Copeland Gordon: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7530] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future had initially hoped to be able to support the Government on this bill. However as it stands it does not fit into the overall policy framework of our party in relation to its interface with the Conservation Act. I will endeavour to explain why. This bill is an amendment to the principal Act which is known as the Crown Minerals Act. The principal Act sets out in section 66 to provide that where access arrangements have not been agreed between a mining permit holder and a private landowner then by way of Order in Council the Government can intervene on the grounds of public interest by referring the matter to an independent arbitrator. 
The general law concerning such agreements is also quite clear—namely that a full fair and adequate sum of money must be paid to the landowner so that he or she is compensated for loss of the use and enjoyment of the land in question. Other conditions could also be imposed on both parties under the Resource Management Act whereby for example they would have to address issues relating to environmental damage reinstatement of the site following closure of the mine etc. Those are the general rules and they are normally thrashed out between the parties until agreement is reached. However a situation could arise where the owner of the property refused to deal with the mining company at all or only on conditions that were grossly unfair and unreasonable. 
A different situation however might arise when we are talking about valuable minerals such as oil gas gold or uranium. In such cases it might well be in the public interest that the matter go to compulsory arbitration so that both sides of the issue can be coolly and objectively assessed and a decision reached that is consistent both with the private property rights of the landowner concerned and the public interest. That is when section 66 kicks in to create a win-win situation for everyone. 
However—and this is where the essential difficulty arises for United Future—any land held or managed under the Conservation Act is specifically excluded from those provisions. That in our view is an untenable provision. It has to be remembered that 33 percent of all New Zealand land is controlled by the Department of Conservation under the Conservation Act and that includes virtually all New Zealand rivers lakes and streams. It also includes everything from pristine conservation areas and National Parks to a variety of rubbish land. 
In relation to that land a completely different set of rules comes into play. The Conservation Act established the Minister of Conservation as the advocate for conservation. He does that through 13 regional conservatories each of which has a conservation advisory board made up of people nominated by the Minister. That is all well and good but if the Minister is personally the advocate for no less than one-third of New Zealand’s land area plus most of its rivers lakes and streams the question needs to be asked to whom exactly is he or she advocating? Is it not true that in the normal course of events an advocate goes to a court and argues his or her case before a judge or an arbitrator? So who is the judge or the arbitrator under the Conservation Act? Sad to say it is the Minister of Conservation so under that Act he or she acts as both judge and jury. Does that constitute due process? 
But wait it gets worse. The public of New Zealand the mining companies the energy generating companies and tourism operators never get to hear exactly what the Minister in his or her role as advocate gets to say to the Minister in his or her role as sole judge and there is no right of appeal. That lacks common sense transparency and balance. As far as United Future is concerned it is therefore unacceptable and a matter that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. 
I want to draw the attention of this House to just how serious this problem is because we are talking about a major systemic problem in the way the Conservation Act has been set up. Since 1987 no new hydro-generation projects or tourism facilities such as hotels have been permitted on that one-third of New Zealand that is controlled by the Department of Conservation and the Minister of Conservation. Furthermore to quote from the minority National and ACT view on this bill officials were “unable to advise the committee if and when the Department of Conservation has ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991.” Someone said to me that that is not an accurate statement. If it is not accurate why was it in the report? If it is not accurate let us have the accurate information from the Government. So I challenge the Government—if that statement is inaccurate let us have a list of all of the mining projects that have been granted on conservation land since 1991. 
All of this all amounts to a gigantic shooting of ourselves and our economic future in the foot. If the Conservation Act had been enacted at an earlier date we would have no Manapouri hydro scheme no Hermitage no tourism facilities at Mount Cook no visitors’ centre on Mount Egmont etc. etc. As matters stand at present the reality is that international mining companies are bypassing New Zealand and heading off to places like Western Australia where there are proper transparent processes manuals and policies in relation to mining on conservation land. If we are to attract such people back to New Zealand and maximise the benefits to our economy of mining activities then in United Future’s view we must review these matters so that the system provides firstly certainty of process rather than outcomes; secondly fairness; and thirdly transparency. 
I appeal to all parties in Parliament in saying that we must endeavour to create a situation where on the grounds of public interest and as with privately owned land individual projects on Department of Conservation land can be taken to an independent arbitrator judge or similar. That would enable all sides of the arguments including those relating to conservation to be taken into account in a proper structured and above all transparent manner. I am convinced that in many instances we would be able both to allow mining activities to proceed and in conjunction with those activities to add net benefit to the conservation estate itself—in other words it would be a clear-cut win-win situation for all and in particular for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people. 
Accordingly I renew my request to the Government that the provisions of the principal Act as they relate to private land be extended—and I know another bill would probably be necessary—to also embrace land held or managed by the Department of Conservation. I would like to see the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the overall operation of the Act so that we at last have proper manuals procedures and policies in relation to mining on the conservation estate. Until that request is acted on United Future is left with no option—in the interests of balance and common sense—but to oppose this legislation.