Comment from the Capital Cabinet to have the final say on mining in national parks

Press, 28 August 1978, Page 16

Comment from the Capital Cabinet to have the final say on mining in national parks

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

What happens if oil, uranium, asbestos, or other highly valuable minerals or metals are discovered in one of New Zealand’s national parks? And, what is more important still, how, under the present system, can prospectors determine what is beneath the surface in any national park area? Nearly a year ago the Mining Amendment Bill was drafted to make it a little easier for prospecting and other subsurface exploration to be carried out in national parks. The bill appeared in Parliament last November, and was passed to the Lands and Agriculture Commitee for examination in the Parliamentary recess. What this study has shown is that this is an extremely sensitive area. Environmentalists are unhappy that any national parks should be “polluted” by prospecting. They do not like the idea that the Minister of Mines might be able to overrule the Minister of Lands in deciding who, if anyone, should prospect within the parks. The problem seems to be one of changing points of view. When the original Mining Act was written. New Zealand’s main energy source was coal. So the Mining Act takes precedence over the National Parks Act and all other legislation relating to land use. In those days it was all-important to follow a coal seam, wherever it went. The Mining Amendment Bill, which is likely to be returned to Parliament by the Lands and Agriculture Committee soon, provides for any decision on prospecting licences to be taken jointly by the Minister of Lands (Mr Venn Young) and the Minister of Mines (Mr Gair). It is argued by environmental and conservation organisations that this could mean that Mr Gair (who is also Minister of Energy Resources. Electricity, and National and Regional Developments might simply use his right of entry into the nationa' parks (under the Mining Act proviso) to circumvent Mr Young. “It is a national disgrace that this should be so." a statement by the environmentalists claims “Mining is not necessarily the best use for any land, and there

should be a system to ensure that a balanced judgment can be made. The Mining Act is seriously deficient in its provision for public participation in these decisions.” Mr Young says there are no powers to allow the Minister of Mines to overrule him in the granting of prospecting licences in national parks. “The provision for joint approval makes no provision that one minister is superior to the other,” Mr Young has stated. “Options for mining in national parks must be kept open, as resources contained within the parks may be valuable enough to warrant exploitation in the national interest.” It must be remembered that the phrase “national parks” represents some six per cent, or one-thirteenth, ot New Zealand’s total area. It could be that by their seclusion, by the difficult nature of much of their territory, and by the fact that some of them have been “locked up” by decree for nearly 90 years, they could contain as much as 40 per cent of New Zealand’s remaining mineral and metal resources. The national narks extend from the Urewera to Fiordland — a total of 2,109,388 hectares covered by mountains, bush, lakes and streams. "To promote prospecting in our remoter areas, the idea has been to give, with the prospecting licence, and automatic mining licence,” Mr Young said. “This works very well in areas not reserved for special purposes. The problem with mining and national parks is that mining is against the purposes for which our national parks were established. “In some of the parks there is some of our greatest mineral potential. What has happened since the 1971 act is that wherever there has been an application for prospecting, which the Minister of Mines has referred to the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Lands, on the advice of the National Parks Authority, has always refused the application — because of the fact that with the prospecting ’ence goes the mining right.” Early in his time as Minister of Lands, with Mr Holland as Minister of Mines, meetings with officials were set up. It seemed unrealistic then not to know what minerals the parks contained.

Thus the policy was established, which really went back to the original Mining Act, of breaking applications into two stages — the first a prospecting licence, the second a mining licence. In the case of national parks only, the decisions are made by the Ministers jointly — which really means that in both cases, but certainly in the case of the issue of a mining licence, the decision is made by Cabinet. “It would be a major decision for any Government to agree to any mining in national park,” Mr Young said. “There has been interest by certain companies in minerals in national parks, but we have not had to make such a decison yet.” Mr Young said that the present system was a twostage affair, with both Ministers involved twice. This meant that the Government must take public attitudes into account, and must weigh the conservation attitude against the values at stake.

“It is quite unrealistic to think that if there was a great deposit of oil or gold, or some other mineral in a national park it should be locked up forever while the country remained drastically short of overseas funds.” Mr Young said. “What is important is that considered decisions are made right through.” “It also means, hopefully, that things will free-up, and that in appropriate areas, and subject to constraints and conditions, prospecting could take place in national parks. At that stage, if there are workable deposits, what the new legislation gives is not the right to mine, but a prior right in an application to mine.”

He repeated that the actual decision to allow mining in a national park would be made by Cabinet — “because those areas are so sensitive, full Cabinet decision could be the only one.” Mr Young summed up the importance of the bill: “The Mining Amendment Bill makes it possible to get away from the ludicrous situation whereby both Ministers and their advisors (in my case the National Parks Authority) are in a situation where there can never be any agreement to any prospecting even. There is no danger of the Minister of Mines overruling the Minister of Lands. The decisions, both on prospecting and mining, are joint ones,” he said.