Gerry on mining

April 6th, 2010 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

has an op ed in the Herald on mining. Good to see the Government front footing this to put thiings in context:

Try going a day without any goods or services that don’t require or depend on a product that has been mined.

From your inner-spring mattress to your car (or even your bike), computer, cellphone and medical equipment; the activities that make up our day and enhance our lives are in most cases only possible because someone, somewhere, has mined something.

A good point.

Many New Zealanders will not know that already makes a sizeable contribution to our economy. in 2008 was a $2 billion industry and contributed $1.1 billion to exports.

Including oil and gas, the mining industry employs around 6000 people – and those jobs are highly productive and highly paid, relative to other sectors of the economy.

Mining is an important part of regional economies such as the West Coast and the Coromandel.

The Government is currently borrowing around $240 million a week and we have more than 100,000 people unemployed. The tradables sector of the economy has been in recession for the past five years.

That is unsustainable and the Government accepts the challenge of improving our economy and living standards.

Labour have already pledged to lower our living standards by cancelling any mining permits on reclassified land if they get elected.

We are therefore proposing to open up to possible mining just 7058ha of land that is currently protected in Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act.

That is only 0.2 per cent of all the land that is protected in Schedule Four, and it is a tiny amount compared with our total land area.

If prospecting that land showed potential for mining, it’s likely no more than 500ha of the 7058ha would actually be mined. That’s less than the size of the average sheep or beef farm in New Zealand.

But the economic return on that land is many times greater than any sheep, beef or dairy farm.

What I would like to see is an economic analysis for each site proposed in the consultation. I don’t think one can generalise over all sites.

Some people argue that New Zealand would not see any benefit from increased mining and that all the profits go overseas.

Yet the largest mining company in the country, Solid Energy, is 100 per cent state-owned. All its profits go straight towards spending on government services. There are also many New Zealand-owned mining companies active on New Zealand land.

The average ownership structure of resources companies listed on the NZX is 57 per cent New Zealand and 43 per cent overseas ownership. Others that are fully overseas-owned pay both company tax and royalties in New Zealand.

Some argue that the royalties from mineral mining are small, meaning it’s not worth it for New Zealand. But royalties are just an added bonus from mining.

The real benefits from mining are the jobs created and economic activity generated inside the country. That activity generates company tax revenue for the Government as well as economic growth.

This is the data I want to see though, to make a sensible decision. Not just an estimate of mineral wealth, but a range of projections for what mining in a specific area will do for job creation, royalty revenue, tax revenue, increased local consumption, and impacts on the trade deficit, the current account deficit and the level of crown debt.

Now of course it will be ballpark figures as such an early stage, but even that would be good.

Many New Zealanders are rightly concerned about protecting our natural environment and some say mining is inconsistent with that goal. The Government shares this concern and we will make sure any mining on conservation land in New Zealand is done responsibly and carefully.

Mines in New Zealand are subject to strict environmental tests. The higher the conservation value of the land concerned, the stricter the test. That fact will rule out open-cast mines on Schedule Four land.

Modern mining is totally different from its image in the past. Companies are required to rehabilitate the land after they leave and mitigate the effects of their activities as much as possible.

It is worth stressing that point – removing Schedule 4 protection is not an automatic licence to mine. It merely allows an application to be made that goes through the normal RMA process.

The Government believes a small increase in responsible mining could contribute to our goal of improving the economy’s performance and providing high-value jobs.

We want to hear what Kiwis are thinking. I encourage people to have their say by making submissions on the discussion document that you can find at www.med.govt.nz/schedule4.

Don’t complain about a decision, if you don’t take advantage of the opportunity to have your say. If you support greater mining – say so. If you are opposed to any change to Schedule 4, also say so. If you are in favour for some areas, but not others again have your say.

Tags: ,

65 Responses to “Gerry on mining”

  1. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    For those interested linz website has topo maps free for download that shows all the old mining dams on the coromandel, haven’t looked the west coast. Worth looking at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. menace (402 comments) says:

    Lots of teh west coast stuff sticks out like dogs balls on teh west coast as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. menace (402 comments) says:

    If prospecting that land showed potential for mining, it’s likely no more than 500ha of the 7058ha would actually be mined. That’s less than the size of the average sheep or beef farm in New Zealand.

    But the economic return on that land is many times greater than any sheep, beef or dairy farm.

