Wayne Brown on Mining
May 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am by David FarrarFar North Mayor Wayne Brown injects some common sense into the mining debate:
As mayor of the 42 towns and 7500sq km of the Far North District it is my job to lift the economic performance of our region and its people.
Only one-third of our vast sprawl contributes rates with the other two-thirds being Maori land and Department of Conservation land. Much of these areas are vast tracks of scrub and gorse, with some high-value pockets such as Manginangina and Waipoua, that can be left alone.
And some of that scrub land is in Section 4, I am told.
But the single policy that offers most opportunity to our district is Minister of Energy Gerry Brownlee’s moves to prospect and mine rural tracts such as ours, so I am writing to balance the recent widely reported, but rather shallow and negative, press coverage of this policy.
Thousands of ill-informed urban dwellers recently marched against mining with the encouragement of the well intentioned but misguided celebrity actress, Lucy Lawless. What next? Master Chef winners to decide the Official Cash Rate?
Heh, exactly.
Now to that ridiculous urban myth that mining cannot co-exist with tourism. Hello! Mining central, being Australia, has more tourists than we do and I would encourage you to send a reporter up here for a look. Travel along Matauri Bay Rd, then turn right up the little known loose metal road at Tepene Tablelands, like many others do each day.
For over 30 years, scores of locals have driven up there daily to well paid and satisfying jobs at the open cast mine, processing plant and rehabilitated areas of Imerys’ china clay holicite mine.
Lots of others drive up there daily to the other address on this road which is the internationally acclaimed, uber-expensive but very beautiful Kauri Cliffs Golf Resort.
Being next door to an existing mine didn’t stop billionaire owner Julian Robertson from investing in this golf course, nor has it stopped his wealthy guests from coming in good numbers to support the local jobs that this created.
As I said, a very good article that restores some balance to the debate.
Related posts:
- Wayne Brown takes charge
- Wayne Brown
- Mining and the Conservation Estate
- Open cast mining at Pike River
May 12th, 2010 at 11:24 am
I hope they find something worth mining in Northland, it desperately needs jobs, for social reasons as well as for the local economy.
A quick fix by the Government would be to stop or tax log exports and use the money to develop local timber processing. Northland has a lot of trees. Russia is taxing out exports of logs from its vast resources in Siberia, to force China, Japan, Korea, etc to take milled timber and move jobs from these countries to Siberia. We ought to be doing the same.
As for minerals, responsible mining is fine, but you have to be regard as bullshit the over-the-top projections of mineral wealth being bandied about by Jerry Brownlie. These are based on “could be” guesses, and it is appalling that the World Bank has accepted these and given its imprimatur to them. The statement that NZ has more mineral resources per head than any other country but Saudi Arabia is rubbish.
To look for the source consider veteran Christchurch entrepreneur Rutherford who may have been or perhaps even is an adviser (formal or informal) to National, and talks of riches in iron ore at the bottom of the Tasman Sea (according to a Christchurch Press article).
Brownlie’s team also talks up offshore oil and gas, yet we mostly find gas, and in quantities too small for LNG exports, and useful largely for generating electricity ashore, which we’re not allowed to use it for.
Sensible, responsible, achievable mining yes. But Saudi Arabia scale dreams – poof! It’s like the uranium dreams of 50 years ago, yet the Buller deposits have proved low grade and uneconomic. And the recurrent dreams about the huge lignite deposits in Southland. Again, useful for electricity, and in times of war or embargos, conversion to diesel as in World War 2 Germany and embargoed apartheid South Africa.
You also have to be sceptical about calls to “find out what’s there”. NZ has been combed by prospectors and mined for a century and a half. We’ve had good geologists, too.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 11:24 am
common sense… so thats whats been lacking.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Time to tell the airheads like Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcolm to stick to their day job and leave the big economic decisions to the adults.
Its OK for these people to sit and pontificate They dont have to worry about jobs and putting food on their families table.
