Quote of the day:
. . . Conservationist groups who argue against prospecting do their cause no good.
Even they should accept we need to find out what’s there first.
Then we can do the maths and have the discussion.
Our economy is in no shape to allow us the luxury of ignoring the potential riches beneath our feet.
It might not be possible, or desirable, to get them all out, but surely we can benefit from some of the bounty bestowed on us. – Herald On Sunday.
One of the reasons Australia is wealthier than us, with higher wage rates and other benefits from a faster growing economy, is its mineral wealth.
We do need to find out what riches might be waiting underground, and undersea and then find out the costs and benefits of extracting them.
Modern mining techniques can limit damage to the environment and eventually leave the land in as good or better state than it was.
Homepaddock 
“Then we can do the maths and have the discussion.”
You want to ‘do the maths’ on national parks, Ele?
Making them national parks in the first place, was done so that no one would ‘do the maths’ on them.
Mutual agreement was that they should be protected, not prospected.
LikeLike
Robert – prospecting is just to find out what’s there. Only then can we have a fully informed discussion on whether the benefits of getting what lies underground outweighs the costs.
LikeLike
Presently, mining in national parks is not allowed. Prospecting the parks imediately introduces the potential that they could be mined. That’s an immediate loss to the status quo, a loss to the concept of national parks and a threat to the integrity of New Zealandewrs who agreed, as a nation, that national parks are off-limits to mining. There is no gain in prospecting the national parks, Ele, only potentail for loss.
Money, Ele, isn’t everything. There are excellent alternatives to mining our national parks. National should be, but clearly isn’t ashamed of itself, as should it’s adherents. If you were to hold to the maxim thast the national; parks should never be mined, you’d not condone prospecting in them.
But, you do.
LikeLike
Perusing a menu is generally followed by ordering.
LikeLike
@Suz only if you can afford the dish that appeals. I often leave when I discover a Main of Fillet perched on a blob of Mashed Spud at $45 with vegetables extra. I have to be very desperate to accept that as value for money.
@ Robert yes we have legislation that prevents exploiting wealth in our National Parks but imo it grew out of anti tree felling and clearance sentiment rather than what today seems much more doubtful protection against modern mining with its ability to employ sophisticated and adaptable equipment and methods to extract minerals. Ignoring that salient opportunity as a political slogan by using a convenient emotional ploy seems to appeal to those with jobs or lifestyles that apparently does not require the additional wealth creation that modern mining can provide. When benefits and social services are threatened as they are today maybe some of the indulgent priviledged should examine their understanding of the modern world.
LikeLike
For the mining of national parks then, Gravedodger.
Shame.
I guess ‘reviewing’ the decisions of past generations of New Zealanders is de rigueur now – out with the old, in with the new, where it suits the needs of the banker-lead Government.
Shame again.
LikeLike
Perhaps Australia has high wages rates becuase they still have effective unions who ensure that mine bosses pay what they should.
LikeLike
@ GD…To continue the culinary theme, that very expensive kitchen was closed, was it not, for very good reasons. Patrons like you not receiving an unacceptable cost/benefit ratio.
Gotta be cheaper places to dine at 🙂
LikeLike
Oops “acceptable”
LikeLike
Your point being Robert.
How many National Parks were created to prevent exploitation of minerals and how many to prevent land clearance and milling of timber.
Extending the National Park protection regime to prevent roading, mining, power generation, accommodation provision is a crock when the developments undertaken by the state in the guise of the Government tourist board with the connivance of elected governments of all persuasion are considered.
And before you come back with your beloved Green Party’s “clean Hands” think for a moment what will happen when they are in government and facing the sort of artificial pressure the Media are attempting on NZUF and ACT over the MOM.
When the Greens make it to the Government Benches will you refer to the then Prime minister as a Queer, a Ginga Cane Toad , a union hack or maybe a failed teacher, as a suitable sobriquet take your pick.
I was led to believe Mr Key was a dealer in currency who rose to a management role in a finance house but I guess Banker is enough of a slight eh.
You call it shame as it fits your argument, I will call it Pragmatism to fit mine.
LikeLike
If, Gravedodger, when Russel Norman become Prime Minister, he calls for prospecting in the national parks, I will call him a Ginga Cane Toad. Til then, he’s Russel Norman, PM -in-waiting.
You continue to promote the idea of mining the national parks, as does John key and Ele here. I’m not taken-aback, I know that’s the Tory position. No respect for what New Zealanders decided upon in the past, no awareness of what the national character of New Zealanders looks like, no awareness of the erosion of our natural world at the hands of developers of all stripes, none of that.
Tories. Rapacious thugs 🙂
LikeLike
off to meet the “Banker” in 45 mins, I will mention to him that you are not happy bOb, I hope he takes it ok
LikeLike
Robert – Labour allowed mining in National Parks. How would the Green Party cope with that in coalition?
LikeLike
They’re remain true to their core, Ele. There would be no mining, or prospecting of the sort National seeks (and has already commissioned) in our National parks. The Greens do not sell out their ideals because of the whiff of money. The Greens propose a green future, green economics, green jobs, sustainable development in New Zealand of a sort you seem unable to get your head around. Labour may well have had the numbers to force the Greens to concede in the past, but that’s all changed. At the next election, you’ll have your chance to see exactly how they’ll perform. Happy days.
LikeLike
was that banjo music I heard while reading your frightening rant?
JK was great last night, we are ALL very lucky to have him as PM
LikeLike
“I was led to believe Mr Key was a dealer in currency who rose to a management role in a finance house…”
Money Changer then, my bad. And before Keeping Stock sweeps in on his Broom of Indignation, I wasn’t thinking, ‘Shylock’ or ‘pound of flesh’, as he will, doubtless.
LikeLike
What an extraordinary comment Robert. Seems to me that if you were expecting criticism, then you probably knew that the comment was borderline.
But fear not; the broom is in being reconditioned, having been put to good use cleaning up my own blog, with the result that visitor numbers are on the up-and-up. But there are still too many Robert Guyton impersonators for my liking…
LikeLike
Hand on heart, KS, I’ve not visited your blog once in the past 6 days, so I’ve no idea about my ‘sound-alikes’, nor do I care. I’m pleased though, to read that your visitor numbers are improving.
I must pop over for a look next week, just a look mind you, as I’m barred by Potentatel decree, from commenting, because of my use of words such as ‘Shylock’ and ‘thief, ‘dead fish-eyes’ and so on. Go figure!
LikeLike
Did I say you had Robert? That’s a very defensive response of yours….
LikeLike
No, you didn’t but I thought it prudent to reassure you anyway – you know you suffer flights of fantasy, tinged with paranoia, Keeping Stock, and I sought to calm your fluttering heart with a measured assurance.
Hey! Why are you posting under the name “Inventory2”?
You blog as Keeping Stock. Why the double anonymity? You know I have no respect for anonymous commenters, so you can imagine the level of respect I have(n’t) for someone hiding behind multiple names!
Out with it, Stock!
LikeLike