Connell Brian: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7876] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Like my colleagues before me I want to make it very clear that the National Party does not support the passage of this legislation primarily because it is simply not fair. It does not appeal to what Kiwis really believe is a sense of fair play—because we cannot do things retrospectively. Like my colleague before me I have had a look through Part 1 and I also conclude that it is fairly technical. I have had a look at clauses 7 8 and 9 which deal with the surrender of permits transfers and other dealings with permits and also with the issue of unit development. In particular I too will focus on existing privileges. I want to take up the challenge that my colleague Lockwood Smith has issued to the Minister in the Chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven and ask him to take a call and explain exactly what that deals with. I think that that is only fair and reasonable. 
 For the sake of clarity I remind members what the legislation is dealing with. The bill prevents mining licensees from renewing their mining licences under the now repealed Mining Act and Coal Mines Act. As a result of this amendment miners must now reapply under the Crown Minerals Act not the Mining Act or Coal Mines Act that originally applied. What sort of bureaucracy this will lead to and what sort of prohibitive cost I can only imagine. I do not see these types of costs picked up in Part 1 and that is why I was hoping that the Minister in the chair would take a call and explain whether under existing privileges this issue was going to be addressed. What I think this will do—there is no doubt at all in my mind—is undermine the confidence of people in this industry. An industry like this which is capital intensive relies on being able to attract capital. If an industry cannot attract capital it loses investment opportunities and the resulting loss in confidence will also have an impact on revenue. 
The bill has arisen out of a High Court case  
Glenharrow Holdings Ltd 
 v  
Attorney General 
 which held that the principal Act did not extinguish the rights of mining licensees. But the Government rather than accept this decision basically spat the dummy. It did not like the umpire’s decision so essentially it has done what any petulant child does in the playground—it picks up its bat and ball and goes home. Regardless of the time and money invested by large corporations in what was hitherto a highly respected industry the Government has decided to change the legislation retrospectively. Of course retrospective legislation is not new to the Minister in the chair. There is one rule for Harry Duynhoven MP and one rule for those in the mining industry. So again I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain to members what existing privileges we are talking about. I think that this is probably the worst example of abuse of executive power that I have encountered. 
In the first reading debate Minister Swain said this legislation would not be enforced retrospectively. But it is happening. He said that any mining licensee variation application received before the amendment is enacted would be accepted and the process under the current regime. But we find when we get to Part 2 that clauses 22 and 23 contradict this statement. That is not fair and it is not reasonable. That is why the people of this country will oppose this bill when they understand the detail. I also picked up on a press release from one of my esteemed colleagues Pansy Wong. She argues very cogently that the people in the mining industry had not been consulted despite assurances from the Minister that consultation had been undertaken. This is the type of consultation that has gone on around the Kyoto Protocolthe flatulence tax and the seabed.