Mining in Conservation Areas—Ministers’ Recommendation in Cabinet Paper

I note the tricky wording of the question, so I reply that Cabinet has definitely rejected that early proposal.

Why did Cabinet decide not to follow his advice to remove protection from areas like Rakiura National Park, Kahurangi National Park, and Mount Aspiring National Park?

In the case of Rakiura National Park, the discussion document asks New Zealanders to consider whether a further aerial magnetic survey is a good idea.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: why did it decide not to remove protection from the three areas? That answer did not address that question at all.

I will let the honourable Leader of the Opposition repeat his question so that everyone can hear it clearly, and we will listen to the answer.

Why did Cabinet decide not to remove protection from Rakiura National Park, Kahurangi National Park, and Mount Aspiring National Park?

I say again that Cabinet decided that some aerial magnetic survey of Rakiura might be a good idea. That is part of the discussion document, and that question is being asked of New Zealanders. In the case of other parts of the national park system, there was analysis—and it is also in the document, which the member will have read—that led Cabinet to believe that it was not appropriate to open them up for further prospecting.

Why was it not appropriate to mine those three national parks, but it was appropriate to look at the Coromandel and Great Barrier Island for mining?

Chris Auchinvole Link to this

It is because in those cases, Cabinet felt that it was reasonable to ask New Zealanders whether we should make available those tracts of land for further exploration. Simple.

Can the Minister—

Chris Auchinvole Link to this

I apologise to the honourable member, but I say to the Labour front-benchers on this occasion that it is hardly fair on the member asking a supplementary question when there is so much noise.

Can the Minister give an example of a mine that strikes a good balance between economic benefit and environmental sensitivity?

I hope that all of the 118 permits issued by the previous Labour Government comply in that regard. I can do no better than quote to the member the words of a former Minister of Conservation who said, when approving the Pike River mine, that it was an area of high conservation value, that when Pike River reached full production it would employ 150 people directly and another 450 indirectly, that it would provide 1 million tonnes of coal a year to be added to the receipts for our current account, and that it would provide lots of jobs. I ask Phil Goff whether he will go back there next year—just as he did last year to try to reconnect with the Labour heartland—and take Trevor Mallard’s advice and say: “You’re finished. You’re out. Sayonara.” Of course he will not.

When he said to the House yesterday, wrongly, that Labour was prepared to, and did, mine in protected schedule 4 land, was he referring to—as the media has since analysed—a permit that was granted when National was in power, a permit that allowed gold and gem fossicking by an elderly man with a shovel, or a permit granted before the relevant park had been gazetted as an area protected from mining?

I answered a question in the House from David Garrett by pointing out that there were two permits for mining on schedule 4 land issued by the previous Labour Government. That is absolutely correct.

How does he reconcile his statement that the Government’s mining proposals are “quite modest” with his earlier claim that mining would be key to the step change in the New Zealand economy?

Quite simply—[ Interruption]

I apologise to the Minister. Members ask questions and either they want to hear the answers or they do not. Quite so much noise makes it very hard for anyone to hear the answers.

My answer is quite simply that mining at the moment takes up 0.015 percent of New Zealand’s land mass. If that were doubled, it would still be largely unnoticeable but it would provide some $4 billion to $5 billion in GDP. It could provide a similar amount in export receipts over a longer period of time. It is part of—and I have maintained this all the way—a number of things that will lead to a step change in the New Zealand economy. I note that through the 5 years that Phil Goff was the Minister of Trade for New Zealand, our export went backwards. I am not surprised that he is advocating retrograde policies now. He cannot work out what he is for or against. The good thing is that he will not be Leader of the Opposition for much longer.

Most of the last part of that answer was unnecessary.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I withdraw and apologise.

Hughes Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

This is getting altogether a bit messy. I acknowledged a point of order but I could not hear the point of order being made. I take it that it was not a genuine point of order, so we will not take further time on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the Leader of the House stood to withdraw and apologise. I was not clear whether that was to the House or to his own colleagues over his handling of this matter.

The Hon Darren Hughes knows that that is not a point of order. That member is normally a model of discretion when it comes to the Standing Orders of the House.

What is the Minister’s response to criticism from the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association that his proposals have already damaged New Zealand’s “100% Pure New Zealand” image, and what is his response to The Economist, which says that his proposals make New Zealand’s promotion in an area like the Shanghai Expo 2010 an exercise in hypocrisy.

There are a couple of things that we should recognise. Firstly, Tourism New Zealand uses Blue Lake in Central Otago with the “100% Pure New Zealand” logo over the top to promote tourism. That lake is only there because of previous mining activity on the side, which is quite interesting.

Oh, no!