One step back two steps forward

If the government had carried on with plans to investigate mining potential on schedule 4 conservation land it would have been accused of not listening to the people.

Now that it has taken heed of the vociferous opposition to the plan and not only said there will be no mining on this land but added more to it, it’s been accused of doing a u-turn.

It’s one of those damned if they did, damned if they didn’t situations but Trans Tasman has found some positives in it for the government:

. . . Brownlee says “NZers have given the mineral sector a clear mandate to go and explore that land, and where appropriate…utilise its mineral resources for everyone’s benefit.”

Therefore, on his analysis the biggest backdown since National came to office was “a valuable exercise” and he could be right. It hasn’t lost anything which really matters, it listened and it learned, and its opponents have been cut off at the knees. And the industry, far from being disappointed, says it’s getting what it has wanted for a decade-aero magnetic surveys of regions expected to yield deposits worth billions.

One step back from schedule 4 land has led to a couple of steps forward in other areas. Northland MP John Carter and West Coast Tasman MP Chris Auchinvole are showing a lot of enthusiasm for the possiblity of mining in their electorates.

And Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn said city people shouldn’t use his region to ease their environmental consciences:

 . . . Aucklanders need to deal with what he calls “the mountain of carbon emissions” their highways are spewing out before blocking a small amount of mining on the West Coast.

He says it is not right that urban people should stop the region’s development.

Mr Kokshoorn says the area proposed for exploration was only “a few thousand hectares” out of the two million hectares of conservation land on the West Coast.

He said there is a currently a balance between eco-tourism and mining on the West Coast and further mining would not compromise the environment.

He said the Government’s decision not to mine on schedule four conservation land was hugely disappointing.

People who marvel at natural beauty as they drive through it at 100 kph or take a closer look on an occasional holiday have a right to their views. But while they stand up for the environment they forget the sustainability stool has two other legs – the economic and social ones.

Local people need work which mining could provide and the infrastructure and services which would come with it.

They have a far greater interest than visitors in ensuring mining doesn’t come at the cost of the environment because it will be done in their backyard, and no-one’s suggesting mining at any cost.

The Resource Management process will be able to ensure mining is done with minimal disruption and damage and the requirement to leave the land in the same or better state when the work is finished.

5 Responses to One step back two steps forward

  1. pdogge says:

    erm ah, well not really sustainable hp, can’t do it forever and I wonder what our great ++ children might think in due course when all the whatyoucallium etc is not to be found any more however on a happier note, this very aged farmer has been in Australia for the past few months and per the miracle of internet in public libraries has been reminded of the interesting historical events which you have so kindly popped daily on your blog for which he is most grateful 🙂


  2. homepaddock says:

    Pdodgge – fair point that you can’t mine forever. But the fact minerals aren’t renewable isn’t necessarily a good argument for not extracting them at all.

    If it was we we’d have to stop a whole lot of the things we do and use now.

    I’m pleased you enjoy the history posts.


  3. ‘2 steps foward’ – drivel.
    National, Key and Brownlee got hammered here.
    They (and you) are in ‘damage control’ mode.
    The mining industry has been shown to be dirty, the public now sees it that way and the industry and Brownlee and Key will have to work overtime to redress the damage they caused by their poor handling of the issue.
    Good luck.
    We’ll be watching!


  4. pdm says:

    RG – Key and co were not hammered. They were stupid to allow an unwashed `rent a mob’ rabble to make them back down.

    Mining on Conservation land is not only sensible it is vital to the future productivity and well being of New Zealand.


  5. pdm – not ‘hammered’, but ‘stupid’?
    Okay, I’ll accept that.
    Mining on Schedule Four land, is that what you are refering to?
    Because that’s what Key claimed was going to happen.
    He was wrong.
    He made a big mistake, though he could have got away with his plan, were it not for the tens of thousands of people (there are a lot of the unwashed, aren’t there!!) who said no Mr Key, you will not!
    They’ll say it again too, when the time comes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: