Kiwiblog

Radio NZ reports:

The Labour Party says it might come as a revelation to some that not all Maori are opposed to mining and oil drilling.

Maori Economic Development spokesperson Shane Jones says there is a fossilised view that Maori aren’t interested or capable of making pragmatic decisions.

While he acknowledges there are been pockets of resistance, Mr Jones says there’s a variety of views – not a monolithic one.

He says oil is the country’s most costly import – a resource within Aotearoa.

What refreshing views from a Labour spokesperson. It would be great to see Labour come out with a policy supporting more use of our natural resources.

Stuff reports:

State-owned Solid Energy, if successful with a bid, would probably look to develop the mine in a joint opencast/underground approach. It would need to get part of the surrounding land removed from schedule 4 protected conservation land for opencast mining. Access would be difficult and so would resource conditions.

If Solid Energy do buy Pike River, I hope the Government does make it possible for them to carry on mining there, in the safest way possible. If that means moving a couple of hectares out of Schedule 4, then so be it.

Rodney Hide at the weekend seemed to have ESP with his call:

ACT leader Rodney Hide is calling for open-cast mining at Pike River and on protected conservation land.

State-owned Solid Energy should be allowed to open-cast mine Pike River, to access an estimated $10 billion of resources, he said. “It seems to me it will require a great deal of care and sensitivity. But I can’t see how not continuing their [the miner's] work respects them.” …

Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn backed Mr Hide’s call for open-cast mining at Pike River.

“Yeah, Rodney Hide is correct. We need to get on with it and we need to do it in a way that will safeguard the environment and at the same time get economic development.”

It looks like it might happen, which is good.

All the 29 dead or trapped miners have been named, and all of them will have family and friends in grief over what has happened.

The story of Joseph Dunbar is arguably the saddest of all the miners. The day of the explosion was his first day in the mine, being the day after his 17th birthday. In fact he was not meant to start until Monday but was so excited, he was allowed to start on Friday. What a cruel irony.

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key says he is praying that the 29 men trapped at Pike River are safe.

“I just pray to God that they are alive,” he said.

“Obviously we need to begin a rescue as soon as we practically can, and we just pray that they have managed to secure an oxygen source.”

I think many NZers have also been praying for a good outcome. The news is not promising sadly, based on a blast survivor:

“Because I wasn’t as far up … the explosion wasn’t as bad for me. It just bowled me over and knocked me unconscious and someone dragged me about 300 metres, brought me around and then two of us held each other to get out of the mine.”

Mr Smith described the explosion as quick and without heat or smell.

“I just remember seeing a flash of something in front of me and then the concussion hit me. It wasn’t just a bang. It just kept coming, kept coming, kept coming.

“So I crouched down as low as I could in the seat to try to get behind this metal door [on the loader he was driving] to stop being pelted with all this debris …

I just couldn’t breathe and that’s the last I could remember and then someone found me about 15 minutes or so later.”

Mr Smith said the next thing he remembers is looking out of the ambulance as it was driving into Greymouth.

The concussion must have been very severe for those further in.

It must be awful for the families who are hoping for the best, but also getting prepared for the worst. Hopefully today there may be a resolution.

I think most people felt their hearts get a little heavier, as the news filtered out that the testing in the mine indicates that there is probably a fire down there.

I’m not sure anyone will be entering that mine today. If they did, it seems it would probably just be increasing the death toll.

2115: The earlier report of one fatality remains unconfirmed. Gerry Brownlee has just said there are no confirmed or official fatalities at this stage.

1950: Five out, 24 thought to be still in there

1934: TVNZ reports three other miners are making their way up.

1932: Two more fo reund injured, but alive. Injuries are moderate.

Like many I am glued to Twitter waiting for news from the Pike River mine. We are all hoping there are no deaths but sadly there have been some reports that there is one confirmed casualty at this stage.

The number of miners unaccounted for ranges from 27 to 36.

My thoughts are with all those down on the West Coast awaiting news. It must be awful not knowing anything solid yet.

Please keep this thread free of politics.

Hopefully we will have more news shortly.

All 33 miners have been rescued after 70 odd days trapped in a mine. It has been gripping viewing.  Damn insects got into my eyes a couple of times.

