Today’s Editorials
February 11th, 2010 at 1:10 pm by David FarrarThe previous government tilted matters too far towards environmental protection. A more balanced approach acknowledges the untapped riches – put at 70 per cent of the country’s potential mineral wealth – tied up in the Crown estate. New Zealand can no more disregard that than it can afford damage to its environmental attributes.
A balanced approach also recognises that not all Crown land is the stuff of pristine scenery or majestic native forest. So large is the Crown estate – it occupies about 30 per cent of New Zealand’s land mass – that there is major potential for mining in selected lower-value areas using modern, relatively non-invasive extraction methods.
This land should not be off limits. Mr Key knows as much. Encouragingly, he is finally showing signs that he also knows the time for prevarication is over.
Even if one built a few dozen mines, they would still cover less than 1% of the conservation estate.
The Press also backs unlocking the land.
… the proposal, as outlined by Key, is sound and sensible, would not be a threat to any land that is really worth protecting, and has much to commend it.
It is not commonly known, though, that New Zealand also has considerable mineral deposits. A geologist’s report two years ago suggested that the in-ground value of metallic minerals and lignite in New Zealand is $240 billion and as the Prime Minister pointed out, in 2008 New Zealand’s third-largest export earner was oil. …
The Government’s careful proposal is not to give carte blanche to extracting this wealth, but rather to free up some of the land where sensitive and undisruptive activity could be undertaken. Some of the land is almost certain to have low or even practically non-existent conservation value. In the vast addition of land to the conservation estate that has taken place in the last decade or more, mostly at the say-so of politicians and bureaucrats with little consultation about it, there is bound to be some that does not need to be there. There can hardly by any objection to low-impact mining in those and other areas, particularly where the potential returns are so great.
This is key – Labour added vast tracts of land to Section 4 – some of which is just gorse. Do not assume all of Section 4 is high conservation value.
The Dominion Post calls for open justice.
Two similar cases, two different outcomes. Is it any wonder people are increasingly questioning whether there are two standards of justice – one for the wealthy, famous and influential and one for everyone else? …
Justice should be administered impartially, regardless of wealth or status. An open justice system and the right to freedom of expression are two of the foundations on which our society is built, as a Law Commission report on suppression made clear last year. “There should be no restriction on publication of information about a court case except in very special circumstances, or for compelling reasons,” it said.
And the ODT supports tax reform:
When all the rorts, loopholes and mechanisms by which a significant proportion of New Zealanders either avoid paying tax – or, quite legally, are not required to – are taken into account, few people would disagree with the proposition, put forward by the Tax Working Group, that the system is “broken”.
They might have varying views on the extent to which this is the case, and almost inevitably will diverge on what the appropriate remedies might be, but Prime Minister John Key and his Government, elected on a platform of tax reform (more popularly described as “tax cuts”) are on solid ground in at least beginning to address the associated issues.
I agree with all four editorials – a fairly rare event 
February 11th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
The considerable political skills of the Prime Minister will be needed for all the policies being proposed. The Maori Party is proving its-self a fair weather friend of the Government who run for cover when the decision making gets hard. Being a serious player in Government also means being there when difficult decisions need to be made. So far the Maori Party has not done this. New Zealanders have to decide whether they want to be a wealthy country will all the benefits that brings. Or do we slide into a kind of genteel poverty scapping over a shrinking economic cake. The Labour Party and its friends seem to want to fight over a shrinking cake, obsessed with the rich, spreading hate everywhere.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Re: Mining
Great to see that at last we have a government which acknowlwdges the realities of the metal-mining industry, that it has value to the country, and is prepared to do something positive about it – and that some of the MSM are being brave enough to support the propsals.
We will of course see the ‘usual agenda-driven suspects’ out vociferously protesting about the wrongs involved in the industry – especially gold mining, which they seem to hate with an absolute and unreasonable passion – especially underground operations. Names of these individuals do of course come immediately to mind, and no doubt several so-called ‘Green’ MP’s and a former Green leader will be in attendance – as usual.
I do wonder however how much of it their ernest possing and posturing is actually bona fide ‘anti’ or if if is more of a case of NIMBY-ism and blind allegience to the destruction of this country (‘watermelon’s’ and all that), since it is very noticable that the uni-students involved (especially the female ones) are not sadly, well-informed – but that they are VERY easily led.
One can but hope that they are going to be ignored so that the industry can get on with the job.
