I’m sick to death of the horrible right wing spin doctors (don’t use that phrase very often) trying to have everyone believe that Labour has suddenly become anti-mining.
Labour isn’t anti-mining.
Our party has a strong history of supporting the rights of miners and was born from the Blackball “Crib time Strike” after the Arbitration Court had refused to lengthen the coalminer’s lunch break from 15 minutes to half an hour.
In 1908, seven workers went on strike and refused a command to return to their jobs. When the group was fired, fellow workers joined the strike. The management agreed to the longer break. The strike showed the rest of New Zealand that collection action was effective. As a result the Red Feds were established, and from them the Federation of Labour and the NZ Labour Party evolved.
Labour does however oppose mining in our national parks, and land that has been determined to be schedule four in the Crown Minerals Act because of its highly conservation values. It’s that simple. We don’t oppose mining. We do oppose mining on our precious land.
The government is disingenuous on this issue and I reckon most New Zealanders know it.
good point – the labour party in the UK had a long stanging assoc. with miers there too. Its not about the mines or the miners, its about where the mines are sited.
So who shoved all this possible mining land into Schedule 4 stopping good people from having jobs down the mine?
Ah, but saving lives from the mining disasters that never happened!
Hope you’re being facetious Raymon. Very good reasons for putting our most precious land into schedule four.
We may aswell just start flipping a coin to see wheather National or Labour either support or are against an issue in which there are GOOD AND BAD aspects.
I mean whatever National seems to say Labour is just out there automatically opposing it and vice versa… when alot of the time the reality is somewhere in the middle. Like with this mining buisness. There are heaps points for and against it. Shouldn’t we be looking for some sort of compromise?
Dylan Your comment doesn’t make sense. It’s a bad idea to mine in our most precious and sensitive enviromental land. Fullstop. Where’s the upside? Profits to mining companies that tkae them offshore? Our land destroyed. And our reputation.
Surely there could be a few other ideas for creating more jobs that isn’t about destroying our pristine environment.
And Labour isn’t always opposing National. There is a lot of legislation going through the House that we support. If you look through Red Alert you’ll find instances where we have given the government credit. Our system isn’t completely adversarial. Perhasp it could be less so, but we have to stand up and be counted on the policies that matter.
In fairness National have said they want to see the potential value of potential areas, if it is significant value then put it through a 3 tiered test – will mining in X add significant wealth and value to the NZ market in terms of jobs, will that value stay in NZ, and can the environmental impacts be minimised. If mines don’t fit that criteria then they don’t get mined.
To me that seems like a pragmatic middle of the road argument as you’d be hard pushed to find someone that can hand on heart say every Ha in Section 4 should still be in Section 4 or that X jobs and X wealth creation shouldn’t be considered for some of it.
Given the potential upside could be in the billions it seems fair enough to get the information around wealth and location before starting the debate.
Maybe they could be looking a few other initiatives that are not so controversial and destructive of our brand. Such as investing $500 million to be spent on the electrification of Auckland rail (carriages and locos) in NZ instead of outside. We have a skilled workforce, we may not be able to compete directly on labour costs, but we have capacity and we can add value to the whole of life costs. Makes sense to me. It’s money already allocated. Could provide certainty to an important NZ industry and flow on effects to our economy.
Clare what You just said didn’t make sense because there has to be something good about mining in national parks or National wouldn’t be supporting it. You can not agree with National but you can’t accuse them of being Psycopaths and not having any reason for why they do something. Creation of jobs could be one of them.
Ok maybe there are issues that the two parties agree on but I do believe there is an aspect of passive opposition in the two party system. Wheather that’s true or not is for another post.
@Oliver If the Government wanted to start looking at new ares for potential mining, it would make much more sense to start with land outside schedule 4, which holds roughly I believe 60% of our mineral wealth.
And when it comes to the jobs and wealth argument, I don’t think they’re as strong as some imply. Mining companies pay between 2-5% in royalties, and seeing most of them are foreign owned the rest goes off shore. The technological advancements also mean that it doesn’t amount to as many jobs as it once did.
I appreciate that you’re asking that this information be out in the open so that a debate can be had, but I would prefer that the debate did not centre on land that is part of schedule 4.
@Dylan I don’t think it’s as simple as saying a party has proposed something, therefore there must be something good in it. That’s a judgement call that will always depend on what you value.
@Jacinda – I agree with you about starting outside section 4 land, that makes sense, but is the focus 100% on section 4 land? is this simply an audit of land that hasn’t been audited before? or are the media focusing on the audit of the section 4 land when in fact all land is being tested but is less contentious so makes less of a story?
