Current mining on Section 4 land
May 4th, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarDavid Garrett asked the following written question:
Is any mining or mining related activity currently taking place in areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, if so, where, when were the permits granted, and what is the nature of the activity?
And the answer is:
Mining activity of a modest nature is currently taking place in three areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. The details of the permits are as follows:
Mining Permit 41870: Granted to Peter Fielding on 17 March 2005 to undertake small scale alluvial gold and gemstone mining in the Hart Creek catchment within the Paparoa National Park.Special Purpose
Mining Permit 42024: Granted to the Broken Hills Gold Company Limited on 2 August 2000 to undertake underground mining for gold, silver, quartz and clay by traditional mining methods at Broken Hills within the Coromandel Forest Park.Waiho River Gold Fossicking Area:
Gazetted by the Crown on 19 September 1996, under section 98 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, to allow for public recreational gold mining (using hand held non motorised equipment) without the need for a permit in the Waiho River within the Westland Tai Poutini National Park. Gold fossicking areas are administered by the Department of Conservation.
So Labour granted two permits for mining on Section 4 land. So mining is now okay on Section 4 land, so long as it is small scale? Is that what Phil Goff told the marchers?
And when Labour says they will cancel all mining permits for Section 4 land, does that include the permits they granted?
Tags: mining
May 4th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I feel like a broken record DPF – how many times have I had to remind you of this;
It is different when Labour do it !!!!
You know how the dim-bulb partisan hack Labour supporters assess every policy or idea: Labour good – National bad !!!
It really is that simple for people too dim to think for themselves.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Is mining the only thing that can help our economy out?
Every body keeps saying we have to mine to fix the economy.
Surely there is something else?
Or are we totally fucked with out mining?
I say if we can’t be a touch more creative than a single idea then we are fucked already.
The public doesnt want it so I say to the economists and back seat economists to start creating, utilise your time and come up with something else.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Phil Goff said that he opposed foreign mining interests mining section 4 land; Broken Hill is Oz, isn’t it?
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
So what is the meaning of “small”, and “traditional methods”?
JC
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
mENACE, MORE than the Q’s you asked, I want to know if there are no recoverable minerals anywhere else in NZ, or are they ALL on S4 Land?
Or is S4 land the only land we can m ine without having to pay koha to the raggeddy man?
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Have to say that the response by Bill English to the planned cut in Aussie corporate tax rates is pathetic. It’s all about being dragged along reluctantly and seeing how high you can keep the tax rates without losing business. Leadership = 0/10. He should be saying, “come on Kiwis, we can be the best. Our rate will be 25% and we will do better than Australia”.
This mining thing is a sideshow, and one that uses up quite a bit of political capital. Whilst it’s a good idea to do a stocktake to find out what we have, it’s not the fundamental reform we need.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Come on DPF, exercise you intellect, I know you have it.
Logically Goff has picked up the biggest opposition party ball he can find it and is playing it well, would you not do the same thing if you were in his shoes at this very moment?
The huge bonus that comes with it is it turns out to be the ball that has the greater support of the NZ public, so on this one things have swung in his favour you could say.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I believe that’s so tourists can go into the national park and pan for gold as part of tours of sites of historical interest from the days of the New Zealand gold rush, along with historical mining demonstrations and the like.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
The supposed hypocrisy of Labour is a valid argument for or against just about anything isn’t it??
Most of the talk at present seems to be about saving Schedule 4 land from the “threat” of giant open cast pit mines, extensive underground mining with cyanide recovery, etc. I don’t know enough about it to know how realistic that talk is.
But Mr Fielding going up the river with his pan and some sandwiches for his lunch in Permit 41870 hardly seems like the same thing does it?
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
There are different specific legislated exemptions for this sort of small scale or recreational mining activity DPF.
Any Minister of Conservation who refused access for that sort of activity would not only look bloody silly but would also likely find such a refusal overturned on judicial review.
