Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7875] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 1 contains mostly technical amendments. Part 2 has most of the controversy surrounding this bill. However in Part 1 there is a clause that I addressed when we were debating Part 1 last time round and the Minister in the chair failed to explain what it meant. Now that we have Mr Duynhoven back in the chair—now that the Parliament has rescued Mr Duynhoven—I hope that we will get an explanation of exactly what is meant in clause 9. If we look at clause 9 “Unit development” we see that it amends section 46(1) of the principal Act. It amends it by inserting in paragraph (a) after the words “2 or more permits” the words “or existing privileges”. The reason this is important is that the question arises: what are those existing privileges? If we look back to the start of Part 1 to clause 3 “Interpretation” we see that there is no definition of “existing privileges”. If we look further back in this bill we see there is no definition of “existing privileges”. Maybe the existing privileges are defined in the principal Act. It is possible so I got the principal Act out to have a look. There is a whole list of definitions in the principal Act. Under the letter “e” in section 2 there are all sorts of things defined. “Enter” is defined as are “Exploration” “Exploration permit” and “Enforcement Officer” but there is no definition of “existing privileges”. The only place I can find those words mentioned is in Part 2 of this bill. I mention that only in passing because I am trying to find what “existing privileges” means. 
Clause 22 substitutes new section 111 “Rights to new permits”. That section states: “(1) If after … 5 pm on 19 September 2002 a holder of an existing privilege makes an application in respect of Crown owned minerals to which any of the enactments specified in subsection (2) would have applied if this Act or the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2001 had not been enacted”. That is the only reference I can find to existing privilege which would imply that existing privilege relates to the extinguishment of property rights in clause 22 of this bill. If it does a question then arises: OK—existing privileges may be protected for those who made applications prior to 5 pm on 19 September 2002—the date that Mr Duynhoven declared that property rights would be null and void. Now it is possible if that is what “existing privileges” refers to—matters that predated that date. Then it is unfair because some people were advised that in fact they could not apply for extensions or variations of existing licences under the Mining Act of 1971 the Coal Mines Act of 1979 or the Petroleum Act of 1937 and therefore some people did not make application prior to that date. They were led to believe they were advised that those rights may have been extinguished by the Crown Minerals Act—the principal Act this legislation amends—back in 1991. But the High Court has suggested that those rights were not extinguished. 
What is unfair here is this: does the existing privilege referred to in clause 9 have anything to do with that date and the fact that some people made applications to vary existing licences prior to that date and some people did not because of advice they might have received? If in fact those existing privileges—and that is the only place I can find them mentioned in this bill and they are certainly not defined in the principal Act—do relate to that date and the fact that prior to that date matters are still to be decided by the Court of Appeal then clearly there is an unfairness. Some people may have existing privileges defined by the court and other people by this legislation will have those same rights denied them. That is clearly unfair if that is the case. So I think it is only reasonable for the Minister in the chair who specified that date of 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 to explain to us exactly what in clause 9 those existing privileges are.