Amazing viewing of the rescue of the Chilean miners. The emotions are so strong you can feel them half a world away. It’s a nice reminder of our shared humanity.

Stuff reports:

* No areas will be removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

* The Government will continue with a proposal to add 14 areas, totalling 12,400 hectares of land, to Schedule 4.

* All areas given classifications equivalent to current Schedule 4 areas, such as national parks and marine reserves, will now automatically become part of Schedule 4.

* An aeromagnetic survey will be taken of Northland and the West Coast of the South Island to assess mineral wealth.

* Land holding Ministers (eg the Minister of Conservation in the case of in the case of public conservation land) and the Minister of Energy and Resources must now sign off on applications for access arrangements to Crown land for mineral developments.

This can only be seen as a total backdown. In fact envir0nmental protection of national parks has been increased, by having them automatically added to Section 4 in future.

Greenpeace Senior Climate Campaigner Simon Boxer said the decision was “a heartening example of people power in action”.

“This is a historic victory for the record number of New Zealanders who stood up to protect our most treasured places and for a vision of a truly sustainable and progressive 21st century economy for New Zealand,” Mr Boxer said.

It is a great victory for those who marched, signed petitions and put in submissions. I think it was the sheer number of individual submissions that probably had the biggest impact.

While The Government solves one problem with the decision, they now face the problem of whether they are serious about catching up with Australia, in light of the back down. They are fortunate that they have just announced employment law changes, as these will go some way towards mollifying sentiment that the Government is not doing enough.

There are some lessons for the Government in this, in my opinion. What were they?

1. The proposal was over-hyped. Even the PM himself did this, by stating there would definitely be change.
2. The discussion document was rather woeful. It didn’t make a good case for why the Government wanted to mine. It relied on merely the potential value of the minerals. I wanted to see projected jobs created, royalty increases, and tax take changes.
3. The inclusion of Great Barrier Island was a tactical mistake. It galvanised opposition in Auckland especially. And mining on the island would be impossible anyway under current regional and district plans.
4. This was one of those issues where it was not just about winning majority support from the public. It is about intensity of support. Even if 60% support mining, few supporters would have it decide their vote. However for many opponents of mining, this is an issue which would decide their vote – especially women (in my opinion)

The only real upside for the Government is that they can genuinely say, they do listen to the public, and that it is not a waste of time to response to discussion documents. But that is some minor face saving for what is an embarrassing u-turn.

This is a response by David Farrar to the Schedule 4 discussion paper issued in March 2010.

Decisions on whether to allow mining on conservation land require careful consideration of the potential economic benefit from such mining, and balanced up against any environmental impact, including impact on biodiversity, and tourism to iconic areas.

Mining creates jobs (often higher than average paying jobs), increases exports, grows the economy, and through both taxation and royalties provides income to the Government, which allows the Government to reduce debt, or spend more on social services, or both.

This balancing act is highly complex and subjects to the Resource Management Act. It is not something one can assign a blanket rule to. Decisions are best made, on the science and the facts, on individual mining applications. Not all conservation land is of equal value, and not all areas have equal mineral wealth. New Zealand has a robust process for deciding on individual applications, and I believe largely gets it right.

Land under Schedule 4 is removed from the normal process of deciding on a case by case basis whether mining can be permitted. It is a blanket ban on mining of any sort.

I believe only a relatively small amount of land should be in Section 4 – the truly iconic areas such as Milford Sound for example. The normal weighing up of economic benefits vs environmental impact should apply to the vast majority of land. Not being in Schedule 4 does not mean a mining license would automatically be granted – it just means it can be considered.

A huge 3.48 million hectares of land is currently in Section 4. I believe that this amount of land is probably a magnitude too large. Only the most iconic areas should be in Schedule 4, as this rules out even considering mining, regardless of the economic benefits or value.

So generally I support the Government dramatically reducing the quantity of land in Schedule 4. Not as a signal that such land will automatically be mined, but to allow any applications to be considered on their merits on a case by case basis.

In the discussion document, the Government has proposed just five specific removals from Section 4. I support four of those areas being removed, but do not support the removal of the Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island for two major reasons, being:

1. The island would be very significantly impacted by any commercial mining, due to its unique characteristics.
2. Even with removal of Section 4 classification, mining would still be prohibited on the island, so removal of the classification would not produce any possible benefits.

