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:9303. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Like my colleague Damien O’Connor who has just resumed his seat I think that it is particularly appropriate and really sad that we are debating these changes under Part 2 of this legislation the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill on a day when throughout the country people are offering their support to our Department of Conservation workers whose jobs are under threat. Their jobs are not under threat because they are inefficient. They are not under threat because the legislation has changed and somebody thinks they should not be doing the work that we have had them doing since 1987. They are under threat because the National Government has savagely cut the Department of Conservation’s budget and there is no way that it can live within its budget without massive job cuts. The cuts we have seen indicated will affect 140 people around the country. The people who are out in the regions implementing the very Conservation Act that we are amending in Part 2 are going to be losing their jobs but at the same time there is going to be a bunch more people put into the head office in Wellington.That to me completely undermines the purpose of this bill and it means that despite our support for the provisions in the bill we have even more concerns surrounding them. We would like to be supporting this legislation. We said that right at the start. We said that there were some fundamental concerns that we had and if they were addressed through the Commerce Committee then we would be delighted to support this legislation.The best thing that this Parliament can offer to people who want to have confidence in our conservation management and to the business community that wants mining is clear guidelines—a strong message from this Parliament. What they have got now is a total mess and I have to say that the Minister of Energy and Resources who is in the chair at the moment has made it significantly worse with his rammed-through Supplementary Order Paper 205 and Supplementary Order Paper 210 that we debated in Part 1. That is in stark contrast to the way his predecessor behaved. The Hon Phil Heatley—who is not used to being praised by me because I tell the truth—on this occasion actually picked up the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. He took them to the select committee and the chair of the select committee Jonathan Young quite properly ensured that the select committee considered those recommendations as an extra bit of work and came back to this House having debated them properly. That is what should have happened to Simon Bridges’ Supplementary Order Papers but oh no he knows more than anyone and thought he could just ram them through at the last minute. Well his arrogance and his pride will trip him up. It will be a significant fall and I know that a lot of people are waiting for that to happen—particularly his colleagues I understand.The biggest concern that we have which was raised right at the very beginning of this debate is outlined in Part 2 and that is the new dual decision-making power. Instead of the Minister of Conservation having the decision-making authority mandate and responsibility under the legislation it is now being given half and half to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources. That is entirely inappropriate.My colleague Moana Mackey pointed out earlier in the debate about the vested interests that the Minister of Energy and Resources has. Quite rightly—we are not saying this is inappropriate—the Minister of Energy and Resources really has a responsibility not just to regulate the sector but also to promote opportunities for the sector and obviously mining is a key part of that. How can that possibly be balanced against the need and advocacy of the Minister of Conservation to protect our public estate? It just does not work. It is a stupid idea. Heaven only knows who thought of it—probably Steven Joyce I imagine—but it has got no part to play in clear legislationwhich should state so that the public understand our responsibility as a Parliament to ensure the protection and management of our conservation estate and separately under a different regime the need to have energy proposals pursued.I am very pleased that the reserve land now has an automatic inclusion in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act—that is one good thing that has come out of this. My colleague Moana Mackey also talked about the exploratory drilling that is under way at the moment. The Minister Simon Bridges must think that every member of the public is completely stupid. There is only one reason for a private company to invest in exploratory drilling in schedule 4 areas and that is that it knows that at some time in the future the Government will give it the sign-off. Otherwise it would not waste its money; it would do exploratory drilling somewhere else.