Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7616] 
Crown Minerals Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is interesting in debating this clause tonight to examine the bill to try to establish its the purpose. One of the important things in debating the title of a bill is to make sure that the title fits its purpose otherwise the title can be misleading. One of the extraordinary things one finds if one examines this bill is that there is no purpose clause that I can find. We do not often find a bill that has no specified purpose. That is a major deficiency in this legislation because it makes it difficult to judge the accuracy of the title. 
Clause 1 is the title clause clause 2 is the commencement clause and then the bill goes on to Part 1 which gets into interpretation and all sorts of things but does not actually spell out a purpose. However it is quite clear when one reads through the various provisions that the main purpose of the bill is to expunge what may be existing property rights. 
People who had licences under the old mining legislation the Mining Act and the Coal Mines Act had property rights but if people had to apply for permits under the Crown Minerals Act the principal Act that this bill amends they no longer had property rights. What is hugely important about this legislation that we are debating tonight is that it expunges property rights. It makes it very clear despite court rulings and controversy. In 2000 a mining business Glenharrow Holdings took the issue of its right to renew a mining licence to the High Court under the Mining Act. The Acting Chief Justice held that Glenharrow Holdings had a right to seek to renew that mining licence. That meant Glenharrow Holdings had a right to continue the property right that it had prior to the introduction of the Crown Minerals Act. 
Despite that High Court ruling this Government is moving to expunge those property rights. If that is the case and it is pretty clear I am right that that is the case—that is what this legislation does in effect—then the title is quite misleading. For the title simply to be Crown Minerals Amendment Bill it could mean that it is amending anything to do with the Crown Minerals Act but it does not amend absolutely anything in the Crown Minerals Act. This bill amends one very specific part of it and that is that if there is any notion that mining businesses may have a property right under the old Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act this legislation will expunge that property right. 
Far from the title Crown Minerals Amendment Bill being an appropriate title the title should establish what the bill really does. The title should be something like “Mineral Property Rights Bill”. What is the noun of the verb to expunge? Where is a literary expert among my colleagues here? Where is that eminent lawyer Dail Jones? What is the noun of the verb to expunge? 
Dail Jones 
: Extinguish! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: A more accurate title would be “Mineral Property Rights Extinction Bill” because that is what it does. It extinguishes any notion that businesses have property rights prior to the courts finally deciding the issue. As I understand it the issue is currently being taken to the Court of Appeal. In 2000 the High Court decision in the Glenharrow Holdings case in front of Acting Chief Justice Heron held that property rights existed. A second High Court judgment may have ruled otherwise and it is now going to appeal and this Government is legislating over the top. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker who will be the honourable member Pansy Wong I just remind members of Speaker’s ruling 90/1 which is in the name of Speaker Gray and Deputy Speaker Braybrooke which states that “the debate on the title clause in committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause and any amendments proposed to it.” 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I feel that I should take that comment personally. I have not even started my first sentence and I am getting a warning. I can assure you that my speech will be very relevant to the title. First of all I congratulate my learned colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith on actually coming up with a title that is a lot more appropriate than the current one. I remember from the first reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that one reason for the outrage expressed by the industry operators is that they were reassured by the Labour Government that this bill was just a minor bill to make some changes to the administration relating to the Crown office. But somewhere between then and the time when the bill was actually introduced to Parliament industry operators discovered that the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill was not just to amend some administrative procedure. In fact major changes were being made to the legislation in order to extinguish the mining licences granted under both the Crown Minerals Act of 1991 and the Mining Act. 
I think that the industry operators are absolutely valid in their outrage because they should during the initial consultation stage have been made aware that in effect this amendment bill did not relate to any minor administrative amendment. At the stage they made submissions they were reassured by the Ministry of Economic Development that they were to be consulted and they believed that what they were being consulted on was some technical amendment and nothing major was expected. 
I would like to support my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and say that the Labour Government should at least be upfront and honest as to the intention of this bill and rename it the “Mineral Property Right Extinction Bill” or at least call it the “Crown Mineral Major Amendment Bill”. The title should at least reflect the issue of the property rights being legislated away. 
I was on the Commerce Committee and had the opportunity to listen to quite a few submitters and most of them expressed their outrage at not being included in the consultation process. They were totally totally misled by the bill because of its title. At first all of them thought they were being fully consulted on certain administrative amendments to the bill; then when the bill was introduced to the House they all subsequently discovered that in effect their property rights were being legislated away. They actually have not been consulted on this issue. 
