As a list MP I’m lucky enough to serve some of the most stunning parts of New Zealand- the Coromandel and Auckland Central, which includes Great Barrier Island. These areas share something else in common, they’re both places the Government is considering opening up for mining.
You may have heard about the review of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. This is the schedule which back in 1997, was finally agreed to by the then National Government and includes parts of the country considered important enough to have additional layers of protection against mining, such as our National Parks.
But last August Gerry Brownlee decided to review Schedule 4, with a view to removing this protection from certain areas.
Since the announcement the Government has continually delayed making its findings public (see David Parker’s press statement.) But Forest and Bird yesterday uncovered plans to allow mining in 7000 hectares of high value conservation estate, including: Te Ahumata plateau on Great Barrier Island, Otahu Ecological Area and Parakawai Geological Reserve near Whangamata and Thames. Not only are these areas of high conservation value, the area targeted around Thames is prone to debris flows and flooding.
There is only one way to describe this decision, shortsighted and dangerous.
The Government cannot simply bat away this issue with claims that community groups and the opposition are scaremongering. Why would the Government remove areas of the conservation estate from Schedule 4 unless it wanted to make it easier to mine them?
If people are worried, they have good reason to be. But the Government should be worried too. This change won’t happen without a fight.
Scar out beautiful landscape and pollute the place up.
It’s great to see Labour taking a strong position on this issue. Keep it up.
The environment is part of who we are as New Zealanders. New Zealanders have a strong connection to the land (you’d think the tourism Minister aka John Key would realise that).
I find the fact that key is stalling on answering this and giving the public an assurance that there will NOT be mining to be appalling. His fob offs on the news were pathetic and I expect better of a PM than to try and blame forest and bird for being ‘alarmist’ – I do not know who leaked the report to them – but I am very pleased someone has enough concern to do so. I just wish that there were more people in this country happy to blow the whistle on this kind of carry on. I find it highly offensive that our country can be carved up for a few scraps of silver or gold. It is not acceptable to me. I just hope that the rest of NZ will stop being so complacent about everything key and his little band of cronies are getting up to and actually stand up for a change and demand some action.
Jacinda, You clearly don’t care as much about this issue as others, you are only lucky this time not privileged to be serving.
Just to clarify which area do you represent? You have an office in Tauranga, are on a Bay of Plenty billboard in Rotorua, are said to be the Auckland Central candidate and now your are “lucky” to represent Coromandel, notwithstanding you also stood in Waikato at the election.
This is a difficult one for me. I live in an area where our rates are hiked due to the large amount of conservation land around us (we supply teh infrastructure for tourist traveling thorugh) who then spend monsy in other regions. More mining, means more jobs, more money for the area.
Mining can be done well and with minimal destruction. (I have seen this)
But it can also be done very bad with mass destruction and no thought to the enviroment (i have seen this recently)
An easy way to do this would be for Forest and Bird to be the ones to give conscents. Sounds like a stupids idea, but has merits if you think about it.
Waterboy I’d like to see a breakdown of new jobs initiated by these new mining methods.
I would be more comfortable with a regulatory body that had reps from a wide cross section – Lab, Nat, Mining industry, Conservation depts, Forest/bird, Greens etc – as long as a wide range of povs were represented. I would also want to know the following
- is it in house (as in not an offshore company)
- how eco safe is it
- are there any endangered flora/fauna involved
- what impacts re roads and other infrastructure needed
- how many jobs, how much profit, what rules and regulations , how much back into the local community,etc
And it would have to be VERY VERY transparent and regulated big time – otherwise its just not worth it. And I would think if you could pass all those tests – maybe then it might be ok. (I doubt any mining company can be that transparent and responsible – but do feel free to show me one that is)
Awesome, go mining!
