Kiwiblog

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

Sir Douglas Myers has it right:

Sir Douglas says he is not advocating the opening up of conservation land to miners, “but I would like to know what was there and then you can make a decision whether you want to utilise it or not”.

“Go and have a good look at what is there, then have a debate.” Then, if New Zealanders preferred the outdoors and would rather be poorer with virgin lands everywhere, that would be their decision.

“But if they end up broke without having that debate, that is probably not very helpful.”

And vested interests don’t want us to have that informed debate. I think it is great we are having a stock-take done so New Zealanders can have a say – with all the information.

Phil O’Reilly makes the point that our tourism is not just based on a clean and green brand. This is not to say one should not protect such a brand, but also not to get hysterical that some mining on 0.001% of DOC land will damage the brand. O’Reilly lists other reasons people visit here:

• The country is beautiful, and the people are friendly, open, down to earth, direct, hospitable and welcoming. New Zealand people are “authentic”. They say there is something vibrant about us.
• New Zealand is safe and pretty. It’s the least corrupt country in the world. The people are honest and trustworthy.
• Americans say the food is good, with no worries about food safety. Australians talk about flying over to have fun in Courtenay Place.

And he goes on:

People overseas find our countryside beautiful but they tend to mention our people more. And, interestingly, I’ve never heard anyone describe New Zealand in terms of “clean and green”. Yet we seem to have convinced ourselves that that’s how the world sees us.

We seem to have a view that any chink in our environment will badly compromise our clean, green image in the eyes of the world.

I don’t think people overseas do have such simplistic opinions. Most people are realists. They understand that an absolutely pristine environment is not achievable unless humans are somehow removed from the picture.

As some want.

The Herald on Sunday editorial:

Brownlee said in the speech that an estimated 70 per cent of the country’s mineral wealth – which might include zinc, lead, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten – lies under the surface of DoC-administered land and that almost half of it is in Schedule 4 land, beyond the reach of exploitation and locked up for ever. And, with the agreement of the Minister of Conservation, Tim Groser, he has ordered a review of that state of affairs.

This is scarcely high treason. Governments routinely review and repeal laws enacted by their predecessors. They know that they misjudge the public mood at their peril – when Don Brash as Opposition leader was sprung suggesting that the ban on nuclear warships would be “gone by lunchtime” if he were PM, he felt the chill wind of public opinion very quickly – but they are not elected to administer the decisions of their political opponents.

Well said. That applies not just to mining policy! Of course as I remind people Labour itself allowed mining on conservation land.

It was perhaps predictable that Brownlee’s speech would be greeted with horror by conservationists. Typical was Kevin Hackwell, the tireless advocacy manager for Forest & Bird, who, in an op ed piece in the Herald, conjured the images of an open-cast mine on the bird sanctuary of Little Barrier Island and a large pit scarring the face of Mt Moehau at the top of the Coromandel Peninsula. Others, including former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, spoke of the Schedule 4 land as “the jewels in the crown” of the conservation estate, by implication characterising mining as an inevitably destructive process which must, by its nature, consume something of beauty.

Yet good sense must see this as an overreaction: plainly there would not be more than a handful of people who would countenance the idea of mining activity that destroyed wilderness of surpassing beauty and conservation value. But conservationists need to accept that these values do not inhere in every square metre of every piece of Schedule 4 land. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder: an unemployed worker in a small provincial town may detect less lustre than a city yuppie who wants somewhere nice to go tramping. In this argument, as in most, no value is absolute and the minister is entitled to raise the matter for discussion.

As I said, it should be considered on a case by cases basis. What is the projected economic value of a specific area, and what is the environmental value of that specific area.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Environmentalists say mining activity would be offputting to tourists lured to this country by the promise of a pristine landscape. But two factors undermine that argument. First, the sum of land in public ownership is so large – it occupies about a third of the country – that more than enough would be left over if mining were to occupy a tiny portion. And not all the land thought likely to harbour significant deposits of zinc, lead, copper, nickel and tin has high conservation value. Second, good modern mining practice pays due heed to the environment. The days of open-cast eyesores have been consigned to history.

