O'Connor Damien: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8857. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 Can I just acknowledge and applaud my colleague Trevor Mallard who summarised the situation very very well. The truth is that the National Government’s management of mining issues has been inept—completely. It charged off with a policy that said it would mine national parks. Everyone in New Zealand other than the radicals on the fringes objected to that. As Mr Mallard said it actually swung things back into the Greens’ camp. 
The Labour Party and I support mining. We support responsible mining and we support safe mining. We have not always had that. That is why we supported the bill going to the Commerce Committee where there was some good consideration. I got an email from someone who said: “We won’t have any mining under a Labour-Greens Government.” Well the truth is that there were more mines opened and more mining development under the Labour-Greens Government than we are seeing under National but we did it in a responsible way. The fear is that with these changes we may step backwards into a position that is not sustainable and as Mr Mallard said we would end up with further change. 
 Certainty is what the National Government offered mining in 1997 when it said schedule 4 and national park areas were out of bounds. That was supported by the Labour Government because it offered the industry certainty. That is what is needed as Mr Mallard said to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars. We have always supported mining that is responsible. When it comes to conservation land we have said that schedule 4 land is out of bounds and we have allowed and negotiated with mining companies to mine on conservation land very very cautiously. 
The issue of whether two Ministers should be involved is a bit like saying to the farmer who owns the land with mineral rights on it: “You are going to have to compromise as to whether mining is going to occur there.” The National Government would not dare say to the miner or any other landowner: “You have got to compromise the decision.” It would say that there are some property rights involved. 
On conservation land the Minister of Conservation is responsible. The issue my colleagues have raised is that the Minister of Conservation should ultimately be responsible. I do not have a problem with that because I know of numerous examples where the Minister has negotiated and the Department of Conservation has negotiated. Yes it has taken some time; yes there has had to be flexibility; and yes there had to be some environmental guarantees and that is what we expect. 
I do not want some Auckland-based mining company with the support of Steven Joyce coming down and raping and pillaging the West Coast and leaving it with environmental degradation. I want responsible mining and I want the Minister of Conservation to be able to put in place protections that ensure we have proper environmental protection in place be it on conservation land or be it on private land. 
I also support the submission that was brought to the Commerce Committee—I believe it was judged to be out of the scope of the bill—from the Buller District Council that said: “We must have some royalty—some income directly from mining back into local communities.” We have said that we in the Labour Party want mining if there is benefit to the local economy. Well we do have jobs as we know. The issue is the sustainable benefits that are enduring beyond the life of the mine. It is a fair question that submitters should put to the committee—and I see that it has been rejected by the committee—that a portion of the royalties and levies from mining go back to the local community. I think it is a very reasonable proposition. It is one I still want to discuss with my colleagues. As the bill goes through the Committee stage we will wait and see what happens. 
Labour is not supporting this bill on the basis of that joint decision-making. I understand what can happen when the Minister of Conservation has sole responsibility. It can allow mining—responsible mining. Why this Government like it did with the national parks mining proposal wants to stir up a hornets’ nest add uncertainty to the mining industry and then stir up every anti-mining person to campaign against it as happened in the past is beyond belief. It should have responsible legislation that Labour would have supported all the way through. Not content with that it wanted to put a stick into the hornets’ nest and say that the Minister of Conservation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.