Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7617] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I feel that I should take that comment personally. I have not even started my first sentence and I am getting a warning. I can assure you that my speech will be very relevant to the title. First of all I congratulate my learned colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith on actually coming up with a title that is a lot more appropriate than the current one. I remember from the first reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that one reason for the outrage expressed by the industry operators is that they were reassured by the Labour Government that this bill was just a minor bill to make some changes to the administration relating to the Crown office. But somewhere between then and the time when the bill was actually introduced to Parliament industry operators discovered that the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill was not just to amend some administrative procedure. In fact major changes were being made to the legislation in order to extinguish the mining licences granted under both the Crown Minerals Act of 1991 and the Mining Act. 
I think that the industry operators are absolutely valid in their outrage because they should during the initial consultation stage have been made aware that in effect this amendment bill did not relate to any minor administrative amendment. At the stage they made submissions they were reassured by the Ministry of Economic Development that they were to be consulted and they believed that what they were being consulted on was some technical amendment and nothing major was expected. 
I would like to support my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and say that the Labour Government should at least be upfront and honest as to the intention of this bill and rename it the “Mineral Property Right Extinction Bill” or at least call it the “Crown Mineral Major Amendment Bill”. The title should at least reflect the issue of the property rights being legislated away. 
I was on the Commerce Committee and had the opportunity to listen to quite a few submitters and most of them expressed their outrage at not being included in the consultation process. They were totally totally misled by the bill because of its title. At first all of them thought they were being fully consulted on certain administrative amendments to the bill; then when the bill was introduced to the House they all subsequently discovered that in effect their property rights were being legislated away. They actually have not been consulted on this issue. 
I wonder what happened to the modern practice of our Parliament being able to say that each piece of legislation should have a title that will inform the public and the industry or the business concerned of the clear intention of a bill. This Labour Government—which is continuing to try to convince the public that it always believes in frank and honest exchange and would properly include the public during the consultation process—should at least start off by giving a proper name to any piece of legislation so that the Government ensures that any sector involved would be alert to any major issues affecting its industry.