I wonder what happened to the modern practice of our Parliament being able to say that each piece of legislation should have a title that will inform the public and the industry or the business concerned of the clear intention of a bill. This Labour Government—which is continuing to try to convince the public that it always believes in frank and honest exchange and would properly include the public during the consultation process—should at least start off by giving a proper name to any piece of legislation so that the Government ensures that any sector involved would be alert to any major issues affecting its industry. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill but this bill does not really amend the Crown Minerals Act. It is in fact the “Crown Minerals High Court Repeal Bill”. This bill tries to cement into place a means of destroying our legal system by closing the loophole that has appeared in the Crown Minerals Act. The issue went to the High Court and the High Court has come out in a particular way that this Government does not like. 
Dail Jones 
: Again. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Once again! So this bill is an attempt to shut that down. This Government had problems with this bill in the High Court and will have them particularly once it gets to the Privy Council. So the Government has tried to circumvent that process. Another alternative for the title is the “Closing the Gaps in the Crown Minerals Act Bill”. 
Pansy Wong 
: Gaps? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: This is trying to close the gaps. There are huge gaps. But once again this Government does not like dealing with closing the gaps does it? That is something that it does not like to hear about. The Government has decided to close those huge gaps in a rather peculiar way—by bringing in a bill that it calls the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. But unfortunately it is all to do with a particular case—the Glenharrow Holdings Ltd case where that company had the right to mine greenstone. So perhaps the bill should be called the “Crown Minerals (Stop Glenharrow Holdings Mining Greenstone) Amendment Bill”. 
Pansy Wong 
: I want to know what gaps. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Oh the member wants to know more about the gaps. 
Pansy Wong 
: What gaps? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Oh the member wants more gaps! What about the “Stop Mining Greenstone (Gaps) Bill”? The gaps that the legislation has created have been rather extraordinarily changed; the Government has tried to legislate against them. Glenharrow Holdings tried to exert its property rights and this bill attempts to take away the right that it had under the legislation. It had the right to vary its licence and its permit. That legislation had a grandfather clause that allowed it to do that but this bill has changed things. Perhaps another title could be the “Remove all Grandfather Clauses Bill” because that is what it is doing: it is trying to remove the grandfather clause from both the Crown Minerals Act and the Glenharrow Holdings Ltd case that came up in 2001. This bill is really to try to close those gaps and I am afraid the attempt just misses the mark. We could give to this bill another title and that is the “Total Waste of Time Bill” because that is what it is doing; it is wasting time. The Minister came out and set a date on which everything would stop so nobody could make any more applications to extend their licences and he did that by press release. So this is the “Government by Press Release Bill”. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was the “former” member Harry Duynhoven. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It was the “former” member Harry Duynhoven who did that—that is right. I thank Mr Hide for that. I had forgotten that it was the “former” member Harry Duynhoven who issued that press release. I certainly hope that by doing so he has not extinguished all their rights. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I have a whole lot of new material that I am sure the Committee will be interested in on the title of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. There is an old cliché that says: “Never judge a book by its cover.” But the problem with that old saying is that it is quite deep and meaningful. There is quite a bit in it. Sometimes it is used to refer to people. But it is actually quite accurate in the case of this socialist Labour Government: “Never judge a bill by its title.” This bill should be described as the “Never Judge a Labour Socialist Bill by its Title Bill” because it will have no significance whatsoever in terms of what it contains. 
If members look at this legislation they will see that that is absolutely so. If one has a look at the fact that this legislation is amending the Mining Act 1971 the Coal Mines Act and the Crown Minerals Act one will see that the title has no relevance to what is being achieved. In fact a better title would be the “Jackboots Across All Property Rights Bill”. That would be a good name for this bill. If members look at what happened in the case presided over by Acting Chief Justice Heron in the High Court they will see that he found that there was an explicitly worded priority right in mining licence providing a built-in protection once mining has started. When one looks at that case and that finding and looks at what has been proposed in this bill one sees that this title has no relevance whatsoever to what this Government is proposing—absolutely none. 
Once again Labour is being propped up by the Greens and various machinations of people who come to this Parliament to support it—a whole range of different misguided socialists are propping it up—and once again through legislation by stealth the Government is stealing property rights from those who have worked hard developed an industry have a successful profit line will make a contribution to New Zealand and can contribute to growth which this Government talks about but it does the opposite. This title bears no relevance whatsoever to the purpose of this legislation. 
