Editorial: Mining review is worth doing

Opinion

Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee doubtless expected a backlash when he floated the idea of reviewing the ban on mining on high-value land in the conservation estate. The name on the portfolio is an unambiguous reminder of his remit and the fact that his ministerial responsibilities include economic development simply underlines his duty.

Brownlee made his intentions known in a speech to an audience that was always likely to be impressed: the annual conference of Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy which was held in Queenstown at the end of August. In a part of the speech devoted to "improving access to mineral resources", he floated the idea of a review of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

That schedule is a list of land areas of high conservation value where mining is effectively banned . It was considerably expanded by the Labour-led Government less than a month before the last election, and now includes virtually all of every national park, along with most marine and scientific reserves and wilderness areas.

Brownlee said in the speech that an estimated 70 per cent of the country's mineral wealth - which might include zinc, lead, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten - lies under the surface of DoC-administered land and that almost half of it is in Schedule 4 land, beyond the reach of exploitation and locked up for ever. And, with the agreement of the Minister of Conservation, Tim Groser, he has ordered a review of that state of affairs.

This is scarcely high treason. Governments routinely review and repeal laws enacted by their predecessors. They know that they misjudge the public mood at their peril - when Don Brash as Opposition leader was sprung suggesting that the ban on nuclear warships would be "gone by lunchtime" if he were PM, he felt the chill wind of public opinion very quickly - but they are not elected to administer the decisions of their political opponents.

It was perhaps predictable that Brownlee's speech would be greeted with horror by conservationists. Typical was Kevin Hackwell, the tireless advocacy manager for Forest & Bird, who, in an op ed piece in the Herald, conjured the images of an open-cast mine on the bird sanctuary of Little Barrier Island and a large pit scarring the face of Mt Moehau at the top of the Coromandel Peninsula. Others, including former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, spoke of the Schedule 4 land as "the jewels in the crown" of the conservation estate, by implication characterising mining as an inevitably destructive process which must, by its nature, consume something of beauty.

Yet good sense must see this as an overreaction: plainly there would not be more than a handful of people who would countenance the idea of mining activity that destroyed wilderness of surpassing beauty and conservation value. But conservationists need to accept that these values do not inhere in every square metre of every piece of Schedule 4 land. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder: an unemployed worker in a small provincial town may detect less lustre than a city yuppie who wants somewhere nice to go tramping. In this argument, as in most, no value is absolute and the minister is entitled to raise the matter for discussion.

At the same time, he owes us all the duty of complete straightforwardness. This week, the Prime Minister, who as Tourism Minister recognises "the importance of [the conservation estate] to the New Zealand economy" was describing Brownlee's suggestion as a "stocktake of what's there", an anodyne choice of words. But the speech refers to the need to "determine areas ... that, with the removal of the access prohibition ... could through responsible mining techniques contribute considerably to our prosperity".

That is more explicit: if it's there and worth mining, it suggests, we will mine it. He should be in no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealanders would not take such a gung-ho view. Watch this space.