Dyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Referral to Commerce Committee In Committee[Sitting date: 10 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9280. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Was my microphone not working? You did not seem to hear me the first time I called.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No I did not hear the member actually.Hon RUTH DYSON: I have never ever been accused of being too quiet so that is a first. I am speaking on Part 2 of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill which is specifically in relation to amendments to the Conservation Act. Before I address my primary comments in relation to Part 2 can I say that the lack of ability to debate some of the more substantive issues in Part 1 is a cause of frustration to me. I was sitting in the Chamber from the very beginning of this bill prior to the dinner adjournment I sought a call at every single opportunity and I had only one so it was immensely frustrating actually. We had three Supplementary Order Papers amending Part 1 that we did not get an opportunity to talk to and obviously Part 1 is the primary substance of the bill.Part 2 like a lot of the bill has some—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I can hear people on my right and my left who do not have the floor.Hon RUTH DYSON: There are some parts of the bill that Labour said right at the very first stages of the debate in the House we agreed with. I suppose that really highlights the even more frustrating feeling I have than that of being denied the call earlier in the debate and that is that on serious issues such as this—where we have the conservation estate values that many New Zealanders hold dear to them and investment opportunities which are very important as well—we should whenever possible try to reach agreement.Where it has not been able to be reached it is not because of lack of goodwill and I have to say that when I have sat on the Commerce Committee looking at this bill I think every single member of the select committee that heard submissions on this bill tried really hard to understand the different perspectives that were raised the different points that were being made and the pros and cons that submitters raised. In many instances accommodations were able to be made but on this Part 2 the very fundamental point is that this once again is undermining the role of the Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has been the voice the conscience and the advocate for our public estate since the Conservation Act was introduced in 1987. In the same way the recent reforms of the Resource Management Act are the first time since the very first time we had an environment Minister that our environmental standards are being lowered by Minister Amy Adams. That is exactly what is happening in this bill in relation to the Minister of Conservation. For the first time ever the status the advocacy role the decision-making power the mandate of the Minister of Conservation is being weakened. And it is for nothing. It is not for the betterment of any value or any piece of land in New Zealand. It is not for any gain at all.I find it a very frustrating occasion and a very sad occasion in an area that is as important as this where had we worked together and had the latecoming Easter Sunday brainwave of the Hon Simon Bridges been referred to the select committee for debate and discussion we may have heard a lot more than we have during this debate. The select committee and members of the public have not even been shown the courtesy of knowing for sure whether there is a legal opinion that was presented to Cabinet Ministers or the full Cabinet in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 205 which has recently been passed. This is an area that should have been considered rigorously and carefully with solid public input. The submitters whom I heard were overwhelmingly opposed to the mandate of the Minister of Conservation being weakened but that is exactly what this part does. It extends the decision-making power to the whole of Cabinet. It once again says that the Minister of Conservation is not a decision-making person any more but that decision has to be shared around. What happened to the time when we recognised the importance of that portfolio the status and the responsibility that it carried with it and we gave that role to the Minister on his or her own? The National Party has said: “No we’re not going to have that. We need to make sure that we have Steven Joyce and Simon Bridges and”—heaven forbid—“the Hon Chris Finlayson running the show.” They will be making the decisions alongside the now seriously demoted Nick Smith. This is a significant weakening—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: —of the role and it is not to anyone’s advantage.Moana Mackey: Mr Chair—