A further suggested title for this legislation might be the “Hon Paul Swain Misguiding the Mining Industry Bill”. The Hon Paul Swain in the first reading of this legislation told Parliament that it would not be retrospective. So perhaps the title should be amended to the “Labour Party Once Again Introducing Retrospective Legislation for its Own Political Expediency Bill”. 
There are a range of suggestions obviously that would be more apt at describing what this bill actually does. But the most important issue and I guess the most important title that should be considered is “Legislating Across Private Property Rights (the State Knows Best) Taking Property Rights from People Bill”. That would be a much fairer description. The title in no way whatsoever represents anything at all of any significance that is in this legislation. 
It is interesting to note that the Commerce Committee was very divided. The very good National and ACT members on that select committee put together a minority report. The National member opposite to me Pansy Wong was I believe part of that select committee— 
Pansy Wong 
: The first part. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: She was present for the first part of that select committee that looked at this legislation and she made a very worthwhile contribution to the title of the bill. Of course she will be in a much better position to judge that than most of the members on the other side of the Chamber tonight who will not have a clue what is in the bill let alone what the title should be and clearly I would listen to that member’s comments in relation to what the title of this bill should be before I listen to Government members. They have a habit of coming to this Parliament—and certainly they have ramped that habit up in recent times—with all sorts of “snatch property rights” pieces of legislation think nothing of it—and they draw very long faces at my suggestion about that. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party arises to oppose this bill and I agree with the National Party and Brent Catchpole of New Zealand First that the title of this bill has to be absolutely wrong. Members may not remember the Hon Harry Duynhoven because under the electoral law of New Zealand he has gone. I am quite pleased to see that he is not sitting in the Chamber because he is not legally entitled to be here. But this is his first mess-up as a Minister. He put out a press release to tell New Zealanders that they did not have the property rights that they thought they had. They had gone to the courts and won and the Government was going to turn around and extinguish those property rights and that is what Harry Duynhoven announced in his press release. 
So the title of this bill should be the “Saving Private Harry Bill” because that is what this bill is about—a Minister not prepared to follow the law of the land. When speaking to the title of this bill—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill 2001—one gets the sense that this is just a little tidy-up of the legislation rather than the extinguishing of people’s hard-fought property rights. So we hear from a Government that on the one hand says: “Oh we can’t legislate here we can’t legislate there we can’t make this retrospective we can’t do that.” But when it comes to this bill the Government is not even prepared to explain in the title to New Zealanders that this Parliament is extinguishing miners’ property rights over which the Hon Harry Duynhoven—rest in peace—in his brief career sort of like a moth flittering around a light as an Associate Minister responsible for mining got himself caught in the high wire of the legislative and legal processes. 
Was that not something to come? This bill according to the ACT party should be called the “Saving Private Harry Bill”. Of course we oppose any suggestion that there should be a second bill—a “Saving Private Harry Bill (No 2)”—in order to save a Minister who in every decision that he has made whether it is a member’s bill for his own advantage or one as Minister finds himself incapable of following the law of the land— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is not an opportunity to go on about a Minister. We are talking to the elements of the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes and I am explaining that the title of this bill is very much wrapped up with the behaviour of the Minister. I am sorry but it was the Minister who put out the press release which was the first that miners knew. I know that Shane Ardern will support me in that. I know that Dr Nick Smith will support me in that. You Mr Chairperson could have read about it in the  
Independent  
newspaper. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring me into the debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We certainly heard it in the select committee and that is my point. This bill is all about the Minister Harry Duynhoven who had a brief career in this Parliament. 
Jill Pettis 
: That has nothing to do with it. Speak to the title. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am speaking to the title. If Ms Pettis has a point of order she should stand up and take it. If she cleaned her ears out and listened with what brain she has she would understand that if it were not for Harry Duynhoven we would not be having a debate on this bill right now. If Harry Duynhoven had not put out that press release we would not need to be here debating this matter. That is understood by everyone who sat on the select committee and by everyone on this side of the Chamber. Why does Jill Pettis not understand? I guess it is what she said before about the difference between those who sit on that side of the Chamber and those who sit on this side—about 35 points IQ on average. Poor Jill Pettis cannot read what is in this bill. Poor Jill Pettis does not understand the history. Poor Jill Pettis does not mean Harry Duynhoven’s press release— 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am very tempted but I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I thank Mr Hide for his contribution and I want to put the case to the Committee that the bill should be titled “Labour Party Double Standards Bill”. I have been listening to the radio a lot on the foreshore and seabed case and have heard Government Ministers saying— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh that’s right! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me explain to Jill Pettis. I have listened to Ministers and she has been saying we have to follow the court decisions; if the court decides a particular way we have to accept that decision. Well this bill is driven by the fact that some companies went to court got a positive decision—had a winning—and this bill will unravel it. That seems to me like double standards. The Government cannot say—and have the Minister John Tamihere going around saying—that Maori can go to the courts and if they have a win in the courts then it is quite wrong for this Parliament to change it but when we come to this bill we have a different set of rules and say: “No no. If Pakeha have a win in the courts we’ve got to legislate across it.” That is why I say that a far more appropriate name for this bill would be “Labour Party Double Standards Bill” because with that title we get a flavour of the double standards that are exhibited by Government members. 
