate that that one mine earns more export earnings for this country every year than the whole of our wine industry? I am not knocking the wine industry. We have a splendid developing wine industry here doing well and I applaud that. It has a high profile but how many people realise that that one mine produces more wealth in export receipts for the country than the total wine industry including the Gisbornes the Marlboroughs the Hendersons and the whole lot? Not a lot of people would have realised that. That same example is across this whole country. 
We can take the example of the wealth of Australia. Over 50 percent of that country’s export receipts come from three minerals—coal gold and uranium. Yet this country with its foolish policies blocks access for a responsible mining industry. 
 Let us remember our early pioneering days. It was the gold rushes of Otago and of the Waihi areas that let this economy take off. Yes very crude unsophisticated techniques were used in those days and significant environmental damage occurred but one cannot see that today—it has been totally repaired; nature repaired itself. The modern mining industry is responsible. It has minimal impact on the environment and the net conservation benefit that can accrue from generating that wealth from mobilising those resources far outweighs the very limited damage that can be created which can be offset. 
I say to Government members that they should not come to the House with minor tinkering with butt-covering retrospective legislation for ministerial decrees when they should be addressing the fundamentally flawed inadequacies of the Crown Minerals Act so that we can once again have a proud flourishing and prosperous mining industry in this country.