On a per capita basis, New Zealand undoubtedly has a valuable mineral resource. The royalties from this can play a far greater role in economic growth.

The regions where mining takes place would receive a particular fillip. For every suspicious Coromandel resident, there will be those on the West Coast of the South Island eager to grasp the opportunity. Balance, not blinkered thinking, offers the way forward. Companies prepared to bring a responsible approach to mining carefully selected parts of the Department of Conservation estate should be welcomed to this country.

I’m told the Pike River Mine (on DOC land) takes up only 10 hectares above ground. That represents around one millionth of the conservation estate.

Jeanette Fitzsimons was interviewed last week on Checkpoint about the possibility of having mining done on portions of the conservation estate. The interviewer put to her that it might only be a couple of hundred hectares out of many thousands (in fact it is millions) of hectares of estate and Jeanette responded:

That’s like saying you’ve got six children, so it doesn’t really matter if you lose one does it.

I don’t even need to comment do I?

The key segment starts at 6:30 into the RNZ item. Listen for yourself – I am not making this up. Even the generally sympathetic interviewer sounded a bit stunned, and responded “Really, we are talking about land”.

Really Phil Goff needs to stop opposing everything that happened under Labour, just because National may do them also.

First we had him attacking a tertiary funding cap that his Government put in place in 2007.

Now we have him saying:

Labour leader Phil Goff said mining conservation land went against the 100% Pure New Zealand brand

The Pike River mine is on conservation land, adjacent to and in the Paparoa National Park. It was approved by the Government in 2004. And who was Government then?

So once again Phil attacks the Government for merely thinking about doing something that happened under his Government.

This is not the way to build up credibility.

I am a regular user and lover of our conservation estate. I have done walks in Fiordland, tramps in the Tararuas, and think our conservation estate is a wonderful thing.

NZ’s land area is 268,680 square kilometres which is 26,868,000 hectares.

DOC administers 8,258,087 hectares which is 30.7358% of the total NZ land mass.

Now if someone was talking about bulldozing down 25% of the conservation estate and converting it into mines, skyscrapers and the like, I’d be first down at the picket line.

But am I against any mining whatsoever on the conservation estate? Of course not. Let us say a mine will take up 100 hectares. So that would reduce the conservation estate from 30.7358% of NZ to 30.7354% – a reduction of 0.0004%.

And how much income can be earnt from one mine? Well Pike River is expected to earn around $170 million a year of export income.

Overall there may be up to $240 billion of mineral wealth beneath our feet.

Now some are claiming any mining will undermine our clean green image and threaten our tourism industry. With all respect, that is hysterical nonsense. A reduction of from 30.7358% conservation estate to 30.7354% conservation estate will threaten tourism? Maybe if one was talking a 1% to 5% reduction, people might notice, but they won’t.

Just apply the common sense test to yourself. When you travel overseas, do you go to Wikipedia and check if there has ever been any mining on the conservation estate of a country you are travelling to? Do you think anyone else does?

Now this is not an argument for saying yes to every mining proposal made. They should be treated on a case by case basis, weighing up the particular conservation value of a location (not all parts of the estate are equal) and the likely economic value of mining there.  You’re not going to approve a mine in the middle of the Milford Track, but there are many areas where mining would barely be noticed. Again do it on a case by case basis.

There is a difference between a conservationist and a preservationist. A preservationist wants the status quo frozen for ever – preserved. They will argue passionately that every square metre of the conservation estate is sacred and must be preserved – that even one hectare less than the current 8,258,087 is evil.

A conservationist will look for the balance. They may say okay that 11 hectares of land has huge economic value. What if we purchased 500 hectares of land over there to replace it in the conservation estate. The conservation estate gets to grow, we get the economic benefits of the land’s economic value – a win/win. That is what we should look for.

Now some will argue all mining is evil and unsustainable and we should not do it. That is a valid viewpoint. However that viewpoint has consequences. It means less money for schools, less money for healthcare, lower wages and continuing a decline in the relative income gap with Australia and other countries.

As I said, I think one should take it on a case by case basis. The conservation estate is not something frozen in time. In fact generally it has been growing – as has the mining industry. One can expand both.