Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7616] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is interesting in debating this clause tonight to examine the bill to try to establish its the purpose. One of the important things in debating the title of a bill is to make sure that the title fits its purpose otherwise the title can be misleading. One of the extraordinary things one finds if one examines this bill is that there is no purpose clause that I can find. We do not often find a bill that has no specified purpose. That is a major deficiency in this legislation because it makes it difficult to judge the accuracy of the title. 
Clause 1 is the title clause clause 2 is the commencement clause and then the bill goes on to Part 1 which gets into interpretation and all sorts of things but does not actually spell out a purpose. However it is quite clear when one reads through the various provisions that the main purpose of the bill is to expunge what may be existing property rights. 
People who had licences under the old mining legislation the Mining Act and the Coal Mines Act had property rights but if people had to apply for permits under the Crown Minerals Act the principal Act that this bill amends they no longer had property rights. What is hugely important about this legislation that we are debating tonight is that it expunges property rights. It makes it very clear despite court rulings and controversy. In 2000 a mining business Glenharrow Holdings took the issue of its right to renew a mining licence to the High Court under the Mining Act. The Acting Chief Justice held that Glenharrow Holdings had a right to seek to renew that mining licence. That meant Glenharrow Holdings had a right to continue the property right that it had prior to the introduction of the Crown Minerals Act. 
Despite that High Court ruling this Government is moving to expunge those property rights. If that is the case and it is pretty clear I am right that that is the case—that is what this legislation does in effect—then the title is quite misleading. For the title simply to be Crown Minerals Amendment Bill it could mean that it is amending anything to do with the Crown Minerals Act but it does not amend absolutely anything in the Crown Minerals Act. This bill amends one very specific part of it and that is that if there is any notion that mining businesses may have a property right under the old Mining Act or the Coal Mines Act this legislation will expunge that property right. 
Far from the title Crown Minerals Amendment Bill being an appropriate title the title should establish what the bill really does. The title should be something like “Mineral Property Rights Bill”. What is the noun of the verb to expunge? Where is a literary expert among my colleagues here? Where is that eminent lawyer Dail Jones? What is the noun of the verb to expunge? 
Dail Jones 
: Extinguish! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: A more accurate title would be “Mineral Property Rights Extinction Bill” because that is what it does. It extinguishes any notion that businesses have property rights prior to the courts finally deciding the issue. As I understand it the issue is currently being taken to the Court of Appeal. In 2000 the High Court decision in the Glenharrow Holdings case in front of Acting Chief Justice Heron held that property rights existed. A second High Court judgment may have ruled otherwise and it is now going to appeal and this Government is legislating over the top.