The biggest laugh is that thsoe 2 et al whine on about the poor Maori yet will actively campaign to stop Maori people getting well paid productive jobs in case it flatens that grass or kills a few snails.
These people are pathetic They have no understanding of economics They think the Gumint is a cashflow machine
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 11:37 am
One can not have a balanced debate with a luddite and when that luddite has a secure job that requires nothing more than increased taxation or other compulsory levy to support it, then it is surely impossible.
Vote:Well stated Wayne Brown.
May 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
It would probably be a go ahead country if we weren’t infested with brain dead townies that live on 5% of the landmass but regulate the other 95% of the country through the ballot box.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
@side show bob
Vote:None of this democracy rubbish!
May 12th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Murray on mining: Get on with it. Economic stagnation is for people with an ambition to live in a third world crap hole.
Like oh say south Auckland.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Last Man Standing at 11.36: Time to tell the airheads like Lucy Lawless and Robyn Malcolm to stick to their day job and leave the big economic decisions to the adults.
LOL. Exactly.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Who the hell are these people anyway, Who the fuck elected them to speak for us?
Piss off back to hollywood.
Cylon beeartch.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Actually Australia does not have a higher return from tourism than us when you consider the other facts of their country.
They get 60 billion a year from tourism we get 20 billion thus theirs is 3x higher.
We have a population of 4 million they have one of 20 thus that is 5 times higher meaning tourism per person is lower.
Australia’s gdp is around 1 trillion dollars New Zealand is only 130 billion almost eight times higher. Thus tourism is a much smaller part of their GDP.
Australia’s land mass is 7.6 million square kilometers ours is 268k a difference of almost 28 times.
No matter what variable you use we do better on tourism when you account for local circumstances.
Also just because land looks like gorse does not mean it has no value. It may have multiple endangered species on it that are not found elsewhere. The land could still quite easily be of high value. Why would National categorise it as high value in the first place if it wasn’t? Our mining assets are not of significant enough size to justify damaging our reputation in regards to tourism because it is such a large chunk of our GDP compared to Australia where it is a far less significant chunk and Australia gets that tourism income from zoo’s and cities which we cannot offer as tourism opportunities, we rely on ecotourism.
I wouldn’t put a great deal of faith in the article especially as he lumps Maori land in with conservation land as being valueless I think there is other political motives going on.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
How come you are allowed to voice an opinion, but you deny that right to other people based on their profession?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
eszett show me where I have claimed a greater right than anyone else. I have not done so.
For example I have never rocked up to parliament unannounced and demanded an audience with the Prime Minister then packed a sad on national TV and had a hissy fit.
Show me why these two should have a greater voice than others based on what their fucking ACTING?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
>Now to that ridiculous urban myth that mining cannot co-exist with tourism.
Ranger uranium mine is smack dab in the middle of Kakadu National Park. It doesn’t seem to drive the tourists away, and the vast majority wouldn’t see any evidence of the mine except for the signs directing traffic to it. The main impact of the mine on tourism is a positive one… mine workers anchor the small town of Jabiru. There is a small supermarket, a petrol station, and a couple of hotels. Without the mine, tourists wouldn’t have anywhere to buy groceries and the nearest garage (if they broke down and needed a repair) is probably 250km away.
And that mix of discrete mining and tourism might well provide a stable economic base to a number of rural NZ towns. Most tourists aren’t going to visit a scenic area if there is no where to eat or sleep nearby. But tourism on its own isn’t enough to sustain more than tourist-oriented business.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
robcarr, I read it that Maori Land and Conservation land do not contribute to the Rates take and so, as far as the FNDC is concerned they are equally worthless in economic terms from his perspective. Hard to argue against that if you are taking it upon yourself to increase the economic activity in the community.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
He doesn’t try to bring his biased and potentially somewhat uninformed opinion off the weblogs in order to influence people. One would assume that given his criticism if he were a celebrity, he’d be aware that he had greater ability to influence people and wouldn’t try to do so on the basis of his celebrity. Instead of promoting his biased view, perhaps as a celebrity he’d act responsibly and encourage people to get informed about the issues from all sides of the spectrum and maybe then elaborate on what his view was, while making it clear people should not agree with him just because of who he was. These celebrities have not encouraged that. They’ve effectively said “Get involved on the basis of my opinion, which is more likely to be right, because I’m a celebrity, Goddamnit, and I’m entitled to be loudmouthed and put my fairly uninformed opinion out there!”
