Mining under Labour

March 25th, 2010 at 4:02 pm by David Farrar

Quoting a release from Gerry Brownlee:

’s over has been laid bare, says Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee, after new figures released by Crown Minerals today showed Labour approved more than 200 permits for on the Conservation Estate.

“This from the party that launched a campaign yesterday saying it was explicitly opposed to mining conservation areas – not just Schedule Four land, but conservation land full stop,” Mr Brownlee said.

Labour’s pledge of opposition to mining on conservation land is similar to their ax the tax campaign.

200 permits in just nine years!

“But if that wasn’t enough, we also have the release today of information that Labour approved a mining consent on land considered special enough to warrant Schedule Four status, the very behaviour Phil Goff has been decrying as unthinkable.

“It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.

And they mined national parks.

“The information shows Labour were happy for mining to take place on 21,961 hectares of land, meanwhile the government is seeking approval to release a mere 7,058 hectares of Schedule Four land, of which as little as 500 hectares might be mined,” Mr Brownlee said.

My view is that mining applications should be decided on a case by case basis – as both Labour and National have done in the past. Economic benefits need to be weighed up against conservation value for each site.

Figures released by Crown Minerals [attached] show 218 permits were approved under a Labour government for mining inside Department of Conservation land between December 1999 and October 2008.

That is an average of one permit every fortnight was issued under Labour for mining on conservation land. I repeat one permit every fortnight.

Tags: , ,

106 Responses to “Mining under Labour”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    So if Labour can do all this why is National fucking around with consultation.

    And where are all the benefits of these 200 permits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. 2boyz (253 comments) says:

    Things were different under Labour’s watch. National are evil and need to be stopped, if Labour can spin it enough people will start believing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Wow, I must have missed Robyn Malcolm on her soap box while Labour were doing this? Or does she think its only bad when we are borrowing $240 million each week and National are in power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. annie (540 comments) says:

    1. I bet this doesn’t make the newspapers on anything more prominent than a fudged little item on page 8 or so, though it certainly deserves to.

    2. Did New Zealand and New Zealanders demonstrably benefit from any of this mining? And can anyone demonstrate that? What proportion of profits stay in NZ apart from wages – a smallish proportion of costs with modern mining techniques? And are the techniques used ‘surgical’?

    3. Enough of bimbos like Robyn Malcolm and Lucy Lawless posing as scientific experts. Keisha Castle-Hughes can be excused on the grounds of youthful idealism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,815 comments) says:

    The dirty little diggers.

    Brownlee’s skewering of Mallard the Miner in parliament today was priceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Spin spin spin spin spin.

    The difference is schedule 4 land. Under labour I believe the only time that happened was two ventilation shafts 1.5m in diameter in Paparoa. That is it.

    With schedule 4 is the most valuable land pretty large difference.

    National have cocked this one up royaly, especially with the inclusion of Great Barrier Island and now have fallen to rely on finger pointing (again) and a well timed bene release.

    Fortunately this time people are seeing through the charade.

    Ipredict needs to have stock on back down on mining Great Barrier Island.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Fortunately this time people are seeing through the charade.

    Your right, we can all see right through Labour on this one.

    Ipredict needs to have stock on back down on mining Great Barrier Island.

    Last I checked, it was still a discussion document, there is not absolute that they will mine on Great Barrier, so there is nothing to back down from – Iprodict will look like right idiots if they created a stock like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. KiwiGreg (3,211 comments) says:

    “The difference is schedule 4 land.”

    Of whihc Labour created a crap load valuable and otherwise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    And for the agreement part

    DPF:My view is that mining applications should be decided on a case by case basis – as both Labour and National have done in the past. Economic benefits need to be weighed up against conservation value for each site.

    Completely agree. However National, as has been pointed out have not done this. Just gone oooo we think there is $120b beneath teh ground, we have no clue what that is worth to us, but its worth going to places like Great Barrier Island.

    Do it sensibly, work out where the real value is, and dont forget the costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    “Last I checked, it was still a discussion document, there is not absolute that they will mine on Great Barrier, so there is nothing to back down from – Iprodict will look like right idiots if they created a stock like that.”

    You dont release something explosive like that without intending to carry through if public relations are not to heavy. They will though, I have no doubt. It would be phrased off “chance of mining going ahead on GB by xx” .

    “Of whihc Labour created a crap load valuable and otherwise”
    Maybe, show me the evidence of non valuable schedule 4 land. From the stuff they choose to release, thinking this is less so. The question is more is any worth more mined, we shall see. But the case needs to be made, not assumed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    It’s always OK when Labour do it…. keep up, do as we say not as we do – a fish rots from the head and the head was rotten to the core…. thank God we ejected them in 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. lastmanstanding (1,233 comments) says:

    But But But But……………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lastmanstanding (1,233 comments) says:

    Isnt wonderful how the Socialist swine open mouth and stick both feet in. Goof Duck etc pathetic wankers the lot

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Shit Jeff, spare us the faux outrage. Mind you when Labour are looking like right twats you always do seem to froth a little more. National are releasing the material for the public to discuss – it is called a public discussion document isnt it? Vs Labour who would just pass the law and try to minimise the fallout later, or hide it and hope Ms Malcolm doesnt find out and write an article about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kieran_B (81 comments) says:

    I love it!