Turning to the first issue concerning the impact on Great Barrier Island, I write with some first hand knowledge having been a semi-regular visitor in recent years.

While one could certainly have a mine in a remote area of a national or forest park with minimal impact, the same does not apply on a small island with less than a dozen main roads.

GBI is unique in having no central electricity supply. Every home and business is powered by solar power and/or generators. In the Te Ahumata Plateau area, there is only one small road that goes past it, and a commercial mining operation would need massive infrastructure investment to operate.

GBI is mainly accessed by air, and most flights fly over the Te Ahumata Plateau. Mining on the Plateau would significant detract from the island’s tourism potential, which is the major source of employment on the island. Commercial mining, along with whaling, should remain activities of the past on the island.

Great Barrier Island is in fact one of those few iconic areas that should be in Schedule 4.Is is that rare exception to considering on a case by case basis.

Regardless of one’s views on whether commercial mining would ever be viable on the island, I also wish to point out that mining would remain prohibited even if Schedule 4 protection is removed, so there are no benefits from removing it.

The Auckland City Council District Plan states:

The following are prohibited activities throughout the islands:
(2) Mining of any mineral irrespective of whether the activity is authorised under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, other than any quarrying, prospecting, or exploration activity (as defined in part 14 – Definitions) authorised in accordance with the Plan.

Not only does the Auckland City District Plan prohibit mining on Great Barrier Island, so the does the Auckland Regional Plan:

13.2.1 In the Hauraki Gulf Islands and in particular on Great Barrier Island, mining, other than quarrying, is not considered to be an appropriate activity in terms of the wider environmental outcomes sought through this policy statement.

Both the District and Regional plans prohibit mining on Great Barrier Island. Some might suggest that a future Auckland Council could change these. This is highly unlikely for two reasons. First I note that both leading Mayoral candidates have said they are strongly opposed to mining on Great Barrier Island.

Just as significantly, any change to these plans would face a legislative hurdle with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000:

The Act says that:

(9) Relationship of Act with Resource Management Act 1991
(2) A regional council must ensure that any part of a regional policy statement or a regional plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8.
(3) A territorial authority must ensure that any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8.

Section 7 and 8 say

(7) Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf
• (1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance.
(2)(c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

(8) Management of Hauraki Gulf
• To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are—
(a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments:

It seems quite clear that even of a future Auckland Council wanted to amend their regional and district plan to allow mining, it would almost certainly be found by the Environment Court to be incompatible with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000.

Further, even if the incredibly implausible scenario came to pass that a future Auckland Council did decide to and manage to change the local plans to allow for mining, any individual applications would meet Section 9(4):

(4) A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 in addition to the matters contained in the Resource Management Act 1991.

This effectively would force any consent authority to decline any mining application.

So bearing in mind the current Auckland City District Plan, Auckland Region Regional Plan and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, I conclude mining will never be permitted on Great Barrier Island under the current laws, even if it was removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

Hence there are no benefits from removing it, so it should remain in Schedule 4.

David Farrar
26 May 2010

Far 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.

At Backbenches last night, Wallace Chapman asked Green MP Catherine Delahunty what she would do if there was $100 million of gold buried underneath her private property.

Catherine’s response was that she would not mine it, but instead would plant a garden as they are sustainable.

Now I am sure Catherine was speaking truthfully. She would refuse to mine on even private land, no matter how much wealth there is underneath. This was not hyperbole, but her honest beliefs.

Some people are opposed to mining in areas with high conservation values. I’m even one of those – there are some areas which I think should never be mined. And most NZers fit somewhere on that scale – we may differ about how much land we would put into this protected category, but it is a scale. Some would advocate all DOC land be exempt. Some advocate all Section 4 land (even the parts with gorse) should be protected. Some advocate only parts of Section 4.

But the point I want to make is that some, like Catherine, are against all mining everywhere. It doesn’t matter how many jobs are created. It doesn’t matter how much wealth might be underground. It doesn’t matter that the ground may have zero conservation value. Their view is that mining is bad full stop.

David 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?

The turnout for the anti-mining march was impressive, and is one of the largest held in Auckland. I wonder how many knew what they were marching against or for.