Perhaps, at last, teh average Kiwi is ‘over’ the ‘Greens’ – one can only hope.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Time to get those old “Dig for Victory” posters out of the attic.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Given that we’re already the world’s largest oil producer (producing two-and-a-half times the oil of Saudi Arabia) I’d say we’re doing pretty well in the exploitation of our natural resources!
Ref: Gerry Brownlee in Parliament yesterday.
HT: Marty G
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
NZ mineral riches – what a con.
Brownlee has swallowed the estimates of the World Bank and local bureaucrats in one big gulp.
Most of what they are talking about onshore is lignite. Southland has billions of tonnes of it not far below top-grade farmland. Unfortunately, the energy content is too low to enable it to be shipped anywhere economically. It could generate electricity, except for carbon emission rules and lack of local demand, and the need to transmit the energy a thousand miles and over a sea strait. Solid Energy is talking of distilling the lignite into diesel. The Germans did this with lignite when they were desperate in the second world war, and South Africa’s Sasol did it during the long trade embargo. Other than that it’s regarded as too risky economically.
Offshore, as we have discussed before in these threads, are the deposits of “fire ice” on the ocean floor that no-one knows how to extract the methane from economically. Then there will be smallish deposits of gas, and perhaps even a few pockets of oil.
It’s one thing to have a crazed embellisher like Tim Shadbolt declaring Southland the new Saudi Arabia because of unproved deposits of gas in the Great South Basin. It’s another to have a Cabinet Minister catching the bug.
Mineral crazes happen periodically in NZ, from the various rushes in Otago and the West Coast and Thames to the false pipe dreams of uranium in the 1960s. The difference is that they were started by enthusiastic prospectors, and were sometimes successful. The present bullishness comes from economists.
There will be good tappable gas in coal seams and smallish (on international scale) natural gas finds on and offshore, but you can guarantee we haven’t got enough to get us out of economic jail.
As for the rubbish that NZ has more mineral potential per head than Australia. Not in gold, not in gas, not in oil, not in coal, not in iron ore, not in uranium, not in the rare earths that are going to be big in new electronic and battery technologies. I believe the Australians may even have more greenstone.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I really really don’t approve of mining in National Parks, though some conservation land mines would be fair enough, if done well.
However, given a choice between a mine and more tourist barns, I’d take the mine any time. Less disruption of the environment overall, less human waste, less traffic. The Milford Track for instance, is more harmed by the present people traffic than the area ever would be by a mine, in my opinion. I did the track 40 years ago and again recently, and was shocked by the environmental degradation compared to 40 years previously.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
annie
You raise a very good point, one conveniently (delibrately?) overlooked by the rabid greenies – namely that Overseas tourist-type HUMANS actually contribute a lot to the destruction of the New Zealand ‘Clean Green’ image, with certain people groups (no names) bringing in their own hygeine-standards (or marked lack-of) etc into the country and leaving their own ‘pollution’ behind as they ‘free-camp’ around the countryside (Guardia as a classic case in point), with members of these same groups having the gall to complain about what others have done to the ‘clean’ environment.
Perhaps we should limit entry by certain ethnic groups of tourists since we don’t want their ‘standards’ (or lack-of) destroying our country?
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Problem with this number of course is that the conservation area is not one consecutive block of land. You would have to to see where that mine was an take that particular conservation area as a reference, not the total.
Also it also depends on the impact on that area. There is a difference if mining is in a barely visible spot at the periphery or in a highly visible part right in the middle. The impact is also more than just hole in the ground, but also the infrastructure to support such an operation (roads, electricity getting to it) and the pollution impact (waste, air pollution, noise pollution, etc.)
Depending on that it can have a significant impact on the surrounding conservation land
Now I am not advocating not to explore the possibilities and never to mine on conservation land, but the 1% figure that you frequently quote is misleadingly understates the impact any mining may have
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Have heard the snivelling Melons and the commie two bobs on talk back full of rage and indignation, how dare the government even consider such an exercise. I wonder if these dropkicks have ever stopped for one moment to think of how their lifestyles are funded, what wankers, as long as the taxpayer is there to bleed it’s all right in their world. I guess none of these idiots drive cars, have electric power or use many of the benefits of a modern society. Where do these goods and the materials used to construct them come from ?. In a perfect world these clowns could all piss of to their own little corner of the country and live in a fucking cave but that would be no fun would it, no one to pay the bills. I say go Shonkey, warm up the bulldozers, i would rather live in a country that can provide for it’s citizens the benefits of the first world then live in some stinking third world shit hole. When will people realise we are living far above our means, our lifestyle can not continue the way it is been funded at the moment and all the gooses feathers have been plucked !!
