994
edits
Talk:New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict (view source)
Revision as of 17:10, 8 March 2011
, 17:10, 8 March 2011→Peer Review
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The economic argument made by the government could be clearer in regard to the alleged amount of financial benefit to the country (e.g. some claims were in the realm of $90 billion for a country with a population of 4 million). Did the government say whether it had a plan for how to use that money? Maybe briefly state the arguments it used to rebut claims made about irreversible environmental damage (e.g. "surgical mining"). Would it be possible to bullet point Gerry Brownlee's four principal arguments? | The economic argument made by the government could be clearer in regard to the alleged amount of financial benefit to the country (e.g. some claims were in the realm of $90 billion for a country with a population of 4 million). Did the government say whether it had a plan for how to use that money? Maybe briefly state the arguments it used to rebut claims made about irreversible environmental damage (e.g. "surgical mining"). Would it be possible to bullet point Gerry Brownlee's four principal arguments? | ||
A quick summary of the key economic counter-arguments would be good, e.g. the fact that foreign companies would have to carry out the mining work, the royalties paid to the government, an estimate of how much mineral wealth could ''actually'' be extracted compared to the government's estimate of wealth available, whether the money would be used for business-as-usual purposes or would be put into an investment fund, the long-term sustainability of mining, etc. | |||
Ditto the intrinsic and cultural value placed on the land by different groups. | |||
'''Conflict resolution''' | |||
The summary of the negotiation process is very good. A short explantion of what an 'iwi' is would help though (basically a Maori tribe). | |||