Editorial: Careful miners welcome

Quite clearly, those opposed to mining on the Coromandel will not countenance the activity in any shape or form. Even the most environmentally friendly of modern extraction techniques would be bound to be rejected outright. As much has been confirmed by their reaction to a High Court decision that deemed mining on the peninsula to be a discretionary activity, thereby clearing the way for companies to apply for resource consent to mine in certain areas. Coromandel Watchdog proclaimed that any miner making such an application would be opposed. "It will," raged a spokesman, "be a land war."

This is the stuff of blinkered thinking. Nowhere is there room for even a passing acknowledgment of the potential benefits of mining to the region and its people. Having lost the legal battle, the protest group can envisage only a new front. Its promise of implacable opposition throughout the resource consent process is calculated to intimidate prospective miners.

It may be that there are not many to ward off. The value of gold, which, as usual, has risen in troubled times, offers encouragement for mining. Additionally, some $10 billion of gold is estimated to be awaiting extraction, albeit that the Coromandel is under-explored. There is little to suggest, however, that the region should brace itself for another gold-rush. Rather, it should be intent on ensuring that any mining which does occur boasts the required infrastructure and meets appropriate environmental standards. That, in short, the Coromandel gets the pluses of mining without the minus of disfigurement.

The Thames Coromandel District Council appears to have accepted this. Having made mining a prohibited activity in 1998, it joined Coromandel Watchdog in seeking to overturn an Environment Court ruling that such a blanket ban was contrary to the Resource Management Act. It says now that it would not support an appeal against the High Court's confirmation of that ruling. Instead, it proposes to ensure it has "a robust [district] plan that reflects this judgment".

There can be no quibble with this approach. If the council's 1998 plan was too extreme, there is no doubt that, even with encroaching residential development, the Coromandel is a special landscape. It should be recognised as such. The greater use of national policy and standards after the election (which will occur no matter who is in power) as management of the environment becomes more a function of central government should not extend as far as to ignore this.

As in all such matters, a balancing act is required. Mining must be given a fair hearing. Equally, those personally affected by it must be able to voice any objection. In that regard, the National Party's planned rejigging of the Resource Management Act is a mixed bag. Quite correctly, it proposes to exclude vexatious and frivolous objectors from the resource consent process. But it goes too far in planning to scrap objectors' right to legal aid.

This would raise the threat of an unequal contest, of multinational mining companies riding roughshod over local communities. It could tilt the playing field in favour of mining, even if not as far as it had previously been tilted against.

Seven years have been required to unwind the district council's errant use of the resource management process. Hopefully, it will take a far shorter period to finally strike the appropriate balance. The Coromandel harbours a valuable resource. Mining companies prepared to extract it in a responsible manner should be welcomed. The region will be the ultimate beneficiary.