Central Auckland was brought to a standstill as a coalition of politicians, celebrities, environmentalists and the public demanded National halt proposals to mine Department of Conservation areas.

Do they mean all DOC areas? Where were they when Labour approved over 100 permits for mining on DOC lands?

She was particularly concerned about the effects of coal-mining: “To take carbon out of the ground and burn it, when we know about climate change, is immoral.”

I’m not sure coal features strongly in any of the Section 4 land proposed for reclassification.

Labour Leader Phil Goff, accompanied by eight caucus members, said the size of the protest indicated the strength of public feeling on the issue: “They don’t want pristine areas desecrated by international mining companies,” he said.

Does Goff not consider all DOC land to be pristine? And does he think it is okay if it is a local mining company?

Meanwhile, Roxanne, a graphic designer who refused to give her last name, carried a placard featuring John Key with a Hitler-esque moustache and a single word in gothic script: “Mein!”

Oh, so witty. If I was Roxanne, I wouldn’t give out my last name either.

While I don’t agree with their stance, I do have to say the Greenpeace video above is very well done. Humour can be a powerful weapon.

Gerry Brownlee 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 mining already makes a sizeable contribution to our economy. Mining 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.

The Dom Post reports:

More mining on conservation land could add about $2.3 billion a year to national income, or more than $550 a person, a study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) says.

The increased mining would mean economic benefits lifting gross domestic product about 1.3 per cent or more, NZIER says, based on figures from a 2002 study.

It’s good to have some figures around the potential benefits, because this has been lacking from the debate. All we have had so far is the estimate of mineral wealth, but I want to know figures for impact on GDP, balance of trade, current account deficit, crown revenue and debt, employment etc.

Ideally, one could have that data for each of teh areas proposed to be removed from Section 4.

The debate was not about a choice between mining and conservation, but getting maximum sustainable value from a limited resource, NZIER said. New Zealand was relatively well provided with protected areas, with 19.5 per cent of the total land in “large protected areas”, first equal with the United States. It was well ahead of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 12.4 per cent.

Opponents of the plans to open up schedule 4 land to mining argued that any encroachment on conservation land would damage New Zealand’s international reputation, to the detriment of tourism and other exports.

“There is little evidence to support this claim, aside from a limited survey commissioned by the Environment Ministry almost a decade ago,” NZIER said.

It would be a good time to survey tourists and consumers about how mining affected their views of New Zealand’s “clean green image”.

Indeed. We already have 84 mines on conservation land incidentally.

Among English-speaking OECD countries New Zealand has the highest proportion of its land in “major protected areas”, the NZIER report shows.

There is also a high level of protected land for each person, at about 1.24 square kilometres.

But New Zealand also has the lowest per capita income, which is below the OECD average.

While comparisons were fraught with definitional differences, the comparison showed New Zealand to be “relatively well provided with protected areas, but relatively poorly endowed with the income to maintain them”, NZIER said.

A very good point.

Quoting a release from Gerry Brownlee:

Labour’s hypocrisy over mining 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 mining 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.

All four editorials are on the same issue today – mining.

The Herald says:

Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee says these locations represent the relative size of a post card placed on the turf of Eden Park’s main field. Conservationists are alarmed, one noting that news of these recommendations was as if the country had been asleep and had awoken again in the dark, mining days of the 1980s.

Both views are overstated.

Mr Brownlee’s because it is not the size but the impact on value and utility of the land that matters. The anti-mining lobby ignores the fact that substantial advances in conservation of the past two decades are largely retained. The country’s habitats will remain better off than before. …

Yet there is nothing in the stocktake about the possible economic upside, either in jobs or general benefits to GDP or direct financial gains for the Crown.

The amounts the Government might expect as royalties from private companies exploiting non hydrocarbon deposits are likely to be small. The absence of an economic case, even theoretical, is an important omission.

National is trying to make its case for elevating real economic advantages of mining over the intangible values of preserving flora and fauna, but it does not do so. …

So far, all we know is the potential downside, a reduction in the area of land given high protection. Without the economic benefits, that grand $194 billion figure is meaningless.

I think this is a very fair point. It would be good to see some figures along the lines of if say $20 billion of minerals was mined, what would be the likely impact on GDP, on the current account deficit, the balance of trade, on jobs, on Crown revenue etc etc, and over what time period.

The Press says:

It is true that there are currently 82 concessions for mineral extraction in the total conservation estate, but there are only two mines on schedule 4 land. Ultimately, whether the proposals proceed could depend on the response of the mining industry. Some companies might be deterred by the small amount of land which would initially be opened up for mining, or by the costs of underground mining and other environmental protections.

Faced with a tepid industry response and a political backlash, the Government would have to conclude that discretion is the better part of valour.

It would be interesting to hear from mining companies, which areas they are most likely to want to mine at – ie where they think there is enough minerals to make an economic return on investment. If, for example, no company thinks mining in a particular site is feasible, then why remove from Section 4?

And the Dominion Post:

Ideally, the Government would have been able to test public opinion in lower-value conservation areas, but that does not appear to have been an option. If the Government had excluded from the exercise all the areas to which New Zealanders are emotionally attached, there would have been little left to mine. Mr Brownlee has a public relations fight on his hands.

New Zealanders want to close the economic gap with Australia, but they also like the country, or more particularly the countryside, the way it is.

The challenge facing the Government, and the mining industry, is to convince the public that the industry can now do what it says it can do, rather than what it has historically done. That is, surgically extract mineral resources from sensitive land without laying waste to the landscape, and poisoning rivers and streams. If it can, many of those now burrowing in clothes drawers for old “No Mining” T-shirts will give up the hunt. If it cannot, the Government is doing what it has studiously avoided doing until now – putting itself on the wrong side of an issue with the potential to politicise entire communities.

And finally the ODT:

Mr Brownlee wants a “rational conversation” and argues that the amount of land involved is very small and should be viewed in its proper context.

That is fair comment, but the “conversation” ought not be limited to rhetoric but include a thorough cost-benefit analysis, site by site, and, in broader terms, the potential of mineral exploitation to have a deleterious impact on our other established industries, including tourism, and particularly on the value of the New Zealand dollar and the likely effect on exporters.

It should also include details of proposed royalties and tax arrangements – and the level of present interest by mining companies in the sites.

I find it interesting that to some degree all four editorials are saying much the same thing. None of them have endorsed the proposed changes to Section 4, but none of them have said they should not happen either.

The common theme is more information is needed and the Government needs to make a more convincing case than merely relying on an estimate of potential mineral wealth in each area.

The Herald reports:

Mallard cleverly tricked National MPs into not objecting to leave for a motion congratulating Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce for getting his degree some two decades ago.

It was very amusing. The Govt did drop the ball on this one, and Labour deserved their fun.

The actual motion moved was to congratulate Steven Joyce on getting his degree conferred 21 years after he started it.

The Dim-Post is in fine form with its version of the Government’s mining policy:

• Amendment to Crown Minerals Act prohibits Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee from yelling ‘I’d like to open up her schedule four’ whenever an attractive aide enters the Cabinet room.

• Streamlined process for mining consents to make it easier for everyday New Zealanders to operate their own open pit cast mines or surgically excavate their back yards.

• State Services Commission enquiry to find out who keeps adding ‘unobtanium’ to the list of rare minerals detected in Mt Aspiring.

• $4 million dollars for extensive exploration of Coromandal focusing on area where Gerry Brownlee lost his beloved teddy-bear ‘Mister Wookie’ while on a day walk as a child.

The Mister Wookie one especially just cracks me up.

The Herald reports:

Also earmarked for mining are several parts of the Coromandel Peninsula and part of the Paparoa National Park in Westland.

A total of 2500ha, or 1.5 per cent of the Coromandel, is affected, including land around Thames and the Otahu ecological and Parakawai geological area in the Coromandel Forest Park.

A mining discussion document issued yesterday said the whole peninsula had gold, silver and peat deposits worth up to $54 billion.

The Government said the total area mined in the 7058ha of land it wants to open to mining could be as little as 500ha.

It is also proposing adding 12,400ha of land and marine reserves to the “protected” list, resulting in more protected land overall.

The area the Government proposes taking out of Section 4 is 0.2% of the total section 4, and will be replaced by an even larger amount, which is sensible. Of course not all conservation land, or even schedule 4 land, is of equal value.

