Govt’s head in (iron) sand over mining ban
The great Greek historian Thucydides had a dim view of politicians. In the 5th century BC he wrote, “Some legislators only wish to vengeance against a particular enemy . . . They devote very little time on the consideration of any public issue. They think that no harm will come from their neglect.”
He could well have been talking about our current Government and its plans to introduce a “no new mining on conservation land” blanket ban.
It’s de rigueur, of course, to paint this proposed initiative as being in its formulative stages, with a consultation document being prepared that will give interested parties and the public the chance to present their views. But as with oil and gas, it appears the Government is on a pre-determined course and is in no mood to let the facts get in the way.
Announced in late 2017, it appears the Government’s policymakers had, in the words of Thucydides, devoted very little time considering the wider issues at stake. That’s why the long-awaited consultation document, which was originally slated to be released in October 2018, has not yet seen the light of day — and is unlikely to until at least mid-February.
Why? Because the issues are complex, potentially economically indefensible and the political chest-thumping simply places optics ahead of reality. Straterra, the industry association representing the New Zealand minerals and mining sector, strongly opposes the proposal.
The reality is, we have allowed mining on conservation land for many decades. Such activity is consented under the Resource Management Act to standards demanded by society. If, for whatever reason, the RMA and other environmental regulations are deemed to be not robust enough, they should be reviewed.
Our current estimate is that only 0.04 per cent of the conservation estate is affected by mining. This is because the realities of finding and developing a commercial mine are very challenging. Resources are scarce and are becoming harder to find and mining will always have a very small footprint.
And consider this — about 33 per cent of New Zealand’s land area is conservation estate. And 35 per cent of the conservation estate is National Park land and off limits.
Fully 81 per cent of the area of the West Coast is conservation estate, which has much of New Zealand’s most prospective land for minerals yet only a tiny footprint is mined.
Rare earth elements (REEs) have been flagged as of significant strategic importance — the Government has rightly made many references to strategic minerals, including at the 2018 Minerals Forum in Queenstown. A recent GNS study found 79 per cent of land prospective for REEs in New Zealand lies in the conservation estate.
A blanket ban would close down access to these and other minerals important for the low carbon economy.
Like it or not, we can’t function without mining, the products of which are vital for modern society. Aggregates for infrastructure, housing, concrete; coking coal for steel; gold, copper, cobalt, REEs, lithium and vanadium for electronics, electric vehicles, solar panels, batteries — this list goes on. We mine to meet demand and the demand for minerals exists to maintain and grow our standard of living.
And if we don’t mine in New Zealand, we must import the resources we need. We can choose to allow all mining to occur overseas, but that will often be in jurisdictions with lower environmental standards than New Zealand’s. And even if you overlook the environmental tradeoff, the increased carbon footprint (and associated costs) of importing minerals make no sense.
We recognise these issues are complex. However, unless they are addressed, we risk losing investment, jobs, overseas revenue, taxes and funding (that can help manage and improve the conservation estate) for no commensurate benefit.
If Thucydides were talking about our current Government, the enemy referred to might be climate change and biodiversity destruction. But a more impartial consideration of these issues would reveal that a blanket ban on conservation land is a solution looking for a problem, and it would do more harm than good.