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 12:18, 30 March 2015
, 12:18, 30 March 2015→Public submissions process
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
This point about why the Government would pick a fight over such a highly contentious issue was picked up subsequently by Wellington barrister and environmental law lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington, Tom Bennion, when reviewing legal access to minerals in 2011. He asked why mining industry groups did not seek to debate access to Schedule Four lands during the many months that Government was reviewing Schedule Four before Brownlee made his proposal public. “The industry’s silence may indicate that it does not appreciate the minister’s bold initiative, which brought thousands out onto the streets to protest against mining”.<ref>Bennion. T. (2011). Access to minerals. Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 7-12.</ref> | This point about why the Government would pick a fight over such a highly contentious issue was picked up subsequently by Wellington barrister and environmental law lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington, Tom Bennion, when reviewing legal access to minerals in 2011. He asked why mining industry groups did not seek to debate access to Schedule Four lands during the many months that Government was reviewing Schedule Four before Brownlee made his proposal public. “The industry’s silence may indicate that it does not appreciate the minister’s bold initiative, which brought thousands out onto the streets to protest against mining”.<ref>Bennion. T. (2011). Access to minerals. Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 7-12.</ref> | ||
== | ==The Commissioner for the Environment delivers her opinion== | ||
Not long before New Zealanders took to the streets in force in Auckland on 1 May 2010 to protest the Government’s proposal – an estimated 40,000 people took part in the protest, which “in a country with an estimated population of 4.4 million…was an overwhelming display of public sentiment”<ref>Rudzitis, G., & Bird, K. (2011). The Myth and Reality of Sustainable New Zealand: Mining in a Pristine Land. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(6), 16-28</ref> – the country’s politically independent Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, publicly opined that the Government had failed to make a case for opening Schedule Four land to mining. Her official submission on the Government’s discussion document criticised the lack of information available about the conservation value of the land and the benefit to New Zealanders of mining it: “These areas have been set aside as some of our most precious conservation land and before we can even begin to discuss mining it in any rational manner we need a lot of good information which simply hasn’t been made available” said Wright<ref>Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2010). Mining plans don’t pass firth hurdle – Environment Commissioner. Retrieved from [http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/media-releases/mining-plans-don-t-pass-first-hurdle-environment-commissioner]</ref> “The onus … is on the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the mineral values below the land justify the risk to the conservation values above the land. The information contained in the [Ministry of Economic Development] discussion document does not meet this test.” | |||
Wright was also highly critical the problems raised by the issue accompanying the proposal to water down the powers of the Minister of Conservation by legislating for access to conversation land to be jointly decided with the Minister of Energy. “Such a move would unfairly privilege mining and compromises the role of the Conservation Minister who holds the conservation estate in trust for the public.” | |||
In September 2010, Wright issued a more detailed analysis of the issues stemming from the Government proposal and which made recommendations for clarity through legislative change. She labelled the public debate over Schedule Four “somewhat muddled”, but since the Government had backed down from the issue in July 2010, Wright focused her analysis solely on the Government’s stated intention to pursue other opportunities for expanded mining on public land, including the sixty percent of the conservation land managed by the Department of Conservation not listed in Schedule Four.<ref>Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2010). Making difficult decisions: Mining the conservation estate. Retrieved from [http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Making-difficult-decisions.pdf]</ref> | |||
Wright noted that there were legitimate arguments justifying mining (“[t]he conservation estate is a major Crown asset and the Crown is justified in seeking a return on this asset”), including the potential for a net conservation benefit derived from mineral extraction in the form of extra revenue for the Department of Conservation to improve pest control (an argument subsequently latched on to by Straterra chief executive Chris Baker – see above). However, Wright also pointed out that the campaign to remove conservation land from Schedule Four had eroded public confidence in mining on the other sixty percent of the conservation estate. | |||
==Transparency of information and discussion process== | |||
The Schedule Four - Discussion Paper stated that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation were “now seeking input from the community before making decisions about … policy initiatives set out in this paper. These actions aim to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way”.<ref>Ministry of Economic Development. (2010). Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Retrieved from [http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/natural-resources/pdf-docs-library/minerals/schedule-4-stocktake-discussion-paper-with-maps-.pdf]</ref> | |||
All of the discussion documents were published on the Ministry of Economic Development website. | |||
Public feedback was received over an eight week period beginning from the date of publication (March 2010) up until 26 May 2010. The consultation process initiated by the Government sought feedback from the public on a number of areas proposed for removal from and addition to Schedule Four. The Government stated: | |||
''"No decisions have yet been made. The results of the stocktake are presented in a discussion paper, on which public feedback is being sought. After receiving and considering submissions on the discussion paper, Cabinet will decide on any changes to Schedule 4 in the third quarter of 2010 ... The Government is also seeking feedback on proposals for a new contestable conservation fund, a proposal to further investigate New Zealand’s mineral potential, and changes to Crown land access arrangements."''<ref>Ministry of Economic Development. (2010). Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Retrieved from [http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/natural-resources/pdf-docs-library/minerals/summary-of-schedule-4-submissions-july-2010.pdf]</ref> | |||
The submission questions for the general public were clear, simple, and structured so that the answers could be analysed quantitatively. | |||
== Transparency of information and discussion process == | == Transparency of information and discussion process == | ||