He’s also not denied them their right to voice an opinion. He said “Piss off back to hollywood”, but he has not inferred that he has the power or desire to enforce that they do so, which implies he thinks they should piss off back to Hollywood, not that he will make them.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
davidp is exactly right
Not only can mining co-exist with tourism without harming it
It actively complements it
I wonder if any of the ditzy celeb bimbos have ever heard of Shantytown
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Balance & Wayne Brown do not co-exist. The guy is a idiot & the Far North will be well rid of him next election.
Regarding his comments, if he was to exclude the gratuitous & self defeating comments regarding the demonstrators, there is indeed opportunity for mining in Northland, but Northland is also a tourist goldmine largely untapped ( I believe Ngawha springs is the anchor that needs development ) which has way more potential than mining & that requires presenting an good image which includes a mayor with the ability to string two sentences together coherently & one who does not attack the very people who are likely to visit the far North !!.
If National require Wayne Brown to help them support mining, they are screwed.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
from Sunday Star Times, 9th May, pg. 40 (“about town”, Amanda Midgley) – Robyn Malcolm “made a couple of trans-Tasman
dashes to fulfil (sic) her commitments last weekend. She flew from her Sydney base to Auckland to lead the March Against Mining,
then travelled to Melbourne for the Logies on Sunday. Malcolm, wearing a gorgeous Zambesi dress ….” yada, yada.
This is the women who, in the hysteria before Copenhagen, was insisting
we reduce our carbon emissions by 40% from our pre 1990 levels.
Given that our carbon emissions rose amongst the fastest in the OECD under Labour & the Greens and that we are now around 24% ABOVE 1990 levels, she, as a Greenpeace celeb, is actually asking for a 64% reduction, by 2020 (!!) I think their target is….
Actions speak louder than words.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Nigel, Ngawha Springs (with a capital, if you don’t mind) always was, is and always will be a stinking shit hole. I know, during the fifties I used to ride my horse bareback the five or six miles it took to get there for a soak in the pools. It is surrounded by miles of infertile lateritic clay know as gumland which is populated by a few scattered scrubby bits of manuka. It certainly not good enough to support the local indigenous welfare beneficiary population.
So infertile is this bleak crap that it won’t even grow gorse. Which is just as well, because your learned leftie mate robcarr can’t tell the fucking difference between gorse and land. (One grows and fixes nitrogen from the air, the other is grown on and receives the nitrogen- is that simple enough for your NCEA sized brain?)
Wayne Brown makes eminently good sense. You do not.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
A very sensible articale from Wayne Brown, who once upon a time was a labour pet wasn’t he when he was at Auckland Hospital, anyway good sensible article.
When you live in a town of 3000 people like I do, you do not turn your nose up at any opportunity without examining it carefully.
As others have stated its very easy to slag off the government from your government paid job taking their money or sitting there on a student loan pontificating about the cause de liberal of the day.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
This restores no balance at all, in fact it is precisely why every Kiwi who gives a damn about our natural heritage should be deeply concerned.
Vote:Wayne has just demonstrated a complete ignorance of NZ ecosystems in his comparison with Australia, there is NO comparison!!
Is it so hard to get the fact that our landmass and native flora an fauna are totally different to the Australian outback?
This level of ignorance is not acceptable to mine “responsibly” there seem to be some very wilfully blind people that can $ee only one thing.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Shunda barunda
Why does the article not restore balance?
What does modern mining do to cause us to think about our natural heritage?
How has Wayne demostrated a complete ignorance of the NZ eco system compared to AUL?