When it comes to impacting on NgaiTahu’s greenstone rights which this bill is all about the Government says to forget about what the courts say about people’s mining rights because the Government will just cut across them; it will get rid of them. It will use the power of the legislation to overrule the decision. But if the table is turned the other way round and it happens to be Maori contesting their rights as they see it for the ownership of the foreshore and seabed then Government Ministers say the courts have to be able to do their thing and New Zealanders just have to live with it. That does not seem very consistent to me nor as my colleague Shane Ardern the very capable member for King Country – Taranaki says does it sound very fair. It is distinctly unfair. That is why I say this bill should be called “Labour Party Double Standards Bill”. The Government wants one set of rules for one group of New Zealanders but if one happens to be a Labour lackey there is a different set of rules. 
I do not think that that is a very fair way for this Parliament to conduct its business. It should be made on the basis of some principled decision-making and as an Opposition we do not believe that the provisions in this bill are principled. We do not believe that it is fair to be saying to those people who obtained their mining licences through the 1971 Act that despite their court win the Government will cut across their mining rights licence. So we say call it the “Double Standards Bill”. Call it what it is—call it for the double standards that we continually see from Ministers with this piece of legislation and so many others. Members on this side of the Chamber promote one standard of citizenship because whether or not one is— 
David Benson-Pope 
: The member even gets his own policy wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Benson-Pope gets all excited. I would like him to explain— 
Opposition Member 
: Who? “Benson-Dope”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: “Benson-Dope” I think— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order. The member will apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Benson-Pope. I would like him to get to his feet to explain why we have heard from Ministers time and time again who have the attitude that when Maori win their case in the court so be it but when Pakeha win in the court they want to bring in legislation such as this to cut across it. That seems to me with my basic sense of Kiwi fairness to be wrong. I would like the Minister in the chair or Mr Benson-Pope to get to his feet and explain why Ministers seem to be singing two different tunes. If they cannot then this bill should be called the “Labour Double Standards Bill”—reflecting Labour’s sets of rules where there is one set of rules for one group of citizens but if one happens to be a group of citizens who support the Labour Party then there is a different set of rules. 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not good enough. I would like Jill Pettis who has so much to say to get to her feet and answer that basic point. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Clause 2 states that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. There is nothing particularly unusual about the wording of that clause. That is quite common for legislation but what makes it particular is that this bill in fact extinguishes property rights that are an issue currently before the courts. 
In terms of the commencement of legislation that is going to do something as dramatic as extinguish property rights I think and National would argue that the legislation should allow time for the court to sort out what those current property rights are rather than simply stating that on the day after which this bill receives the royal assent we are going to change those property rights. 
Admittedly the legislation preserves the position of some people but of course this could even come into question because what the legislation basically says is that it protects the position of those who had applications in prior to the date on which the member Harry Duynhoven announced this legislation would be introduced which was in 2002 so that their positions will be determined by the court. People who did not lodge applications for variations to their licences extensions to their licences or renewals prior to 5 p.m. on 20 September 2002 will be caught by this legislation. 
National would argue that this legislation should not commence until the court has decided the issue of those property rights for two reasons. First any decision of Mr Duynhoven is open to question right now. If Mr Duynhoven’s position in this Parliament were to be void then any decisions he made while his position was void would be null and void. That is the first issue. The second issue is that the New Zealand Crown Minerals Agency was busy telling licence holders that they could not apply for renewals under the Crown Minerals Act if they held licences under the old Mining Act or the Coal Mining Act of the early seventies as well. So a number of people because of advice that might have been wrong may not have applied for extensions or renewals to their licences. 