My view has always been that decisions should be taken on a case by case basis, weighing up the potential economic benefits vs the environmental impact in that area.

“In fact 500 hectares is smaller than what the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry describes as an average New Zealand sheep and beef farm (550 ha).

500 hectares is basically 2.2 kms by 2.2 kms.. That is not a lot of land nationwide.

There is a segment of the population (and associated lobby groups) that is opposed to all mining, everywhere. You could apply to mine in the middle of a gorse laden field, and they’ll be against it, regardless of how much mineral wealth may be there.

That is a legitimate view to hold, but there is a cost – NZ has less money for schools, less money for hospitals, and lower incomes overall.

Quoting Ministers:

“It’s also worth noting that in productivity terms, workers in the mining sector return an average of $360,000 of GDP per worker, nearly six times the national average.”

Mining creates jobs, investment, export income and tax revenue.

Ms Wilkinson said the Government is also proposing to create a dedicated Conservation Fund based on a portion of future royalties it receives from mining in public conservation areas.  The budget for the fund would be 50 per cent of royalty revenue from minerals (other than petroleum) from public conservation areas, with a minimum of $2 million per annum for the first four years and a maximum of $10 million per annum.

And more money for conservation!

As I say, my view is to consider mining on a case by case basis. So let’s look through the discussion document:

A non-contiguous part of Paparoa National Park is proposed to be removed – the area has been mined in the past and still has current mining permits for it. Land affected is 3,315 hectares out of 39,000 hectares.

Also 2,574 hectares out of 69,290 hectares of mainly Coromandel Forest Park Total Coromandel value is estimated to be $54 billion of mainly gold, silver and peat.

Great Barrier Island – 705 hectares out of 15,250. Gold and silver estimated at $4.3 billion.

The Barrier inclusion is the one attracting the most attention, with the Herald reporting:

The National MP for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, has criticised Government plans to open Great Barrier Island to mining.

Ms Kaye – whose electorate includes the island – said mining did not stack up “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account, and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”. …

Adding to the potential embarrassment for the Government, former National Party Cabinet minister and Auckland City Mayor John Banks is also opposing the move.

Mining is banned on Great Barrier under the Auckland City district plan, and can go ahead only if a mining company convinces the local council, or the Environment Court on appeal, to change the rules.

Mr Banks said Te Ahumata plateau was in the direct sight of tourists flying to New Zealand from the United States.

“Can you imagine flying in to ’100 per cent pure’ New Zealand and witnessing below you the moonscape of international companies degrading the most beautiful island on Earth?” he said.

John Banks’s press release was unequivocal:

“I am the Mayor for Great Barrier Island and I am completely opposed to any mining on this island. It is the untouched jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Mayor Banks says mining would have a severe impact on the local tourism and fishing industries.

“This would be an ecological disaster, a serious blow for the established economy that depends on the Barrier’s untarnished image.

“Tens of thousands of people visit this magnificent destination every year to enjoy its beauty. This has to be one of the most beautiful places on earth at the doorstep of our Super City.”

“The infrastructure needed for mining would be devastating to the local environment. It could mean an enlarged airport, a large scale industrial port and wharf system that would be both expensive and destructive to the pristine environment.

Now Banks is not some foaming environmentalist, opposed to all mining. In his usual subtle way he points out Great Barrier has some unique qualities to it.

I’ve been to Barrier many times, and it is an  island with basically half a dozen roads and 800 residents. One can have a couple of extra mines in the Coromandel, and once they are going, most people won’t even realise they are operating. But even one mine on Barrier would change the island considerably, as Banks points out.

I’m somewhat torn on this one. If there really is $4 billion of gold and silver on the island, I’d want to mine it. Hell, I’d mine my own mother’s grave if there was $4 billion of gold underneath it (Note my mother is alive and well!). At this stage the $4 billion is of course a rough estimate of potential – it may be less than that.

But on an emotional level, I’d hate to see Great Barrier industrialised. One of the things i love about the Barrier is that there is no central power supply on the island – it is almost all solar powered, with generator backups.

