Heatley Phil: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7625] 
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?