    I’ve been running out of things to troll the main Facebook anti-mining group (created by Metiria Turei) about, so this is brilliant.

    I’m especially enjoying pushing the following point: Metiria Turei was Parliament since 2002, giving support through confidence and supply to Labour. Why was she not making a big song and dance then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. excusesofpuppets (134 comments) says:

    Who cares who allowed who to mine where. Personally, I’d rather it just stop. Not because I am a tree hugging greeny hippy, but because NO ONE has explained to me how this will benefit generations, past, present and future, of New Zealanders.

    Flame, threadshit me all you like – keep harping on about the same facts, attack the other party for doing it in the past, attack it for being its founding principals – I frankly don’t give a damn. I just don’t want it. Just my personal opinion, probably not shared by the majority of Kiwiblog readers. I quiver in my little spaceboots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. davidp (3,551 comments) says:

    There are ski fields in national parks. Ugly great chairlifts running up the sides of mountains, car parks, overpriced cafes, and snow that is man made and graded rather than natural. Now I like skiing, but if we’re worried about the sanctity of conservation land then ski fields should be one of the first things to go. They’re a hell of a lot more intrusive than an underground mine. And I doubt that Te Heuheu Tukino envisaged ski fields being built on the side of Ruapehu when he gifted the mountain to the Crown. So why don’t Labour and their celebrity mates campaign on ski field closure as a platform?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Personally, I’d rather it just stop.

    What do you propose then to reduce the $240 million each week NZ needs to borrow to balance the books?
    Should the cuts be made in Health, Education or Welfare?

    but because NO ONE has explained to me how this will benefit generations, past, present and future, of New Zealanders.

    The why don’t you educate yourself. But heres a few off the top of my head:
    - Mining royalties to the government will reduce the current debt we are having to take on, meaning future Kiwi’s will not have to find a way to pay back even more debt.
    - Jobs for locals in towns close to the mines: Thames, Waihi, Westport. The money those employed miners will be making will help them and there future offspring enrich there own lives.

    I’m sure there will be more, but instead of lamenting the fact you do not know, take these immortal words of wisdom: GOOGLE IT BITCH!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    DPF – any mining in schedule 4 land? That is, land of particular significance?

    Your role as a National spin doctor is so obvious some times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    It wasn’t always okay when Labour did it either – I’m proud that the Greens kicked up a fuss over Pike River, especially given that it was coal that was being mined and we desperately need to be phasing out use of coal as a fuel if we are to make any impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

    But there is a difference – what National are proposing is not just mining on the conservation estate, but mining on land that has been included in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act as being inappropriate to mine because thorough research has already shown its ecological significance to be of paramount importance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    The why don’t you educate yourself. But heres a few off the top of my head:
    - Mining royalties to the government will reduce the current debt we are having to take on, meaning future Kiwi’s will not have to find a way to pay back even more debt.

    I would assume EOP knows of the existence of royalties, but what he/she, myself and others probably want to know is about the dollars! If Brownlee included royalties figures in that document it might’ve been much more powerful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. queenstfarmer (751 comments) says:

    Stop it DPF – clearly you’re only pointing out Labour’s hypocrisy because Chris Carter’s gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. menace (407 comments) says:

    Im pretty sure if there was huge royalties to earned then it would have been mentioned from the word go, obviously there’s none of huge significance.

    How to break down our weekly borrowing? Well going by the numbers in my cut and paste in general debate today, I can tell you right now how we can snap our fingers and cut a huge amount of costs over night!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. menace (407 comments) says:

    If there was that much money in mining they would simply just go round buying up land to mine, but obviously the the level of profit in it dictates that they need to get the land for free for it to be profitable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Im pretty sure if there was huge royalties to earned then it would have been mentioned from the word go, obviously there’s none of huge significance.

    and

    I would assume EOP knows of the existence of royalties, but what he/she, myself and others probably want to know is about the dollars! If Brownlee included royalties figures in that document it might’ve been much more powerful.

    Oh fuck me sideways! Its not like we are going to just let the mining companies take all the minerals without some kind of licensing or royalty being paid for the right to mine the mineral!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,815 comments) says:

    The Gnats have made a serious error by omitting to show clear evidence of economic benefit, i.e the amount of royalties and licence fees; the amount of extra GST and PAYE, the amount of extra company tax, the number of new jobs, the multipier effect in the economy.

    Clearly these are things Australians understand but dumb Kiwis have not yet calculated.

    It could have been done so simply but instead, they have handed the high ground to the liars, wankers and idiots of the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    If there was that much money in mining they would simply just go round buying up land to mine, but obviously the the level of profit in it dictates that they need to get the land for free for it to be profitable

    Actually you will find that even if you own the land – you do not have the right to exume any minerals from it under a certain depth.

    BTW, they are not getting the land – they will be paying for the right to mine the mineral from the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    It could have been done so simply but instead, they have handed the high ground to the liars, wankers and idiots of the left.

