12. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Can he confirm that, as reported on Radio New Zealand, the Government believes it has public support to expand mining on conservation land?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) Link to this
Yes. The recent schedule 4 debate has revealed that New Zealanders are generally keen to see New Zealand take advantage of its considerable mineral endowment, and a number of polls back that up.
Can he confirm that according to the Government’s own summary of submissions, just 1.5 percent of submitters support more mining taking place on public conservation land?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
That may well be the case, but I can also report that a TV3 poll in May showed that 53 percent were opposed to mining on previously protected land, and 40 percent were in favour of it. Similarly a Television One poll in April 2010 showed that 44 percent supported such mining. I can also say that in February 2010 the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Phil Goff, said: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” That is a quote from Phil Goff, the Leader of the Opposition. [ Interruption]
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave, noting the interjection by the Leader of the Opposition, to table the previous Government’s approval of a mine in the Paparoa National Park in 2006.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify whether this document applies to land that was schedule 4 land within that national park, because that is germane to the point that is being made.
Mr SPEAKERHon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
The document that I wish to table is the approval by a former Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, for mining in the Paparoa National Park.
How can the Minister seriously contend that 1.5 percent of the submissions gives him a mandate to expand mining on public conservation land—or is he now calling on the selective use of polls for that mandate, as opposed to the opinions that were solicited through the discussion document?
Hon Nanaia Mahuta Link to this
Can the Minister justify the huge time and expense of his stocktake discussion, when all it showed was what the public had already been saying, which is that schedule 4 land is simply too precious to mine; and will his U-turn decision extend to other precious parts of the conservation estate?
Hon Nanaia Mahuta Link to this
Why was non - schedule 4 land with significant mineral potential in Northland and the West Coast not investigated in the first instance before he proposed mining in our precious national parks, and will he guarantee further consultation to seek a mandate to mine these other areas?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
In answer to the first part of that question, that was not part of our stocktake.
Where is the Government’s mandate for more mining in conservation areas, when 99 percent of submitters to the Government’s discussion document, when asked about that issue, said they opposed the Government’s research programme because “the investigation programme would inevitably lead to the opening up of additional conservation areas to mining”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I think it is quite clear from this debate that there has been a line drawn in the sand between the most highly protected areas of the conservation estate and other parts of the country that are Government-owned. It is our intention that this particular industry will be part of future economic development, and we are backing it with the aerial magnetic survey.
Does he honestly think that New Zealanders will buy his bizarre spin that the 1.5 percent of submissions on one side of that line in the sand that he has just referred to constitutes a mandate to expand mining on public conservation land—what we might call, I guess, an aspirational hole?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I think they would do so just as much as they would accept the complete absurdity of suggesting that 32,000 submissions represent the views of all of New Zealand.