And as Banks says, it is the jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The island survives on tourism. I’ve yet to be convinced that mining there is a good idea. Possibly I’m a bit biased, as I stay there often, but if I had to list the last places in NZ I want mined, GBI would be high up on that list (Palmerston North however would be first up to be turned into a giant mine )

I don’t think it is just NIMBY syndrome. The Barrier is pretty unique with its lack of industrialisation.

To some degree the debate may be academic. The two main contenders for Mayor of Auckland have made it quite clear the District Plan, which bans mining, is not going to be amended – regardless of Section 4 status.

So I do wonder why you would change the law around Section 4, when mining will still be banned under the District Plan.

I think it is good that the Government has put up the consultation paper, and people should have their say. Hopefully it can be a debate that is more intelligent than just saying mining is bad. It is about getting a balance between economic opportunities and environmental protection, and should be on a case by case basis.

Fran O’Sullivan writes on the mining proposals, and says they are a timid toe in the water, not some sort of Naaru type exploration.

At 11.14 am the Greens put out a press release saying:

This was going to lifting mining protection from half a billion hectares of land with high conservation value, but would now only propose lifting protection from around 7,000 hectares.

Radio NZ made the initial error between 7 am and 8 am. NZPA picked it at 8.24 but made a correction within around half an hour. I blogged on it at 9.24 a.m. Yes despite that the Greens don’t even stop to think that half a billion hectares is around 20 times larger than the total land area of New Zealand.

Does no one at the Greens know how big a hectare is and that there is no way we have half a billion of them?

NZPA at 8.14 am reported:

Wellington, Feb 26 NZPA – A report prepared for the Government proposes opening 500 million hectares of conservation land to mining, it was reported today.

Now the land area of all of New Zealand is 268,000 square kms. That is 26.8 million hectares.

Australia is around 760 million hectares so NZPA have exposed that Gerry Brownlee’s cunning plan is to invade and take over Australia, and turn the entire country, except for New South Wales, into New Zealand mines.

A further NZPA report at 8.52 am reports:

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) today reported that 7 percent of schedule four land was recommended to have protection removed to allow mining.

However it understood the Government thought that was too extreme and had scaled back the area, in a proposal to be considered by Cabinet on Monday, to 7000ha.

Mr Brownlee would not confirm the details when asked by RNZ.

I’m not sure what the correct figure is, but I guess it will be closer to 7,000 hectares than to 500 million!

Now 7,000 hectares is less than 1% of the additional land Labour put into Section 4 in 2008. So Labour reclassified around 800,000 (off memory) hectares of land as Section 4, and according to Radio NZ National is looking at reversing less than 1% of that.

The total conservation estate is 30% of all of NZ, which means it is around 8.04 million hectares.

That means that, if the Radio NZ report is correct, the proposal is for 0.087% of the conservation estate to be reclassified from Section 4 to non Section 4.

The Herald reports from Parliament:

Finally it was back to the Prime Minister for the last question – this time about his holding of shares in Jackson Mining.

Asked how he could not have known the company had merged with another and was now involved in uranium mining, he began with: “There was the small technical issue – I have been busy running the country.”

He added that he would be the first to admit it was “sloppy” but said the last time he had looked they were trading at 3.5c “and when I offered them to my son, who was 12 at the time, even he did not want them”.

I was absolutely stunned that TVNZ had as their lead story that the PM had admitted he was “sloppy”, as if this was Watergate II.In fact there was nothing that came within a million miles of being a conflict of interest.

John Key had declared the mining shares in his register of interests. This is what you are meant to do.

Now a conflict of interest tends to relate to something favouring a specific company, not something that affects an entire industry.

The mining company in question is Australian, does not operate in NZ, and has no plans to operate in NZ. Anyone who thinks this creates a conflict of interest, just because the Government is promoting mining is biased or stupid.

The Government promotes agriculture. So should Jim Bolger have had to sell his family farm when he was PM?

Helen Clark was a residential property investor. Should she have sold all her houses because the Government made decisions that affected rental properties?

Of course not. No reasonable person thinks that is a conflict of interest. If you adopt that standard, then every MP would be forced to liquidate all their assets and have only cash in a bank. But oh no, wait Government can affect banks, so lets force them to store their cash under their bed.

Having shares in an Australian mining company that does not operate in NZ is not a conflict of interest. Even if they did operate in NZ, it would not be a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest would be if a decision was made to grant some licence to that particular company, which the PM took part in.