You are clutching at straws with such a pedantic argument.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I draw your attention to s61(1A) Crown Minerals Act, which permits mining permits to be issued for Schedule 4 land for:
(d) Gold fossicking carried out in an area designated as a gold fossicking area under section 98 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991
(e) Any activity carried out in accordance with a special purpose mining permit for demonstrating historic mining methods as provided for in the relevant minerals programme required under section 13 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
These sections exist for the reasons Graeme mentions above, and all three permits fall under these sections.
But hey, who cares about the actual law when you can spin?
[DPF: So mining on section 4 land is okay if done on a small scale. Then the debate is about scale, not whether to do it]
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
1996,2000,2005 and how long have the greens been in parliament.. since 1999.. well they have an excuse for 1996.
But yes another case of the left calling the Kettle black.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
menace: Is mining the only thing that can help our economy out?
Nope, only one of many things that can be done. Why can’t mining be on the table as well?
LRO: I want to know if there are no recoverable minerals anywhere else in NZ, or are they ALL on S4 Land?
I’m sure there is, but the item we are discussing is regarding, and I’ll say it in Bold: The removal of land from Schedule 4 for the purpose of mining.
LRO: Or is S4 land the only land we can m ine without having to pay koha to the raggeddy man?
Do you have something against Maori?
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I don’t think David is clutching at straws Toad, at least not when it comes to what Mr Goff said. He has been quite explicit several times – “yes, we allowed mining on the conservation estate, but not on Schedule 4.” But they did, and he must have known it.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The supposed hypocrisy of Labour is a valid argument for or against just about anything isn’t it??
Its called a Precedent.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Because when it come to schedule 4 land New Zealand as a majority don’t want it.
Do you understand this?
Vote:Don’t make me spell it out I’ve answered your question pretty clearly.
This is your last chance bevan.
If you cant understand me this time ill never acknowledge your existence ever again.
May 4th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Sorry DPF, I think you need to read into what these permits are given for. These permits are effectively tourism permits ie: they allow for very small scale operations to show old-school (as in 100 years ago) mining practice.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
ROFL LRO, some things go right over others.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
“Granted to the Broken Hills Gold Company Limited on 2 August 2000 to undertake underground mining for gold, silver, quartz and clay”
This is pretty clearly NOT for tourism. Underground mining? For clay? For tourism? Really? Some of you Labour and Green apologists need to get back in touch with reality.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@Vinick
Might be best to do a little research before rushing to comment Vinick.
It clearly is tourism.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
OK, let’s look at the Broken Hills Gold Company Limited.
Directors are Stuart and Miranda Rabone. They are also directors of Broken River Company Limited
Stuart is a Geologist and a consulting geologist to Waikato Regional Council and local councils on mining issues
He also reviewed the draft of An assessment of the value of Crown minerals in the Te Ahumata area, Great Barrier Island
And…
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Oh…. Toad!
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Because when it come to schedule 4 land New Zealand as a majority don’t want it.
Do you understand this?
Don’t make me spell it out I’ve answered your question pretty clearly.
Well, your post did seem to be against mining in general…
You have your opinion, I have mine. And if the public dont want any land removed friom Schedule 4 for the purpose of mining, then they are welcome to vote for Labour in the next election – how are those poll results looking right now btw?
My guess is that the majority just dont want mining on Great Barrier (which is the only poll on the matter I have seen so far), and once it is removed from proposal, the opposition will soften drastically.
This is your last chance bevan.
If you cant understand me this time ill never acknowledge your existence ever again.
Oh I’m just not sure how I will go on! Boo Hoo…
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Goff in the house just now: can the Minister confirm Labour never mined Schedule 4 land?
Well, Toad and others, as has been proved here, regardless of the scale and purpose of the permits, the Minister couldn’t possibly confirm that.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@toad
Then why on earth a permit to take clay, hmm?
