The government says it's backdown on mining is evidence that it listens. But the question left is whether there's any policy Key and Co. will fight to the death for? And where's that step change coming from now?
Timid and without principle or pragmatic and unwilling to get ahead of voters. Yet again the government has, with its backdown on mining Schedule 4 land, given us a choice as to how to view them.
Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee spent the first half of the year laying out argument after argument as to why mining was a grand idea. Billions of dollars in GDP would flow from the mines saving us from our terrible national debt, "surgical mining" would replace the scars of yesteryear, it was only ever going to 0.2 percent of our land, mining created jobs, mines were tourist attractions... on and on they went. You can read all about them here.
Yet now, despite past and continued claims that New Zealanders are evenly split 50:50 on the issue, the government says it has "listened" and will ban miners away from Schedule 4 land. Well, you can't have it both ways. If people are 50:50 on this one, then you've only listened to as many people as you've ignored, haven't you?
But putting the spin and the rights and wrongs of mining aside, it exposes the government on quite another political front. The question that remains - and which is becoming increasingly vital - is just what does this government stand for?
After a promising start on race relations, it has hedged its bets by giving the Maori Party a seabed and foreshore re-write and a UN declaration whilst at the same time slapping down Tuhoe and ignoring Maori seats on the new Auckland council. It made nice with the unions during the Jobs Summit and now plays to its base by restricting union access to workplace to the whim of employers. It wants to avoid leading the world on emissions trading, but has fought hard for the world's only all gases, all sectors scheme. The list of bet hedging goes on.
If you could pin down John Key and his Cabinet to one thing it was surely its commitment to "economic step change" above all else. Step change was its essential raison d'etre, right? A clear, ambitious goal never to be compromised?
Yet as recommendations from the Capital Markets Taskforce drift and talk of becoming financial services hub diminishes, for example, we're now told that we can do without the myriad economic benefits of mining after all.
In his groundbreaking - 'scuse the pun - speech to miners last year, Brownlee said:
"The National-led Government is absolutely determined to raise our living standards. That is going to require a big improvement to our economic growth and productivity rates. We see our natural resources as playing a big role in contributing to those goals...
As a nation we have neglected the contribution that the resources sector could make to our growth rate, levels of employment, and quality of life. Our Government wants to change that."
In reply to a question from Phil Goff, Brownlee said this in the House on May 5:
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.
So if it is part of the step change, how can it be abandoned without an ecomonic cost? If the government is absolutely determined to raise our living standards, what replacement plans does it have to improve the "revenue side of the ledger"?
Again, you decide whether this is sound entrist politics, or a lack of conviction. But it leaves anyone who pays any attention to politics in this country looking in vain for this government's bottom line. If it will toss aside even parts of our economic step change, what is it that these MPs stand for other than a second term?
All this at a time when the Prime Minister is getting a wishy-washy reptuation for considering every idea and ruling out nothing.
One other point that got lost in much of this debate... and that's simply that Schedule 4 was a political compromise in the first place. When it was initially agreed upon, it won cross-party support because it put aside 14 percent of the country as 'too precious' and left the rest open to prospecting and mining. After careful negotiation, then-Conservation Minister Nick Smith told the House:
"This [Crown Minerals] Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: “These are no-go areas”.’
‘This Bill sets out quite clearly very significant areas of conservation estate in which mining is not allowed. That is something that this House should welcome.’
‘This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand. I welcome the Bill’s progress and, as Minister of Conservation, look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost."
It was a fool's errand to claim that a review of Schedule 4 was an attempt to balance the environment and the economy, when that's exactly what Schedule 4 achieved in the first place.
So now, once again, we can hopefully celebrate putting this debate behind us and leave nature to rule the roost... at least until some other administration wants to compromise the compromise!
Comments (13)
Mining wasn't an idea for "step change" -- as I've argued before, it was and is the same old last-century thinking, exploiting finite resources at any cost. And it hasn't been "abandoned" -- nothing about today's announcement excludes the future possibility of a natural resources export boom. If we want. I don't, but the option's still on the table.
I feel sorry for Mr Brownlee. As he originally drafted the discussion paper proposals, which would have seen the removal of 467,000 ha from Schedule 4 -- before Cabinet started its iterative process of rewriting the papers and watering them down -- his idea was at least coherent. The discussion paper as it eventually emerged talked about "rare earth elements", then didn't propose mining for any: it was all gold and coal. But in the first draft, before Aspiring, Kahurangi, etc were ruled out, including prospective rare earth element areas, it would have made more sense (by Brownlee's lights).
