Wagner Nicky: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Thank you Eugenie Sage for your introduction to the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill 
on behalf of Metiria Turei. This bill was conceived during the time back in 2010 when the Government was looking for feedback on its discussion paper  
Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond 
. Like most members’ bills it was designed to draw attention to the schedule 4 debate and to raise the member’s profile. It has done that job and is now unnecessary and I will explain why.  
I also want to note that this Parliament should not be passing legislation unless it adds real value. Excessive complex and unnecessary legislation is an expensive indulgence and the temptation for parliamentarians to pass bills just because they can regardless of quality should be resisted. At the time the bill was drafted the Government was talking about mineral resources that were spread across our country and the large proportion of mineral potential in schedule 4 land. The Government talked about the dilemma that the location of our mineral wealth caused us because sometimes the richest mineral deposits are in places where conservation cultural or tourism values are high.  
New Zealanders want a more prosperous country. They often talk about the jobs and incomes that are available in Australia and they want to go there not because it is a better country but because they believe that it is more prosperous and because of that that there are more opportunities. The jobs the incomes and the opportunities that are available in Australia are not there because their economy is stronger than ours across the board but because it is underpinned by mining. New Zealanders want a more prosperous country but they also want to conserve our natural environment and that is the tension.  
In its discussion document the Government agreed with the average New Zealander saying that it was determined to see living standards in New Zealand rise but that it did not want to see conservation values lost or our clean green image sacrificed. The Government assured people that it would not be removing large sections from the protection afforded by schedule 4 but it was keen to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way and was taking input from the community before making any decisions. As the discussion continued the public of New Zealand made it very clear that they did not want mining on schedule 4 land. So the Government listened. The public had spoken and Ministers Brownlee and Wilkinson respected public opinion and ruled out any changes to schedule 4 land. In fact quite voluntarily they actually improved the status quo by adding 14 more parcels of land totalling 12400 hectares to schedule 4. They also agreed that in the future all areas given classifications equivalent to the current schedule 4 such as national parks and marine reserves would automatically become part of schedule 4. So in the face of a public dilemma and discussion which weighed up the economy and the environmental outcomes and— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I cannot hear the member. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’re not missing a thing. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Excuse me—I am on my feet and the member will take a walk if she does that again. I do want to hear the member so let us have a bit more decorum. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. So in the face of the public dilemma and the discussion which weighed up economic and environmental outcomes and came down on the side of the environment existing legislation worked well. Communities and the public spoke out. They had their opinions listened to and the Act delivered the outcome people wanted.  
In the face of legislation that is working really well for the public I am concerned that this bill the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill might contrary to its intentions make changes to schedule 4 much easier in future. I am sure that that is not what Metiria Turei wanted. Let me explain. Under the current Act the Minister of Conservation can remove specified land for schedule 4 through an Order in Council only once public consultation has occurred. The current Act has extensive consultation requirements under section 61(5) and the Government is at risk of judicial review proceedings if the Act is not followed. Only after a full consultation process and the removal of land can the Minister then approve an access arrangement with a purpose of prospecting exploitation or mining. However if this bill was passed the Government of the day could introduce a small amending bill to remove land from schedule 4. It could go to the House without any public consultation at all and through the House without select committee scrutiny if passed under urgency. Finally it would not run the risk of judicial review. It would be a far easier process than what we have in existing legislation. So working on the principle that the existing legislation is not broken and does not need to be mended I do not believe that this bill should pass.  
It was conceived and put into the ballot when the public were concerned that their opinions would not be listened to in terms of mining schedule 4 land but their opinions were listened to and respected and I believe that the present Act is the best tool to conserve schedule 4 land. It requires extensive public consultation and any Government not following that process could face a judicial review. The Act worked successfully for the public last year and we do not need any further legislation. I do not support this bill.