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:9275. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have been in the Chamber listening to the debate on this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill since 5.40 p.m. and this is the first time that the Chairperson of the Committee has acknowledged me in the many many times that I have sought a call. So congratulations Mr Chairman I am very very pleased about that.I want to talk first of all about the fact that this is the biggest change that we have had in the way that our conservation estate is considered the way our conservation values are respected and the way that our Minister of Conservation is regarded as an advocate since the introduction of the Conservation Act in 1987. It is the biggest leap backwards in the conservation space that could be taken. The whole of Parliament should be ashamed that this bill is going through.One of the many things that we love about our country is the pride that we have in and the care that we take of our public areas our conservation estate. We feel a moral responsibility if not a legal responsibility to ensure that those precious areas are protected for future generations and to be able to share those areas with the same passion and love that our generation has for them. This legislation says we now have a different regime. We have to somehow balance those values—they are more than policies they are more than laws; they are human values—of our conservation estate against how much money we can make out of them. Actually we in the most generous sense—because it is actually not “we” as a nation that generally makes money out of the exploitation of our conservation estate it is generally overseas interests. Leaving that aside I do not think that it is a matter of weighing up our conservation values against making money. Actually some things are too precious to sell and our conservation estate is one of them.We have moved in this legislation the advocacy role of the Minister of Conservation about as far down to the back of the bus as you can get. The Minister of Energy and Resources is now running the show and that is a tragedy. I held out quite alot of hope when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was given the conservation portfolio because I know that he has a passion for conservation values. I have no idea what agreements he made in order to be restored to that ministerial portfolio but I have not seen any sign of his personal passion for conservation let alone his advocacy skills coming through tonight. In the earlier contribution that the Minister of Conservation made I actually thought that he was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources. Not one word did he say about the protection and advocacy for the conservation estate and the values that New Zealanders have held so dear for so long.Some things are just too precious. It is our responsibility to ensure that those precious parts of our country are maintained for future generations to enjoy and to be proud of and it is for them in turn to maintain those areas for future generations. National is walking away from that responsibility and is putting in law an abdication of the supremacy of the decision-making power of the Minister of Conservation. This bill divides that decision-making role between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources. So we are now saying that the conservation values can be just trampled over. I think that is a huge shame for this Parliament and I look forward to being in a Parliament that reverses that and restores the advocacy role and the primacy of conservation values in our legislation.I just want to briefly touch on another sadness that I felt tonight and that was the immaturity with which both the Attorney-General and the Minister who was in the chair at the time the Hon Simon Bridges referred to other contributors in the debate but more important—because we do have the right of reply in this Chamber—the denigration to which they subjected Dame Anne Salmond and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I do not think that that is necessary in this Chamber—