Robertson Grant: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5683. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear that speech from Jonathan Young around the question of the importance of balance as he described it. For the Labour Party this is the issue that we previously dealt with within the exclusive economic zone legislation which we had before the House. It is the question of this Government’s view that it is important to insert into this legislation some way of giving economic activity greater prominence. This comes in this particular legislation in what is clause 31 of this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill with the new economic test that will be applied for mining. As my colleague Moana Mackey has said why just mining? Why not other sectors that have to get concessions? Why is mining being lifted out in this way? What that does is it raises concerns for people that once again the Government is trying to tilt the balance. In fact the underlying problem here is the fact that the Government views it as something that needs to be balanced—the economy and the environment. 
What is not understood by members on the other side of the House is that the two things are two sides of the same coin. They are not actually being balanced. You do not get to have the ability to exploit natural resources in a sustainable way if you do not have a sustainable environment in the first place and if you do not actually protect and preserve the environment so that it sits at the heart of the economy and the heart of the natural economy particularly in New Zealand. 
So I guess from our side of the House that is why we are concerned—and my colleague Moana Mackey has already mentioned this—about that particular element of this bill the introduction of this economic test. We certainly on this side of the House would like to see that addressed for our ongoing support for this bill. We had this exact debate in the exclusive economic zone area. We got some movement from the Government in that but we did not get all the movement that our side of the House would have wanted. So that is one of the two very significant issues that give us cause to say yes we will support this to the select committee but we certainly have reservations about that. 
The other matter that we have reservations about which Moana Mackey has also spoken about is the question of the Minister of Energy and Resources having a decision-making role alongside the Minister of Conservation as to whether there should be public consultation on concessions. We on this side of the House have a strong position that that is not the way this should be done. We are telling the Government in the spirit of the good faith that it has come to us in to say it wants this bill to have cross-party support that on this side of the House we find that position difficult. We cannot support the bill through the full stages if that provision is going to remain in the way that it is because we believe there is a reason why the Minister of Conservation has this role. It is conservation land. The Minister of Conservation is charged by the Government with looking after on behalf of the people of New Zealand the conservation estate. 
Yes the Minister of Energy and Resources may well have an interest in it and I think anyone who has been around Government processes— 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister of Tourism? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. Anyone who has been around Government processes over the last few years will know that in any situation like this the Minister of Conservation will speak with their colleagues and it will not just be the Minister of Energy and Resources. It will be the Minister of Tourism or it might be the Minister for the Environment. It is very important that the Minister of Conservation does that. It is part of doing their job properly. But ultimately the decision should lie with the Minister of Conservation because of the nature of the land that we are talking about. Again as Moana Mackey said earlier the speech we heard from Phil Heatley today indicated exactly why it is dangerous for the Minister of Energy and Resources to have that role given the kind of advocacy we were seeing from the Minister when he spoke today. On this side of the House we have significant concerns about the idea that that will be changed. 
The Government made such a shambles of its work around mining and schedule 4 in the last term of Government that it actually left itself in a position where this was what it felt it had to do. It had to find some kind of way of improving the odds as it were for the extractive industries and it has now come into this House with a bill with two areas where it tried to do this: one around the economic test and one around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources alongside the Minister of Conservation. We on this side of the House do not believe those things are useful. We also do not believe that they are necessary in this kind of legislation if the Government is prepared to come at this from the point of view that the environment is what lies at the heart of enabling us to do things in our economy. We cannot simply see these things as a balancing act especially a balancing act where the Government puts in place legislation that will weight that balance in favour of the economy and against the environment. So we do have significant concerns on those grounds. 
As other speakers have already noted there are elements of this bill that the Labour Party does support. We certainly like the idea that there will be the automatic inclusion of protected lands in schedule 4. We think that it is something that will be very useful. We think it is a process that most New Zealanders would like to see occur and we think it is the kind of legislation we would like to see before the House. 
Also in relation to the idea of pre-vetting applicants so that they are screened for health and safety and environmental capability this is important. This is important because New Zealanders expect this House to set up the most robust regime possible where there will be extractive industries involved. New Zealanders want to know that if we are going to undertake this activity it happens on New Zealanders’ terms and it happens along with the rules that we would expect to protect the environment that New Zealanders feel so much for and that is so integral to who we are as a country and to our brand overseas as well. So we have to set up robust regimes. Putting in place a pre-vetting process will allow us to make sure that if there are players in the extractive industries who do not meet the kind of standards that New Zealanders would expect then they will not be able to get here. So on that count we think that is a useful provision. The streamlining of processes is also something that obviously we want to look at in the Commerce Committee to see exactly what that means but we obviously support the idea that those processes are clear and also the idea of a two-tier system for mining permits. We need to make sure that in land where there is particular value we have a highly stringent process. We like the idea of strengthening that. If it is still possible to protect those values with a different process for the second tier then we can also go along with that. 
So for those reasons this is a finely balanced call for the Labour Party but Mr Heatley has come to us and said he wants to put in place an enduring piece of legislation something that will actually help develop in New Zealand a shared understanding of how things will work in our natural environment: what role the industry has what role the Government has and how we will ensure environmental protection. We welcome that approach but we caution the Minister that if there is going to be cross-party support for this kind of legislation it has to be based on the idea that the environment that we have is protected and that the role of the Minister of Conservation is understood. The conservation estate is there for a reason. New Zealanders have over generations said that we want to protect this land around us to provide us with the kind of natural environment in which we can both have recreation but we can also support where appropriate people entering that environment and using the resources. But we cannot have a situation where the balance is tipped so far in favour of the economic considerations that we leave those environmental ones behind. 
So on balance the Labour Party is supporting this bill to the select committee but we do so with serious reservations and a clear indication to the Government that if on those issues around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources and also around the economic test if we cannot actually work together on those and find a solution the Labour Party will be unable to support the bill in its future stages.