Why and how is mining different in Aul. as compared to NZ?
Our landmass and fauna are different to that of Aul but why cannot NZ take advantage of our wealth?
Or are you just spouting Green rhetoric like a sheep?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Pentwig
Ignorance is not the same as “balance”.
Australia is uniquely suitable for mining without massive environmental damage due to its size, its geography, geology, and its population, it is completely different to NZ. A kangaroo could bounce in a straight line for 300km from most of those mines if it wanted too.
Our landmass and fauna are different to that of Aul but why cannot NZ take advantage of our wealth?
We can, just not every last bit of it. Our Geology is completely different and our natural heritage is too important.
Vote:And you can’t write me off as a blind rhetoric toting greenie, go ask the regulars on frog blog how they feel about that statement!!.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Shunda
I do read frogblog frequently and have noted that you often get their ire up with good argument.
Your statement at 5:55pm was just that – a statement. No argument or basis for qualifing the statement.
You are usually more astute than that.
Nevermind, maybe it was a hard day. I certainly had one – and probably a couple too many Stellas as well!
Cheers.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
While it is a pro-mining article, which gives balance in the sense that a lot of articles are anti-mining(?), it does not really give balance to the debate because it uses fairly specious comparisons (e.g. “Australia, has more tourists than we do” – it’s also a lot bigger and has a larger population, etc – Per capita tourism? Or tourism with relation to comparative landmass size?) and broad generalisations (“Much of these areas are vast tracks of scrub and gorse, with some high-value pockets such as Manginangina and Waipoua, that can be left alone.” ) which don’t actually give much information about the land.
Mining should definitely be an option, but what is the likely benefit (there weren’t really specifics dealt with)? What is the opportunity cost? And what is the cost to the environment? It shouldn’t just be dismissed as scub and gorse.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Um, so if we mine it all for the sake of the economy, what happens to the economy when it all runs out?
Anyone here heard of Peak Phosphorus?
How do we sustain our population increases when most of that mineral essential to the food production levels necessary to feed everyone has all gone out from our farms to sea?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
toad – how bout we just mine to make enough cash so we can recover from the fucking disaster the last left wing govt left us.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
So how much do we mine, and how much do we leave for future generations, dime?
To what extent do we subject our descendants to poverty through our greed?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Now now, we’ll all be living on mars by then Toad. It’s the way of the future. Can’t you see that?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
toad – i really dont care. mine it all
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Jesus Toad,
We might as well mine, becaus there will be no tourism because you green clowns will have banned air travel and drilling for oil.
How many of you guys actually spend anytime in the bush using it,? not wanking on about it at a computer screen and stroking each other off about how many miles you biked this week.
I use the bush weekly, that what its there for , its not a oil painting to be looked at. The only way my decendants will live in poverty if they follow closed minded people like your self.
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
@Pauleastbay 9:18 pm
When fuel prices rise massively, because oil is running out, the market will deplete tourism. Talking about bans is ridiculous. There is only so much of any finite resource. You can’t go pretending something will magically appear when we’ve used all of it the planet has (unless you go mining on Mars, as JiveKitty seems to be suggesting).
What does humanity do when it all starts to run out? Go to war to steal someone else’s? And what when there is no more anywhere to steal?
Vote:May 12th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
lets lay the “Gorse and scrub” argument to rest shall we.
Gorse and scrub doesn’t stay Gorse and scrub forever. Gorse is what is known as a colonising species, its niche is as a first species and as such it is intolerant of shade.
Vote:Once the gorse has attained maximum size (approx 10 years) it begins to open out underneath and native trees begin to grow rapidly in what is an effective nursery type environment; semi shady, protected from wind and fertile as Gorse is also a very efficient nitrogen fixer (which is why it can grow on crap ground).
As the natives begin to grow up through the canopy the Gorse begins to collapse under its own weight further assisting the trees, the natives also begin to grow above the Gorse, which being intolerant of shade begins to die back.
