Mackey Moana: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying last night before the House adjourned there are a number of good things in this piece of legislation and there are a number of things that do concern the Labour Party. We welcome the move for new national park and reserve land to automatically be included in schedule 4. We think that the new two-tier arrangement of allocating permits might make things a lot clearer and might draw a greater distinction between those projects that are going to have a far bigger environmental impact and those that will have a lesser one providing a more robust one for the former and a slightly simpler one for the latter. We will tease that out at the Commerce Committee. It certainly seems reasonable. We think the pre-vetting of applicants first up is good. For those organisations or those companies that we may not want to come into New Zealand—because realistically even if they put a lot of money into resource consents under this legislation they are not going to get through—it is good to signal upfront that that is not likely to happen. Again at the select committee we will have a look at the details of that but I take on board the assurances from the Minister of Energy and Resources that that does not replace the other processes in the piece of legislation. 
The areas where we have concerns are around the sharing of responsibility for decision making on concessions on conservation land. This is something that we flagged right back when the Government first announced it. And let us be honest it was a knee-jerk reaction to the schedule 4 mining issue where the Government had to back down so as a kind of countermeasure it said “Well now for concessions for mining on Department of Conservation land it is going to be half-shared by the Minister of Energy and Resources and half-shared by the Minister of Conservation.” whereas previously the Minister of Conservation had sole responsibility for that. There has always been a contention in Crown mineral law that mining is treated separately from every other economic activity. I mean tourism creates jobs in New Zealand as well and tourism has to get concessions on Department of Conservation land. But they go through a process under the Conservation Act that involves the public and that involves notification and mining has never had to go through that process because it goes through the Crown Minerals Act. That has always been a point of contention. 
That is why the Minister of Conservation when it came to the issue of Bathurst which members have been talking about said “Well the Government is going to publicly notify these concessions for mining.” I notice in this legislation that it has not gone that far. What it says is that now the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation will have a shared responsibility for deciding whether or not these concessions for mining go to public notification. That is not what was promised and I take on board what my colleague Damien O’Connor said which is that if the Government wants to take the heat out of some of these projects then do not make promises and then not keep them—do not shut people out of a process. That is a genuinely serious comment. A lot of what has happened around the Denniston issue has been that a promise was made and then not kept. So that is our concern in terms of that sharing of responsibility. 
What I have been pleased about as the Minister has indicated is that he is prepared to try to work with the Opposition to find a way through. This has been a line call for us on this piece of legislation. There is a lot in here that is really good—that sharing of responsibility and the introduction of an economic test for mining that does not exist for any other commercial activity. Why should tourism not get an economic benefit test when mining is getting it? These are areas where we think there is a little bit of unfairness and there is genuine concern in the community. But what we are here to say today is that we will support this bill from its first reading to the select committee and we will do that in good faith because the Minister has said that he wants to work with the Labour Party in Opposition to find a way through here. I think it would not be in good faith if we were to vote against a piece of legislation and then expect the Minister to continue to engage. But we do so with reservations. We do so with the reservations that I have outlined here which we will want to see addressed if our support is going to be ongoing. I agree with the Minister when he says that the more consistency the more bipartisanship we can get on these issues—cross-partisanship—the better for everyone involved. So that is why we have taken the position that we have taken. 
I just want to caution the Minister actually. I watched his performance in the general debate today. He is giving himself enormous powers under this legislation. He is having half the say for concessions: whether or not they go ahead on Department of Conservation land and whether or not they are notified. When I saw him doing his merry dance in the House today about how all this mining should go ahead and about how Labour and the Greens are Luddites for questioning anything that is why the Minister of Conservation is now the only one who has responsibility. I do not think it is appropriate frankly for a Minister of Energy and Resources to stand up in this House and basically predetermine effectively the decision-making powers that he is giving to himself in this piece of legislation. 
He needs to be very careful. I know it is a general debate. We all have a little bit of fun. But the Minister is granting himself enormous powers that do not currently exist. He is arguing that conservationists do not have to be concerned about the granting of powers when he comes down to the House on a specific case. We take these things on a case by case basis and we focus on process. That is what is appropriate. To come into this House when you are going to have decision-making powers on Department of Conservation land and basically dance up a storm and say “Well you know this should go ahead. You’re a Luddite if it doesn’t.” then I think the Minister seriously needs to reconsider whether or not that was appropriate behaviour given the powers that he is granting himself in this bill. 
We will support this bill to the select committee with reservations. We look forward to working with Jonathan Young and the Commerce Committee to find if we can get a way through where we are all comfortable so we can have more of a cross-party approach to some of this legislation.