I agree with you 100% in your second paragraph as well, if we are only getting 2-5% then in royalties then that wouldn’t be financially worth it, but the assessment of job creation and wealth creation will be done for each case location and if it doesn’t make financial sense then National have said they wont support it hence the three tier test. Wealth / job creation, retention, and environmental impact. If this is applied to each site then regardless of where it is classified it will get a fair and balanced trial.
@Dylan, good for whom? is usually the question. Or if you remember your Cicero, cui bono?
@Jacinda but you will rarely find a situation in your life in which there are only positive or negative repercussions. I was just trying to ask how someone could possibly take such a strong stance on an issue which has so many good and bad points, which is what the two main parties seem to be able to do every time something like this comes up in which the morals/overall benefits are blurry. If you give this any thought you end up in the middle. Employment and wealth which leads to better Economy and standard of living, but bad environmental consequences bad image etc.
I didn’t want to get into a conversation over the nature of debate.
Some of us have been into mining for years http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/03/26/caption-and-more-comp/
“how someone could possibly take such a strong stance on an issue which has so many good and bad points” – because the negatives outweigh the positives and the negative consequences are bad enough that this is worth fighting. Given the high conservation value of the land I can’t bring myself to be in the middle, not for all the beer in Germany!!!
We were doing alright without these extra mines before the recession hit!
A problem which most are not addressing is the fact that mining companies have a habit of going bankrupt as soon as all value has been extracted. Companies leave a huge hole in the ground and/or other environmental damage. They go bankrupt just before they have to clean up after themselves.
This happens in Australia all the time. Check ASX.
If mining is to proceed firm guarantees have to be executed.
Ruth – and they get the minerals which belong to all of us very very cheap.
While Jacinda has quoted some royalty rates the actual amount paid is generally much less than that.
Trevor looks so cute in that photo
On a more serious note. Labour’s connection with mining and miners is enduring. Apart from acknowledging the importance of our mining industry (with limits) there are currently at least 1000 members of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) who are either miners or allied workers and iron sand mining. 2000 are in the energy and mining sector of the EPMU. These workers are skilled and contribute to our economy.
For those that are interested, heres the list of Schedule 4 areas which was created by the Conservation Amendment Act 1996-
Ie created by a National Government- oh irony
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/latest/DLM108013.html#DLM108013
facepalm*
Didn’t think it would be that easy to throw away such a strong connection with mining and miners over conservation.
I would expect Labour MPs to say ‘We apologize to any miners whos potential jobs we could be costing them but the consequences involved in this is too great’, not ‘It’s a bad idea to mine in our most precious and sensitive enviromental land. Fullstop. Where’s the upside?’
The upside is what you Just said Clare. Mining contributes to our economy which is an imperative goal in a time of recession. Sure you can believe that the negatives involved in this outweigh the positives but how can you just disregard the positives like that if you are indeed so passionate about mining.
There are other ways to create jobs that don’t involve destroying habitats. We’re not obliged to find an upside to something that we don’t agree with.
@ Clare What is ‘Labour’s connection’ with the 2,000 EPMU members who are miners or energy workers?
Spud it’s a dark day that see’s people stop testing their own beliefs.
It’s tedious testing my beliefs for no good reason.
If it is worth billions to NZ, I would call that a good reason. “if” is still up in the air, but as it seems to be possible, a pragmatist would suggest it’s certainly worth a real look.
Quoting percentage returns that other mines make in NZ is not a good response as one of the key tests that the Government has said is will the wealth stay in NZ.
Spud philosophy and politics are intimately related and philosophical conversation without a devils advocate is indulgence and in the end a waste of time since no thoughts, beliefs or opinions will change or evolve, or become more reinforced.
I’m surprised Labour didn’t sell off all the mines…
I’m not interested in a devil’s advocate because this mining is a bad idea and there are many here who would like to prevent it from going ahead. I have considered both sides of the argument and read all the comments, but when it comes down to it I just know what I think is right and don’t need to test it.
!!!
When the CEO of Strategum cant answer two simple questions the debatre is very clouded
1. current govt proposal is low conservation/high mineral protection. Great Barrier is currently set at medium conservation. Ergo, ought not even be on the table
2. Why not concentrate the debate on non Scedule 4 areas?
Wake up. There is no place for multinational heavy metal mining in New Zealand! This isn’t the Australian desert. We have high rainfall that washes everything into our water ways and coastal environment. It is not just a schedule 4 issue. Check out the Tui mine pollution problem. Check out the acid mine drainage problems all over the Coromandel. the Waihi tailings dam is huge and will be a continuing management problem for centuries. No mining. We have better things to do with our land, water and energy.
Matt, whoever you are. You write like a troll. Re-write or you will be banned. Clare
I am all for mining it creates jobs and the land is able to be restored back into a good state when finished.