Eventually the native plants begin to dominate and larger native tree species begin to grow which ultimately result in a new stand of native forest.
This process is quicker in higher rainfall areas, in my area it takes about 15 years from gorse seedlings to native plant succession.
It is completely false to suggest that “Gorse and scrub” has no conservation value, Gorse is a very effective native forest regenerator not to mention a habitat for native wildlife.
Doc land doesn’t have to have a stand of 500 year old Podocarps on it to have any value.
May 12th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
How many of you guys actually spend anytime in the bush using it,?
I am involved in forest regeneration as a profession and as a passion.
Vote:We have a remarkably unique natural heritage in this country that every Kiwi should be passionate about protecting. It is our greatest resource.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:56 am
I’m suprised that you consider that a good article DPF…
It deals almost entirely in generalities and insults, for example I’m referred to as an, “ill-informed urban dweller” when apparently Wayne doesn’t know the difference between schedule 4 land and other land (or at least doesn’t mention it)…
I think Wayne is missing the point of the protest, you only audit something if you have the potential to act on that audit, the other protestors and I are saying that some areas are so precious environmentally that they are off limits no matter what is under there…
The areas in question are legislated for as Schedule 4 and the legislation defines them as:
to be protected “as far as possible in their natural state” in perpetuity, because they are “so beautiful, unique or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest”. They are preserved “for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public”.
“The public shall have freedom of entry and access to the parks, so that they may receive in full measure the inspiration, enjoyment, recreation, and other benefits that may be derived from mountains, forests, sounds, seacoasts, lakes, rivers, and other natural features.”
That is something I support 100%, they are “ours” and the 7,000 hectares Brownlee is eyeing up is full of endangered species and rare flora and fauna, fits the description quite aptly, so I’m getting a bit sick of being told I’m anti-mining, jumping the gun or even didn’t know what I’m talking about, I’m just dead opposed to even discussing something so boneheadedly stupid as destroying the most spectaular areas of the country at a cost to part of our tourism industry and for little financial return when there is plenty of private land and low value conservation estate to find resources…
That is the crux of the debate, yet Wayne can only descend into mudslinging and mining platitudes… Hardly a quality opinion piece, in fact I found myself wishing National would undemocratically strip another regional council of their elected officials today…
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 6:55 am
Just because it doesn’t suit your particular view?
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 8:05 am
A blanket ban on mining is as silly as allowing a free for all. I don’t think many are advocating either scenario.
I see Australia has finally woken up to the fact that mining is the exploitation of non-renewable resources with the imposition of a 40% tax on super profits (more than 6% return on capital). At a minimum, we need to follow suit.
We also need to ensure that all this talk about eco-friendly mining is not just that, talk. And we must ensure we don’t destroy yet more species in a world where human activities have already devastated so many species, and may yet devastate our own.
I think that this whole issue, as demonstrated also by Brown’s disappointing article, is driven by ideology when, in fact, it should be about balancing economic return against environment damage on a case by case basis.
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Viking2 said, “Just because it doesn’t suit your particular view?”
I’m guessing you’re talking at me there..?
It is poorly written, well, because it is poorly written and doesn’t deal with facts (or really attempt to) or even the standpoints of the majority of people in the debate, it dealt in “warm-fuzzys” (jobs, economic growth) while essentially saying the problems associated with mining are the “out-of-touch ramblings of the townie elites”… Weak…
Vote:May 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
[Murray]:Show me why these two should have a greater voice than others based on what their fucking ACTING?[/quote]
They have a greater voice because they have what you lack Murray: the balls to get up and make noise in public. You might like to try it sometime? It seems to have more impact than posting angry little rants on your own blog, or hanging on DPF’s coattails doing the same.
(FWIW I support Greenpeace; I don’t agree with everything they say, but I think having them around is better than not having them around. But all this BS with “You should Sign On to fight climate change because Keisha and Lucy already have” is testing my faith, that shit is just DUMB and is hurting their cause IMHO.)
Vote: