United Future
Gordon Copeland

CROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILL - House speech

I will endeavour to explain why.

This bill is an amendment to the principal act which is known as the Crown Minerals Act 1991.  The principal act sets out in Section 66 to provide that where access arrangements have not been agreed between a mining permit holder and a private landowner then, by way of Order in Council, the Government can intervene on the grounds of public interest by referring the matter to an independent arbitrator.

The general law concerning such agreements is also quite clear, namely that a full, fair and adequate sum of money must be paid to the landowner so that they are compensated for loss of the use and enjoyment of the land in question.

Other conditions would also be imposed on both parties under the Resource Management Act whereby they would have, for example, to address issues relating to environmental damage, reinstatement of the site following the closure of the mine, etc.

Those are the general rules and they are normally thrashed out between the parties until agreement is reached.  However a situation could arise where the owner of the property refuses to deal with the mining company at all or only on conditions which are grossly unfair and unreasonable. 

A different situation however might arise where we are talking about valuable minerals such as oil and gas, gold or uranium.  In such cases it may well be in the public interest that the matter go to compulsory arbitration so that both sides of the issue can be coolly and objectively assessed and a decision reached which is consistent both with the private property rights of the landowner concerned and the public interest.  That is when Section 66 kicks in to create a win/win situation for everyone.

However, and this is where the essential difficulty arises for United Future, any land held or managed under the Conservation Act 1987 is specifically excluded from those provisions.  This, in our view, is an untenable provision.

It has to be remembered that 33% of all NZ land is controlled by DOC under the Conservation Act 1987, and that this includes virtually all New Zealand rivers, lakes and streams.  It also includes everything from pristine conservation areas and national parks to a variety of “rubbish” land.

In relation to that land a completely different set of rules come into play.  The Conservation Act 1987 establishes the Minister of Conservation as the advocate for conservation and he does that through thirteen regional conservatories, each of which has a conservation advisory board made up of people nominated by the Minister.

All well and good, but if the Minister personally is the advocate for no less than one third of New Zealand’s land area plus most of its rivers, lakes and streams, the question needs to be asked: who exactly is he advocating to?

Is  it not true that in the normal course of events an advocate is arguing his case before a judge?  So who is the judge under the Conservation Act 1987?

Well, sad to say, it is the Minister of Conservation.  How can it be that the Minister becomes judge and jury?  Does that constitute due process?

But wait – it gets way worse.  The public of New Zealand, the mining companies, the energy generating companies, and tourism operators never get to hear exactly what the Minister in his role as an advocate gets to say to the Minister in his role as the sole judge and there is no right of appeal.

This lacks common sense, transparency, and balance.  As far as United Future is concerned it is therefore unacceptable and a matter which needs to be urgently addressed by the Government.

I want to draw it to the attention of this House how serious this is, because here we are talking about a major systemic problem with the way in which the Conservation Act 1987 has been set up.

Since 1987 no new hydro generation projects  or tourism facilities such as hotels have been permitted on that one third of New Zealand which is controlled by DOC and the minister. 

Furthermore, quoting from the minority National and ACT view on this bill:

“Officials of the Department of Conservation were unable to advise the committee whether they had ever granted access to its lands for the purposes of mining since 1991.”

Talk about shooting ourselves and our economic future in the foot!

If the Conservation Act 1987 had been enacted at an earlier date we would have no Manapouri hydro scheme, no Hermitage, no tourism facilities at Mount Cook, no visitors’ centre on Mount Egmont, etc.

As matters stand at present the reality is that international mining companies are bypassing New Zealand and heading off to places like Western Australia where they have proper transparent processes, manuals and policies in relation to mining on conservation land.

If we are to attract such people back to New Zealand, and maximise the economic benefits to our economy through mining activities then, in United Future’s view, we must review these matters so that the system provides:

a) certainty (of process rather than outcomes);

b) fairness;

c) transparency.

We must create a situation whereby as with privately owned land, on the grounds of public interest individual projects on DOC land can be taken to an independent arbitrator, judge or similar.  This enables all sides of the argument, including those related to conservation, to be taken into account in a proper, structured and transparent manner.

I am convinced that in many instances we would both be able to allow mining activities to proceed and, at the same time, in conjunction with those activities, add net benefit to the conservation estate itself.  In other words, a win/win situation for all.

Accordingly I renew my request to the Government in relation to this Crown Minerals Amendment Bill that the provisions of the principal act as they relate to private land be extended to embrace also land held or managed by the Department of Conservation.

Until that request is acted on United Future is left with no option, in the interests of balance and commonsense, but to oppose this legislation.