Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Mr Assistant Speaker it is a pleasure to be speaking from this very nice seat here in the debating Chamber. It is my pleasure to be talking on this bill the Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill and I did not think I would be hearing things about Giza.I must admit I was very persuaded by that very good list member from the West Coast Maureen Pugh. I thought what she said earlier was very pertinent very appropriate. I have listened to a couple of the speeches from the Opposition already and it is just that I am not persuaded by the arguments and I just wanted to reflect on some of the things that I have heard. Before I do that I just want to reiterate what this bill is about. This is obviously about classifying certain World Heritage sites into schedule 4 which is basically a national park status. It affects some of the key areas in New Zealand such as Tongariro National Park the Subantarctic Islands and of course parts of Fiordland—in particular Te Wāhipounamu.As the list member from West Coast noted there are 30 mining licences already in operation and some of them are undertaking some very valuable activities for the West Coast—particularly it was noted quarrying activities metal quarrying activities also the Aotea stone but also the schist business that we heard about which is a growing business down there. It was also noted that there are only 25 of these licences in operation. I think one of the important points that the list member made was that many of these activities—in fact the bulk—occur between the mean high tides which means that when the sea comes in and goes out you cannot actually see any impact of those activities at all. I think that is a very pertinent thing.It raises one of those issues that I think cuts across this bill which is: how do you safely combine strong environmental and conservation requirements and desires alongside appropriate economic activities that fulfil and meet the wishes of people? What I think in this case one of the issues here—in fact it raises three issues. First of all how did the 30 existing licences get approved? I note that for each of those 30 licences it would have required the approval of the Department of Conservation (DOC) for access and it would have required the approval of the local authority. And as I understand it those approvals those consents for activity in those very precious areas are highly difficult to get and are subject to a great deal of consent requirements.The second issue that it raises: should further licences be issued? And this starts to raise the issue around economic activities on the West Coast: what is appropriate in terms of supporting the communities on the West Coast? I think that is a very fundamental issue that cuts across this bill. And the third issue it raises is: what do we do about the existing use rights? What do we do about the existing property rights of those people who have legitimately gone through the long and expensive process of getting a consent not only from their local authority but also from DOC. It raises issues around compensation and it raises a number of very significant property rights issues. And I am not sure in the commentary on the bill—and nor have either of the two previous speakers from the Opposition raised any of those issues and I think that is a serious deficiency in their argument.I think also the importance of the natural environment—I think we all understand it. We all have a deep desire to make sure that the conservation estate of New Zealand is well maintained is protected but the issue is around how you bring about prudent economic activities that are of low impact that are appropriate in the circumstances. I think that is the issue that we are talking about tonight and I am very concerned that this bill has not had the blessing of or consultation with local iwi and is in fact opposed by the local mayor. On that basis I must oppose this bill.