If the advice they were given was wrong and that cannot be determined until the Privy Council considers this issue then at least they should be given the opportunity to be able to apply for renewals or variations. This legislation prevents that. That is why National will argue that for this Act to commence on the day after which it receives the royal assent is unfair because some people were advised that they did not have the right to apply for renewals. The court has suggested that they may have had that right. This legislation expunges any such right from the date on which Mr Harry Duynhoven said that it would no longer be available. 
Any consideration by this Parliament should suggest that that is unfair. What would be more proper is for this Parliament to allow the court process to sort out whether the right did exist and whether those licence holders had the right to apply for renewals extensions or variations because that matter is currently still before the court and therefore this Act should not commence until such time as it has been ruled on by the courts. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I also rise to oppose the commencement date. The reasons are quite simple as my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith has pointed out. If members look at the press release put out by the Acting Minister at the time the Hon Harry Duynhoven at 6.30 p.m. on 20 September 2002 they will see that by doing that this legislation came into being. Putting out that press release brought into question the whole issue of property rights covered in the body of this legislation and this legislation came into being. 
The question I have for the Minister in the chair Chris Carter or any other Labour member who wants to take a call is: why would the Government proceed with legislation when the Minister himself and his tenure in this Parliament are under question at the moment? Why would the Government allow that process to proceed? This is quite apart from the fact that the legislation rules across what has commonly been strongly defended in this Parliament by both National and Labour Governments over the whole history of the Parliament. That is why we have had continuous democracy in this country for longer than most other countries. I think this is the longest-serving continual democracy in the world but if that is not so it is one of the longest. One of the reasons it has endured is simply that this Parliament regardless of what party has been in Government has upheld the principle of property rights. 
For the first time in the history of this country this socialist Government is breaking that rule. I know Mr Chairperson that you are quite knowledgeable on this topic because I see that you were on the select committee. I can tell that the members of the select committee would have studied the ramifications of the submissions put forward very closely and very carefully. Why is it that today this Parliament and this Government are allowing this process to proceed given the amount of ambiguity around the particular issue and given the pending court action that will almost certainly follow? We need only go back to what Acting Chief Justice Heron said at the time. We can see that a whole range of political and legal issues needed to be resolved with regard to whether the legislation would stand up and whether it would be robust. 
Why are we proceeding with this legislation? Why are the Green Party members of this Parliament supporting this legislation at this point in time? Why is the Labour Party wanting to get this legislation through today and not defer it until some of the issues where clearly there is a huge amount of ambiguity are resolved one way or the other? Why is it not upholding that long-served principle in this Parliament of maintaining property rights? Maybe the Minister of Conservation will take a call to explain. We on this side of the House are absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that this Government is interested in proceeding with this legislation under the current circumstances and allowing this bill to take effect once it has received the royal assent. 
There are a range of areas in this legislation that I am sure will be well thrashed out as we further debate it but there is one issue that has not been touched on yet and it certainly is relevant to the commencement date. With regard to mining why has a different set of rules been applied to a range of other topics that have been canvassed by my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Lockwood Smith in their previous contributions? Why have we suddenly got to the point where those property rights can be extinguished without compensation just by passing legislation like this? How is that? That is setting a new precedent. I do not think that has ever happened in the history of the Parliament. One would probably have to go back a long time. I do not see any members shaking their heads to say that I am wrong. Some members who have been here a long time would know. Certainly some members on the other side of the Chamber would know because they are well practised at it. Are we now setting a new precedent whereby a Government can legislate like this across property rights without compensation and without looking at the ramifications? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall take a very short call on the commencement date. Although the bill states that it will come into effect when it receives the royal assent in fact it has already come into effect. It came into effect on 19 September 2002 at 5 p.m. That was the date the Associate Minister of Energy Harry Duynhoven put out a press release that shut down any possibility of people applying for an extension of their licences. Licence holders who had not applied by 5 p.m. on that date were deprived of their property rights. Those property rights were extinguished with that particular press release. So we are here today basically either to confirm that press release which effectively is governing by press release or to debate a bill that really is unnecessary because of that particular press release. The commencement date of the bill should be the date of the press release and that was 19 September 2002. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to contribute to the debate on the commencement date. I am appalled that the Government can with the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” put this legislation into force so swiftly and with virtually no consideration for the courts. I remind members who are not familiar with the bill that the Glenharrow Holdings case makes it clear that lots of things around these issues of mining are not included. 
