Dyson Ruth: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 16 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): The member who has just resumed his seat Jonathan Young started his contribution by saying that he was going to answer a few of the questions posed by my colleague Moana Mackey. He totally ignored every single question that my colleague Moana Mackey had asked. But that is not surprising because the Minister who sat in the chair during the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill did exactly the same thing. The only contribution that he made to the Committee—and I am talking about the Hon Simon Bridges—was to be abusive. He was then followed by the Hon Chris Finlayson who was also abusive—personally abusive of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Anne Salmond. Dame Anne Salmond New Zealander of the Year was denigrated in this Chamber by our Attorney-General and by the Minister responsible for this legislation. I thought it was an outrage and I am looking forward to a bit more contrite behaviour from both those Ministers in the future.I was also surprised by the contribution from Jonathan Young who actually should know better. He does come from an area where exploration is really relevant. He knows that all the good things that happen in Taranaki that he was boasting about—and I agree with him; they are very good for that region—happen under existing law. The opportunity to have environmental protection and conservation values recognised exists under current law and this legislation weakens it.As has been pointed out Labour supported the legislation going to the Commerce Committee but we said we had bottom lines about the role of the Minister of Conservation in making decisions that should not be weakened and about the importance of protection of our environment and conservation that again should not be weakened and that if those fundamental issues were not addressed then we would oppose the legislation. I think it is a shame. I think it is a huge missed opportunity and it is particularly frustrating because in an area where such a lot of investment is required before there is potential financial return the best thing that this Parliament can offer to the exploration industry is security. If we could get wide cross-party agreement on important issues such as the regulatory regime such as the policy framework then the industry would have a lot more confidence in going into these areas where they need such a lot of investment.The National Party does not have a clue about giving an important industry confidence in investment in the future. All it wants is a narrow opportunity for some of its benefactors to invest in this area. Well it should not be done at the cost of our conservation estate. It should not be done with a risk of environmental damage. This legislation enhances that risk rather than reduces it.I am not sure whether the Minister of Conservation is going to take a call in this debate but I am frustrated that a Minister who has such a good record for a National Party Minister in the area of conservation is about to have so much of his advocacy and his decision-making ability weakened by this legislation and I think Nick Smith would resent it. I want to briefly congratulate the Minister though. Over the weekend he made one of the best announcements I have ever heard and that is the signing off from his perspective of the Akaroa marine reserve—the Dan Rogers Marine Reserve. It is a decision that is celebrated and I want to sincerely congratulate the Minister on making that decision. It does not justify this legislation though. In fact it makes it even worse when you have a Minister of Conservation who clearly understands the issues and the passion. I ask why on earth we would then want to say: “But let these other areas go ahead of it. Let the Minister of Conservation have their decision-making power weakened.” That is dumb. It is stupid. It gives exactly the wrong message from the New Zealand Parliament and I do not think that Nick Smith in his heart of hearts supports it. I guess this legislation was drafted up while he was not in Cabinet and that might explain some of it.There have been a lot of conversations during the earlier stages of the debate about the outrage of Supplementary Order Paper 205 which was introduced by Simon Bridges. The select committee put a lot of effort and energy into this legislation. There were a lot of attempts to get things right as much as possible and where there was clear disagreement that was sort of put to one side in an effort to make the legislation workable. There was a reconsideration by the select committee as a result of the Pike River inquiry recommendations and I want to commend the chair Jonathan Young and the officials for the way that they looked at those really difficult issues which came about as a result of a tragedy and across-party work was done very very well in order to ensure the future safety of our miners. I think that was a great example of how this Parliament should work together.Then along on his black stallion rides Simon Bridges throwing abuse to as many people as he can as he goes trampling over basic democratic rights and in my view misrepresenting the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration on his Supplementary Order Paper. I heard both Simon Bridges and Chris Finlayson in the Chamber struggling about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consideration of that Supplementary Order Paper but I understand that Simon Bridges said on TV in just the last couple of days that the Supplementary Order Paper had got a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sign off. Well I would like him to table it. I do not believe it. I do not believe that there would be a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sign off on that Supplementary Order Paper. It is a blatant attack on the right of protesters. It is absolutely selective. Simon Bridges totally lied to the House and the public when he said that it was introduced because of urgent matters of health and safety. If it was about health and safety it would have applied to everyone in that situation but it does not. It applies just to protesters.So I believe that the public of New Zealand feel totally misled and feel as if they have been denied the democratic process of Parliament where any matter other than something that is urgent and critical gets referred to a select committee for proper public scrutiny and discussion. None of that has been the case in this area which fundamentally removes New Zealanders’ right to have their say. We value protest inNew Zealand. Of course we do not always like it—if we are on the receiving end of protest of course we do not like it—but we should cherish our ability in a healthy democracy to make our views known within a legitimate framework and that right has been taken away from people with Supplementary Order Paper 205.My colleague Moana Mackey talked about why this legislation has been pushed through—why there is a need—and her summary was exactly right: the National Government has no plan B. If it is not asset sales or exploration at the cost of conservation and the environment there is nothing and that is not a proper plan for the security and future of New Zealand. It is not the brighter future that New Zealanders were promised by John Key. All it offers is the denigration of the precious environment that we boast about so much internationally—the precious environment that is at the heart of our tourism is at the heart of our “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign and is at the heart of many values of New Zealanders as well.Why would we risk that? Why would we say that those values are no longer important? Why do we have an economic benefit test against something that is values-based? If we do that as we do in this legislation then our values will always lose and I do not believe and I know that a lot of New Zealanders do not believe that money is more important than our values. I think that is a wrong place to start in terms of a legislative framework.We have heard a lot about the bad things in this legislation but there are some good things and I just want to briefly mention them. The move to enshrine schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and the automatic inclusion of some areas in schedule 4 is a very good move. I have no confidence at all that in the future National might not revert to mining in schedule 4 land but certainly the move to automatic inclusion is good. The introduction of the two-tier system of permit management with the higher more complex permit applications getting a different level of consideration than the more straightforward ones I think is a very good thing. The improved coordination between the Crown minerals permitting regime and the health and safety and environmental legislation is a very good move as well. I wish it was extended to all permits rather than to just tier 1 activity.I am disappointed that the fundamental issues were not resolved so that we could support this legislation. It would have been a good message to the industry. I am outraged at the breach of process by Simon Bridges. Therefore we will be opposing this legislation strongly.