Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8002] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the speech made by Gordon Copeland of United Future. He might be able to see a ray of sunshine coming through in terms of whatever dialogue United Future will engage in with the Labour Government over a more positive future for the mining industry but I have to say I remain very sceptical. I remember that before the 1999 election the Hon Paul Swain who was an Opposition member at that stage did indeed engage the mining industry in dialogue and promised that Labour if it was elected would actually develop a strategy for the mineral industry but I have yet to see that eventuate. 
It was absolutely right for my colleagues Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and Peter Brown of New Zealand First to point out that this legislation definitely sends the very clear message that this Labour Government is anti the mining industry. That was reinforced by the members of the mining industry when this bill was first introduced into the House in 2000 just before Christmas. I was on the Commerce Committee at that stage and members of the mining industry brought to our attention the lack of proper consultation with them. They were told when the bill was in preparation that it was being brought in to adjust or to correct or to amend administrative technical matters relating to the administration of the Crown mineral estate. So it was to their horror that just at Christmas in the year 2000 this bill was brought in to extinguish the right of mining licence holders. 
Let us reflect back a little bit. For 9 years since 1991 to the year 2000 when Glenharrow Holdings won its case in court the mining operators were repeatedly told by the officials of the Crown mineral section within the Ministry of Economic Development that their rights for renewal or variation were extinguished. So they were entitled to take the advice of those officials as being right and many of them did. But Glenharrow has never given up and engaged legal counsel who did not believe that that was the intention of the legislation passed in 1991. 
 Glenharrow won the court case. I was surprised to hear the arrogant tone used by Mark Peck the Labour member of Parliament in his speech a few minutes ago when he indicated that Glenharrow and others should be grateful that the Labour Government has brought in this legislation as if this Government is granting some favour to Glenharrow and others who had lodged their applications prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002. 
I ask that member to reflect on that attitude which I think is typical of a very arrogant anti-mining Labour Government. Glenharrow and others have fought long and hard to have the fruits of victory and of course they should be allowed to keep them. But what happened to the many others who over many years listened to the advice given by the officials and did not act in time to have their property rights protected? Not only had proper consultation not been carried out on this legislation but it got worse when this bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Before the committee members had had time to deliberate on the legislation the Hon Harry Duynhoven through a press statement announced another time line to extinguish the property rights. They were to expire at 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002. So many operators who had the intention of applying to renew their licence and who were waiting for the outcome of the deliberations of the Commerce Committee were dealt another blow. 
I thought all the Ministers apart from Harry Duynhoven might not have been as sympathetic to those licence holders. Surely we would have expected particularly in recent weeks Harry Duynhoven’s understanding of the frustration when a piece of legislation was found to contain provisions that were not to his advantage. The Labour Government never lost time in bringing in urgency to fix a piece of legislation for one of its own members of Parliament but it did not extend the same sympathetic attitude towards the licence holders of the mining industry. 
I also want to talk a little bit more about the lack of consultation on this bill. I brought up this point because in recent weeks we were reminded by the Minister of Local Government the Hon Chris Carter of the importance and necessity of consultation. Day after day in Parliament he lectured local government—in this case the Auckland Regional Council—for not consulting properly its ratepayers and insisted during the passing of the Local Government Bill in June this year that extensive consultation should take place with the ratepayers before local government could implement any legislation. 
I thought it was a bit rich for a Labour Minister to lecture local government on the morals and merits of consultation when the Government brought in legislation that had serious consequences on licence holders and extinguished their property rights. Indeed they were not even given the opportunity to be consulted in the first place. Then when this legislation was being considered at the Commerce Committee another time line was brought in to end their rights once and for all. 
So I would not exactly say that this legislation is a shining example of the Labour Government trying to demonstrate that it respects the process of consultation. I also reflect on the fact that if the commencement date of time lines is being brought into legislation during the select committee process what is the point of this House debating in Committee the commencement date and other related matters? Therefore I think that today is another very sad day for the mining industry which should get the message by now that this Labour Government is absolutely anti-mining.