In fact that company went to court. In 2001 there was a case  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 where the decision upheld the property rights of miners who had gained licences under the Mining Act. It also made it clear that those licensees were able to continue to apply for extensions to their licences under the Mining Act. The case went on to the Court of Appeal which has not yet reached its decision. How can this Government move so swiftly having this bill come into force upon it receiving royal assent not listening to the courts and certainly not listening to the miners who incidentally I would have thought were traditionally Labour Party supporters. In fact are any miners Labour Party supporters? If there are any Labour Party supporters at all on the West Coast I will be surprised. I am surprised that in the face of a court decision in the face of miners—who are traditionally Labour Party supporters—being harmed by this bill and in the face of the lack of consultation the Government can bring this legislation into force. 
Dr Nick Smith brought up the point earlier that on the one hand when it comes to the issue of private property rights in terms of the public ownership—as everyone believes—of the foreshore seabed and beaches there is extensive and endless consultation with Maori there is recognition of a court decision and the Government does listen to the only voters it has left those being radical Maori but on the other hand with this bill it ignores its supporters the miners. It listens endlessly to radical Maori on the foreshore and seabed issue. With this bill it ignores a court decision yet on the seabed and foreshore issue it heralds a court decision. With this bill there is no consultation with miners Labour’s traditional supporters but on the foreshore seabed and beach issue there is endless consultation with Maori on private property rights behind closed doors in private so that New Zealanders who have a stake in our beaches have no idea what deals are being done and what is being sold down the road. 
That is what I would like to raise. How can the Government bring in a commencement date that means the bill will be enacted so swiftly without any consideration of all those things? I would appreciate the new Minister in the chair Rick Barker—the green Minister—when he has finished reading the bill responding to my questions. Why has there been no consultation? Why is the Government flying in the face of a court case? And why is it flying in the face of its traditional supporters? That is what I would like to know. I am interested in the Minister in the chair—if he could pause for a moment from reading the legislation and catching up with us here in the Committee—answering those questions for me. Does he have any idea what the Court of Appeal will report back when it finishes its consideration of what is put before it? Does the Minister even care what the Court of Appeal will come up with or is he too entrenched in this Government which rides roughshod over the process by legislating retrospectively in virtually 30 percent of the legislation that passes through this House? I could list it all including the fisheries legislation and the “Harry Bill”. Has he no respect for the courts? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is very clear to this side of the Committee that this Labour Government does not have any respect for Parliament. We have had a set of revolving Ministers in the chair; it just depends whose turn it is. It would appear that their attention span is about 10 minutes because then another one has to be brought in. Not one Minister has stood up to speak to this bill. The bill was brought in by the Hon Harry Duynhoven; he has gone. When members on the Government side get an opportunity to speak all that they do is move that there be no debate. What sort of Parliament is that? 
There are things to debate because we are discussing the commencement date which—[ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is now trying to pick me up for a dinner date. No thanks I say to her; it would be a cold day in hell before I did that but I appreciate the offer. I know how sad it must be for her to find a man in her caucus to go out to dinner with her. 
Clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” One would think that when this bill came into force the principal legislation would be changed but if we read on we discover that no it was changed on 19 September 2002. Mr Brent Catchpole of New Zealand First is quite right. Only a Labour Government could think it could legislate away time. It is very interesting that the bill came from the Hon Harry Duynhoven who thinks he can legislate away the Electoral Act and secure himself a place in history. I say to you Mr Chairman that I am speaking to the commencement clause. If you want to wave your arms around indicating the size of the fish you caught last weekend or anything else and bragging to Jill Pettis that is your business but I am speaking to the commencement date. 
The date of 19 September 2002 is significant because that is when the “former” Minister the “former” MP for New Plymouth the Hon Harry Duynhoven put out the press release. Imagine the significance of that date in terms of our Parliament and our legal process! He announced his legislation before it was written. He announced his legislation before anyone saw it. He announced it before it came to Parliament. He said: “I’m the Minister. Some time in the future if I’m still an MP if I’m still a Minister I will bring a bill to this Parliament and we might pass it but in the meantime I am the Minister I am God Almighty and I’ve changed the law.” And that is what happened because the real commencement date of this bill under this Labour Government is 19 September 2002 not the day after it receives the royal assent. 
In fact what we are doing here is legislating a lie. That is what this Government is doing. It is legislating a lie because this bill and this decision came into effect last year. It is just that poor old Harry Duynhoven had not caught up with that just as he had not caught up with a few old minor technical details in the Electoral Act. The Dutch Minister in the Labour Government announced the commencement date of this bill and it is not when it passes through the House; it is 19 September 2002. We on this side of the Committee say it is disgusting that the property rights were taken away it is disgusting that the courts were overturned it is disgusting that it was done by press release and it is disgusting that it was done by an MP who under New Zealand law cannot sit in this House now. 
So we are given a pass-the-parcel approach in terms of Ministers sitting in the chair and not one of them is prepared to discuss why this legislation “comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” when if we read further back we discover that it commenced on 19 September 2002. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Part 1 Amendments relating to Crown owned minerals 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is one of the less controversial parts because it is mainly technical and relates to issues surrounding permits granted under the Crown Minerals Act. It is Part 2 that is the hugely controversial part of this bill. That said there are some issues in Part 1 that do relate to the controversial issue as well. I would like the Minister in the chair Chris Carter to advise the Committee whether I am correct on that so that we can make our voting judgments accordingly because some of the clauses—3 4 5 etc.—relate to quite technical issues in respect of permit-holders. 
I have checked through the principal Act and a number of those issues do not appear to be of great substance; they appear to be more technical. However clause 9 “Unit development” provides that section 46(1) of the principal Act be amended “by inserting in paragraph (a) after the words “2 or more permits” the words “or existing privileges”. The Committee needs to know exactly what that means if we are to vote sensibly on that provision. If we look at Part 2 we will see that certain matters are still to be determined by the court—the Court of Appeal or ultimately the Privy Council—in respect of property rights under mining licences issued under the old Mining Act of 1971 or the Coal Mines Act of 1979 where applications have been filed to renew extend or vary those licences. I suspect that Part 2 of this legislation will preserve certain privileges for those who happened to get those applications in prior to the Hon Harry Duynhoven making his announcement at 5 o’clock on 20 September 2002. The Committee needs to know whether the reference to “existing privileges” under clause 9 is a reference to the fact that those property rights have not yet been resolved by the court. If I am right in presuming that that is what is meant by those words it again emphasises the untimely nature of this legislation. 
The Hon Pete Hodgson is not an unintelligent Minister. I would like him to cast his mind over the fact that it would be totally unfair if “existing privileges” referred to those who ignored advice and applied for licence renewals licence extensions variations and whatever prior to 5 p.m. on that fateful day in September 2002. It would be unfair on those who believed a Crown agency that said they did not have the right to do that when maybe they did have the right to do that and when in talking about “existing privileges” this legislation is presuming they might have had the right to do that. It would be patently unfair for this legislation to be saying that those who ignored advice and made such applications prior to that date have existing privileges but those who took advice from a Crown agency and did not seek to renew such licences do not have existing privileges. 
This Parliament cannot consider that to be fair but in respect of those amendments to Part 1—in particular the amendments under clause 9 to section 46(1) of the principal Act—I would be only too happy for the Minister in the chair to take a call and say: “Lockwood you’ve got it totally wrong. The existing privileges being referred to have nothing to do with the matters before the court”. I am prepared to accept that if the Minister says that is correct. But if it is not we need to know. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Lockwood you’ve got it totally wrong! Nothing in Part 1 has anything to do with Part 2. The issue that the member raises is about unitisation where rights are being divided between licences and permits. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 We would encourage the Minister to take a call to expand on his explanation because we would hang on to every word he says. Mining industry operators had the same experience with officials of the Crown Minerals unit. For a number of years they were told that the 1991 Act extinguished their licence rights. Some of them took that at face value and did not even think about challenging the statements made by the officials. It was only when Glenharrow took the case to court that they started to realise that they were being disadvantaged by taking the officials’ words at face value for all those years. 
So instead of giving a brief statement to answer the question raised by the Hon Lockwood Smith I encourage the Minister to take a call to explain the matter in detail and put the whole issue to rest. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. The question is what are these “existing privileges” if they do not relate to permits or if they are nothing to do with Part 2. Although Part 1 was on the surface only a technical amendment to clarify some administrative procedures the Minister could understand the anxiety of Opposition members after listening to mining industry submitters to the Commerce Committee. They have taken statements made by officials and Ministers at their face value only to find subsequently that they have been disadvantaged. I ask the Minister to take another call to explain to us in detail why he believes that these “existing privileges” have nothing to do with the permit at all. 
When the Hon Paul Swain introduced the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill he claimed that Part 1 had gone a long way to simplify the legislation removing compliance costs. When I looked through the commentary on the bill I realised that there was absolutely no compliance cost statement attached to Part 1 and I am not too sure how the mining industry can be assured that Part 1 has managed to simplify its compliance costs. All that industry knows is that Part 1 is the part of this bill that seeks to extinguish their licence privileges. I do not think they agree that Part 1 has gone a long way to assure them that compliance costs have been simplified—if indeed there are any—to compensate for the loss of their property rights. 
