Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7996] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 The Minister Mr Duynhoven has just asserted to this Parliament that this bill does not extinguish any property rights. I do not know how he can make that claim when the court process involved in ascertaining whether licences under the old mining Acts—the Mining Act of 1971 and Coal Mines Act of 1979—can be varied or renewed is incomplete. The Minister has just told this Parliament that no property rights are extinguished because in the Court of Appeal in April this year three judges ruled against Acting Chief Justice Heron’s original decision in 2000. The Court of Appeal argued in that judgment that there was no right under the Crown Minerals Act of 1991 for licences issued under those earlier Acts to be varied or renewed. 
Mark Peck 
: Why didn’t that member fix it when he was Minister? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Mr Mark Peck is interjecting from the other side of the House. He should look at recent history. How often have judgments of the New Zealand Court of Appeal been overturned by the Privy Council? 
Mark Peck 
: Why didn’t that member fix it when he had the chance? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The member cannot answer. In fact on commercial law issues the Privy Council has found the New Zealand Court of Appeal to be wrong in over half the cases brought before it. So for the Minister to suggest to this Parliament that 
the Court of Appeal in disagreeing with Acting Chief Justice Heron in the original High Court case puts this matter at an end is clearly not the case. 
 The matter may well be taken to the Privy Council and may be overturned by the Privy Council as has been the recent experience. I am told that in 70 percent of cases on commercial law issues 
where the New Zealand Court of Appeal has ruled one way and where those cases have been taken to the Privy Council the ruling of the New Zealand Court of Appeal has been overturned. So for the Minister to come to this House and say there is not an issue of property rights in this legislation is clearly mistaken. I am not allowed to say it is “false” so let me just say it is mistaken. If the Privy Council were to agree with Acting Chief Justice Heron that the transitional provisions back in the 1991 Act did provide for variations to the terms of mining licences that existed or renewal of mining licences then property rights are at issue. 
Mark Peck 
: No they’re not. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: They are at issue. Mark Peck is rabbiting on and not even from his own seat. But I do not mind that; let us not stop him. Mr Peck should look at the effect of this legislation. It is so unfair. Anyone who got an 
application in who filed a case prior to when Mr Duynhoven made his statement to expunge property rights—at 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002—may be protected by this legislation. But up until that point officials had been telling the industry there was no right to vary the term; there was no opportunity for renewal. So a lot of licence holders did not seek to vary the term of their licence. They did not apply for renewal. Their property rights are extinguished by this legislation. Mark Peck knows it and Harry Duynhoven knows it. 
That is why National objects to this legislation. It is just so unfair. Those who believed the official advice now face the possibility that their existing property rights will be extinguished. Those who ignored the official advice and took action ensured their property rights may be preserved. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Running commentaries are out of order under Speaker’s ruling 51/5. Everyone will have a chance to make a speech. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Apart from the principle of the extinction of property rights the fact that this legislation will make null and void the opportunity to vary the term of or renew an existing mining licence becomes even more important given the advice the Commerce Committee heard on the mining permit system. What I am told because I was not there is that officials examining this legislation could not tell the select committee when the Department of Conservation had ever granted access for a mining permit to Crown minerals on Department of Conservation land. That is a hugely important issue. 
If in fact the department is preventing access to Crown minerals under the Crown Minerals Act then the issue of the possibility of renewal of rights that existed under the old 1971 and 1979 Acts becomes even more important because the mining industry is an important industry for New Zealand. It seems this legislation could be another nail in its coffin. Labour does not like the mining industry. It thinks it destroys the ground. It thinks it is anti-environment. It does not like it. Yet modern mining can be environmentally very safe very conducive with sound environmental outcomes. If I am wrong on that I want the next Labour speaker in this debate to tell us how many permits the department has allowed for Crown minerals on that Crown-owned land because I assert that this Government does not like mining. It is making sure that existing licences cannot be renewed that their terms cannot be varied with this legislation. I was told the select committee was advised by officials that they had no record of the Department of Conservation approving permits for mining on that Crown-owned land for those Crown-owned minerals. 
That is why the National Party is so concerned about this legislation. It is a twofold problem. The first is that the legislation extinguishes any possible rights for people who believed the officials. What is so bad about that is the unfairness. It is so unfair to turn around and say that those who put in an application to vary the term of or extend their licence prior to 5 p.m. on 19 September 2002 will be all right; they will preserve their existing rights. But those who believed the officials and did not apply to extend the term of a licence will see their possible rights extinguished. I stress they are only “possible” rights because the court process is not completed yet. Those possible rights should be left up to the court to determine. That is the only fair thing but given that some people have already started that court process to extinguish those rights for other people treats citizens differently. That is not fair. That is our first objection to this legislation. 
As I have said our second objection is that the legislation really is anti-mining. Since the Crown Minerals Act was passed and passed in good faith by this Parliament we have seen Crown-owned land—Department of Conservation land—not being made available where it is appropriate for mining. This legislation will just be one further nail in the coffin of mining. That is why National opposes it.