    And there’s nowhere else accept schedule 4 land, in the whole country, this tiny amount of land wanted is only on schedule 4 land? If it so much more profitable than farming? so if its that profitable we could afford to use any land? they could afford to buy privately owned land and and mine it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Menace, you are a geological dork.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. menace (402 comments) says:

    This is the data I want to see though, to make a sensible decision. Not just an estimate of mineral wealth, but a range of projections for what mining in a specific area will do for job creation, royalty revenue, tax revenue, increased local consumption, and impacts on the trade deficit, the current account deficit and the level of crown debt.

    With out this we could never even dream about getting past the believer, non believer scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    The point I was alluding to was that mining has been occurring in NZ for a long time and that a quick look at topo maps shows this. Its also interesting to take a look at the maps to see the number of walking tracks, latent map nerdism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Brownlee’s still arguing that the fact we considered a piece of land sufficiently worthy of special protection from activities like mining to put it on Schedule 4 doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t just go ahead and mine it. “Clever” and “competent” aren’t the words that spring to mind in response.

    Note also the weasel words that open-cast mining will be ruled out “on Schedule 4 land.” Translation: the rest of the conservation estate is open slather.

    The sad thing is, I don’t suspect he’s taking kickbacks from mining companies. It seems more likely he just is that much of a prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. menace (402 comments) says:

    I brownlees case, the sooner we introduce a FAT TAX the better, why should i pay for the health cost associated with all that blubber? Perhaps I’m not totally anti whaling?

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    Doesn’t take long for the debate to turn nasty and personal does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Thanks david, Did mine online, hope you don’t mind I cut and pasted some of your info :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. menace (402 comments) says:

    just stirring lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I think some of the funds should go towards Huts and toilets at iconic spots as well as improve the existing stock of huts and facilities, composting toilets, solar water heating, decent beds.
    Maybe even to open more walks and trails, thereby making more of NZ open to us all to enjoy, all done under the supervision of locals.
    But keep the Maori out of it as a special class, let them be treated like the rest of us, part of the whole no special privileges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I love the smell of hippies’ tears in the morning. Smells like…progress !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Inventory2 9:03 am,

    Doesn’t take long for the debate to turn nasty and personal does it.

    Too true, IV2.
    But isn’t this the modus operandi of those on the left? – ad hominem attacks and personal slander of the messenger? Smearing scum; all of them – and that’s a factual statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Excellent argument from Gerry.

    In fact I made a similar comment at RedAlert a few weeks ago. Umm, perhaps Gerry had read my comment (hehe), because he made similar point on the radio a day after Jacinda Ardern put up that blog post in which of course I made a comment there on the issue. Anti-mining people just jumped to condemn Gerry and National which is more to do with their misguided emotions rather than logic. Often when that happens, reason/logic is out the window.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..# Inventory2 (4184) Says:
    April 6th, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Doesn’t take long for the debate to turn nasty and personal does it…”

    something you never do..eh..?

    (why..!..it was only yesterday..?..wasn’t it..?..four or five comments in..?..)

    setting a new benchmark in hypocrisy/double-standards there..eh..?

    and then kkk weighs in..(and irony-free..!..check it out..!..)

    and once again..from one who never condems people to hell..or anything..eh..?

    “..But isn’t this the modus operandi of those on the left? – ad hominem attacks and personal slander of the messenger? …

    (ok….)

    and then…

    “..Smearing scum; all of them..”

    brilliant..!..eh..?..

    (and the cherry on the icing on the cake..is that neither of them are/seem to be aware of what a moveable feast their moral stances etc are..

    ..eh..?..

    would ‘blindly-bigoted’ be too strong an approbrium….?

    ..d’yareckon..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    But isn’t this the modus operandi of those on the left? – ad hominem attacks and personal slander of the messenger? Smearing scum; all of them – and that’s a factual statement.

    *Giant eye-roll*. Try reading Kiwiblog comments about Helen Clark sometime.

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

    I think some of the funds should go towards Huts and toilets at iconic spots as well as improve the existing stock of huts and facilities, composting toilets, solar water heating, decent beds.
    Maybe even to open more walks and trails, thereby making more of NZ open to us all to enjoy, all done under the supervision of locals.

    10%(?) of funds made from the mining is supposed to go into a ‘conservation fund’, whatever that means. The right approach, sure, though the unsustainable nature of mining probably means the money should NOT go into government services like Brownlee says, but capital projects or the Cullen Fund.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. cha (4,014 comments) says:

    The woodwork and crafts teacher….FFS… and you lot pissed and moaned because Cullen only had a doctorate in economic history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Farrar (1,894 comments) says:

    Future comments please on mining, not on who makes the most personal attacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Inventory2 (10,339 comments) says:

    Did I say that I never get personal Phil? No, I didn’t.

    I do get mildly personal on this site from time to time; primarily when it concerns you, for some strange reason. Take your accusations of hypocrisy and your faux outrage and stick then where the sun doesn’t shine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    I think more mining is a great idea, it will encourage a generation of NZ geologists back across the Tasman (well, maybe, Australia is our home now). It will also create a high wage industry, which should drive up wages in other industries. This has been evidenced in Australia. Yes, I know that there are problems in that situation also, however it will be one of the key factors to stop the flow of talent from NZ.

    BTW I’d trust a shop teacher over a history teacher any day. Carpentry skills are actually useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    If the government needs more revenue, why doesn’t it put a tax rate for those earning 100,000 or more of 45 c, and 150,000+ at 55c, and 200,000+ at 60c? It could also bring back tariffs on imports from countries which have low environmental or labour standards

    Because people will set up structures to avoid tax. That idea was tried under Muldoon. Tariffs will only hamper trade, and it is trade that will make New Zealand rich, and will do nothing to help other countries improve their environmental and labour standards, because you need money for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    The cry from the Labour Party is shrill and attempts to put words in peoples mouths, again, something you think Labour would have learned not to do after serial failures at reading public opinion. Lets see which schedule 4 land is actually on the table and which areas are actually likely to be mined and make some informed decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Not PC blog post : Tell your stories, You tube video of Anne McElhinney, where she described how environmentalists helped to prolong poverty in various places from around the world. She has an example of some environmentalists that killed a plan for big mining operation in Romania. Anne McElhinney‘s video is a must watch one for the misguided Greenies.

    A1kmm said…
    All of the argument made is in defence of mining – but that is attacking strawmen, because no one is saying ‘don’t mine’.

    I can guarantee you that if the intended land to be mined is privately owned, then people (Greenies, Environmentalists, and Leftist Politicians) still demand politicians to ban mining from those private properties. It is irrelevant whether mining is from government owned land or from private land. The opposition to mining would still exist regardless of whose land it is and this is exactly why environmentalism is so evil.

    A1ikmm said…
    If the government needs more revenue, why doesn’t it put a tax rate for those earning 100,000 …

    People deserve of what they earn to keep them. Are you suggesting taxing the high earners to pay for people like Phil U to campaign against the very system (capitalism) which clothes & feeds him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Instead, the cry from the public is ‘don’t mine our most valuable, schedule 4 protected land’.

    Actually no you are wrong – when it is removed from section 4, then it is no longer section 4 land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. menace (402 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi, do you have any idea what those countries in that area do to the environment? Coast line all the way down to the water owned by mafia boss’s you must pay to sit on the sand? On the other hand you’ve got a small part of the population that realizes its not good to be just cutting down what ever forest you want, with or with out permit , and that coast line shouldn’t be owned privately etc etc. In any case its my opinion that until there is appropriate balance and system in place to protect what should be protected and profit from what should be profited from that any win in favor of greenies is the best for the time being, and i garantee that will be stuff all in comparison to NZ.

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

    Make a submission to the Government here!!

    http://coromandelwatchdog.wordpress.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Menace said…
    Falafulu Fisi, do you have any idea what those countries in that area do to the environment?

    Ok dude, point me out to peer review scientific studies that highlighted the damage that those countries have done to the environment?

    Don’t point to blogs, newspaper articles or some environmentalists opinions’, etc… Name the titles of those articles and the journals that they were published in (including the Vol. #, Issue. # and their authors). Lets’ see the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Actually no you are wrong – when it is removed from section 4, then it is no longer section 4 land.

    Ah, Brownlee’s supporters match his awesome skills in persuasive argument. That explains a lot.

    The opposition to mining would still exist regardless of whose land it is and this is exactly why environmentalism is so evil.

    Environmentalism is evil because support for mining isn’t unanimous? I’m impressed that having had the fact this is a straw man pointed out to you, you counter it with the exact same straw man. That’s seriously obtuse – again, Brownlee would be impressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. menace (402 comments) says:

    I don’t have reference to the info you ask for sorry.
    Its just that corrupt over there, when you got cash and want to do something you just pay off the right to turn a blind eye and the ones that won;t take the payments get ousted somehow.
    I know Because I’ve spent plenty of time in that part of the world, I’ve been that guy on the beach so many times, so many resorts and cafes hotels etc in beautiful places are not there by permit, just the way it is there, dude, where do you think the continual headlines about those countries being threatened of being thown out of the EU for corruption come from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Ah, Brownlee’s supporters match his awesome skills in persuasive argument. That explains a lot.

    Hook, line and sinker.

    I was wondering when my bait would attract the first personal attack. Your lot think the debate is about mining in schedule 4 land, when it really is about removing land from schedule 4 IF it has a higher value as a mining resource.

    But go back to personal attacks – we all like a good laugh when someone is failing so spectacularly..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pat (76 comments) says:

    I keep hearing the argument that 60% of potential mining sites are outside the conservation estate. Either this is bullshit, or Brownlee has failed to show why the 40% inside the conservation estate is more important.

    Furthermore, if he wants to win over the undecideds, he needs to get a whole heap more specific about cost vs benefits at specific sites. Waffle won’t win the day.

    For a guy who is supposed to be one the Nats best and brightest, he’s making a pigs ear of this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I was wondering when my bait would attract the first personal attack.

    Er, it’s not “bait” if it actually is your argument. In that case, it’s just “your argument.” As to the personal attack, I’m sorry if my response failed to meet the high standard of gentlemanly conduct normally exemplified at Kiwiblog.

    To the argument:

    Your lot think the debate is about mining in schedule 4 land…

    Correct.

    …when it really is about removing land from schedule 4 IF it has a higher value as a mining resource.

    Also correct, but simply a re-statement of the first point. Consider: what is schedule 4’s purpose? To denote land deemed particularly worthy of protection from activities such as mining. What is the purpose of removing land from schedule 4? To allow mining of it. In other words, it’s about mining of schedule 4 land. You’ve told us effectively nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    As to the personal attack, I’m sorry if my response failed to meet the high standard of gentlemanly conduct normally exemplified at Kiwiblog.

    If you have an issue, go grab a tissue.

    Also correct, but simply a re-statement of the first point.

    Actually, it is not. Your opinion is that no mining should be done in schedule 4 land, period! The point I am making is that not all schedule 4 land is of high conservation value, and where the value of mineral is of high value – then it should be removed from schedule 4.

    You’ve told us effectively nothing.

    And you have shown that you are far too emotional and entrenched in your opposition to National to have an intelligent debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It’s hardly “emotional” to point out that there’s little sense in having a “schedule 4″ of land deemed particularly deserving of protection from mining if we strip said land back out of schedule 4 because someone notices it’s worth mining. That’s not “emotion,” it’s “common sense.” If you and Brownlee feel there’s no point in having a schedule 4, by all means present an argument for it – your current arguments do nothing more than defeat the very purpose of having a schedule 4.

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

    So the price for the tax cuts is mining on s.4 land? Might need to see some more accurate figures before he starts arguing that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “From your inner-spring mattress to your car (or even your bike), computer, cellphone and medical equipment; the activities that make up our day and enhance our lives are in most cases only possible because someone, somewhere, has mined something.”

    Gerry is being dishonest.
    He is speaking as if he actually believes in sustainability to appeal to the ignorance of the masses, just manipulative bullshit.
    He no more believes this than he thinks intensive dairy farmers should be forced to crop their land every 3 years to produce grain for weet bix.
    The best mines are in the barren out back of Australia, they send us minerals, we send em milk products, does Gerry really see it any different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “That is only 0.2 per cent of all the land that is protected in Schedule Four, and it is a tiny amount compared with our total land area.”

    So friggin what?
    Have a look at what prominent miners and National party supporters are doing (and want to do) on “tiny” pieces of land in my area and see whether you think it is so invisible.
    One councillor, miner, and leading national party supporter as made damn sure the entire town knows of his presence with the disgusting mess he has created right at the entrance to town.
    Gerry is forgetting that many miners have certain “attitudes” that are not so easily changed.
    I will give a tour of this shit if you really want me to.
    It is easy to agree with Gerry when one is living in a large urban centre free from the effects of the poor conduct of miners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    It’s hardly “emotional” to point out that there’s little sense in having a “schedule 4″ of land deemed particularly deserving of protection from mining if we strip said land back out of schedule 4 because someone notices it’s worth mining. That’s not “emotion,” it’s “common sense.”

    No emotion – yeah right! The proposal is for 0.02% of schedule four land – you’re talking about mining all of it. Common sense my arse – more like mindless hysteria.

    If you and Brownlee feel there’s no point in having a schedule 4, by all means present an argument for it – your current arguments do nothing more than defeat the very purpose of having a schedule 4.

    Please retract that, I have never said there is no point in having land in schedule 4, again you a taking a hysterical view point. There is a point in having schedule 4 land, but unlike you I’m not emotionally against everything National propose in government. I’m willing to look at what land they are proposing to remove from schedule 4, then what the lands conservation value vs the mineral value, and which will be the greater benefit to the local community of each area.

    See, I’m willing to have an informed debate, and not take an emotional knee jerk position like youself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    The best mines are in the barren out back of Australia, they send us minerals, we send em milk products, does Gerry really see it any different?

    And Australia never had a recession during the GFC, and we did – see the difference?

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

    Hi Bevan,
    Not sure I would run with that argument. I’d stick the ‘the world needs out minerals, until we can develop alternate sources’ rather than the ‘lets be more like Australia’ or ‘I want my tax cut arguments’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Hi Bevan,
    Not sure I would run with that argument. I’d stick the ‘the world needs out minerals, until we can develop alternate sources’ rather than the ‘lets be more like Australia’ or ‘I want my tax cut arguments’.

    Thats nice, but then that is not my arguement and never has been. I love it how the anti miners keep making stuff up!

    My comment regarding Australia was in relation to a comment by another poster who earlier made that statement that Australia exports there mineral to us and we export our milk products to them. My comment highlighted that only one of the two countries he mentioned had a recession during the GFC. See I even quoted their text and set it to italic…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Please retract that, I have never said there is no point in having land in schedule 4…

    Not explicitly, no. You and Brownlee are merely saying we should put land in schedule 4 to protect it from mining, but then whip it out again if we decide it might be worth mining. I’m the one pointing out that this would render schedule 4 redundant, and foolishly imagining you might be persuaded to confront that fact honestly.

    The proposal is for 0.02% of schedule four land – you’re talking about mining all of it.

    I’m aware of the amount and am not assuming mining all of it. I’m just reminding you of the purpose of schedule 4. If you remove pieces of land from it because someone thinks they may be worth mining, what exactly do you and Brownlee envisage the purpose of schedule 4 to be? Is it there to designate land that should not be mined, or is it serving no purpose and should be scrapped?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    You and Brownlee are merely saying we should put land in schedule 4 to protect it from mining, but then whip it out again if we decide it might be worth mining.

    No, I’m saying that not all schedule 4 land is of high conservation value – and where those areas have high mineral wealth that is greater then the conservation value, then we should allow is to be mined if it is of greater benefit to the local community and the country.

    Here I’ll copy and bold an earlier statement of mine:

    I’m willing to look at what land they are proposing to remove from schedule 4, then what the lands conservation value vs the mineral value, and which will be the greater benefit to the local community of each area.

    How that translates to me thinking schedule 4 land is pointless is beyond me. Must be left wing hysteria week!

    If you remove pieces of land from it because someone thinks they may be worth mining, what exactly do you and Brownlee envisage the purpose of schedule 4 to be? Is it there to designate land that should not be mined, or is it serving no purpose and should be scrapped?

    To protect high value conservation land – duh! Gee going by your statements, anyone would think the Nats are talking about strip mining the whole fucken country! Nothing more than mindless knee jerk hysteria.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. menace (402 comments) says:

    exactly, i understand what the purpose of schedule 4 land is, pity to many money grabber tossers in this country don’t.

    There will always, ALWAYS, be a shortage of money, we need to find a sustainable way to maintain our countries economical goings ons. This quick fix BS is just pipe dreams, what that saying? oh that’s it “there’s no short cuts in this life”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. menace (402 comments) says:

    No, I’m saying that not all schedule 4 land is of high conservation value – and where those areas have high mineral wealth that is greater then the conservation value, then we should allow is to be mined if it is of greater benefit to the local community and the country.

    First of all, the government didn’t go round seeing what land is of “lessor value” and then see what minerals are in it, they went looking for the minerals and where they are easiest to extract.
    Secondly, its not only about whats of greater “vallue” to community and country, its more so about whats of greater conservation “value” and environmental “value”(schedule 4?).
    RE. second point, and government has recently acknowledged/committed on an international scale that we have a serious commitment in this area, even if it isn’t of personal value to you as an individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Speaking of left wing hysteria…

    There will always, ALWAYS, be a shortage of money…

    BULL-FUCKEN-SHIT!!!! Its a good thing your not running the country, the country will go bankrupt! We cannot keep borrowing $240M/week – we will go the way of Greece, and we don’t have the European Union to bail us out. No one would continue loaning use that amount.

    This quick fix BS is just pipe dreams,

    No, its one aspect that may be needed for our economic recovery.

    what that saying? oh that’s it “there’s no short cuts in this life”

    And there are no free handouts either. Who in their right mind would continue lending a country in NZ’s fiscal position $240M/week? No one! We need to dig ourselves out of the fiscal hole the GFC and Labour have left us, and mining is a good start to that recovery – but it will not be the ONLY thing that will help us.

    First of all, the government didn’t go round seeing what….

    Blah blah fucken blah – I suggest you go back and read the original news items when National propsed removing land from section 4 for mining activities. I dont even think you know what National are proposing! Typical knee jerk reaction from a Labour supporter!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. menace (402 comments) says:

    so are you saying that the proposed areas are the ones of least value to the conservation estate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    so are you saying that the proposed areas are the ones of least value to the conservation estate?

    Oh fuck me I give up – I’m argueing with an idiot!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    How that translates to me thinking schedule 4 land is pointless is beyond me.

    Well, I’m happy to keep repeating this until you do get it: the purpose of Schedule 4 is to designate land particularly deserving of protection from mining; you and Brownlee are saying that shouldn’t stop us mining bits of it if we want to. You may be unable to see exactly how ridiculous that is, but I’m pretty sure a lot of people reading this thread can.

    …the lands conservation value vs the mineral value…

    I’d be very interested to see exactly how these values could be quantified in a comparable way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Oh look, you’re being as obtuse as the righty wingnuts you hate so Milt.

    A whole raft of land was chucked into schedule 4 under Labour, why can’t some be taken out if it is deemed that land is not of particularly high conservation value and it has a high benefit to the country w.r.t mining?

    No matter how hard Labour try and stir this one up it just isn’t an issue you’ll get traction with.

    Much like the last 2 years of the Clark administration Labour have still lost the ability to read the mood of the country.

    Thats what happens when you have too many factions and too many old guard and feck all leadership.

    Better luck some time around 2015.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Oh look, you’re being as obtuse as the righty wingnuts you hate so Milt.

    A whole raft of land was chucked into schedule 4 under Labour, why can’t some be taken out if it is deemed that land is not of particularly high conservation value and it has a high benefit to the country w.r.t mining?

    Don’t bother – you are arguing with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “And Australia never had a recession during the GFC, and we did – see the difference?”

    Yeah I see the difference, I see it in a thing called a world map.
    You can not possibly be serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Bevan said: you are arguing with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

    Quote of the day!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “Ahh idiot number two has shown up!”

    Ha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Yeah I see the difference, I see it in a thing called a world map.
    You can not possibly be serious.

    If you are talking the size of the country, then you cannot be serious! There were plenty of bigger and even richer countries that suffered recessions, yet Australia did not.

    Or are you being purposely vague with your post so that you can frame you argument in any way that may make you look like you are right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    “Ahh idiot number two has shown up!”

    Ha!

    Sorry, I edited that after you copied it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Bevan are you are completely ignorant of geology and the relative differences between NZ and OZ?
    You seriously believe we can use mining just like they do?
    Bloody hell.
    You really are a miner!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    A whole raft of land was chucked into schedule 4 under Labour, why can’t some be taken out if it is deemed that land is not of particularly high conservation value and it has a high benefit to the country w.r.t mining?

    The previous govt carelessly added to schedule 4 a whole lot of land that wasn’t worth protecting but coincidentally was worth mining? Wow, those useless Labour fucks, huh? Either that, or the current govt has a heavy-duty bullshit sprayer in operation – I wonder which it is?

    No matter how hard Labour try and stir this one up it just isn’t an issue you’ll get traction with.

    That word “you” could be construed as associating me with Labour – those are fighting words, mister. Believe it or not, people unaffiliated to a political party also dislike making a mockery of our conservation estate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    1. Yes, Yes, No.

    2. Yes, oh really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Bevan are you are completely ignorant of geology and the relative differences between NZ and OZ?
    You seriously believe we can use mining just like they do?

    See, I knew you were being deliberately obscure with your previous post so you could change tack slightly to try and show you are right! A ‘thing called a world map’ does not shot the extent and type of mining a given country undertakes. Also many National MP’s have stated that open cast mining such as that happens in Australia will not happen in the land proposed. You sir are a liar.


    Bloody hell.
    You really are a miner!!

    IT actually – have nothing to do with mining, and nor do I own shares in any mining company.

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