Bridges Simon: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9257. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am proud that the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is in my name. I am proud of that because this bill is about higher-paid jobs in the provinces—the provinces that some of those people on that side of the Chamber say they represent. But let me tell you that this bill is fundamentally about development and promoting development. To refer to the purpose in new section 1A(1) set out in clause 6: “The purpose of this Act is to promote prospecting for exploration for and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.” This bill is for the benefit of New Zealand.The benefits from petroleum are immense in this country: royalties and taxes are 42c in every dollar of profit billions of dollars to the Crown over the years that go to pay for the schools and the hospitals and the roads that yes even the Greens drive on in oil-filled cars. There is direct employment in the provinces and very high-paid jobs—I have seen them. Young men and women are earning $120000 $150000 and in some cases$200000 a year—ordinary Kiwis in indirect jobs in terms of the architects the engineers the hoteliers and the coffee-makers. It is quite clear in Taranaki where you see that.Yet we have in the Green Party one Gareth Hughes about whom this was reported in the media: “Citing changes to employment legislation made to mollify the makers of The Hobbit movies and controversy over the SkyCity national convention centre Hughes believed there was a trend to change rules to benefit a ‘corporate few’.” Well I have contempt for that statement because there are 4000 New Zealanders in Taranaki making a living out of this industry in direct jobs and another 4000 making it indirectly—the hoteliers and so on. They are not the corporate few Mr Hughes. They are ordinary Kiwis of all ages and of all ethnicities. They are not corporates. They are just ordinary Kiwis who want to get ahead in this country and want to do well. They do not get a fair go from parties like the Green Party over there which does not actually believe in sensible development that takes into account and protects health and safety and the environment and that is exactly what this bill provides for. In fact it ups the standards in those areas quite considerably and yet we have the kinds of bogus claims we have seen from the other side.Then we come to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which Labour the Greens and Moana Mackey go on and on and on about. What drivel they are speaking—what absolute drivel! When they read it—I know that is difficult for one or two of them—what is very clear is we are stopping criminal damage and criminal interference. Protest does not even come into it and here is the problem with the Labour-Green position effectively. I challenge Gareth Hughes when he takes a call. I understand that Damien O’Connor would have voted for this bill but he was muffled by his party. He would have voted for this bill but he was muffled by his party. Well I say to Mr Hughes that here is the problem with your position. What Mr Hughes Moana Mackey and sadly Damien O’Connor—because he has to vote against this even though he does not want to—are saying is: “Yes to democratic rights for our mates for people who share our political beliefs actually our political prejudices but not real rights for people who disagree with us.”Moana Mackey: Why doesn’t it apply to everyone?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I will tell you what I learnt at law school Ms Mackey. It was that real rights are rights for people who disagree with you—not just your prejudices Mr Hughes. Real rights are rights for people who disagree with you. So I ask Mr Hughes to give me an answer in this House to this question: do Kiwis working hard on those exploration vessels not have rights as well? Do they not have the right not to be subject to criminal damage to interference and frankly Mr Hughes to some of your mates’ harassment? I reckon they do and I reckon most New Zealanders believe they have actually got a right to a fair go as well.Moana Mackey: Why doesn’t it apply to everyone?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Rights are a two-way thing Ms Mackey. So Gareth Hughes I want you to tell me whether they have rights as well. Or do their rights not count? What is quite clear over that side of the House is a view that says the ends justify the means right? The ends justify the means. They are so clear in their smarmy little chardonnay socialist world that they are right that they do not care about other people’s rights—“Rights for our side; no rights for anyone else!”. Well I will tell you Mr Hughes that business people in this country have rights too actually and talking about business and development is not a shameful thing. Actually it is what makes the world go round and it is what pays for all your socialist ideas frankly.It has been good to take this brief call and to ask what is so wrong actually with these vessels going out exploring and seeing what lies underneath our feet hundreds ofmiles outside. Be very clear Mr Hughes that there are Kiwis on these vessels. I have met them. I met a chef from Invercargill on a seismic vessel who loved the work loved the people and was proud of what he was doing. He was proud to be out there. So I say to Mr Hughes that actually this bill is about development this bill is about higher-paying jobs in the provinces that National holds—because we actually care about the people out there—and also this bill is about rights not just for the trendy lefties that Mr Hughes and Ms Moana Mackey talk to but also for other people whom they happen to disagree with. That is the real test of rights—rights for those you disagree with.