    Too fucken right there mate – these tards think the mining companies wont have to pay a red cent for the right to mine the minerals! I can’t believe how dumb they really are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mattyroo (1,001 comments) says:

    Toad you obfusacating prick, you’re at it again…. Yes, Pike River is coal, but the coal from PRC is used for steel making, NOT for fuel. Actually, that is if they ever get any coal out of the beleagured place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. menace (407 comments) says:

    did i ever say that bevan, no, i said there’s obviously not much of it or they would have been advertising from the word go. same thing adolf, its not as good as they want it to be so they just havn’t advertised the figures

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mattyroo (1,001 comments) says:

    What Adolf F said!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. GPT1 (2,101 comments) says:

    I wonder how effective these “campaigns” that Labour launches actually are? This might be a good one (politically) as there is nothing like harnessing the wrath of the illinformed liberal urban masses over an issue such as mining but it seems that every time the government does something Labour hires a bus and goes on a campaign tour of the country with Phil Goff finding new ways to forcibly pronounce shock on behalf of “or-Din-Ary Ki-wi Families”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pongo (371 comments) says:

    Why not announce Solid Energy is going to do the prospecting ? Or the Cullen fund which quite happily invests in overseas mines. All sounds a bit socialist but at least then you can sell the benefits to Kiwis, the Nats stuffed this one up royally again they could have skewered most opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. menace (407 comments) says:

    i think sometimes you are the dum one bevan, i know for sure that they will pay royalties, nobodies that stupid. read what i write and you will understand what i say(most the time a anyway lol)

    As for the idea that i think the mining companies get to keep the land, rofl man, who’s stupid enough to think that somebody might miss understand things to that extent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,815 comments) says:

    Someone might listen to you one day if you did not write gibberish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jadis (147 comments) says:

    I’ve tried to stay away from this one but…
    1. it is a discussion document. Discussion documents from any party generally have a number of views present, and it doesn’t all become policy
    2. It’s not just the locals that benefit. There are many NZ companies that benefit including the drillers, the consumable suppliers, the transporters, etc etc
    and more.

    There is upside to mining, and a downside. A bit of balance all round would be useful… oh, forgot about politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    As for the idea that i think the mining companies get to keep the land, rofl man, who’s stupid enough to think that somebody might miss understand things to that extent?

    You obviously as I was replying to this comment genius:

    but obviously the the level of profit in it dictates that they need to get the land for free for it to be profitable.

    Marijuana usage may cause short term memory loss – you may well be a good example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    Toad, did you miss the memo? Climate Change is a dead issue now, especially since the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys finally retreated from something other than a small boy with a pop-gun.

    They have canceled their Carbon Tax. Oh and the EU Carbon Markets are rooted, so is CCX in Chicago, carbon credits currently trading at less than a $1 per tonne.

    The whole economic rational for our ETS based on $50 a tonne just went out the window.

    Now about that coal, reef it out and sell the stuff to the chinese and let’s not get all bogged down in the lunacy of the green movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @mattyroo 5:48 pm

    Yeah, fair comment mattyroo, despite you continued rudeness (d4j deserves people to be rude to him, but no other commenter here does imo).

    We do need high quality coal for making steel, at least for the forseeable future, as technology hasn’t yet provided us with alternatives.

    That doesn’t mean we should just give carte blanche to mine it anywhere though. In approving Pike River, I’m not sure Labour got it right. It’s not something I have spent weeks researching, so have to admit I’m not sure they got it wrong either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (13,526 comments) says:

    Toad

    Just how do the Greens think we are going to make any money as a nation?, you are against mining, selling farms to the Chinese, dairy farming in general and a whole raft of other businesses.

    How do you guys see us making a buck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    toad

    So you are saying IT IS OK when Labour do it. Confidence and supply says the greens didn’t care about the environment but rather just wanted a shot at holding hands with the red party in power. What a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    big bruv

    Oh oh I can answer that;

    How do you guys see us making a buck?

    By taxing the middle classes and selling coal to China….. Labour policies supported by the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Oh fuck me sideways! Its not like we are going to just let the mining companies take all the minerals without some kind of licensing or royalty being paid for the right to mine the mineral!

    NOT what I meant. I’d just like to know the extent of the royalties, not ‘do we get any at all’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    toad

    Might have been better if you had just stayed out of this thread. Perhaps you could ask DPF to retrospectively remove your comments and any that reference them, you Greens like retrospective changes when it stops Labour from being found wanting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    How do you guys see us making a buck?

    Selling recordings of the Labour tarts singing “The Joker”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    So that is why there was such a fuss about the snails, to distract everyone from the fact it was DOC land that was being mined….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    I work in the mining industry. In Australia it is well paid, so I live in Australia. The people of New Zealand (through taxes – including those taxes levied on myself and my parents) paid for my education both at school and university. I estimate that New Zealand Inc spent several hundred thousand dollars on my growing up and education, health etc until I crossed the ditch at age 24. While I had part time work from fourth form until the end of uni, I only had full time employment in NZ for 2.5 years (after I left uni), so New Zealand’s return on its investment in me was pretty poor. Consider that well over half of my university class now live in Australia, and you can see that several million dollars just flew away. Also consider that this isn’t just limited to my university year, and even my industry. It is costing New Zealand a shitload, and I expect that it’s far in excess of $240M per week.
    Why would I come back if there’s no financial incentive to do so? I’m settled here now, the weather is better, and there is no chance that I’d earn anywhere near what I do in Australia. If there is more mining allowed, the market will dictate skilled workers have something close to equity with Australia, which will have a flow on effect to the rest of the economy. The consequences of not will be another jumbo every week returning empty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @burt 6:54pm

    The Greens have never supported selling coal to China. They opposed the FTA with China. They oppose, in most circumstances, the mining of coal.

