Street Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It is entirely possible to be tolerant of mistakes that people make for the first time in a new job and often there is leeway given to people who do make mistakes as they get to grips with a new job. But the stakes arevery high when it comes to this House. The stakes are very high when it comes to the legislation governing activities in this country.This legislation the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill has been a complete debacle from beginning to end. The spin that the National Government is trying to put on this amendment bill to an amendment Act is just farcical. The spin now says: “Well isn’t the Minister good that he spotted the mistakes?” which he clearly did not; otherwise he would not have brought in an amendment bill in the parlous state that it was. The spin is: “Isn’t it good that he spotted those mistakes and he’s moved to correct them?”. In fact he has moved so quickly to correct them that it is quite possible that this piece of legislation will come into effect before the amendment Act that it seeks to amend. He is so speedy about addressing these errors that he may find himself tripping up on the dates if he is not careful.This is the modus operandi of this Government. The modus operandi of this Government is to sell our laws to allow big business to come in and exploit our resources without care about health and safety because those provisions are weakened and without care about our environment because those provisions are weakened and to say to everybody who looks like a company that will invest in oil and gas: “Come here. Our laws can be altered for you.” But this particular Minister has excelled even that modus operandi. He is now offering to oil and gas companies laws that we do not even have the right to make. He is offering to amend laws that we do not have the jurisdiction to make in order to make it easy for oil and gas exploration companies to come and wreak havoc on our resources. In this respect not only is it a contempt of Parliament and a contempt of the democratic process but it is a contempt of the rights of people to submit and have their views heard on this legislation.The bill has been rammed through the House under urgency for no particularly good reason. But what it shows is that this Government works for the benefit of vested interests and works for the benefit of big business in the hope that it can find 170000 jobs which it promised some years ago and which it is failing—failing—to come anywhere near. In order to do that it will sell its mother to bring big business to this country and allow it complete free reign over our environment over our health and safety standards and now over the waters above the continental shelf which we do not have jurisdiction to legislate over. So it is not only the laws that we make that are ours to make but the laws that we are making that are not ours to make.I want to go to the question about protests—the curtailing of people’s legitimate right to protest. Through this whole debate we have not had the privilege of an answer to any question we have raised. We have not had any member opposite get up and justify this Minister’s bill because first of all it is not justifiable but secondly they are so contemptuous of the process in this House that the only chance they give for this bill to be scrutinised is in this Chamber and never mind that 35000 people submitted on the previous legislation which was then amended by an amendment Act which we are now amending—if people can keep up with that.I am concerned that they are vesting democratic rights to protest in big business because it seems to me that the 500-metre exclusion zone that any protest vessel must have from an exploratory vessel or an oil and gas vessel—let us just put it that way—means it must stay 500 metres from the corporate-interest vessel. We can only assume that as the corporate-interest vessel moves around the 500-metre zone goes with it. So it could push protest vessels back on to shore. Is there no way in which people can ever get closer than 500 metres even if the corporate vessel breaches the 500-metre limit?We can have people protesting but not within 500 metres. I presume that means that the democratic right to protest has now been lodged with corporate interests. So it is corporate interests that now have the benefit of dictating where New Zealanders mightprotest because as they move around they have this protection zone of 500 metres within which no one can protest.This is shabby law. It is offensive law. It is sloppy law. It has been a chapter of errors from the beginning and the Minister seems to be incompetent and inadequate to the task. This really does lay down a new level of ministerial incompetence the likes of which we have not seen before. It is a shame because the National Party does have a proud heritage of its own which it can defend. In fact it was 77 years ago this week that the National Party was first founded—77 years ago the National Party was founded. The leader at the time was of course—who was the leader of the National Party at the time? Who was the first leader?Tim Macindoe: Adam Hamilton.Hon MARYAN STREET: Excellent—you pass. Adam Hamilton was the first leader of the party. He is described by theDictionary of New Zealand Biographyas lacking charisma. However he was a Southland farmer. He moved a motion of no confidence in Michael Joseph Savage at the time. Well that was an epic fail. That is the only thing that this Minister has in common with what has been up until now a proud history for the National Party in its own terms.This bill is a travesty. This Minister is incompetent. This Minister does the National Party’s reputation no good even in its own terms. He does it no good. But worse than that—and I am not here to defend the National Party’s heritage but you know somebody has to; this Minister clearly is not—this is an offence against democratic rights to protest which are now being vested in corporate interests. So as long as the Shell ship or whatever it is is cruising around everybody has to stay 500 metres away. Why is there not a provision that makes the corporate ship liable if it gets within 500 metres of a protest ship—Moana Mackey: And acts dangerously.Hon MARYAN STREET: —and behaves dangerously? If this is about safety at sea why does it not apply to all ships? This is not about safety at sea; this is about selling our legislation to corporate interests it is about selling legislation that we are not even entitled to make to corporate interests and it is an affront to the democratic process and the rights of citizens in New Zealand. This bill is a travesty from beginning to end and the National Party members opposite are just sitting there riding out the time for this bill. We have not had the courtesy of any answers and that goes to how they treat the process in this House. Thank you.