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:7624] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I also rise to oppose the commencement date. The reasons are quite simple as my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith has pointed out. If members look at the press release put out by the Acting Minister at the time the Hon Harry Duynhoven at 6.30 p.m. on 20 September 2002 they will see that by doing that this legislation came into being. Putting out that press release brought into question the whole issue of property rights covered in the body of this legislation and this legislation came into being. 
The question I have for the Minister in the chair Chris Carter or any other Labour member who wants to take a call is: why would the Government proceed with legislation when the Minister himself and his tenure in this Parliament are under question at the moment? Why would the Government allow that process to proceed? This is quite apart from the fact that the legislation rules across what has commonly been strongly defended in this Parliament by both National and Labour Governments over the whole history of the Parliament. That is why we have had continuous democracy in this country for longer than most other countries. I think this is the longest-serving continual democracy in the world but if that is not so it is one of the longest. One of the reasons it has endured is simply that this Parliament regardless of what party has been in Government has upheld the principle of property rights. 
For the first time in the history of this country this socialist Government is breaking that rule. I know Mr Chairperson that you are quite knowledgeable on this topic because I see that you were on the select committee. I can tell that the members of the select committee would have studied the ramifications of the submissions put forward very closely and very carefully. Why is it that today this Parliament and this Government are allowing this process to proceed given the amount of ambiguity around the particular issue and given the pending court action that will almost certainly follow? We need only go back to what Acting Chief Justice Heron said at the time. We can see that a whole range of political and legal issues needed to be resolved with regard to whether the legislation would stand up and whether it would be robust. 
Why are we proceeding with this legislation? Why are the Green Party members of this Parliament supporting this legislation at this point in time? Why is the Labour Party wanting to get this legislation through today and not defer it until some of the issues where clearly there is a huge amount of ambiguity are resolved one way or the other? Why is it not upholding that long-served principle in this Parliament of maintaining property rights? Maybe the Minister of Conservation will take a call to explain. We on this side of the House are absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that this Government is interested in proceeding with this legislation under the current circumstances and allowing this bill to take effect once it has received the royal assent. 
There are a range of areas in this legislation that I am sure will be well thrashed out as we further debate it but there is one issue that has not been touched on yet and it certainly is relevant to the commencement date. With regard to mining why has a different set of rules been applied to a range of other topics that have been canvassed by my colleagues the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Lockwood Smith in their previous contributions? Why have we suddenly got to the point where those property rights can be extinguished without compensation just by passing legislation like this? How is that? That is setting a new precedent. I do not think that has ever happened in the history of the Parliament. One would probably have to go back a long time. I do not see any members shaking their heads to say that I am wrong. Some members who have been here a long time would know. Certainly some members on the other side of the Chamber would know because they are well practised at it. Are we now setting a new precedent whereby a Government can legislate like this across property rights without compensation and without looking at the ramifications?