Smith Nick: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Nick: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7621] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I thank Mr Hide for his contribution and I want to put the case to the Committee that the bill should be titled “Labour Party Double Standards Bill”. I have been listening to the radio a lot on the foreshore and seabed case and have heard Government Ministers saying— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh that’s right! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me explain to Jill Pettis. I have listened to Ministers and she has been saying we have to follow the court decisions; if the court decides a particular way we have to accept that decision. Well this bill is driven by the fact that some companies went to court got a positive decision—had a winning—and this bill will unravel it. That seems to me like double standards. The Government cannot say—and have the Minister John Tamihere going around saying—that Maori can go to the courts and if they have a win in the courts then it is quite wrong for this Parliament to change it but when we come to this bill we have a different set of rules and say: “No no. If Pakeha have a win in the courts we’ve got to legislate across it.” That is why I say that a far more appropriate name for this bill would be “Labour Party Double Standards Bill” because with that title we get a flavour of the double standards that are exhibited by Government members. 
When it comes to impacting on NgaiTahu’s greenstone rights which this bill is all about the Government says to forget about what the courts say about people’s mining rights because the Government will just cut across them; it will get rid of them. It will use the power of the legislation to overrule the decision. But if the table is turned the other way round and it happens to be Maori contesting their rights as they see it for the ownership of the foreshore and seabed then Government Ministers say the courts have to be able to do their thing and New Zealanders just have to live with it. That does not seem very consistent to me nor as my colleague Shane Ardern the very capable member for King Country – Taranaki says does it sound very fair. It is distinctly unfair. That is why I say this bill should be called “Labour Party Double Standards Bill”. The Government wants one set of rules for one group of New Zealanders but if one happens to be a Labour lackey there is a different set of rules. 
I do not think that that is a very fair way for this Parliament to conduct its business. It should be made on the basis of some principled decision-making and as an Opposition we do not believe that the provisions in this bill are principled. We do not believe that it is fair to be saying to those people who obtained their mining licences through the 1971 Act that despite their court win the Government will cut across their mining rights licence. So we say call it the “Double Standards Bill”. Call it what it is—call it for the double standards that we continually see from Ministers with this piece of legislation and so many others. Members on this side of the Chamber promote one standard of citizenship because whether or not one is— 
David Benson-Pope 
: The member even gets his own policy wrong. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Benson-Pope gets all excited. I would like him to explain— 
Opposition Member 
: Who? “Benson-Dope”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: “Benson-Dope” I think— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order. The member will apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Benson-Pope. I would like him to get to his feet to explain why we have heard from Ministers time and time again who have the attitude that when Maori win their case in the court so be it but when Pakeha win in the court they want to bring in legislation such as this to cut across it. That seems to me with my basic sense of Kiwi fairness to be wrong. I would like the Minister in the chair or Mr Benson-Pope to get to his feet and explain why Ministers seem to be singing two different tunes. If they cannot then this bill should be called the “Labour Double Standards Bill”—reflecting Labour’s sets of rules where there is one set of rules for one group of citizens but if one happens to be a group of citizens who support the Labour Party then there is a different set of rules. 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not good enough. I would like Jill Pettis who has so much to say to get to her feet and answer that basic point.