    As for “making a buck”, lets be innovative. Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy, rather than be stuck in the 19th century solution of coal or the 20th century solution of oil. The jury is out on when, but finite resources such as coal and oil will eventually run out. Why not expend the money to find sustainable alternatives now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    NOT what I meant. I’d just like to know the extent of the royalties, not ‘do we get any at all’

    If you want to know what the benefits are (or the possible royalties), heres a tip I made earlier: Google it bitch. I’m sure you can find some comparitive figures at how much mining royalties and other added benefits are doing wonders for other goverments around the world.

    Heres one I posted in another thread:
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/australias-biggestever-gas-deal-inked-20100324-qvd3.html

    HOLY SHIT!!! A LABOR STATE PREMIER TRUMPETING MINING!!!! SHE MUST BE THE DEVIL !!!!!1111!ONE!

    FFS, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to use a search engine! Just admit it, you dont want to know, or you could have looked – you are just against mining for the sake of it, and quite frankly I’m sure that if it was Labour you would be all the fuck for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    As for “making a buck”, lets be innovative. Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy, rather than be stuck in the 19th century solution of coal or the 20th century solution of oil.

    Sweeeeet!!!! Nucular Power FTMFW!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    toad

    So where wer the Green party when Labvour started their “no mining conservation land” campaign – why didn’t they speak up?

    Politics of not wanting to piss off a potential coalition partner being more important than the environment is possibly the only explanation, but you might have a better one ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    I have just posted a lovely pic of Phil Goff at the Pike River Mine last March, the mine that Chris Carter approved.
    So we have two occassions- election 2008 and last March- when Liarbour give a different mesage to today.
    Gerry Brownlee certainly found a rich new vein of Liarbour hypocrisy today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. jaba (2,092 comments) says:

    just saw the Q time today and agree with those above re Brownlee .. poor Daffy, and others in the photos .. how embarrassing to be proven to be a hypocrite of the highest order

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. jaba (2,092 comments) says:

    oh and to back up things WOBH suggested .. the EMPU must be rapt over more work for its member who already earn way over 2x the national average

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. menace (407 comments) says:

    bevan, learn to read mate, you dont seem to understand anything i say, i may not be an english professor but others seem to understand a fuck load better than you, take it easy man, see you around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Komata (1,139 comments) says:

    So, the Greens didn’t ‘squeak’ when its wonderful, marvellous, whom we will support at any-price (and any truth) Labour Party ally permitted mining on Conservation land. Odd that. Yet now the self-same, self-righteous Green party of NZ bleat when National merely suggest that the NZ Government as controllers of the country (NZ Inc.) actually want to find out exactly what is under our land, and then use that information to try to get us back in the ‘Black. (you know, out of DEBT!!). Also odd that – very odd. It would appear that a certain amount of hypocrisy is running around here, with ‘Honest Phil’ Honest Wutthel, of course VERY honest Tariana (?) all protesting their opposition. To quote the Bard, ‘Me thinketh the man (sorry, ‘Perthons’) doth protesteth much’ Responsibility, truth, accuracy? It would seem that in respect of that well-known concept ‘Truth’, the introductory song between the concept and the NZ Labour Party and the New Zealand Green Party can only be ‘we’re stranger’s when we meet’, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that for these organisations the whole idea is foreign.

    It would seem that, for the Greens and Labour, to tell actually the ‘truth’ could be a radical concept – do you thinks that Helun would allow it – and Phil and Trevor understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nomestradamus (3,086 comments) says:

    Menace:

    (5:55 pm)

    i think sometimes you are the dum one bevan, i know for sure that they will pay royalties, nobodies that stupid. read what i write and you will understand what i say(most the time a anyway lol)

    (7:59 pm)

    bevan, learn to read mate, you dont seem to understand anything i say, i may not be an english professor but others seem to understand a fuck load better than you, take it easy man, see you around.

    Couldn’t have said it better :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    Darren Greenwood, no one wants to know you let alone hear your comments. I suggest you leave, and the country as well. Stop posting the same comment at all the blogs who still let you comment. It is trolling.

    I suggest you leave, and the country as well. Because there isn’t a place you can hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    toad

    Come back, tell us some more about why the Green party didn’t create all sorts of noise for each of the 200 permits approved by Labour. Tell us why it was OK when Labour were doing it but now it’s just wrong.

    Come on toad, you have a chance to defend the highly principled Green party here and now – what are you waiting for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. william blake (108 comments) says:

    First I ever heard of it; Labour spoils conservation land they are arseholes. National, under John Key, spoils conservation land they too are arseholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Inventory2 (10,162 comments) says:

    Highly Principled Green Party – something of an oxymoron methinks ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    FFS, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to use a search engine! Just admit it, you dont want to know, or you could have looked – you are just against mining for the sake of it, and quite frankly I’m sure that if it was Labour you would be all the fuck for it.

    Whatever. I’m starting to think you’ve got me confused with someone else.

    Of course I want to know. I was a little puzzled that he didn’t mention a figure, might’ve helped his case a bit but i’m no spin doctor. I think the reason (now that i have googled it – took about 3 seconds to find something relevant, who’d a thunk it: http://tiny.cc/ahc8y) that Brownlee didn’t mention royalties is that they totalled $6.5 million last year, which is stuff all. And that’s with mineral royalties up 81 per cent because of record gold production.

    Brownlee does say:

    Mining was a $2b a year industry, with $1.1b in exports

    He should be saying ‘mining great success under Labour and I congratulate them on their foresight’ over and over.

    Another story:
    The estimated value of royalties on the $60 billion worth of minerals, primarily gold and coal contained in all land being considered from removal from Schedule Four protection is about $600 million based on the NZMA figure of 1 per cent of the value of production.

    So a bit in it, but when they’re talking about numbers with ‘billion’ on the end, they aren’t talking royalties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @burt

    Why should I do your research for you? Search the Green Party site – all will become clear.

    And in defence of Metiria Turei, the reason her name doesn’t often appear is that Jeanette Fitzsimons (now retired) was the Green spokesperson on this issue for much of the period you are discussing. Plenty there from Jeanette you will find.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    All counties governments mine their countries resourses if they have them.. some more some less.. If the Green Party was in power .. they would just call it GREEN MINING to make it sound good.. One of the most succesful westcoast tourist ventures is guided tours down the mines.. whats the bet the proposed wiaheke island mines become a tourist venture in years to come and the waihi open cast mine becomes a tourist spot. My point is if done right these mining spots will also become a tourist asset for NZ after all the mining is finished.. a win win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. MT_Tinman (3,034 comments) says:

    toad (1939) Says:
    March 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    @burt 6:54pm
    As for “making a buck”, lets be innovative. Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy, rather than be stuck in the 19th century solution of coal or the 20th century solution of oil. The jury is out on when, but finite resources such as coal and oil will eventually run out. Why not expend the money to find sustainable alternatives now?

    Fantastic thinking Toad.

    Can’t help but agree.

    What money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    How do you get rich giving your resources away to foreign miners ship them to China to put into computer chips so they can sell them back to you for a thousand times more than what you sold them for in the first place?

    Seriously if you are going to go to trouble to dig things up shouldn’t you
    A. Get NZ companies to do it.
    B. Charge proper royalties (ie more than the 1% that Brownlee wants to cahreg Rio, BHP and Western Mining)
    C. Work out who is going to maintain the tailings dams for the next 10,000 years
    D. Develop high tech industries who will sell the minerals for some value

    Given the vague figures that have been bandied about its hard to believe that any proper cost benefit analyses have been done. By the time we build the infrastructure (for the Aussie mine workers who will be the only ones skilled enough to work the machinery) and pay for the clean up that the Aussie miners will be asking us to do, I’d like to think that we can get more from OUR minerals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy,

    Yeah, like Rakon, who make guidance chips for smart bombs- oh wait, GP policy is that they’re evil. My mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Bevan – you seem to know a lot about this mining shit. Tell me one thing, the Government are overspending at the rate of a BILLION a month, for all those royalties we get, how long will that cover our deficit? A couple of years maybe? Then what?

    How’s this for a radical idea, what about the Government figures out how to balance the books first based on sustainable income streams?

    By getting rid of about 10,000 wasters out of the public service, cutting MP’s perks and salaries by around 25% and taking a serious look at benefit abuse rather than fucking around the edges? Maybe reducing taxation for people who create real and sustainable jobs? Giving tax credits for R and D? Something useful instead of just selling the family jewels just to throw the money into a fucking bottomless pit?

    Or are you just another of the selfish baby boomers who don’t give a shit as long as YOUR retirement pension is looked after?

    And what Bchapman said, spot on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mattyroo (1,001 comments) says:

    toad said:

    “As for “making a buck”, lets be innovative. Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy, rather than be stuck in the 19th century solution of coal or the 20th century solution of oil. The jury is out on when, but finite resources such as coal and oil will eventually run out. Why not expend the money to find sustainable alternatives now?”

    So toad, what are these high tech sustainable energy solutions you speak of? Do tell.

    There are people a lot brighter than your bunch of hairy assed, in-bred, cabbage eating hippies that are working on high tech sustainable energies, who have come up with pretty much sweet-fuck-all over the last umpteen years. So I’m sure that if you have the magic bullet, they will be glad to speak to you.

    Furthermore, you mention, let’s spend money. Please explain what money – did you forget we are borrowing $240mm per week. Or are you saying, we should kick all the no-hopers off the dole and DPB and sack everyone in the human rights commission and every other useless gummint department and use that money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. spector (180 comments) says:

    Toad

    “As for “making a buck”, lets be innovative. Let’s do high tech stuff with sustainable energy, rather than be stuck in the 19th century solution of coal or the 20th century solution of oil.”

    While I don’t think anyone would be opposed to finding ways to make “high tech stuff with sustainable energy”. Sustainable energy is not something that we can export to make money for the country – unless you’re talking about wood. And what are some examples of “high tech stuff” that are going to solve our current borrowing problem? You haven’t really answered the question. All I’ve heard from the opposition benches this year is don’t increase GST, don’t reduce ACC, don’t stop the Cullen fund,don’t mine, don’t cut benefits, don’t reduce the size of government. But I haven’t heard them give one strategy for how we can pay for all these things which we can currently not afford. Seriously, if Labour and the Greens have some good ideas for getting us out of the crap then the country as a whole would, I’m sure, be open to hearing them.

