Dyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I begin my contribution in supporting the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill by congratulating the member who introduced it Metiria Turei. I further congratulate the member Eugenie Sage who brought it to the House today. The member made an extraordinarily considered and reasonable contribution and I think it was blindingly obvious actually that members would support the legislation going to the next step.  
But then we heard from Nicky Wagner. Well Nicky explain to us—I think it will come as great news to the public of New Zealand that National never had any serious intention of mining schedule 4 land that that was not its intention and that actually what it was doing was seeking feedback from the public. Well it got it. Fifty thousand people marched down Queen Street and that was an unheard-of demonstration of people across the board from all manner of professions backgrounds and ages who said: “Not yours to mine”.  
When we have the opportunity to have this sentiment put into legislation to reflect the public feedback that the member who has just resumed her seat Nicky Wagner so clearly wanted and got they are saying no. They are saying they will just leave it as it is because all they were doing was seeking public feedback. They do not want that overwhelming public feedback put into the law. Well I do and I am very pleased that Labour will be supporting this legislation because the public do not have any faith in what Nicky Wagner said. We think it was more than just floating the idea out there to get public feedback. We think it was a real proposal and the public responded. 
Maggie Barry 
: They don’t have any faith in what you said. That’s why they voted you out. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Maggie Barry is again showing her true inclination—to dig it and mine it. She will not be supporting the legislation. I think she should go back to doing something where she can retain her integrity and credibility rather than coming here and voting against legislation that protects our schedule 4 land from being mined. That is a really important thing to do and nothing that member says will stop the public understanding that.  
Then Nicky Wagner said that actually another reason for voting against this legislation is that it is unnecessary excessive and a regulatory regime that is too complex. It has two clauses in it. I do not really see how having— 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s really only got one. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Well no. It has got the access clause to be fair. It has got the title then it has got the commencement and then it has got clause 3 where the principal Act is named and then it has got clause 4 “Access arrangements in respect of Crown land”. You could not actually have a bill that was less complex less bureaucratic and less of a regulatory regime. All it says is that we do not want National to mine in schedule 4 land. It is the most precious land and that has been determined because the land has been put in the schedule and therefore it should be protected. It is in a different category because of being placed as schedule 4 land.  
Finally the member made the point that it would be very easy under this bill for land to be removed from schedule 4. Well she cannot have read the final clause. Perhaps it was a bit too wordy to wade through—it is all of six lines long. But right in it it says that this allows for amendment to schedule 4 “to add to but not remove any Crown owned land referred to in subsection (1A).” This specifically says it cannot be removed. It can only be added to as a result of this legislation.  
It does not really matter whether the National Party was serious about mining land in schedule 4 or whether it just wanted public feedback because overwhelmingly New Zealanders said no to that proposal. Whether it was floated or seriously proposed what this legislation does is respect the view of the public and puts it in legislation so that we can all have confidence that the genuine view of the public and our desire to see schedule 4 land properly protected from mining are retained.