Regardless of purpose – it is pretty clear from these two instances that Goff is, at best being disingenuous when he says that Labour have never allowed mining in schedule 4. These are mining permits, pure and simple.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
[Menace]: Don’t make me spell it out I’ve answered your question pretty clearly. This is your last chance bevan. If you cant understand me this time ill never acknowledge your existence ever again.
LOL – glad to see it’s not just me suffering from bevan’s reading comprehension fails and strawman arguments.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
So that’s two that are part of tourist places, and a third that wasn’t schedule 4 when the permit was granted:
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.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
They are definitely mining permits, and definitely on schedule 4 land. The next question is whether Goff thinks there should be NO mining on schedule 4 or only small scale (and I’d love to hear him define what scale is ‘just right’.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Tourism and mining do go together in NZ… and if we’re smart we could ensure there’s a compatibility that so manyto believe in. I suppose these are the same people who believe that all farming is dirty when NZ farming has developed some of the most environmentally friendly and efficient means of farming in the world.
Where’s their number 8 spirit? Oh, that’s right… rather than get on with it and find a way to make things work in the country’s favour they’d rather find ways to roadblock. I’m not talking about scary all-consuming progress (like the darkness in The Neverending Story) but thinking, positive progress. It can be done.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Gerry Brownlee referred to Garret’s question in parliament as examples of Labour allowing mining on schedule 4 land:
Vote:http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/2467 (skip to 4mins)
May 4th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
RRM: LOL – glad to see it’s not just me suffering from bevan’s reading comprehension fails and strawman arguments.
That would be because yourself, LRO and Menace are all cut from the same cloth. Retarded left wing hypocrits.
Modus Operandi for left wing trolls:
1. Make vague statement with multiple interpretations.
2. Wait for someone to dispute the point based on their interpretation.
3. Attack respondant for their interpretation of your vague point.
But I fallen in foul of the advice I have often given others: I have argued with idiots, and am now at their level – being beaten with experience.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
So Labour did it “regardless of scale” and that somehow negates their criticiam of National’s proposals? So if I daub a spot of paint on a condemned building and DPF spray paints a few of Christchurch’s cathedrals with pink graffiti both acts are as serious as one another “regardless of scale”?
Oh puhleeeze. So National’s spin is to draw a comparison between a few tourists hand-panning for gold and a commercial mining operation and use the “they did it too so it must be okay” defence?
What a stupid, gutless piece of spin. If commercial scale mining is necessary and / or desirable then have the courage to defend it on its own merits instead of this nonsense.
Unless it’s just Garrett deciding to play Dorothy Dix off his own bat… but I doubt it. If Key can dictate who’s Act’s leader, I am sure he can pick and choose their PQs.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Might be best to do a little research before rushing to comment Vinick.
So mining and conservation can coexist!
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
He pushed me so I smashed table leg and drove it through his skull.
Are some people thick or something?
I know some people are but they are not the ones I’m asking.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
@Bevan
It would appear so. And Toad is yet to explain how a permit granted for the underground mining of clay is for tourism. Whether or not that aspect of the permit is used is irrelevant – Labour granted a permit to mine underground in schedule 4 land.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
You can smell the desperation on Gerry’s breath when he has to spin this kind of absolute rot out via kiwiblog.
[DPF: Nothing to do with Gerry. It was David Garrett who asked the question, and his office which passed the answer on to me]
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Modus Operandi for left wing trolls:
1. Make a straightforward statement.
2. Defend strawman attacks from idiots like Bevan who can’t read properly.
3. Defend strawman attacks from idiots like Bevan who can’t read properly some more.
There, fixed that for you. Now go back to playing Super Mario on the Nintendo and leave the grown-ups in peace, hmmkay?
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@m@tt
love it mate, perhaps the best line ever spoken by one of ours!
And you can actually download that speech somewhere, cant remember where but I was able to find it a couple of years back when I tried.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
And the parade of hypocracy marches on.
You want to run the country then win the elections.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
So mining and conservation can coexist!
