994
edits
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict (view source)
Revision as of 21:12, 27 March 2015
, 21:12, 27 March 2015no edit summary
m (Admin moved page New Zealand 2010: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict to New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
In | In 2008, New Zealanders voted out of office its three-term centre-left Labour Party-led government in favour of a centre-right coalition government overwhelmingly dominated by the conservative National Party. The result was partly due to voter fatigue with nine years of government increasingly portrayed in the media and perceived by the electorate in general as instigating a so-called “nanny state” fixated with regulating the minutiae of New Zealand households, such as the energy efficiency of shower heads and the types of light bulbs that New Zealanders should install in their homes. The electoral misfortunes of the Labour Party were also partly the result of the global financial and economic shock of 2008 that the incoming National-led government had promised to shield New Zealand from. In contrast to the Labour Government’s sometime environment-friendly achievements of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, legislating for a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) and declaring its intention to make New Zealand carbon neutral over the long term, some of the National Government’s first acts in power were to abolish the Govt3 programme to encourage government departments to adopt sustainable practices and achieve carbon neutrality, and to initiate a review of the ETS with a view to significantly amending it. | ||
In an effort to refocus attention on New Zealand economic performance, the National Government floated a proposal in August 2009 to open up protected land to mining interests to revive economic growth. Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, attempted to rationalise a number of mooted changes to the Crown Minerals Act protecting national parks and conservation reserves from mining operations. “The National-led Government is absolutely determined to raise our living standards. That is going to require a big improvement to our economic growth and productivity rates. We see our natural resources as playing a big role in contributing to those goals…I am committed to unlocking New Zealand’s mineral potential for the benefit of all New Zealanders, both present and future” <ref>Brownlee, (2009). Opening address to Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2009.[http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/opening-address-australasian-institute-mining-and-metallurgy-2009]</ref> | |||
What exactly the government had in mind was unveiled in March 2010, when it began actively canvassing the idea of removing land from Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act, which prohibits mining on high conservation status land, in order to carry out prospecting for mineral deposits. When releasing a discussion paper<ref>[http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1003/MaximisingOurMineralPotential.pdf]</ref> proposing a number of measures to develop New Zealand's mineral potential, Brownlee and the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, indicated that a preliminary stocktake of Schedule Four land demonstrated:<ref>Brownlee, G. & Wilkinson, K. (2010a). Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential. Media Statement.[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm]</ref> | |||
* New Zealand is mineral rich and extraction could be undertaken in an environmentally friendly way | * New Zealand is mineral rich and extraction could be undertaken in an environmentally friendly way | ||
* the mineral wealth was often highly concentrated in high conservation areas | * the mineral wealth was often highly concentrated in high conservation areas | ||
| Line 7: | Line 12: | ||
* there was inadequate information on the potential mineral deposits and the Government wanted to improve knowledge of the "mineral estate". | * there was inadequate information on the potential mineral deposits and the Government wanted to improve knowledge of the "mineral estate". | ||
[[File:Gerry Brownlee.jpg|thumb|Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources]] | [[File:Gerry Brownlee.jpg|thumb|Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources]] | ||
The reaction to the Government's proposal was swift and vociferous. Environmental and local community groups, celebrities and opposition political parties immediately lined up against the Government, the mining industry and big business interest groups to condemn any suggestion of encroaching upon land with the highest protected conservation status in the country. | The reaction to the Government's proposal was swift and vociferous. Environmental and local community groups, celebrities and opposition political parties immediately lined up against the Government, the mining industry and big business interest groups to condemn any suggestion of encroaching upon land with the highest protected conservation status in the country. | ||