Ardern Jacinda: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9506] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted that in her contribution Nicky Wagner said she wanted to talk about conservation. That is absolutely what we on this side of the Chamber wish to talk about and that is why we are being forced to discuss mining. The most controversial issue that the Department of Conservation and this country are currently facing in this subject area is the fact that the National Government wishes to open up our national parks and other areas of strategic and sacred importance to this country for mining. Members on the Government side of the Chamber may shake their heads at me and claim that I am acting as a scaremonger but let me take those members through the rational reasons why we would not need to touch schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act unless we wished to mine the lands listed in it. There is absolutely no alternative reason why we would remove land from schedule 4. 
Before we begin I think it is probably useful to look at the true role of the Department of Conservation which is helpfully raised in the financial review. It states: “The Department of Conservation manages and oversees the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and heritage assets … for the benefit and enjoyment of all New Zealanders. The department directly manages public protected lands”. We have already spoken about the fact that roughly 30 percent of New Zealand’s land area is locked into the conservation estate. But there are two categories of conservation land and I think it is important that we draw out the distinctions between the two. When we talk about schedule 4 we are not talking about everything. We are talking about those areas that a National Government in the first instance decided after much discussion and debate were important enough to be given a special place in our legislation. That is the schedule that is now being questioned by that very same Government. 
We see in the financial review that some members rightfully put to the department the question of whether it felt that its role was being compromised by the fact that it was involved in this review of schedule 4 in the first place. I understand that the Director-General of Conservation said the department was advising on the conservation values of the areas under review and he did not regard its involvement as contrary to the objectives of the legislation. Well I question whether he was allowed to speak out against the department’s role in this particular review. I think that it compromises the role of the department as an advocate on behalf of the conservation estate. 
Before we go any further let us look at why this issue has been muddied. I personally blame the National Government if there is any lack of clarity about what is going on in this debate. I have some previous history in this area. Some years ago I was a private secretary for an Associate Minister of Energy who had responsibility for mining. I worked directly on schedule 4 and variations when mining companies wished to make applications for mining on conservation land. I understand the distinction between the two situations. If the National Government wishes to remove land from schedule 4 that is a very different thing from whether someone is granted a variation to mine on the conservation estate. Those are two different things. 
Probably the best reasons we can find as to why schedule 4 was created in the first place are given in the  
Hansard 
 of the third reading debate on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No. 3) on 20 November 1997 by Nick Smith himself. He was the Minister who ushered in this important schedule at the time. If we go back to some of the rationale that he provided at that time we see that he said: “This Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: ‘These are no-go areas.’” The irony is the reference to “pegs in the sand” given that half of the Coromandel is back up in question as well. Nick Smith continued: “This legislation says to the mining industries that those areas set aside as national parks are not appropriate areas for mining.” Ten years on I would like to ask the Minister whether perhaps at some point he would like to share with us what has changed. Does he think that those national parks are any less significant to New Zealand now than he did then? As far as I am concerned everything that is listed on schedule 4 has remained the same in terms of its conservation value. 
Nick Smith went on to say “This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand.” Those who were involved—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in particular—were heralded by him for their role in developing such important legislation but now that they speak up against it being reviewed they are being labelled as scaremongers by this Government even though they were the ones who helped to usher it in in partnership with that National Government at the time. Nick Smith conclude his speech by saying: “I welcome the Bill’s progress and as Minister of Conservation look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost.”