Looking at clause 18 “Reports to Secretary” it was interesting to find that: “Nothing in subsection (4) or subsection (7) requires the Secretary to send or make available any records reports information or returns relating to the calculation and payment of royalties by permit holders.” What if errors are made? What if the permit-holders do not agree with the calculation and payment of royalties? How do they go about seeking that information? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports Part 1 of this bill as it does the whole bill which after all just seeks to implement the original intent of the Crown Minerals Act which was later shown by the courts not to have quite the legal effect that was intended at the time. So this is just Parliament picking up where Parliament was more than a decade ago. It is part of a trend over several decades to stop giving mining prior status over all other land uses. It has not quite achieved that yet and I will come back to that later. There is still some way to go. In replacing the Mining Act the Crown Minerals Act got rid of the outrageous situation we used to be in where a landowner could be forced to allow access over his or her land to minerals under that land completely disrupting other land uses—farming operations or whatever—and had no right to say no. The landowner’s right was instituted by the Crown Minerals Act in 1991 and that was a step forward. 
The notion of rights to perpetual renewal of leases licences or permits is inappropriate when dealing with public resources. The perpetual right of renewal—such as has been the case for pastoral leases in the South Island for example—has effectively led to privatisation of public assets. Those leasehold lands change hands as though they were freehold. It is virtually impossible for the Government to end the lease even though no capital payment was ever made in the first place for the occupation of the land. The Opposition is talking about property rights and seems to believe that property rights over the access to public resources should be in perpetuity. The Green Party does not agree with that. 
The vesting of pounamu in Ngai Tahu was part of the Crown’s efforts to honour the Treaty of Waitangi and we do not believe it is appropriate for a company to try to undermine that effect of the treaty. Pounamu is a very special mineral. Its value in spiritual and cultural terms is at least as great as its economic value. We note that the bill still protects the legal position of Glenharrow Holdings. 
We support mineral exploration companies having to relinquish at least 50 percent of the area covered by their exploration permits should they wish to extend the term of those permits from 5 years up to 10. That should increase the efficiency of mineral exploration. By the time companies have been exploring for 5 years they should have narrowed down a little bit the area where minerals are likely to be and where they are not. It will give them an incentive to get on with the job—if they do not use their licence they will lose it. 
This bill however misses two opportunities to remedy a couple of defects in the original Act. The first one is the anomaly in the Crown minerals legislation that only national parks created before it was passed in 1991 are covered by the fourth schedule and so are protected from applications to carry out minerals prospecting exploration or extraction. In its 2002 manifesto Labour said it would ensure that the Conservation Act and the Crown Minerals Act provided adequate protection from mining activities for areas of significant conservation value. It is odd that land of equal status under the Conservation Act is treated differently depending on whether it got there before or after 1991. 
Secondly the Government has not used the opportunity to further remove the special status of mining. Labour’s policy stated that it would amend the Crown Minerals Act and the Conservation Act to establish an appropriate public process for the consideration of prospecting exploration and mining applications on conservation land not covered by the mineral activity ban—as occurs with other commercial activities such as tourism and recreational concessions. There is still no process for the public to be involved when— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It would be helpful for those of us who are following this debate closely if the member speaking could give us some guidance as to which particular clause in Part 1 she is referring to. It sounds like she is reading a second reading speech and she has not referred to any particular clause in Part 1 at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debatable issue. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I am speaking on issues in Part 1 such as clause 4 “Record of permit”; clause 5 “Change to permit”; clause 6 “Revocation of permit”; clause 7 “Surrender of permit”; clause 8 “Transfers and other dealings with permits”; and so on. 
Just to finish because I think I must be almost out of time I was saying that there is no process—as there is for other sorts of concessions on the conservation estate—for mining to be open to a public process. We believe there should be. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 After listening to the Green Party spokesperson on this bill I think the Committee could be confused because it is clear that the Green Party’s policy is a total close-down of mining in this country. Regrettably that party has had some spectacular success. The whole of the Coromandel Peninsula is closed down to mining and Jeanette Fitzsimons is proud of that. From her perspective I can understand that but from New Zealand’s perspective I am appalled. We know from the report prepared by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences that this country has an estimated $86 billion of mineral wealth under the land. 
Progress reported.