    What are your solutions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. spector (180 comments) says:

    snap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Komata (1,139 comments) says:

    Spector

    You’ll never, ever get an answer old chap – they don’t have any , and, if they do, it’s ‘Secret’ and will only be revealed when they (the Greens and labour) are in power. And the answer they have to all the county’s woes is so wonderful, so marvellous, so absolutely stupendous that we’ll all sit up and ‘Yawn’. Labour and the ‘Greens’ simply DON”T have any alternatives, but are too self-centered and self-interested to ever admit this, ‘cos it will loose them votes and support and they will never ever get back into ‘Power’. (Power is of course the ultimate intention and aim of all socialists and communists (aka ‘the Greens’). Stuff the proles’ , it’s the control they want ; control of you and me. (cue: Patrick McGoohan, ‘I am not a number . . .’)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    Why did no one in the MSM dig up (pun intended) this hypocrisy in the first place? Another demonstration of their woefully partisan behavior.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Where the fuck was Lucy Lawless bitching at Helen Clark then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    The ironic thing about National attacking Labour’s mining record is that it is likely to push voters concerned about mining towards the Greens. I’m rubbing my hands with glee, but I would have thought that would be the last thing the Nats want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. big bruv (13,526 comments) says:

    “The ironic thing about National attacking Labour’s mining record is that it is likely to push voters concerned about mining towards the Greens. I’m rubbing my hands with glee, but I would have thought that would be the last thing the Nats want.”

    You are delusional Toad, most of the over taxed and financially raped middle class could not give a flying fuck about mining.

    If it means that the nation will have to borrow less and perhaps drop the tax rates then most of the middle class would welcome it.

    I am not surprised that you are rubbing your hand with glee, the prospect (however delusional it may be) of the Greens being in government and being able to rule our lives must make your salivate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    Have National been just been handling the mining “discussion” poorly, or have they been setting a trap for Labour (and handling the mining issue poorly)?

    Toad, it’s too soon for optimism like that. Nothing is planned yet, and if it does happen it is not likely for years.

    The Greens have to stop sounding like they are parroting protests because that is what they think is expected of them. Some mining is essential, the only real questions are how much, where, and the degree of mitigation of the effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    toad you think everything pushes voters to the greens, your eternal flatline in the polls seems to indicate that your expectations and reality are not the same thing. Of course we have no idea what you actually think yourself because you’re paid to toe the party line, not express your own ideas.

    Another reason people are not flocking to your socialist banner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. david (2,548 comments) says:

    Toad last night just after 5pm said:
    “It wasn’t always okay when Labour did it either – I’m proud that the Greens kicked up a fuss over Pike River, especially given that it was coal that was being mined and we desperately need to be phasing out use of coal as a fuel if we are to make any impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Yes there is a double reason why the Green’s protested (but really not very loudly or convincingly) it was a) because it was mining and b) because it was coal.

    Isn’t that a bit like promoting abortion in DPB-land because a) abortion is good per se and b) because they would probably turn out to be criminals anyway? Someone suggested that recently I think to great outrage

    I’m struggling with the sheer hypocrisy and shallowness of the Toad’s arguments here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Levi (13 comments) says:

    Look at how the right are trying to spin this.

    Personally I disapproved of the mining permits issued under Labour, on our conservation estate.
    But that is not the issue here, the issue is the removal of land under schedule 4. (Set up to protect our most sensitive and pristine conservation land) I repeat, the issue here is the romoval of areas by the National Government under SCHEDULE 4.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Murray

    Where the fuck was Lucy Lawless bitching at Helen Clark then?

    Probably around at Sam Neil’s place laughing at how it is cool when labour do it…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    david

    toad is a good example of the Green party mentality. Scream when National do it but when Labour do it, just squeak a little but only loud enough that existing supporters who expect it can hear it.

    Very very sad day for the integrity of the Green party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Levi (13 comments) says:

    Burt.

    I am not defending the green party here, I’m not a member and I don’t even vote for them. But you need to start lookibg at the facts.

    The issue here is the removal of areas by the National Government under SCHEDULE 4. (which protects the most pristine areas of the conservation estate.) Labour never removed any land under schedule 4.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Kaya, you’ve made some big assumptions on my thinking there – most of them completely fucken wrong, but hey dont let that stop you making an arse of yourself.

    Bevan – you seem to know a lot about this mining shit. Tell me one thing, the Government are overspending at the rate of a BILLION a month, for all those royalties we get, how long will that cover our deficit? A couple of years maybe? Then what?

    Not sure, but – has it ever occured to you that any money we earn from mining will mean that we will need to borrow less?

    Has the light gone on yet?

    How’s this for a radical idea, what about the Government figures out how to balance the books first based on sustainable income streams?

    Well no shit sherlock! This is one aspect of a greater picture that needs to be done – but hey guess what, the thread is about mining, so that would be the primary discussion point.

    Or are you just another of the selfish baby boomers who don’t give a shit as long as YOUR retirement pension is looked after?

    No, I’m Gen X – and I’m saving more than enough for my own retirement. But big ups to you for batting 0 from 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Levi

    Labour never removed any land under schedule 4.