Theres minerals under the ground so we need to go get them (though pref not using open cast mining methods)
Kind of like when Labour approved coal mining in national parks, as long as its done with minimum damage to the environment I’m all for it
id also like more profits to remain in nz but im sure buying permits and employing locals is not a bad place to start
Here are the hurdles:
Crown Minerals Amendment (No. 2) Act 1997
In 1997, an amendment was made to section 61 to provide special protection for particular types of land administered by the Department of Conservation. The effect of the amendment is to prevent the Minister of Conservation from entering into access arrangements for mining except in very limited circumstances in: national parks; wilderness areas; nature reserves; marine reserves; scientific reserves; wildlife sanctuaries; forest sanctuaries; Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance); offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf administered by the Department of Conservation; ecological areas in the Coromandel Forest Park; conservation land on the Coromandel Peninsula north of State Highway 25A; and internal waters of the Coromandel Peninsula; where those lands or ares were so held, managed, administered, classified, declared, notified or gazetteered at the date of the commencement of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (i.e 1 October 1991). A complete list of these areas is provided in Schedule four of the Act.
In some very limited circumstances, access arrangements may be granted in these specified areas but only to:
enable the construction, use, maintenance or rehabilitation of an emergency exit or service shaft for an underground mine
enable any mining operation that does not result in stripping of vegetation over an area exceeding 16 square meters or any permanent adverse impact on the profile or surface of the land
allow a minimum impact activity
allow gold fossicking
allow demonstration of historic mining methods
Under section 61(4) there is a procedure by way of Order in Council that on the joint recommendation of the Ministers of Energy and Conservation areas of conservation land may either be added or removed from schedule four in the future should this be warranted. Prior to such amendment being agreed to the Ministers must ensure that consultation takes place with those persons likely to be substantially affected.
The amendment does not provide this extra protection to ecological areas from mining as a generic category but provides that these areas should be assessed on a case by case basis given the diverse nature of the land in these categories. Section 61(1A)(6) states that no Order in Council can be made in respect of land deemed an ecological area under section 18(1) of the Conservation Act 1987 unless the Ministers of Energy and Conservation make a recommendation after making an assessment of the scientific value for which the land is held and the value of any Crown minerals in the land.
source
Beyond holding them to that, the case needs to be made that pulling the trigger on removing land from s4 weakens the protection being in s4 gives for those lands that remain.
ie: If being in schedule 4 fails to protect the land they take out, what protects the land they leave in?
The point of putting land into s4 is to protect it.
If it can be taken out on a whim, it is not protected.
If it can be taken out with only a benefit based ’stock take’ analysis that ignores the cost of losing the intrinsic values the lands are protected for, it is not protected.
If one piece of land can be taken out by the analysis they use, the same level of analysis can be used to take out any piece of land, be it in Central, or Tasman.
If s4 doesn’t protect our heritage lands, what can?
Blowhole she is talented and hardworking – and will be a great MP for Auckland Central but for this post concentrate on mining.
Ok Trevor, I’ll concentrate on mining. Why was Pike River approved to mine on Conservation Estate by the last government?
and;
Why is it a bad idea now?
Blowhole Pike River involves 4 x 1.5m emergency escape hatches. All other surface work done from ouside conservation area. Done under current law – no need for a change. Trevor
@Tracey, Not sure of new mining methods, I think it always comes down to the operator. So are very good and some are very bad.
Pike river is a good example of good.
As to jobs they create, i couldnt tell you teh figures, but the West Coast around greymouth has been spared alot of the recession due to pike river and the new families moving in, and there have been alot of new families. The schools in teh region had big increaes last year, retail in household items was very good. I heard one person comment that there are more South Africans here than in dunedin.
But i have seen a few new gold mines operating and one of then was a bloody mess, not near they were currently working either.
So good methods and new ways of doing things wont help bad operators (neither will regulations for that matter, you can force than to pay money after the fact, but that doesnt clean up a mess),
Thanks Waterboy, appreciated. I am going to be down Pike River way toward the middle of April, can talk to locals then. It’s always difficult distinguishing between perceived benefits and actual benefits.
From the wikipedia site, you get the sense that Pike River had offered a fair deal of consideration to the environment ie roading isses, relocation of fauna etc, special helicopter only access to certian areas. However, I was always under the impression that Pike River was developed ultimately as an exchange for the govts banning the logging of native timber on the coast.
Its worth investigating @Tracey, what benefits there are to NZ’ers, its owned by both NZ (govt?) and India but only employs around 150 staff.
