O'Rourke Denis: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will emphatically support the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. The Crown Minerals Act as it now is would have been a sleeping dog but this Government would not let it lie. It has obviously been willing to compromise conservation values in favour of the exploitation of resources. Nicky Wagner said that National wanted a prosperous country—and so do we all. The difference is that some of us will not do it at any cost.  
There is no harm however in encouraging the sustainable use of New Zealand’s resources and I emphasise the word “sustainable”. There is no need for a policy either of absolute prohibition on the use of the country’s resources. But the sustainability bar must be high and in the case of conservation land the bar must be so high as to be virtually a prohibition where large-scale mining in particular is concerned.  
I want to refer to section 61(2) of the existing Act in which the Minister in deciding upon an access arrangement must have regard to certain things. Included are the objectives of any Act under which the land is administered the purpose for which the land is held policy statements management plans and safeguards against any potential adverse effects. It sounds all right until you realise that in fact that is not only not a comprehensive list of what should be given regard to; it is in fact a very weak section altogether. If that is all a Minister did then I think most members of the New Zealand public would regard that as a wholly inadequate process of consideration.  
I also want to refer to section 61(5) which I think is even weaker. I totally reject Nicky Wagner’s description of the consultation process under that section as being comprehensive. It is anything but. Let me read it you. First of all it says that the Minister of Conservation must consult “to the extent that is reasonably practicable”. Who on earth knows what that is other than the Minister? That is highly subjective and it is so wide that a Minister could decide whatever they like in terms of what is adequate consultation.  
Section 61(5) goes on to say: “having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case” and only “those persons the Ministers have reason to believe are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected” are those who need to be consulted. So this is not a section that provides for comprehensive widespread general public consultation. The consultation process is in fact not modern at all let alone comprehensive. In fact as far as I am concerned it really means that the Minister need listen only to his or her mates. That is I think exactly what has happened with this Government.  
A modern consultation system requires comprehensive information processes explanation—which means consultation genuinely pursued—and the consideration of submissions. There is nothing like any of that in this section of the Act. So we cannot have any confidence that there would be any consultation at all under this section. The Act is so deficient in these various ways that really it needs a complete overhaul. For those reasons amongst others this bill should be opposed.  
But this bill is about process not about substance. Hence National should really be supporting it if it really is interested in process and consultation. The bill asks only that if land is to be removed from schedule 4 then it should not be done by a Minister especially given the deficient processes detailed in the existing Act. Exploitation proposals should as this bill means go through Parliament and be fully debated in public. That is necessary now given the Government’s record. So New Zealand First does as I said at the beginning fully and emphatically support the bill as it now is.