8. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Did he, on 10 February 2010, sign off a proposal to Cabinet to consult on the removal from schedule 4 of parts of Kahurangi, Mount Aspiring, Rakiura, and Paparoa national parks for mining purposes?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) Link to this
Some time before that I signed out a document that went to a Cabinet committee on that date, so the answer, theoretically, is yes. The member knows that, because all of that information is now publicly available on the Ministry of Economic Development website. We have been very open about the fact that officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation initially, in answer to the stocktake, said there was a large amount of land that contained mineral deposits, and that might be considered for removal from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Ministers discussed those proposals and rejected them, and I made that very clear on the day that I released the discussion document. The discussion paper that we did settle on, in fact, had an addition of some 5,000 hectares to schedule 4.
Which of the statements made in the Minister’s name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park is not under further investigation and will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park would be considered for competitive tender for mineral exploration?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I do not know which two quotes are being referred to, but I do know that Cabinet has decided there will be no further mineral exploration in Mount Aspiring National Park, Kahurangi National Park, or any other national park, other than the investigation of the mineral potential in Rakiura National Park. We are very, very open about that and have put all that information on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. We are hiding nothing, and as long as the member likes to tilt at the windmill she can be sure that it will not fall over.
I seek leave to table two documents. The first is page 5 of Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond, which states that the Government is not further investigating the potential of Kahurangi or Mount Aspiring national parks, which remain protected in schedule 4.
Mr SPEAKERIt is from the Crown Minerals office in the Ministry of Economic Development and states that it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas of land for competitive tender allocations for mineral exploration. The document includes an associated schedule and map.
Hon David ParkerWhy has the Minister withheld paragraphs 50, 51, 79, 80, and 81 from the 10 February Cabinet paper, which was released under the Official Information Act; and are those withheld details even more embarrassing than the reality that until a month ago, the Minister of Energy and Research, Mr Brownlee, along with Ms Wilkinson, was signing off on the removal of 400,000 hectares of national parks from schedule 4?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
None of the facts mentioned in that question is correct. I cannot respond to them if they are not correct.
How can the Minister reconcile the fact that in his 22 March document he was telling the public that the Mount Aspiring National Park is to be protected from mineral exploration but that through the notice of land closure released on that same day, he was telling the mineral industry that the Mount Aspiring National Park will be opened up for mineral exploration?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
One of the interesting anomalies in all of this is that right now anybody can theoretically go and get a permit to prospect on schedule 4 lands. There are three permit categories: prospecting, exploring, and mining. Mining is prohibited, exploring is prohibited, but prospecting is not. People can get a prospecting permit for those lands and can go out there and dig to their heart’s content. What is more, it is on a “first come, first served” basis that future applications are considered. I thought it was prudent, while we are asking the public to consider the wider interests, to put a prohibition on vast blocks of land across New Zealand. For reasons of simplicity, the maps are very, very general, but there will be specific parts of that map where land could be open to this sort of activity. We were trying to avoid exactly what the Greens fear: a Klondike-type rush on high-value conservation land.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
I seek leave to table, under the land closure notice referred to previously by Metiria Turei, the map attaching to it, which covers the east Nelson reserve land, including the Grampians and Mount Richmond Forest Park.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One cannot speak to a point of order that seeks such leave, but I ask the House’s indulgence. All of that is available on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. Nothing is hidden.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga Link to this
Has he read the 2005 version of the General Policy for National Parks document, which was produced by the Department of Conservation for the New Zealand Conservation Authority?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Yes, I have. The member may be interested to know that in policy 10.8(b) of that document it states: “Proposed access arrangements to prospect, explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”. It is very interesting to note that in 2005 the previous Labour Government approved exactly the policy that the National-led Government is advocating now—that is, considering the mining of conservation land on a case by case basis. It seems that for the Green Party it was OK if Labour did it, but it is not OK if National does it.
If the Minister truly has no intention of mining in these national parks, will he now commit to withdrawing the notice of land closure for all areas of national parks included in it and allow the schedule 4 protection to remain?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
That would prejudice against any possibility of the Government’s preventing either prospecting or exploring opportunities in those areas. It would be fundamentally absurd to do what the member suggests.
Which of the statements made in his name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park will be surveyed for mineral exploration, using the $4 million subsidy he is currently consulting the public about?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I want to deal with this in two parts. The first statement made by me is absolutely correct. The second one is a truthful statement, because when a plane flies over the top doing the aerial magnetic survey, it does not suddenly turn itself off as it goes across a national park boundary. That may be hard for the Greens to understand, but it is the fact of the science.
When the Minister stated in this House that “the consultation process will be very, very public”, why did he not tell the public of his intention to open Mount Aspiring National Park to “competitive tender for mineral exploration”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I do not know where the member got that from, but that is simply not the case.
Government backbenchers are skating on thin ice, because a point of order was clearly called and then there was just a loud barrage of interjections. I think that those members are probably protected by their sheer numbers, but I do not want that to become a practice. I ask them to desist from doing that.
I am not sure how to proceed, given that the Minister has just granted me permission to table his document, which states it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas for competitive tender for—
My problem now is that having just asked the House to be quiet while the member makes her point of order, I have no idea what the issue of order is. The member has the chance to ask a further supplementary question. If she did not understand the Minister’s answer, then she can deal with that further by way of a supplementary question.
I do not know what was in the water this morning, but it is not good. I ask Government members to please show a little more respect to another member. A member is entitled to ask questions, and she will not be treated like that. That was very discourteous.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I take the opportunity to say this. We support your ruling, but it is not all Government backbenchers who are interjecting. Mr Paul Quinn, in particular, makes a regular feature of barracking and yelling at Metiria Turei on nearly every occasion that she stands up to speak. I think it would be good order for the co-leader of the third-largest party in Parliament to be able to make her points here. To be fair, not all Government backbenchers are responsible for this; it is one particular member who screams his head off at the co-leader of the Green Party.
I appreciate—[ Interruption] I advise Government backbenchers to take this matter seriously, because it discourteous. It is discourteous to this House. It is not about me; I do not matter. It is this House that matters. The point raised by the Hon Darren Hughes is a serious point. I will not tolerate a member being treated with discourtesy. Every member has the right to ask questions. Some members may not like other members’ questions. They have the right to interject, but not to treat a member discourteously.
How can the public have any confidence in this Minister and in his statements on mining in our national parks, when he will say one thing to his Cabinet colleagues and to the mining industry, and on the same day he will say something completely different from that to the New Zealand public? How can they have confidence in anything that he says?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I am sure that anybody who goes to the Ministry of Economic Development website, who digs out all the bits of paper, who understands the process, and who is interested in making an intelligent submission on the proposals made by the Government will be quite confident that his or her voice will be heard.