Dyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9322. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am pleased to be able to take what is probably going to be the final call in the Committee stage of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill on the title and commencement—Moana Mackey: For you.Hon RUTH DYSON: For me; I am sure that other colleagues will want to make a contribution as well. The first query I want to raise—and I do hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Tremain is better able to answer questions that are addressed by members of the Committee than the other Ministers who have been sitting in thechair—is in relation to the commencement date. This is actually a really unusual situation. The original provision was that any provision that has not been brought into force earlier comes into force on the day that is 2 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson is very attentive to detail and I would encourage him to take a call and tell me whether he has ever heard of such a rigmarole of commencement as that—any provision that has not been brought into force earlier comes into force on the day that is 2 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. It is a bit of a challenge. The next bill that we are debating the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill fortunately has a much more straightforward commencement provision which is some time in the past. It may be equally contentious but it is quite different.The commencement provisions in this bill we are debating are very unusual. I would really appreciate the Minister of Conservation making a contribution in regard to that original proposed commencement date and then on why it was replaced with again a very complicated regime: “This Act comes into force on the earlier of the following: (a) the date appointed by the Governor-General”—not as is usual on the date of assent but—“by Order in Council: (b) the day that is 2 years after the date on which the Act receives the Royal assent.” Again it is quite an unusual provision. So that is my first question to the Minister and I strongly encourage him to take up the mandate of sitting in the chair and answering the question.He could answer the earlier question that I posed to Minister Adams in relation to proclamation because that was not answered either or he could answer the earlier question that I put to the Minister who is primarily responsible for this legislation the Hon Simon Bridges in relation to any legal advice he received on Supplementary Order Paper 205 which he dumped on the country on Easter Sunday. Simon Bridges did not answer that question either. They are all important matters. It is the only opportunity we get in this Chamber and frankly I wonder why some of these Ministers draw their salary. They sit in the chair read the paper fill out the crossword puzzle or read some important briefing papers that are significant to the future of the country but they do not take up what should be their responsibility and answer questions from members in Parliament. If they are not up to the job I consider that they should swap with somebody who is. The Hon Maurice Williamson is sitting there and I have never known him to resist an opportunity to make a contribution to a debate even if he is obviously unaware of any detail in relation to the particular matter. It has never stopped him from taking a call in this House before.I now want to refer to the title of this bill. This bill sounds pretty much like it will not do much harm. It is the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Well I think the title overlooks one of the biggest concerns that we have had with this bill. The title does not refer to it at all and it should. This bill is about the muzzling or bulldozing or sidelining of the Minister of Conservation in regard to significant matters of decision-making power and that should be reflected in the title. It should be called something like the “Bulldozing of the Minister of Conservation Bill”. That would not be far from the truth. It could refer to the outcome of this legislation because what is going to happen is that our conservation values are going to be put aside and the economic benefit test—where money is made for some company not even necessarily based in New Zealand or contributing to the New Zealand tax system—will win out over our conservation values which we have held so dear as part of the fabric of New Zealand society for so long. So we could just call the bill the “Money Over Values Bill” because actually that is going to be the outcome. What I think is a bit of a cheating of the New Zealand public is having a title of a bill that does not in any way refer to the outcome which will be as I said those conservation values getting trampled over andthe Minister of Conservation having his or her throat squashed to the point where just a squeak will come out not a strong clear advocacy voice as we have had in the past.