    Is the problem that you can’t read what DPF wrote in this thread or is the problem you just don’t want to believe that Labour would do such a thing considering the level of protest they have made about National doing it.

    Keep up Levi – “It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.”

    Clue: This bit was schedule 4….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Levi

    So the issue here is: It’s OK when we pretend Labour didn’t do it.

    Don’t get me wrong I feel strongly about schedule 4 land. The likes of areas that have huts and gravel tracks wide enough to drive a quad bike along I really don’t have that much concern for. They are already spoilt from a wilderness perspective and we need to keep them looking clean and tidy for the thousands of tourists that visit and soil them everyday.

    But schedule 4 – I agree with Goff that it is precious, but unlike Goff I never voted to decimate a wedge of it while pretending I would never allow such a thing to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Levi

    One further comment; I asked Trevor to comment on this piece of land on the Labour blog

    see: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/03/23/dont-waste-your-yen-yuan-or-us/comment-page-2/#comment-39356

    It will be interesting to see if he has any comments because it is always good to hear the perspective of someone who says “this must not happen” when they have already done it themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. eszett (2,352 comments) says:

    Levi

    Labour never removed any land under schedule 4.

    Is the problem that you can’t read what DPF wrote in this thread or is the problem you just don’t want to believe that Labour would do such a thing considering the level of protest they have made about National doing it.

    Keep up Levi – “It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.”

    Clue: This bit was schedule 4….

    Was it? Just because it’s in the National Park doesn’t make it automatically Schedule 4. Is there any proof that this was indeed Schedule 4?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    eszett

    I expect if it isn’t then Trevor will shred me on his blog. I’ll happily say I got it wrong if it wasn’t, not holding my breath for Trevor to say Labour got it wrong when they said it was unthinkable to mine schedule 4 land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Like I said earlier, Labour are not against mining on conservation land – they are against National reaping any reward from it. The benefits to the country could be huge (we wont know until we look) – and Labour wants that glory for themselves. I mean god forbid the country gets this windfall under National – they surely can’t be trusted with it, knowing those buggers they will probably use it to recover the countries fiscal position then give those rich pricks on more than $60k tax cuts!!!!!

    Ideology is clearly getting in the way of the better judgement in Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Levi (13 comments) says:

    Burt says..

    Is the problem that you can’t read what DPF wrote in this thread or is the problem you just don’t want to believe that Labour would do such a thing considering the level of protest they have made about National doing it.

    Keep up Levi – “It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.”

    Clue: This bit was schedule 4….

    Give me evidence this was schedule four land. That the actual land that was examined/dug up was schedule 4 land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Levi

    DPF said it was and he got his info from the discussion that occured in parliament. Trevor hasn’t replied that it isn’t – how about you prove it isn’t since you challenged me to use facts… Surely you must have known what you were talking about when you made that challenge ?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Levi

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/b/9/49HansQ_20100325_00000005-5-Mining-in-Conservation-Areas-Potential.htm

    Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The mine in the Paparoa National Park I drew members’ attention to, which Chris Carter approved in May 2006, is in an area that at that time was not included in schedule 4. That is why it is true that if an area is in schedule 4, it cannot be mined. But the point being made by Labour members—that they never approved mining in national parks—is false.

    Chris Auchinvole: What policy governs mining activities in national parks; and when was this policy most recently approved?

    Hon Dr NICK SMITH: National parks are governed by the general policy, as set out in section 44 of the Act. The 1983 general policy for national parks was revised in 2001, and the new general policy was approved by the previous Government in April 2005. The policy, approved and endorsed at that time by Cabinet, including Phil Goff, states in policy 10.8(b): “access arrangements to prospect, explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”.

    Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the general policy statement, in which the Labour Cabinet approved mining in national parks on a case by case basis in 2005.

    So it looks like DPF was wrong, and I was wrong to quote him. Perhaps Labour didn’t allow mining in a schedule 4 area because that would be illegal… Be interesting to see what Trevor has to say about this previous approval of unthinkable acts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Give me evidence this was schedule four land. That the actual land that was examined/dug up was schedule 4 land.

    If it was not on Schedule 4 land, then Goff, Mallard and the young Ranga would be strutting in parliament like pretentious peacocks rubbing it in Brownlee & Key’s face’s.

    Also you can bet if it was not in schedule 4 land, the Herald and Stuff.co.nz would have it as the lead news item within ten minutes of Brownlee’s claim as an example that the minister doesnt understand hiw portfolio – with that you could have also guarenteed opnion pieces by such informed soures as the chick who used to look hot in leather, and the chick who plays the crim raising westie mum on TV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. eszett (2,352 comments) says:

    It seems, according to burt’s link, that it was not schedule 4 at the time of the approval.
    It’s a bit of a spin and red herring the whole release by Brownlee. Pity that DPF just repeats it without any closer analysis.
    Labour wasn’t and isn’t anti mining, but I do think that some parts of the country should be off limits unless there is STRONG evidence of benefits greatly outweighing the costs.

    And so far not much of that has been presented.

    What I would like to see is a bit more solid numbers around the benefits of mining in schedule 4 territory. It all looks like guessitmates at best to me rather than solid evaluation.