As Ive mentioned elsewhere not even 1000 Pike Rivers would end our unemployment woes. There has to be a better way. Ive been thinking about the concept of charging a higher premium for tourist visas – in return for leaving the land alone. Could much revenue be gained there Trevor??
Hey Cam, evidently you’ve left Trev the Muss speechless. That’d be a first.
@Tracy, you are right about actual and percieved value.
@Salsy, Although it only employs 150 staff the add on in other jobs or in this case the Greymouth area not having a big in crease in unemployment has been very beneficial to teh area.
@Whaleoil Pike is an underground mine. Therefore the destruction has been lestened. Labour was in office when it had teh go ahead and it didnt have anything to do with recompense for the stopiing of native logging (See the WC Development trust for that)
@ Whaleoil Why exacly do you call yourself whaleoil?
Does Sandra Goudie still consider all local concern about mining in Coromandel conservation estates to be coming from the Greens alone?
Unsure about the viablity of wealth-generation solely through the profits gained from mined products. However there might be some long-term marketing plan by which our national parks can be repositioned as tourism-friendly brands. For the details:
http://weeklycoitus.co.nz/?p=855
While we are concentratng on mining, do we have a response from Mr Goff on John Key’s pronouncements in the House today?
Can someone please answer whaleoils question, the public are interested in what the answers will be
Happy to provide a little more detail on the Pike River case.
At the time of the decision the following background information was provided by the Minister of Conservation:
12 MARCH, 2004 – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PIKE RIVER – WEST COAST
The Pike proposal does not include large scale mining under Paparoa National Park but it does involve the drilling of four 1.5m holes within the park boundaries to act as emergency escape passages for miners. Some subsidence is also expected along the edge of park boundary.
“The advice to me is that the impacts on the National Park are likely to be minimal. Only 150mm of subsidence is expected along the park boundary, a figure an independent expert has advised I can have reasonable confidence in,” Mr Carter said.
“The National Parks Act is subject to the Crown Minerals Act, which allows surface disturbance from mining operations of no more than 100 square metres within national parks, and the four exit holes in the Pike proposal fall within that area.”
This is not an example of mining in our national parks as some have claimed, and was well within the legislation as it currently stands.
Which still leaves the question of what the Government has in mind.
Hi Jacinda, I posted earlier regarding ALTERNATIVE options to increase revenue from the conservation estate. Has there ever been any discussion on the idea of increasing the tourist visa cost? Say we have 2.4 million tourists per year, even an additional $100 each, per year…
Most of us agree mining is the wrong approach (lignite should be outright banned). But what we need is fresh thinking…! New ideas for a sustainable profitable economy.
Jacinda:
Which still leaves the question of what the Government has in mind.
Indeed it does. Whatever they plan requires moving land out from under it’s existing, limited, protection.
With regard to Pike River, this is interesting.
This is why Peter Whittell is in Wellington. To try to get permission to allow a gradual slump of the surface above the mine, plus get us rights to do more mining in the area. Hence using our facilities 100%. We have to work now since the Labour lot, plus Greens, are totally opposed to mining. But once we employ staff as at Pike it is difficult for them to close us down. Pike is establising a track record with Govt which will stand us in very good stead when the contracts are issued.
Also, dont forget, National are very interested in West Coast votes. Forty million tons of coal would be helpful.
What the link is talking about is changing the conditions under which PRC can mine, allowing them to take more coal by extracting the pillars, causing much higher levels of subsidence.
7000 Schedule 4 land to be opened up – proposal. Now it’s time to see if the public can work out the facts between govt spin and environment interest spin. I’m guessing we have no chance.
I for one am interested to see what is actually propoased.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3488434/Mining-in-conservation-land-proposal
“The Government has put the value of minerals in conservation land at about $140 billion.”
In simple terms, if possible, can someone explain to me how one values something like this?
A montage of the mining protest that was held outside Wellington parliament on Tuesday the 30th of March 2010. The protest was held to voice public concerns regarding the governments actions towards mitigating the protection of section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and mining our national parks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W57ZrtGfnL0
i reckon we need the mining beccause we need to boost our ecomnmey and will create more jobs