1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by all his comments with regard to mining in the conservation estate?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; and I too congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your win, but that is because the stock are Belgian blues, and most blue things win, actually.
Which of the Prime Minister’s own contradictory statements does he stand by: the one where he said last October, “it’s not these big opencast wounds on the landscape that results; it’s a surgical incision in the land.”, or his comments on breakfast television yesterday, where he refused to rule out opencast mining in sensitive protected areas?
Well, it is interesting enough that the Leader of the Opposition would laugh, because I want to quote something back to him. “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”—
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think my point was probably made by the length of time it took the Prime Minister to sit down after you called him to order. The habit he has of turning his back to you instead of addressing the Chair, as is a requirement under the Standing Orders, is getting worse; some of us are finding it quite offensive.
I say to members that was a point of order; whether or not they like it, it will be heard in silence. I must say that when the Prime Minister does turn away from the Chair it is very difficult to hear, and the Speaker must be able to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. I could not hear, so I accept the perfectly valid point of order. I ask the Prime Minister not to make quite so much interjection, and to speak to the Chair a little more often.
Just to clarify that point, then, I support environmentally sensitive mining. If the member would take note, as I am sure others in the House will, I have a quote: “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 came from Phil Goff.
Which of the other contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister does he now stand by? Does he stand by the statement that the Government is seeking a so-called step change in the economy by massively increasing the amount of mining in conservation areas, which is what he says to some audiences. Or does he stand by what he says to other audiences, which is that the Government is doing little more than allowing mining in areas where it can legally already occur. Which of those contradictory statements does he stand by?
If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is come down to the House and make up statements that are not—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a straightforward question, and the Prime Minister cannot answer it by saying: “If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do …”. That is not answering the question, as you well know, Mr Speaker.
I think, again, it is a fair point of order. Although with that kind of question any precise answer cannot be expected, to launch straight into something about the Leader of the Opposition is not really to attempt to answer, at all.
No, this is in answer to the question. If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is make up quotes—[ Interruption] There was no quote. He did not have a quote.
We are getting ourselves into some difficulty. I must say that if Ministers feel they are misquoted, there is certainly nothing wrong with them saying that in their answers. I think there has now been a reasonable answer given to that question. I accept that, all round.
Chris TremainI can answer that question. There are currently 82 mines operating on conservation land. Over 9 years the previous Labour Government approved 74 new mining permits on conservation land. That included the Pike River mine, which is on conservation land adjacent to and under the Paparoa National Park, by the record. When the mine was approved, the then Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, said—and this is an actual quote, not one that we made up; he actually said these words—“This mine does represent an intrusion into an area of high conservation values …”.
If it is already possible to mine in non-sensitive Department of Conservation areas, why is he proposing to change the law, other than to allow for mining in very sensitive high-quality pristine environmental areas?
That does not require a law change; what it does require is a willingness to explore the opportunities available to New Zealand.
Has the Government considered a proposal to mine 7,000 hectares on the Coromandel Peninsula, on Great Barrier Island, and in Paparoa National Park, and does it intend to change the law to allow such mining to occur?
Why did the Prime Minister attack the media and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as being hysterical instead of simply coming out, coming clean, and telling the country what his Government intends to do in an open and transparent way with regard to those protected areas?
Because the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was being hysterical.
Why does he not simply rule out mining in national parks and highly sensitive, pristine areas of the conservation estate, like the Coromandel, in line with current law and longstanding practice?
I have made it quite clear that it is the Government’s intention to balance both its economic needs and advantages with its environmental responsibilities. I am sure that when the discussion document turns up in Cabinet and then is ultimately released into the public domain, it will reflect just that.
Is the real reason that after 4 months he has still not released the discussion paper on mining in sensitive conservation areas that polling has shown him that what National is proposing to do is unacceptable, and that he has panicked and withdrawn the discussion paper?
Firstly, every poll that I have seen on proposals to increase New Zealand’s mining activities have shown over 50 percent support. Secondly, 4 months ago was December, and it was not proposed in December.
Metiria TureiCan the Prime Minister confirm that his Government is planning a $4 million subsidy for the mining industry to survey Kahurangi National Park, Mount Aspiring National Park, and Rakiura National Park on Stewart Island?
I am not in a position to confirm that at this time. What I can say is that when the discussion document is released into the public domain, New Zealanders will have an opportunity to assess its merits.
Does he believe that the New Zealand public would accept his Government giving away $4 million in subsidies to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks?
I think when the discussion document is released, New Zealanders will have an opportunity to see how balanced the approach that the Government is taking is—that is, the balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. That balance of course is always possible. It reminds me of a quote I saw recently, in relation to Solid Energy and the Stockton mine, which said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy,”. That quote, of course, came from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.
Has he polled the New Zealand public on whether they would accept his Government giving away a $4 million subsidy to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks?
When will he just swallow the dead rat that his schedule 4 mining proposal is, and reaffirm that schedule 4 land is iconic land that is simply too precious to mine?
We will go through the process of releasing the discussion document when Cabinet has had an opportunity to consider it, and New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have their input.
Hon David ParkerI seek leave to table a document, which is a question and answer document from the time the Paparoa decision was made that shows that the only mining activity in the national park is four 1.5-metre diameter emergency exits, and tracks to them, and that the mine and the roads to it are under or outside of the park—
Could the member indicate to the House the source of this document. He said it is a question and answer document.