    There is a lot of mining going on outside of schedule 4, has all that been exhausted to the point that only schedule 4 has been left?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    National puts Labour into Mines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Labour wasn’t and isn’t anti mining, but I do think that some parts of the country should be off limits unless there is STRONG evidence of benefits greatly outweighing the costs.

    How do you expect anyone to know until they can look?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    Still, makes Goff, Mallard and the visiting crook Clark look like crooked liars when they made their statements about mining National parks being unacceptable. Still, that’s Labour for you – it’s always OK when Labour do it….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. eszett (2,352 comments) says:

    # Bevan (1972) Says:
    March 26th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    How do you expect anyone to know until they can look?

    Well, that’s exactly what Brownlee has been telling us that he can. Mining will only take place in Schedule 4 after cost/benefit analysis or so he said.

    And if that’s the only way to find out, then basically you are advocating mining in purely just to have a look.
    It is surely not desirable to dig up pristine landscapes on the vague possibility that it may be valuable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. eszett (2,352 comments) says:

    # burt (4128) Says:
    March 26th, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Still, makes Goff, Mallard and the visiting crook Clark look like crooked liars when they made their statements about mining National parks being unacceptable. Still, that’s Labour for you – it’s always OK when Labour do it….

    So now it’s mining in the National Parks.

    One mine is what they approved on non-schedule 4 land that happened to be in the National park. It would be interesting to find some more background on that decision. But it is hardly the big lie that you make it out to be.

    Labour was consistent in saying that it approved no mining in schedule 4 land.

    Again, National promised solid and extensive cost/benefit analysis before releasing that land for mining. Well, where is that analysis?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Bevan – having a tough day are we? I didn’t make any assumptions about you, my post was in response to your posts throughout the day. I’ll go over it again even if it means making an arse of myself again, and I’ll avoid using big words.

    You said – “What do you propose then to reduce the $240 million each week NZ needs to borrow to balance the books?
    Should the cuts be made in Health, Education or Welfare?”

    I’m pretty sure I said where the cuts should come from. Go back and have another look if you missed it the first time.

    You said – “Mining royalties to the government will reduce the current debt we are having to take on, meaning future Kiwi’s will not have to find a way to pay back even more debt.”

    and……..

    “Oh fuck me sideways! Its not like we are going to just let the mining companies take all the minerals without some kind of licensing or royalty being paid for the right to mine the mineral!”

    and……..

    “If you want to know what the benefits are (or the possible royalties), heres a tip I made earlier: Google it bitch”

    You seem adamant these royalties are the answer to all our economic ills so I googled it, quite a response!

    “Crown royalties from the mining industry returned just $6.5 million last year……………….”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3502112/6-5m-royalties-from-mining-the-cherry-on-the-top

    The illumination was instantaneous! So if we borrow 12 billion 480 million this year, double the current number of mines and get 13 million in royalties it will reduce our borrowing to 12 billion, 467 million………..?

    Cheers Bevan, all the lights are on now! Thanks for putting me straight.

    Oh that’s right, the main point I was trying to get an answer to was what do we do with our borrowing problem AFTER we have sold all the minerals? Sell all the farms maybe?

    BTW I didn’t assume you were a baby boomer, that’s why I started with the words “Are you just another…..etc”, the words “are you” generally indicate a question rather than an assumption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. John W (5 comments) says:

    As long as we borrow heavily and borrow more to pay the debt the situation will get worse.
    Tax cuts are a laugh. Pensioners have all had their taxes raised and thats before extra GST adds to the problem 4 fold.

    There is only one group benefits from the tax cuts promised, and many of them don’t live here.

    Our trade balance is better when profitability is lower and the flow of our money overseas slows. GET IT !

    Cuts to Govt spending and retrenchment is not the answer. Look at the collateral damage that still exists from Roger Douglas.
    Lying politicians. They often change their spots

    I am amazed at how many bloggers repeat or spout off using Govt propaganda without checking the subject.

    Gerry Brownlee and John Key on mining and past Govt – Check it before you repeat the porkies and perhaps you will appear less foolish.using their words.
    We need politicians who work for NZ fearlessly not soft handed puppets with problems of loyalty to NZ.
    They are in the same category as Bush

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    eszett

    One mine is what they approved on non-schedule 4 land that happened to be in the National park.

    Excellent, so the people that are loudly telling us that mining in National Parks is unthinkable only approved one mine in a National Park. Well that’s just fine then isn’t it – the self serving Labour party are real bad for doing what they claim to be unthinkable but they are not as bad as National because, well because, ummm let me think a moment… Oh I know, because their party logo is red – that’s it, they have a red logo and therefore they are good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    John W

    There is only one group benefits from the tax cuts promised

    Yes the people who have been paying big amounts of tax – Hey I have an idea, lets give really big tax cuts to people who don’t pay tax… will get good headlines and may even win votes and it will help put NZ back into recession where political parties that thrive on state dependency need it to be if they want to stay in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. burt (7,950 comments) says:

    John W

    Look at the collateral damage that still exists from Roger Douglas.

    How many of Douglas’s reforms did Labour unwind in their 9 years of govt ?

    You can’t simply keep repeating the spin that Labour put out in the late 90′s in 2010 and expect to be taken credibly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    Labour started in the mines.. and ends in the mines.. of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.