Bevan
Vote:of course look at Alaska
May 4th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Murray, if you want to run the country by doing what the majority doesn’t want then you win elections, BUDDY.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
From what I could see with a Google search, it looks like mining at Broken Hill has not been happening for a long time, in that a number of sites refer to visiting abandoned mine shafts etc in the area..
In that case, perhaps the permit granted in 2000 hasn’t actually been acted on yet. Therefore, it might be premature to say it has only been granted for tourism purposes. All we apparently can know is the activity that is permitted which certainly appears to be mining.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
CLAP . . . CLAP . . . CLAP . . . CLAP
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
A month or two back Trevor said on
dead ratred alert that Labour never approved any mining on section 4 land. Watch me get banned when I revisit that thread and tell him he can choose to be called either;a) A liar
Vote:OR
b) A fool who speaks before he checks his facts.
May 4th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
This is going round and round and round. . .
Fact: The country is BORROWING (As in it is being loaned and its citizens – you and me- will have to pay interest to someone for that loaning) $240 million a WEEK!!
Fact: It is POSSIBLE (note that word very carefully) that New Zealand has mineral wealth that has not currently been found or exploited.
Fact: The Government wants to know what there is and where it is.
Fact: IF there is such a deposit, and its extraction will lower our $240 Million PER WEEK borrowing (and save you and me some money as a result) it is reasonable and logical that this should be done.
Fact: A large amount of the Schedule 4 land HAS ALREADY BEEN MINED!!!!! It has ALREADY been looked-over at least once!
It is NOT (REPEAT NOT!! REPEAT NOT!!!) in its pristine as-created state. It HASN’T BEEN IN THAT STATE FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS!!!
It will NEVER, EVER, EVER be in its original, untouched state – and no amount of duey-eyed raving about Kiwi habitats or anything else will EVER make it a pure, clean pristine place BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MINED!!!!!!!!!
(Sorry about the ‘shouting’ but how on earth does one get this fact through to the ‘masses’. It’s too late, The ‘disputed schedule 4 land’ has largely already been mined, it isn’t as God made it, it hasn’t been for over a century etc, etc, etc, etc, ….)
Fact: There are people in the New Zealand community at large who have a very definite vested interest in NOT wanting this country to be either out of debt OR to use its resources to improve itself. While some have a political agenda, a very sizable group merely want to be able to continue to grow their marijuana and sell it to the locals, an activity that mining will, inevitably, inconveniently, interfere with.
THESE PEOPLE DON’T GIVE A %$(@! ABOUT THE LAND – THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES, THEIR PRODUCT AND THEIR INCOMES BEING THREATENED!!!
THAT and ONLY that is the real bottom-line, and the real reason for the mass-manipulation of the sheeples – profits, profits and protection of an income, while a seriously-deluded former celebrity, makes an incredibly niave but very convenient front-person.
The MSM of course, having no investigative skills and caring even less, just don’t want to know.
Sometimes it can be very frustrating . . .
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
David, this is the most desperate, desperate spin — and you know it.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
ROFL @ Komata @ his/her waffle.
And those large parts are very much visible on google earth.
As for the marijuana spin……. if if it was decriminalized it we would need at least one weeks less borrowing in the first place. And as for dreaming that a little mining would make any difference to those people you refer to, i doubt it as they seem to be extremely resilient and unstoppable as use rates would indicate.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
ROFL @ Komata @ his/her waffle.
And those large parts are very much visible on google earth.
Typical, unable to debate his points so you resort to denigration.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
What utter, utter drivel DPF. A tourist using a gold pan is exactly the same as a large economically viable mine.
Did you also know that it is permissible to dig a mining shaft in Schedule 4 land, if it is needed in an emergency situation to rescue miners trapped in an adjacent mine (which is not on Schedule 4 land)! Shock! Horror!
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
[DPF: Nothing to do with Gerry. It was David Garrett who asked the question, and his office which passed the answer on to me]
Bahahahahahahaa.
