Cunliffe David: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and to confirm as my colleagues have done that Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee but with some very serious although perhaps not fatal reservations pending further consultation with the Government in an effort to find a way through because there is also much in the bill that we think is sensible pragmatic and worthy of support subject to submissions being received. I would like to give just a quick background on the purpose and nature of the bill and then some more detail about Labour’s approach to it and I would like to then turn to some of the broader economic development issues around the mining sector at the current time. 
This bill as members will be aware amends the Crown Minerals Act to make several important changes. It adds a new purpose section to promote the efficient allocation of minerals. The word “efficient” is always an interesting one in legislation because in economic terms there are many different definitions of “efficiency” and they often have to be balanced against welfare and competition issues. Productive allocative and dynamic efficiency all have different effects and different meanings in law. 
Two tiers of minerals permit are created with more stringent than current requirements for high-value mining and less stringent requirements for less valuable mining. We will be looking carefully at submissions to see whether that might have the undesirable effect of creating a race to the bottom by incentivising less valuable mining practices and there may be some precedents to take note of in the fishing industry in regard to so-called low-value catch. 
The initial assessment of health and safety and environmental capability is going to be added on top of current requirements which seems reasonable. Tier one permit holders must report annually on engagement with iwi. Royalty rates will be amended. The bill makes it automatic for new protected areas—for example national parks—to be added to schedule 4 which is sensible enough it would seem. 
The bill provides for the joint ministerial approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation for mining on Department of Conservation land and that is one of the provisions that we have very substantial reservations about. The current system which requires the Minister of Conservation to consult and then make a decision is in our view not broken. It may well be that there is a way through for the parties to come together to achieve the sensible fine-tuning of the system through this bill without that requirement and that remains to be seen. But without movement on that point I think my colleagues have already signalled that Labour would find it very difficult to support the bill at the second and third readings. 
Labour sees the environment and the economy as essentially two sides of the same coin. Of course interests must be balanced but really often they are interdependent. If we do not value our environment and the services that it provides to us over time our standard of living will degrade and our economy will degrade with it. We are dependent on our land our water and our air to sustain our life our society and our economy and we should protect them for both their intrinsic and their instrumental value. 
Labour does not oppose mining. There has been a bit of phooey. I mean not even the Green Party opposes all mining and Labour certainly does not. As members have noted some of Labour’s history—our DNA our birthplace—is from the mining communities of the West Coast of the South Island. So we feel it pretty keenly just as we felt passionate anger really and sadness for the workers being laid off from Spring Creek Mine and for the families that are being dislocated. We could see the despair in their eyes when they came to Parliament yesterday and the Minister for Economic Development would not do them the courtesy of even reading the paper that they had prepared to try to save their jobs. I have to say I found that extraordinarily arrogant and insulting to hundreds of families who are just at their wits’ end. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Even by your standards? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well there is “The Maestro” sticking his head up. How many screw-ups does that member need to make before he is a little bit more judicious about interjecting in this House? Good judgment does not come on the end of a cigar Mr Coleman. 
Grant Robertson 
: Putting the smoke into smoke and mirrors. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Smoke and mirrors my colleague has suggested—an apt title for “The Maestro” of Mt Albert but that is another matter. 
Labour supports mining where it is done in a responsible safe and environmentally friendly way but we are concerned that some of the provisions of this bill may run counter to that objective. Labour’s bottom lines on mining are that there must be capacity to respond to accidents quickly as well as to prevent them wherever possible; there must be clear liability established so taxpayers do not foot the bill for mistakes; there must be robust protection for the environment; there must be good strong benefit to the local economy—not only the jobs—and the royalties system needs to be appropriate etc. 
Labour is opposed to there being joint ministerial responsibility for mining on Crown land. The conservation estate is given to the Minister of Conservation to ensure that land is protected and that role should not be confused by the addition of joint responsibility. Consultation already occurs and is required between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources— 
Grant Robertson 
: Tourism? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and for tourism and for other purposes. That occurs at the moment. The system is not broken. It does not need a radical shift of this nature which would drive the outcomes away from a conservation and economy balance and much more towards an open-cast future and that is not something that we think is desirable or appropriate. 
We are also concerned about applying the economic benefit test to mining on the conservation estate. Mining on the conservation estate should occur only where there is an adequate environmental offset so that the net environmental value of the land is not damaged as a result. The reason for that is death by a thousand cuts. The accumulation or the cumulative effect of repeated development activities can simply undermine the value of the estate over time. It is very important that the conservation estate is protected. That is what it is there for and the policy framework has to reflect that—a far cry members of the public who are listening would observe from the shambles that was the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Here was a magisterial attempt to bring large tracts of the southern oceans within our jurisdiction yet the paucity the weakness of the environmental protection embedded in that bill was a shocker and it was not saved by a big late Supplementary Order Paper. It is still a matter that is going to require a big bold fix-up when the Government changes in a couple of years if not before. 
Labour would also like to see that any concession agreement for mining goes up for public consultation whereas the current bill proposes joint responsibility for the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to decide whether there should be consultation. I cannot think and Labour cannot think of any scenario where we would build a new mine without it being a notified activity. Mining is just too substantial. 
Parts of the bill that Labour does support include making the inclusion of additions to protected lands such as national parks automatic. The pre-vetting aspect is useful and the streamlining of the process to make it more understandable is useful. I really do not think that any reasonable member of this House would disagree with those provisions. The key to the select committee process and hearing from the public will be to see whether members of all parties can come together to do what is sensible and to resist what might be tempting but ultimately unwise. 
This debate is occurring—if I might make a quick aside—in the context of Spring Creek Mine being mothballed effectively closed for the time being and a large proposal from Bathurst Resources to mine on land on the Denniston Plateau. The Government has argued that Spring Creek Mine is closing because of world coal prices. The same coal prices of course apply to Bathurst Resources so there is no logic whatsoever in that argument. In fact what has happened is that documents provided from Solid Energy make absolutely clear that what is going on here is that to maximise its short-term value it is being dressed for sale. It is in black and white. Board documents prove it. Therefore those 300-odd mining families would not be in the horrible position they are in now if it were not for the privatisation programme. It is wrong. It will stop under Labour and the public still has time to sign the petition that would end it now. 
This is a useful bill potentially but it is a bill that will challenge members on all sides of the House to come together to do what is wise and to compromise so that we can do what is in the public interest without ruining our environment. Thank you very much.