Introduction
New Zealand is blessed with magnificent landscapes and a unique biodiversity. We have a proud history of protecting our significant landscapes and the species and eco-systems that rely on them for survival. Over many generations, New Zealanders have fought hard to protect our National Parks and other high-value conservation areas.
It is these wild and natural places, protected from development, that underpin our valuable 'clean green' image, and the '100 % Pure' brand that our tourism and export industries are so reliant on. To put this at risk is folly in the extreme.
The Green Party supports the consensus that was reached in 1997 and resulted in the protection of our most precious conservation lands in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.
We are opposed to any removals from Schedule 4 and any further investigations to assess their mineral potential.
Summary of key concerns
Schedule 4 lands are too precious to mine
The lands listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, just 13% of our total land mass, represent the most precious and highly valued lands in our conservation estate. These are our National Parks, our wildlife sanctuaries, our marine reserves and protected offshore islands. These most treasured places, sacred to tangata whenua and loved by all New Zealanders must not be destroyed. They are the heritage that thousands of New Zealanders have invested countless volunteer hours and dollars into protecting.
The Green Party firmly believes that these lands are worth more to New Zealanders intact. These national treasures generate billions of dollars to the New Zealand economy in tourism, freshwater and floodwater protection precisely because they are protected from development under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. They should remain protected under Schedule 4, not destroyed for short-term profit.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi Issues
The Crown has a responsibility to consult with iwi and hapu in areas affected by the proposals in the discussion document. There are major issues particularly for the Hauraki iwi and Ngati Rehua from Aotea (Great Barrier Island). The history of gold mining in Hauraki Coromandel is an unresolved grievance for Hauraki iwi. The failure to pay royalties as well as the damage to whenua, awa and to the Hauraki Gulf is well documented in the Hauraki claim. There are also serious issues for Ngai Tahu, given both the areas proposed for removal in this document as well as the extensive investigations within their rohe such as Rakiura, Mt Aspiring National Park, Paparoa National Park, Nelson and Southland.
As citizens benefitting from the relationships established in Te Tiriti o Waitangi we would strongly urge the Crown to recognise past wrongs and the current views of the tangata whenua.
Te Tiriti Article 2 upholds their rights. It is the Government's responsibility to listen and act in support of Article 2. We consider the government has failed to meet this responsibility in all areas of decision-making concerning the proposals to remove areas from Schedule 4 and to investigate further areas for mineral exploration.
Mining on conservation lands has an inevitable environmental impact
So called 'surgical' or 'modern' mining is a myth. Virtually all mining involves noise, dust, forest clearance for new roading and processing plants, toxic tailings dams and the risk of subsidence.
In addition, recent experience has shown us that current protections under the RMA are not sufficient to prevent degradation of ecosystems from mining activity. Last month, Oceana Gold pleaded guilty in the Environment Court to polluting a stream near its Globe mine at Reefton. The company has received 15 infringement notices over the last 5 years. This is a modern mine operating on conservation land, and is clearly unable to effectively contain its impacts. Even the mine held up as a shining example of modern surgical mining, Pike River Coal, has been fined twice for discharging coal fines to waterways.
These cases should send a clear message to the Government that mining will always involve environmental impacts, and that therefore some conservation lands are too valuable to consider despoiling with these impacts.
Mining for coal is irresponsible from a climate perspective
Some of the areas identified for removal because of the potential for mining medium-grade coal. The most likely end-use for this coal is thermal generation. The Green Party contends that any development of a new coal mine for the purposes of burning it for energy is irresponsible.
There is overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that the current trend of the global average temperature increasing is driven by the increase of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The consensus is that this increase is directly linked to human activity. These claims are expressed with very high confidence.
Furthermore, combustion of coal is recognised as being worse in terms of GHG emissions that other energy sources. The New Zealand Energy Strategy [Figure 5.7] identifies the cost of producing new electricity generation from various sources. Coal is more expensive than a renewable option at all generating sizes.
