Heatley Phil: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8006] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I too rise to make it clear that National opposes this bill which we refer to as the anti-mining bill. I cannot do much better than Pansy Wong who said on 21 December 2001 that in the face of a considered High Court ruling the legislation was an appalling use of executive power by an anti-business Government which dislikes the mining industry. That best reflects what people in the National Party are saying and certainly what people out in the wider community are saying. 
By way of recap I would like to clarify that this bill has arisen out of the High Court case  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd  
v  
Attorney-General 
 which held that the principal Act did not extinguish the right of mining licensees to apply for a new mining licence or for an extension of their existing licence. The High Court said at one time that it did; again it put that in doubt. The Court of Appeal said it did not and now there is an opportunity for the Privy Council to rule. So court business has not yet been finished yet this Government has taken the opportunity to legislate and ride roughshod over those good miners in operation. 
Those people involved with Glenharrow Holdings and others who did not believe officials and take their advice but who instead put in applications for mining licences have gone to court and have got through. We are pleased about that. They will continue with their successful mining businesses. But what is unfair about this bill is that those who did believe officials and did take their advice have been blindsided by Harry Duynhoven and his announcement on 20 September 2002. They have been put in a very difficult situation whereby their businesses and their future business interests in mining are clearly under threat. As I said they have been blindsided by the Minister Harry Duynhoven who is known as the Abel Tasman of the Labour Party because he came to New Zealand for a little while did not like it and went home. 
Under the Crown Minerals Act the Government issues mining permits not mining licences that incorporate property rights. This bill prevents mining licensees from renewing their mining licences under the now repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. As a result of this amendment those miners must now reapply under the Crown Minerals Act not the Mining Act or Coal Mines Act that they originally applied under. 
 Members will recall that in the first reading the Minister Paul Swain said that the proposed amendments will not be retrospective. He said that any mining licence variation application received before the amendment is enacted will be accepted in the process under the current regime. Yet new clauses 22 and 23 appear on the face of it and under intense scrutiny to contradict what the Minister said in that first reading speech. 
I bring members’ attention to those clauses. New section 111 in clause 22 “New section 111 substituted” states: “(1) If after 5 pm on 19 September 2002 a holder of an existing privilege makes an application to which any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) would have applied if this Act or the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2001 had not been enacted then despite section 107—(a) the Acts specified in subsection (2) do not apply in respect of the application; but (b) this Act ... applies in respect of the application as if the existing privilege were a minerals permit of the appropriate kind.” meaning that someone who had not trusted the officials and had put in an application prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 would be home free but someone who had taken the advice of officials and had not put in an application instead counting on the altruistic tendencies of Harry Duynhoven would be severely caught out and his or her business would now be under threat. 
Again new section 111A in clause 23 states: “(1) No extension of the duration of a mining privilege may be granted on an application for a variation of conditions under section 103D of the Mining Act 1971 made after 5 pm on 19 September 2002.” Under that provision too someone who had not trusted the officials or the altruistic qualities of Harry Duynhoven and had put in an application would be home free but someone who had trusted them would be caught out. 
As I say the Hon Paul Swain’s statement in his speech on the first reading about the amendments not being retrospective is clearly contradicted by clauses 22 and 23. I was disappointed that Harry Duynhoven did not address that in his opening speech. He was not prepared to go back and clarify what had been said in the past which people had put great hope in putting at risk their business future. He did not address that or rise to apologise. 
Since 1991—other members have referred to this—there has been a much tighter process which has resulted in miners being denied access to the conservation estate by the Department of Conservation. Mr Copeland whom we hold out hope for and Mr Shirley who has proved his worth over recent years have already alluded to the fact that New Zealand is actually locked out of utilising 
many many minerals. It is interesting that the bill is called the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill because the Crown in the form of the Department of Conservation has all the minerals. No one else has them. It is certainly not the “People’s Minerals Bill” or the “New Zealanders’ Minerals Bill” because we cannot get at them; the Department of Conservation has them all. It is locking up large areas of this country from being used for tourism mining—as we have heard 80 percent of Crown minerals are locked away by the Department of Conservation—and hydro-electric power and now it is using marine reserves to lock the country out of fishing as well. 
It is unfortunate that the Department of Conservation is taking that approach and not sticking to its knitting. If the Department of Conservation ran around the country killing more possums and looking after its land the country would be in a much better state. In fact we have a saying in Northland and Mr Shirley might be interested in this; farmers who have farms next to Department of Conservation land in Northland say that if they kill a possum on their farmland 100 more turn up to its funeral. Do members know where they come from? They come from the Department of Conservation land. My message to the Department of Conservation today and throughout my speeches on this bill is that it should stick to its knitting instead of locking up so much land against the wishes of many many New Zealanders. 
This bill does not satisfactorily deal with the difficulties of balancing the interests of the economy and the mining industry against those of the environment and conservationists. The bill is sponsored by Mr Harry Duynhoven the Abel Tasman of the Labour Party. It is a bit ironic that he is passing a bill to retrospectively take away property rights in the light of issues brought to us in recent weeks. It is sad to say that under clause 24 no compensation is offered even though that clause clearly states that these miners lose three rights: the right to apply for new licences under either the Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act and the right to apply for extensions of durations. I am disappointed with this bill and the National Party will certainly be voting against it.