I don't disagree with the malleability point. But surely there's an argument it's what we (collectively) voted for, against Labour-led bossiness.
"The question that remains - and which is becoming increasingly vital - is just what does this government stand for?"
Re-election, same as the last bunch of spacefillers.
They don't so much stand as squat, like paua, adhering themselves by massive contractions of their posterior muscles.
What policy are they prepared to fight to the death for? Bums on seats - so long as they are the bums.
Jeepers, Stuart. That image is grotesque.
Claire, you might not have believed it amounted to step change, but Brownlee and Key did. They both connected mining with the government's vision of economic step change. I don't think there's any doubt they saw significant export growth in accessing Schedule 4 minerals. But while you see it as last century thinking and therefore not a step change to a new kind of economy, they saw it as a way to achieve a step change in NZ's prosperity and GDP... so I think you're interpreting the phrase differently from the way Cabinet does.
You and I are also talking about different things being "abandoned". Schedule 4 mining was undoubtedly abandoned today, and that's a significant concession; but you're right, the hope of increased export minerals was not.
And when you look at our offshore oil reserves in particular, I'm inclined to think that's no bad thing.
Sorry about the image - I was thinking about Gerry Brownlee :(
The imagery was brilliant and appropriate as their policies are grotesque.
Of course we still have the cycleway! Although that is more pedal change....
You and I are also talking about different things being "abandoned" ...
That might be because you:
It was the offshore oil reserves that I had in mind.
However, you can add a whole new plank to your argument!
Environment Minister Nick Smith this morning announced a moratorium on new water takes from the threatened Hurunui River until October 2011 ...
“This is a significant backdown from a Government that started the year saying it would fast-track new irrigation in Canterbury [Russel Norman said] ..."
The controversial Hurunui Water Project, which would dam and extract water from one of the last unimpeded wild rivers in the South Island, is included in the moratorium ...
The Hurunui is the river that was expressly included in the ECan legislation in a bill-of-attainder type way, cutting litigation off at the knees, ousting Environment Court jurisdiction, and giving it to ECan instead.
Is it such a terrible thing to have a government that is so concerned about re-election that it backs down on unpopular proposals?
A government that is concerned about getting re-elected is going to be far more accountable and moderate than one that feels that implementing its ideology outweighs the desire to be re-elected. Surely their self-interest is good for us if it acts as a check on their will.
Is it such a terrible thing to have a government that is so concerned about re-election that it backs down on unpopular proposals?
Well it represents a significant improvement on previous governments.
But in principle a government should be exerting itself to pursue the policies that best serve the assorted communities of interest that comprise the state. Having done so, they should stick to their policy, because it is in everyone's best balanced interests.
So a casual attitude to policy reversals reveals what a contemptibly lazy government has become the norm over the last few decades.
It is a great improvement on the dictatorial styles that proceded it - but it remains a distinctly c minus performance - showing that our erstwhile leaders pay more attention to infighting and to their retirement benefits than trying to run the country.
Which is why New Zealand continues to plummet in every positive social and economic indice.
Is it such a terrible thing to have a government that is so concerned about re-election that it backs down on unpopular proposals?
IMO, yes. Because it represents 'popularity' replacing 'merit' as the criteria for enacting policy. In the environmental area, I can think of several 'NMACT' policies that are similarly (but not exactly) as objectionable and flawed as the 'stocktake': the Ecan commissioners and Hurunui River water conservation order Act, the shelving of the reports of the two boards of inquiry into the RMA national policy statements for freshwater and coastal environs; and of course the NZ ETS. But, as these issues are too, well, complex, or maybe too distant from NZ's urban areas, there won't be tens of thousands of marchers and submitters pushing for change.
So these policies will carry on in all their Emperor's clothing.
The only difficulty is that, since popularity or perhaps notoriety has become how NZ parliaments are selected, merit has vanished.
In the absence of merit, popularity and personality politics are all that remain, and even they are a tough sell given the squalid and feral nature of most of our politicians.
It's an interesting question Chris; it's probably one of the eternal political questions. I'm happy to do without dogma, but I'm still a fan of conviction politics. I want to see a sense of purpose in a leader.
At the same time, what Clark (for a long time) and Key have realised is that post-Rogernomics New Zealanders are super-sceptical of grand visions and bold schemes. MMP is also a big part of this new political world view that says 'never get ahead of the public'.
Stuart, bless you, but is there no end to your cynicism? Plenty of people still vote on merit, and there are people all the parties who are worthy of that support.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.