Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10487. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister of Conservation: Why did he grant Bathurst Resources’ access application for an opencast coal mine on conservation land a day before the Crown Minerals Act 1991 changed to require public consultation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): There are three reasons. Firstly the access application was lodged in 2008 and delaying its consideration further because of a subsequent legislative change is not good process. I advised all parties some time ago that I intended to make the decision under the existing legislation. Secondly this mining proposal has been subject to extensive public consultation and no one can credibly argue that they had no opportunity to have a say. Thirdly the parties supporting and opposing the mine on the Denniston Plateau were working hard to reach a compromise. I wanted to give the best chance of success so I waited until their last scheduled meeting on 16 May. Agreement was not able to be reached. I made my decision on 21 May. The legislative change took effect on 24 May.Eugenie Sage: Given that as Minister he is responsible for conservation land on behalf of all New Zealanders should the general public not have been able to give him their views on a mine proposal that his own department says “would present a significant and permanent loss of currently high conservation values”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is very selective in what she quotes from the 240-page report from the department which also pointed out the very significant conservation benefits from the compensation package. In terms of the public having a say I would note that the proposal for the mine was publicly advertised all the way back in 2010 it was heard by independent commissioners and they approved it it has subsequently been appealed to the Environment Court and to the High Court and my understanding is there is also an appeal out on two other issues in other courts. For the member to argue the public has not had a say is simply being dishonest.Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the conclusions of his own department that the mine would present a significant and permanent loss of currently high conservation values including a loss of nationally significant wetlands within the mine footprint a loss of distinctive assemblages of rare and threatened plant species not recorded elsewhere on the Denniston Plateau the permanent loss of originally rare sandstone pavement ecosystems—and the list goes on?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The department is responsible for 9 million hectares of New Zealand. It is classified into national parks into conservation parks and into 12 different categories of reserve and sanctuary. The Denniston Plateau is in the lowest of all those categories. The member makes reference to the wetland and lake. I visited the site and it was pointed out to me by the Department of Conservation that the lake was created by a dam that was put in place by previous miners. If you proposed to create the dam today the Greens would be objecting and protesting. The final point I would make is that the mine takes up only 5 percent of the Denniston Plateau area. There is a case for protecting part of the Denniston Plateau. That is something I am happy to consider in future.Eugenie Sage: Is not the lack of public consultation by the Minister of Conservation separate from the Resource Management Act consultation on the Bathurst access application just another example of the Government looking after foreign corporates at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders and the public conservation estate?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part I find extraordinary about the Green Party is that I get lectured on local democracy. Well the local council strongly supports the mine and the local member of Parliament sometimes—sometimes—supports the mine. For the Green Party to argue that an application that has been before the process for over 4 years has been a rushed process really just shows what a ridiculous party we have in the corner of the Parliament.