It is Green Party policy to move towards a situation where no new coal mines are consented apart from small quantities of specialty coals such as for carbon fibre and activated carbon, particularly as emissions from the combustion of coal are not able to be considered under the RMA.
There is no economic case for proceeding with Schedule 4 mining
The Prime Minister in his role as Tourism Minister has told Parliament that he has commissioned no research on the tourism impacts of mining in high value conservation lands. Similarly, the Minister of Finance told the House that he has not sought any research on the fiscal impacts of mining.
It appears the Government hasn't explored either of these important questions, despite the increasing condemnation by international media outlets including The Guardian and The Economist over New Zealand's hypocrisy in promoting a 'clean, green' brand.
What's more, the estimates of New Zealand's potential mineral wealth range wildly from $6.5 billion to $194 billion. And despite the wealth that is earned by overseas mining companies, royalties from mining rarely exceeds one percent.
New Zealanders therefore don't know what the financial returns of this sacrifice would be, and we have no estimation of the negative economic impact on our tourism and export industries.
Instead of exploitative industries such as mining that will damage our environment and our international reputation, we should instead be investing in sustainable development. There are a wealth of 'shovel-ready' projects that could create meaningful jobs and benefit our environment at the same time. 'Green New Deal' initiatives such as fencing and planting waterways, and ground-based pest control are win-win solutions to our employment and environmental problems, and would do more for the long-term health of our rural communities than mineral extraction.
Specific recommendations
Section 4:
Section 4.1: Areas proposed for removal
It is the Green Party's position that there are some areas of the New Zealand conservation estate that should be exempt from any form of extractive development. To quote excerpts from then Conservation Minister Hon. Nick Smith's speech during the 3rd reading debate on the amendment establishing Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991:
'This Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: "These are no-go areas".'
'This Bill sets out quite clearly very significant areas of conservation estate in which mining is not allowed. That is something that this House should welcome.'
'This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand. I welcome the Bill's progress and, as Minister of Conservation, look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost.'
The Hon. Nick Smith in his speech identifies a sentiment held by the vast majority of New Zealanders. There are some places in New Zealand that should remain untouched, simply because they are so special. While it is true that they provide a valuable contribution to the New Zealand economy in other ways, they are sacred because of their inherit value.
The Green Party agrees strongly with the sentiment that Hon. Nick Smith expressed in the House and we feel it is incumbent on the current Government to honour the intentions of the Fourth National Government, and the consensus reached between developers and conservationists at that time, and protect these treasured places.
Section 5
Further investigation programme
The Green Party opposes any tax-payer funded investigation of conservation areas. The proposed 'further investigation' survey amounts to a $4 million subsidy to the mining industry, as they are the beneficiaries of the information the Government seeks to uncover. This investigation can only lead to more proposals for mining on conservation land, including Schedule 4 areas. Conservation land is for protection, not exploitation.
Recommendation: Abandon further investigation programme
Section 6
Section 6.1: Joint Ministerial Approval
The Green Party opposes reducing the ability of the land owning Minister to determine the management of land administered by their department. This proposal would hand decision-making power over activities on conservation land to a development-focussed Minister. This is highly inappropriate. The primary purpose of conservation land should be the protection of natural and historic heritage values. By diluting the voice of the Minister of Conservation in respect of approving mining permits in effect leads to the dilution of conservation outcomes.
Recommendation: Reject joint Ministerial approval for access to Crown Land, leaving such decisions with the land-owning Minister.
Section 7
Section 7.1: Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island
Great Barrier Island is a near-pristine gem, highly valued by the small community who live there and by Aucklanders and tourists as a holiday and recreation retreat. Mining would do irreparable harm to the residents' quality of life, and the island's reputation and tourism industry.