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
When all the rorts, loopholes and mechanisms by which a significant proportion of New Zealanders either avoid paying tax – or, quite legally, are not required to – are taken into account, few people would disagree with the proposition, put forward by the Tax Working Group, that the system is “broken”.
Won’t that be great. Trusts will be taxed at 39% instead of people. That’s where the rorts lay and no one has yet spoken out against the use of trusts to shelter income. Plenty of attacks on LAQC’s which are a fair way of accounting for an individuals various interests but Trusts are not.
Trusts were originally designed to protect assets but in NZ we have redesigned them and the tax laws to shelter income instead.
Trusts allow tax payers to split incomes to other parties, to pay only what is the choice of the taxpayer in the way of taxable incomes so the tax payer pays say at 19%, the trust pays at 33% and the taxpayer picks up their WFF and various other generous allowances from the Treasurer.
Nothing new with rort, farmers used it for years to get free board at schools, subsidies for university were gained and rest home subsidies were gamed. Winstons oldies card, various other low income entitlements and so on. There would be few NZer’s who didn’t know the lady with the BMW getting free Dr’s visits, whio when asked about their millions (and now problem with them having them, just the misuse of the taxpayer funds(, and the use of this rort will say “I’m ENTITLED”.
Of course give that Cactus has outed all the Labour people using trusts and we can assume the Nats. people will be the same but worse(more assets), it just not going to be a situation that is going to be put right.
Vote:Trusts need to be more highly taxed than individuals and companies just to drive the assessable income to be given to the correct taxpayer. Then we can have lower taxes.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Jack5 @ 2.29,
Vote:Australian Jade is different. Many get taken. There is Nephrite Jade, Serpentine and Bowenite in NZ.
As usual the Australians copy, like to think any stone green is Pounamu. Australian shit is nothing like Nephrite Jade from NZ, Alaska, Canada, Russia etc.
There is only one reason for NZ Jade prices.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
A point to remember is that the mining company’s don’t get something for nothing – something which the MSM never mentions. The taxation rate that the NZ Government ‘requests’ is not exactly helpful, while the ‘bond’ for ‘refurbishment’ of the land that has been worked-over (irrespective of the condition of said land beforehand) is also a huge disincentive. What is also forgotten (and never mentioned) is that the whole process is very fraught with obstacles and prepayments (‘fees’) as the application-process is followed-through. Effectively an application can have gone through the hoops (with the associated large ‘fees’), have taken literally years to do so, and be on the metaphorical home straight, when the Minister can say no, and not have to give a reason! It’s extremely arbitrary, and (it has been suggested) permisssion-giving could depend on whether-or-not the authorising-Mininster had had a row with his wife! At times it certainly seemed to be almost possible.
The associated-costs are appalling, and as a result there is no likelihood that the small-prospector or prospecting party as was the case in the ‘olden days’. This is as a direct result of the deliberate removal by the government of the day (Labour?) of the old ‘Miner’s Right’ during the late 80′s; the removal being to curry favour with the emerging ‘Green’ movement which had carried-out a very deliberate (and effective) dis-information campaign (which I’ve commented-on on previous posts).The logic behind this removal was to actively discourage mining (especially GOLD mining), and to encourage ONLY large mining companies to enter the field, the logic evidently being a belief that only large amounts of money could really ‘do’ mining. Effectively the message , given loud and clear at teh time was ‘No small prospectors or parties need apply’, yet it was the ‘small man’ who had found what became the important finds – a state that will not change unless the RMA undergoes huge reform (which I doubt will happen).
Although it pains me to have to say it, but one must be truthful, it is extremely unlikely that any more ‘big’ finds of gold (especially ‘underground’ gold in particular) will be found. The country was effectively (and efficiently) prospected during the late 19th Century, with this initial prospecting being reinforced by the ‘Subsidised Prospecting’ scheme during the Great Depression. However, having said that, New Zealand still has a large number of areas which although known to be capable of producing good returns, were never actively worked for a variety of reasons (largely political), and that these are still waiting to be exploited (and yes, some ARE in areas currently under ‘DoC control)
Potentially the resources are there, but to get at them will require a change of regulation and, most importantly, a deliberate decision by Kiwi’s in general, and the MSM in particular, to ignore the vociferous, extremely self-interested ‘Green’ lobby. New Zealand was at one time a world leader in mining and mining technology and was actively supported in this by the MSM.