Though actually, given the appalling way Gerry has handled the entire farce I suppose it is ever so slightly plausible that he was not involved in Garret first asking then leaking this.
This ones for Gerry and friends:
“There’s danger in frustration
Complicated words slipping off of your tongue and ain’t one of them the truth”
Miranda Lambert.
Google it
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
That question appears to be an Nact own goal. Let’s take the TV cameras to see all this mining activity
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I-K-Y
What gold mining activity? Three large ones – Waihi, Macraes, Reefton, a Dredge, and a few small operators with draglines/backhoes working low-level alluvial claims rivers in Westland together with a few small underground parties on the Coromandel’s.
‘Fraid not old chap – the conservations/grass smokers in our midst have successfully closed the country down for the small guys, and only ‘money’ (ie foreign companies) need apply!
And as for TV-footage? While some of the ‘underground’ footage shown on TV3 in support of the protests may be of Waihi, my own inclination is that it is more likely to be of the old Golden Cross operation – closed down some 10 years ago. Archive rather than current-footage , but if it helps ‘inflame the masses’ why not use it?
(I’m waiting for the ‘Greens’ to regurgitate their old,Brazilian and Venezualan propaganda footage that they used back in the ’80′s, suposedly showing an ‘evil’ new Zealand mining operation – why let honesty get in the way of a good lie?)
Self-interest is a grreat motivator . . .
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
echoing
clap . . . clap . . . clap . . .
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
clap
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
oh wow. this is just…..wow….way to show that ball who’s boss and send it straight back into your goal! i’m stil rofl
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Wow, I had to see it to believe it. Are you serious? Desperation much? Nats are really circling the wagons on this issue.
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
The Nats only care about money. They assume that the standard of living is measured by GDP alone.
The fact is that GDP fails to measure things like be able to swim in river (yes they were free to swim in before most got polluted), walk through beautiful scenery or even breathe fresh air (which you don’t have to buy because of poor air quality).
For possible measures of standard of living see http://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/analytical-reports/monitoring-progress-towards-sustainable-nz.aspx
I doubt if anyone in the current administration is remotely interested about this
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Why is David Garrett wasting a supplementary on defending mining? Is he so starved of Act issues that he has to support the very party he should be kicking in the teeth? Shit, no wonder Act cant get any votes.
[DPF: It was a written not an oral question]
Vote:May 4th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Bwahahahaha Own goal alright – gonna be a long week for Gerry and them good ole boys. This has to be the weakest argument of any pro mining blog that I have read and Gerry wasn’t up to his best in the house.
Vote:May 8th, 2010 at 4:17 am
The government could do with more cash, and at some point in the future (next 100 – 200 years) the minerals will be mined. From my reading of the situation, the government does not plan to mine the minerals themselves and pocket the profit, but just licence off the rights. Given the volume of mining they propose, it would likely require offshore investment, with much of the profits heading offshore, and not covering the NZ deficit.
A small number of investors will make a good profit, some of which will be paid in tax. A very small number of people will be employed to work in the mines, and pay a small percentage of tax. The mine companies will pay some tax. The government will therefore see some increase in tax, but nothing inline with the value of the minerals.
NZ is already being seen as less green (poor and extensive farming, heavy resource users, lack of public transport etc), and with more awareness of CO2 output from flying, it will be harder and harder to get tourists (a much bigger industry than mining) to NZ.
It is my belief that the mining will benefit very few people in NZ, with a few reaping the rewards from what is a national asset.
Vote:June 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm
You don’t even have to worry about tourists not coming to New Zealand because between 2000 and 2008 international tourist numbers to the country have increased by 37% from 1,789,078 in 2000 to 2,447,208 in 2008. and land value per hectare of mining land is $175,000 where as dairy farming land has a value of $3,500 per hectare.
Vote:So mining in New Zealand is more valuable (economy wise) to New Zealand than Dairy.