Section 7.2: Sections of conservation land on the Coromandel Peninsula
The Coromandel is a diverse region with high conservation values, containing significant tracts of intact forest and threatened species. The Coromandel also has huge value as a wild and natural region close to major population centres, providing scenic and recreation opportunities. Conservation lands in the Coromandel deserve to stay in Schedule 4 to protect the ecological, tourism and recreational values of this unique peninsula.
Furthermore the local community has strongly voiced their opposition to the resumption of mining in their protected conservation lands. They have fought long and hard to protect a beautiful and unique peninsula. They have experienced the environmental impacts of gold mining first hand, but not the promised economic benefits. Waihi, where the open cast Martha Gold mine is located in the middle of town, is in the highest category in the New Zealand Social Deprivation Index; with high unemployment, low wages and significant social problems.
Gold is not a mineral that we need to mine more of. There is more than 10,000 tonnes of gold in Fort Knox and the US Reserve Bank. It is estimated that this is more that 5% of all gold ever mined in human history. To desecrate these special places against the will of Coromandel locals, to mine for gold, is highly irresponsible and unnecessary.
Section 7.3: Otahu and Parakawai Ecological Areas, Coromandel
These areas are habitat for endangered endemic New Zealand native species including North Island Brown Kiwi, Long-Tailed Bats, Hochstetter's Frogs, Longfin Eels and Banded Kökopu. Given the scarcity of remaining habitats for some of these species it would be irresponsible to develop the area for extractive industry. The ecological areas are also enjoyed by locals and tourists for their unique geological formations, waterfalls and the historic tramline.
Section 7.4: Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park
Paparoa National Park has outstanding ecological and landscape values. While Minister Brownlee has ruled out open cast mining in Paparoa, it is difficult to see how surgical mining could occur in forested river valleys, and how this could be economic when the mineral being extracted is medium-grade coal. Mining coal for thermal generation also seems to contradict the Government's position that we must do our fair share with regards to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Recommendation: Abandon all proposed removals from Schedule 4.
Section 8
Areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4
The Green Party supports the additions identified in the discussion document. However, these additions would have occurred anyway and some are long overdue. The additions cannot be seen as 'off-setting' the proposed removals. Furthermore we support an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to make such additions automatic in future, each time new lands are gazetted into National Parks and the other land classification types listed in Schedule 4.
Recommendation: Add the proposed lands to Schedule 4, and amend the Crown Minerals Act to make such additions automatic.
Section 9
Establishment of a contestable conservation fund
Funding for conservation should not become dependant in anyway on destruction of conservation land. This could lead to a conflict of interest when decisions about applications for mining on conservation land are processed by the Department of Conservation.
It is the Green Party's position that management of the conservation estate should be funded through the Department of Conservation's core budget. DOC has their core funding cut by $54 million in the 2009 Budget, and we call for the restoration of this funding so that the Department can adequately carry out its statutory function to protect our natural and historic heritage.
Enhancing conservation projects on publically owned land could be served by reinstating the Community Conservation Fund, also cut in 2009.
Recommendation: Abandon the contestable conservation fund, and instead restore the Community Conservation Fund along with the 2009 cut of $54 million from the Department of Conservation's core budget.
Conclusion
The Green Party urges the Government to listen to the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand public who believe that Schedule 4 lands should remain protected, not made available for mining. These lands represent the best of our heritage, they are treasured by tangata whenua and Pakeha alike, and they deserve to remain off-limits for extractive development.
But protection of Schedule 4 lands is not enough in itself. We are opposed to any move to facilitate greater access to the conservation estate by the mineral industry. Recent cases have demonstrated that 'modern' mining on conservation land has unacceptable environmental impacts, and that current regulations are not strong enough to prevent these impacts. We therefore urge the Government to ensure greater protections for all our conservation lands.
Destroying our conservation lands for short-term profit is not the economic direction that this country should be heading in. We call on the Government to protect Schedule 4 and ensure greater protections for the remainder of our conservation estate, thereby allowing these lands to continue to contribute billions of dollars for our economy, habitat for our unique species, and enjoyment for all New Zealanders.