It essentially comes down to, (as others have already asked), ‘What do we want – a ‘First World’ nation or to continue down the Third World path we have been placed-on by those who controlled us during the last nine years?’ Personally I would prefer prosperity. and a First World country.
Et tu Kiwi?
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
God, you drool a bunch of nonsensical shite “Komata”.
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Thankyou DAW. Your lucid, and enlightening comment is greatly appreciated.
You are, I understand a ‘Green’?
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
So, drinks-after-worker, you don’t agree with Komata. Your privilege. But how about debating the points made, any of them, rather than simply resorting to gratuitous personal abuse?
Vote:February 11th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Re Steve at 7.53…
Thanks for the information, Steve. There was a rumour that some Maori had an interest in Australian nephrite.
Do you know if the nephrite from Alaska, Canada, and Russia distinguishable from NZ nephrite greenstone? Are you allowed to import it? Ngai Tahu were given all the unmined jade in NZ, but surely they don’t have control of imports? Surely Ngai Tahu don’t have ownership of serpentine as well as of nephrite and bowenite?
Presumably, you would be allowed to sell imported greenstone as long as you didn’t suggest it was NZ stone?
Presumably the bowenite type greenstone from Fiordland is also found abroad?
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 am
So National is returning to the bad old days, and my local regional council (dominated by miners and farmers) are wasting no time to attempt to return the region to the days of rape and pillage of a landscape that has only just healed from the last time they had their way.
Vote:It has taken 16 months to put me off National, I was warned, but at the end of the day they are no different to labour, just ideologically driven and just as polarised.
These people are going to f@ck this country, you supporters can argue all day about mineral stock takes and key hole mining, but it is all theoretical bullshit.
On paper it all looks so good to you fellas from Wellington and Auckland, but perhaps you should come down here and see for yourselves just whether you think these bloody vandal miners are capable of “key hole” surgery.
Miners and environmental responsibility don’t even come close to going together, they don’t give a rats razoo about our natural heritage, it is just the shit that is in the way of wealth.
And before you ignoramus’s start screaming “greenie greenie” I will confess, I have a passion for our natural heritage, but I have been a long and vocal opponent of most of the Greens and Labours social policy and that is what lead me to voting National.
But now the situation has changed, I would rather vote green than stand by and watch a lazy economic policy by a gutless National party stuff the country I love.
I would suggest there will be many, many others that feel the same way.
National would be stupid to pursue this, pull finger and have the balls to develop a long term SUSTAINABLE economy for my kids, not this out dated, stuff the country short term bollocks.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Could not agree more about opening up the conservation estate to mining.
As an aside, given the reference to gorse, what ever happened to the gorse eradication programme? I know that it was close to hopeless in terms of complete success but it did seem to keep that terrible weed at bay. Personally I would be all for community work to be commuted into gorse bush bounties but I suspect the administration costs could be high.
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 12:52 am
“I know that it was close to hopeless in terms of complete success but it did seem to keep that terrible weed at bay.”
No it didn’t, that’s why they stopped it.
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 1:10 am
Any fucken fool can go on google earth and see where they mined before, its like minced dogs balls on your mothers face, it just sticks out.
Do you know what google earth is?
And whats all this fucking shit about if we don’t rip up the conservation land we will end up a third world country? Bullshit, we live fucking grand here in NZ. In india a threw what was a couple of our bucks in a guys hand towards him having his leg(which had at least a liter of puss in it) cut of so the infection didnt eventually kill him. That fucking third world. Third world, you cunts wouldnt know the first thing about it. Life is grand here and you just can’t get enough you greedy fucks.
Seriously though, do you guys believe what you are saying????? that if we don’t mine our national parks then we will be what india was yesterday?
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 2:48 am
Why has India up until recently been ‘third world’ menace? If it wasn’t for development you would be the one with a litre of pus on your leg.
Technological development is what has brought average lifespans from 35 to 75 years, and provided clean water, medicine, education, and art.
It is development and the creation of wealth which reduces our environmental impact and leads to population decline.
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 9:16 am
“It is development and the creation of wealth which reduces our environmental impact and leads to population decline.”
So Sonny, why is national going backwards? you are still believing the lie that just because it looks good on paper she’ll be right.
Vote:Well she won’t be right.
There are no local miners capable of the approach required, and certainly none with the motivation to do it.
It will be a compliance nightmare.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I’m with you Komata
Drill baby Drill!
sensitively of course
Vote:February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Ever thought Mike that there may be a moral responsibility here?
Vote: