Copeland Gordon: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8000] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In my contribution to the second reading I outlined the reasons United Future is not able to support this bill as it stands. As I said at the time it is not so much that we object to the content of this particular bill but we object rather to the overall Crown minerals framework that exists under the Crown Minerals Act. We are concerned with the overall environment that exists in New Zealand in relation to the mining of Crown minerals. We are concerned that mining companies and in particular those situated overseas are bypassing mineral prospecting in New Zealand in favour of overseas countries that have established far better more practical and more workable prospecting and mining regimes. 
I take no delight in reporting to the House that representatives of one international mining company said to me recently that New Zealand now rates in their mind in terms of ease of access and certainty of process and fairness alongside politically unstable regimes in Africa; on the other hand the advantage of those regimes in Africa is that they are very open to bribes. I was staggered to find New Zealand categorised in that way and asked questions in an endeavour to establish why such negative perceptions exist. I will endeavour to summarise the position as mining companies see it so that these matters can be clarified in the interests of public debate and the development of this country. 
Let me say at the outset that New Zealand can kiss goodbye to returning its economy to the top half of the OECD if in areas such as hydro-electricity generation Crown minerals mining and tourism facilities the international community has formed the view that this is a risky country in which to invest. The simple truth is that if we discourage sensible development in New Zealand then we will get less of it. The other side of that public policy maxim is also true—namely that if we encourage it as an activity we will get more of it. 
Let me outline the problems. The first as I mentioned in my second reading speech is that we have a major systemic problem because one-third of New Zealand land plus the majority of our rivers and lakes are owned by the Crown but are administered by the Department of Conversation under the Conservation Act. We must not delay a review of the way that that Act is being administrated. In reality from inception it should have dealt with land management issues and have been broadened out to ensure that such management has as one of its aims the enabling of people and communities to provide for their economic well-being. When we talk about sustainability we can all too easily overlook that we must provide the means wherever possible to enable local people and their communities to become economically self-sustaining through the use of local resources. I am an environmentalist and a conservationist but we need to continually ask ourselves the question: what is the ultimate value that we are trying to achieve? As Maori rightly say: “It is people it is people it is people.” How foolish then to take more than one-third of the total area of this country willy-nilly place the label “conservation” on it then padlock it away with an enormous billboard saying: “No mining no hydro no tourism facilities.” That is not good enough and the matter needs to be urgently addressed. 
I hope for the benefit of New Zealand and its people that I do not have to go on repeatedly pointing out the problem before corrective action is taken. Some might say I am exaggerating the situation. However if I were to take as an example the Macrae mine near Reefton which may eventually be able to be progressed and go through the whole sorry saga of that particular example we will find that it proves what I am saying. In that situation there was no certainty of process no time lines were established and the Department of Conservation plus the Minister of Conservation were simply able to delay and delay and delay. 
It is exactly that kind of result that sees New Zealand given a Third World label. No one in hisor her right mind is prepared to outlay the resources—and we can be talking millions of dollars—and engage with the Department of Conservation as long as that situation continues. It is time consuming and exhausting. It is difficult to envisage anything worse than a very expensive long uncertain non-transparent process. That is exactly what we have in New Zealand at the moment when it comes to Crown minerals. Mining is not prohibited on the Department of Conservation estate—national parks excepted—but it almost might as well be. 
The second major issue in relation to the Crown Minerals Act that I believe needs to be addressed is the function of the Minister of Energy and the Ministry of Economic Development in relation to Crown minerals. At present they are not empowered to advocate for and manage the Crown-owned minerals estate. Accordingly especially when dealing with the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation the position lacks any kind of ministerial symmetry.That is extremely important when specific mining possibilities go to a hearing under the Resource Management Act. The whole weight of the Minister of Conservation and his department stands against often the mining company and very often also against the wishes of the local community who believe their economic well-being will be advanced if mining were to proceed. 
The perception and more often than not the reality in that situation is that the local authority and if it goes to appeal the Environment Court give undue weight to just the conservation side of the argument. The dice are loaded against the mining company and the local community by the whole weight of the State and its limitless resources. It would be a great improvement in my view if the Minister of Energy and his department were there also to balance out the process in relation to the Crown mineral estate. After all we must not forget that finally it is the Crown that owns the minerals themselves and it is the Crown that gives the mining companies the right to extract those minerals in exchange for royalties etc. In one sense therefore we could say that the Crown itself is being negligent in relation to its own assets—assets that it effectively holds in trust for the benefit and the welfare of the people of this country. 
The value of minerals in any particular situation should not be overlooked. As pointed out by the Hon Ken Shirley in the second reading debate it is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars in the case of gold but of course potentially even greater sums of money may be involved with oil and gas. 
I repeat what I previously said. Extraction of Crown minerals need not necessarily be at the expense of the conservation estate and its value. Indeed the overriding criteria should in my view remain net benefit to that conservation estate—a win-win situation. I hope we might yet see the Government begin to move in that direction and I am encouraged by recent initiatives by the Minister of Conservation that he is prepared to begin dialogue with United Future.