Mackey Moana: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Part 2 of this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Had I been able to take further calls to speak to my Supplementary Order Papers on Part 1 I would have addressed some of these issues as well such as the dilution of the powers of the Minister of Conservation and what a significant change that is. I would like to say that there are some aspects of Part 2 of this bill that we agree with in terms of the automatic addition of new reserve land into schedule 4. We agree that is a good change. That is appropriate. We welcome that change. But unfortunately as we see right throughout this piece of legislation wherever we get an advancement or an improvement double-whammied against it is something that is so bad that we cannot support the improvement. That is a real disappointment because there was a real opportunity here to yes streamline and modernise a piece of legislation that is important for our economy and our environment and that has unfortunately not occurred. What we have done is—as my colleague Damien O’Connor said on the debate on Part 1—created this false idea that somehow this is going to assist industry by skewing things so far towards it that it is not going to have to face the same level of hurdles that it faces under the existing legislation.The reality is that the existing Crown Minerals Act has worked just fine. We have mining activities going ahead on the West Coast and in Taranaki. We have heard about how great Taranaki is—well that all occurred under the existing legislation. It was not too difficult too tricky or too burdensome for industry to be able to go ahead under the Crown Minerals Act as it stands. Instead what we have done is we have made the bill so skewed in favour of industry and away from protecting our conservation values that we are going to have people far more concerned. Because if you get the process right thenthe overwhelming majority of people are happy to let it play out. If they trust the process if they trust that the protection of conservation land is going to be paramount and that the Minister of Conservation is going to be able to exercise his or her powers as the custodian of that conservation estate to ensure that it is protected for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders and if you have a process in place that adequately addresses the environmental concerns and the health and safety concerns that come up in the mining industry then most people would say to let that process go ahead. And if a mining activity is then consented that is good. And if that process says no and that in fact the risks are too great or it is not believed that the risks around the environment or health and safety etc. have been adequately addressed and that it is not going to go ahead then that is fair enough as well and industry accepts that. That is the position we have now with the current Crown Minerals Act.When the Government comes in here and rips the guts out of this legislation rips the guts out of the Resource Management Act and passes a piece of exclusive economic zone legislation that is appallingly inadequate it is not helping industry at all because the public no longer trust the process. When they do not trust the process they are going to want to have more input into it. They are going to want to have more scrutiny.Hon Ruth Dyson: They don’t trust the Government.MOANA MACKEY: That is right; they do not trust the Government either. They are going to be more likely to appeal and to try to get that fair process through the rights of appeal than they would otherwise be. They are going to protest and they are going to complain because they no longer trust that the process Parliament has put in place is going to adequately address the very real concerns. This is not helping industry at all. In fact it is a false economy. When I look at the shared decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources I have never seen an area more ripe for judicial review than giving the Minister of Energy and Resources half the say in decisions on conservation land. When the Minister of Energy and Resources stands up in this Chamber and does a merry dance about Bathurst Resources and about Denniston then gives himself overwhelming powers to make decisions on Department of Conservation land including around Bathurst and then tries to tell us that that is not going to open the Government up to judicial review that is la-la land stuff. If the industry thinks that that is going to help it I think it is going to be sorely disappointed.The best thing we can do for industry environmental groups and the public is to get a process in place that addresses those concerns—a process that the public has faith in so that they know that when they go through that process part of that process has to be public input and right of appeal. Part of that process has to be that. As we have seen with the Resource Management Act most consents we do not have any problems with. Yes there are going to be some where there are concerns but usually and often that is around the way the Government has handled things and the way the Government has handled the Denniston issue has been appallingly bad promising things that it then did not deliver on. It has been that project that has been used as a test case because of those points. It has been the way the Government has handled these issues and these processes that has lead to overwhelming public concerns and that Denniston issue basically has been used as an example of bad process bad interference by Government and bad promises being made that were not upheld.So I very very strongly believe that these changes we are making and the changes we are making under the Conservation Act are not going to help industry in the way that the Government thinks they are going to. They are going to undermine environmental values and undermine health and safety values. I have to say here that we do support the Supplementary Order Paper on Pike River. Again that SupplementaryOrder Paper was allowed to go to the select committee and more submissions were called for. That is the correct and proper process when you introduce a significant Supplementary Order Paper. We thank the Government for allowing the select committee to consider that Supplementary Order Paper and not doing what it did with Supplementary Order Paper 205 and just dumping it on the Committee beforehand—