Chris Baker: Scaremongering ignores recent mining practices

Once consent is gained, environmental controls and checks are imposed on a mining company. Photo / Richard Robinson

As the consultation period for proposed changes regarding Schedule 4 conservation land listed in the Crown Minerals Act 1991 has progressed, the rhetoric from those opposing the proposals has become increasingly extravagant.

It is understandable that members of the public who are not acquainted with either the world-class mining techniques now practised in this country or the details of the Resource Management Act might be alarmed by dramatic predictions of blighted lands.

These claims are blatant scaremongering based on evidence of historic rather than modern mining practices.

Crucially, they also ignore the far-reaching and comprehensive powers of the RMA.

New Zealand's environmental regulations are among the most stringent in the world.

It is not for nothing that operations such as Newmont Waihi Gold are held up as international benchmarks of environmental excellence.

It is important that people recognise that even if an area of land is removed from Schedule 4, any application for consent to mine would be subject to stringent RMA assessment with absolutely no guarantee that consent would be granted.

However, the misinformation from many opponents has obstructed the opportunity provided by the Schedule 4 review for balanced debate on the relative merits of conservation and development.

Many Kiwis clearly want to see reasonable measures taken to lift the living standards of all New Zealanders and welcome the opportunity the Government has provided for a national conversation on this issue.

The TVNZ/Colmar Brunton political opinion poll for April revealed the Schedule 4 debate has not impacted on the Government's popularity at all, with National retaining its 54 per cent of public support and 20 per cent lead over Labour.

Despite the huge publicity it has achieved through its protests, support for the Green Party also remained unchanged at 4.7 per cent - having dropped from 7 per cent in February.

A text poll conducted by TV One's Close Up which asked "Do you think we should mine our national parks?" resulted in a remarkably high number of votes and an almost 50-50 split.

Support may have been even stronger if a more specific question had been asked, such as "Do you support further assessment of mineral potential in our national parks, knowing that such assessment could lead to a mining proposal that would be subject to DoC access conditions and the full scope of the RMA?"

The RMA is the key legislative tool by which the environmental and social performance of any mining proposal is assessed - and also controlled, should consent be granted.

The process encompasses a rigorous examination of the many environmental and social issues associated with a proposed project.

A final decision is taken only after extensive public consultation and after a careful balance has been made of the positive and negative aspects, taking into account all submissions.

If consents are granted, a raft of environmental controls and checks are imposed on a mining company to ensure that it meets its commitments to adequately protect the environment both during its operations and in the future.

The reality is that mining isn't a choice - with current technology we must mine to live the way we do.

It is essential to our economy.

We do, however, have a choice about where and under what conditions mining will occur - and that is the way in which this debate should be framed.

New Zealand's productivity performance has declined significantly in recent years and so have living standards.

The endowment of resources that lies beneath our land, including within the conservation estate, offers the opportunity for mining to help meet the cost of today's lifestyle expectations and essential and pressing needs, such as high-quality healthcare and modern hospitals.

McDouall Stuart, the NZX sharebroker and investment firm, recently reported: "Lifting living standards means lifting factor productivity - the challenge of improving living standards requires a nation to achieve stronger performance outcomes from the inputs it has available to it".

Land and labour are among New Zealand's major inputs. Mining, be it precious metals, base metals or coal, is an extremely effective use of both.

A gold mine produces average gross returns more than 300 times those of sheep and beef farming and more than 50 times those of dairying.

For instance, OceanaGold's Macraes operation in East Otago produced 213,000 ounces of gold last year, generating revenue at current prices of $330 million, and its operations support more than 500 on-site staff.

A study by Infometrics concluded that: "The economic contribution estimates place OceanaGold's contribution to the economic performance of New Zealand in the top 0.5 per cent of individual firms".

This is a mature site, comprising eight open pits with an underground extension, but the area affected by mining has been just 850ha - around half the size of an average sheep and beef farm.

Much of this mined-out land has since been rehabilitated as forest or productive farmland.

Protesters have used the fact the mining industry paid royalties of "just $6.5 million" last year to support their argument that new mines would bring little benefit.

However, this isolated statistic ignores the many extra benefits of mining such as high employment and substantial wages for some of New Zealand's most remote communities.

During 2000-2005, the mining sector returned an average of $360,000 of gross domestic product per employee - the highest contributor of any sector - and the average salary in the sector was $60,000, more than double the national average.

Mining royalties are not, by a long way, the major reason for this review.

As the Government has pointed out, it is about high-value jobs, export receipts and tax income for the benefit of all.

It is about building a strong economy, without compromising environmental standards but with decisions based on a much better understanding of respective values than we currently have.

Members of the public can make submissions to the consultation online (www.med.govtnz/schedule4) or send email (schedule4@med.govt.nz).

Public submissions are sought by Wednesday, May 26.

* Chris Baker is acting CEO of Straterra, an industry group representing New Zealand's natural resources sector.