Ardern Shane: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7619] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I have a whole lot of new material that I am sure the Committee will be interested in on the title of this bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. There is an old cliché that says: “Never judge a book by its cover.” But the problem with that old saying is that it is quite deep and meaningful. There is quite a bit in it. Sometimes it is used to refer to people. But it is actually quite accurate in the case of this socialist Labour Government: “Never judge a bill by its title.” This bill should be described as the “Never Judge a Labour Socialist Bill by its Title Bill” because it will have no significance whatsoever in terms of what it contains. 
If members look at this legislation they will see that that is absolutely so. If one has a look at the fact that this legislation is amending the Mining Act 1971 the Coal Mines Act and the Crown Minerals Act one will see that the title has no relevance to what is being achieved. In fact a better title would be the “Jackboots Across All Property Rights Bill”. That would be a good name for this bill. If members look at what happened in the case presided over by Acting Chief Justice Heron in the High Court they will see that he found that there was an explicitly worded priority right in mining licence providing a built-in protection once mining has started. When one looks at that case and that finding and looks at what has been proposed in this bill one sees that this title has no relevance whatsoever to what this Government is proposing—absolutely none. 
Once again Labour is being propped up by the Greens and various machinations of people who come to this Parliament to support it—a whole range of different misguided socialists are propping it up—and once again through legislation by stealth the Government is stealing property rights from those who have worked hard developed an industry have a successful profit line will make a contribution to New Zealand and can contribute to growth which this Government talks about but it does the opposite. This title bears no relevance whatsoever to the purpose of this legislation. 
A further suggested title for this legislation might be the “Hon Paul Swain Misguiding the Mining Industry Bill”. The Hon Paul Swain in the first reading of this legislation told Parliament that it would not be retrospective. So perhaps the title should be amended to the “Labour Party Once Again Introducing Retrospective Legislation for its Own Political Expediency Bill”. 
There are a range of suggestions obviously that would be more apt at describing what this bill actually does. But the most important issue and I guess the most important title that should be considered is “Legislating Across Private Property Rights (the State Knows Best) Taking Property Rights from People Bill”. That would be a much fairer description. The title in no way whatsoever represents anything at all of any significance that is in this legislation. 
It is interesting to note that the Commerce Committee was very divided. The very good National and ACT members on that select committee put together a minority report. The National member opposite to me Pansy Wong was I believe part of that select committee— 
Pansy Wong 
: The first part. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: She was present for the first part of that select committee that looked at this legislation and she made a very worthwhile contribution to the title of the bill. Of course she will be in a much better position to judge that than most of the members on the other side of the Chamber tonight who will not have a clue what is in the bill let alone what the title should be and clearly I would listen to that member’s comments in relation to what the title of this bill should be before I listen to Government members. They have a habit of coming to this Parliament—and certainly they have ramped that habit up in recent times—with all sorts of “snatch property rights” pieces of legislation think nothing of it—and they draw very long faces at my suggestion about that.