The PMs statement that he had been sloppy, simply relates to the fact he hadn’t bothered to keep track of what the company was doing, as its shares were near worthless.

Now that may deserve a couple of paragraphs in a political story in a newspaper, but to have TVNZ make it their lead story is unbelievable.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner has previously blogged much the same thing:

As for the mining story, I’m a bit nonplussed. Frankly I don’t give a monkey’s whether Key owns shares in an Australian mining company, and I think TVNZ’s pretext that it’s a story because the Government is planning to mine national parks is a little flimsy.

If owning shares in a mining company could become an issue, it should already be an issue, since there is already extensive mining in this country. And we’ve known for ages that Key’s share portfolio includes mining companies. I remember him talking about it during the election campaign.

As for the second leg of the story – that it’s a bad look for a PM of a nuclear-free country to own shares in a company that mines uranium – I’m sorry, but I don’t get that. Uranium might be a precursor to the manufacture of plutonium, which is used in nuclear weapons.

But it’s also used in a vast array of medical and scientific procedures. I’ve always thought it funny that people claim we’re “nuclear free” when there’s enough plutonium in our hospitals and universities to make your hair fall out.

This is about TVNZ promoting itself. Because the so called “revelation” was made on a TVNZ show, that means they feel they have to keep it alive as a news story.

The Herald backs more mining.

The previous government tilted matters too far towards environmental protection. A more balanced approach acknowledges the untapped riches – put at 70 per cent of the country’s potential mineral wealth – tied up in the Crown estate. New Zealand can no more disregard that than it can afford damage to its environmental attributes.

A balanced approach also recognises that not all Crown land is the stuff of pristine scenery or majestic native forest. So large is the Crown estate – it occupies about 30 per cent of New Zealand’s land mass – that there is major potential for mining in selected lower-value areas using modern, relatively non-invasive extraction methods.

This land should not be off limits. Mr Key knows as much. Encouragingly, he is finally showing signs that he also knows the time for prevarication is over.

Even if one built a few dozen mines, they would still cover less than 1% of the conservation estate.

The Press also backs unlocking the land.

… the proposal, as outlined by Key, is sound and sensible, would not be a threat to any land that is really worth protecting, and has much to commend it.

It is not commonly known, though, that New Zealand also has considerable mineral deposits. A geologist’s report two years ago suggested that the in-ground value of metallic minerals and lignite in New Zealand is $240 billion and as the Prime Minister pointed out, in 2008 New Zealand’s third-largest export earner was oil. …

The Government’s careful proposal is not to give carte blanche to extracting this wealth, but rather to free up some of the land where sensitive and undisruptive activity could be undertaken. Some of the land is almost certain to have low or even practically non-existent conservation value. In the vast addition of land to the conservation estate that has taken place in the last decade or more, mostly at the say-so of politicians and bureaucrats with little consultation about it, there is bound to be some that does not need to be there. There can hardly by any objection to low-impact mining in those and other areas, particularly where the potential returns are so great.

This is key – Labour added vast tracts of land to Section 4 – some of which is just gorse. Do not assume all of Section 4 is high conservation value.

The Dominion Post calls for open justice.

Two similar cases, two different outcomes. Is it any wonder people are increasingly questioning whether there are two standards of justice – one for the wealthy, famous and influential and one for everyone else? …

Justice should be administered impartially, regardless of wealth or status. An open justice system and the right to freedom of expression are two of the foundations on which our society is built, as a Law Commission report on suppression made clear last year. “There should be no restriction on publication of information about a court case except in very special circumstances, or for compelling reasons,” it said.

And the ODT supports tax reform:

When all the rorts, loopholes and mechanisms by which a significant proportion of New Zealanders either avoid paying tax – or, quite legally, are not required to – are taken into account, few people would disagree with the proposition, put forward by the Tax Working Group, that the system is “broken”.

They might have varying views on the extent to which this is the case, and almost inevitably will diverge on what the appropriate remedies might be, but Prime Minister John Key and his Government, elected on a platform of tax reform (more popularly described as “tax cuts”) are on solid ground in at least beginning to address the associated issues.

I agree with all four editorials – a fairly rare event