Orcs want to pillage Te Wāhipounamu

Te Wāhipounamu is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a taonga of Aotearoa's conservation estate. So naturally, the orcs in the Beehive want to dig it up and despoil it:

The Green Party says the government's decision to grant a prospecting permit on heritage land is unacceptable.

It comes after a permit was approved within Te Wāhipounamu, one of the country's three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

The permit covers 157 square kilometres, and allows prospecting for all minerals except uranium.

Green Party list MP and resources spokesperson Steve Abel said heritage sites had long been ruled out for mining, and should remain that way.

But the problem here is that, legally, they're not ruled out for mining. Bits of them are, if they're national parks, nature reserves, wilderness areas, or other areas protected by Schedule 4. But Te Wāhipounamu includes land not protected by such status, and the New Zealand state has repeatedly rejected extending it. In 2017 Labour's Ruth Dyson put up a bill to explicitly protect World Heritage Sites by adding them to Schedule 4. National voted it down. And in 2023 the Greens put up their own bill, which (among other things) would have protected all state land managed by DoC under Schedule 4. Labour voted that one down. And in 2025, when stewardship land on the west Coast was reclassified, Tama Potaka refused to extend national parks or further protect land within Te Wāhipounamu. Which rather invites the question of whether he knew about this application, and whether he made his decision in order to advantage the applicant. But given that its going to court, I guess we'll get to find that out...

What this tells us is that we need greater protection for taonga land and ecosystems. Once this tyrannical, destructive regime is voted out in November, the next government needs to make it a priority to protect our natural heritage, as part of the project of undoing every shitty thing that it has done. And that means urgently expanding national parks and fully protecting World Heritage Sites under Schedule 4. In the meantime, I guess we've just got to hope that any exploration activity permitted by this "consent" is delayed.

A victory for the environment

Trans-Tasman Resources has withdrawn its fast-track application to pillage the Taranaki seabed. Good riddance. As the fast-track panel pointed out, there was a credible risk of harm to protected species and uncertain environmental impacts, and TTR had done no work to clarify them, even when sent a clear message by the courts that they needed to. This was just a bunch of lazy foreigners wanting to pillage our natural resources, and relying on corruption to get their way. But it turns out that the panels the regime appointed were committed to doing their job.

Sadly, its unlikely to be the end of it:

Eggers says the company is now considering its options, but isn’t ruling out lodging a new application – especially if Shane Jones gets his way to amend the fast-track process to make ministers the ultimate decisionmakers.

So, if you fail under one decision-maker, withdraw, then reapply, and get another one (and ideally, one who has publicly indicated both their bias and that they can be bought). That's not a proper process by any measure, but its what this corrupt, dogshit vandal regime has given us. The next government needs to not only end it, but legislatively revoke any "consent" obtained by such a corrupt abuse of process.

(And meanwhile, we've had a reminder today of the hazards of such ministerial decision-making, with the Waimea Dam - rammed through by Labour with a Muldoonist special law to overturn a court decision - turning into a complete financial disaster, and the farmers who pushed it are now wanting a handout to bail them out. Because of course they are. Because it turns out Ministers aren't great decision-makers, and make decisions based on lobbying rather than evidence or business-cases. Which is what scammers like TTR rely on. And meanwhile, the public inevitably gets left to pick up the tab, either direct (in the case of the dam), or indirect (in the case of TTR's proposed environmental destruction)).

Two defeats for the regime

There's been good news over the weekend, with two significant defeats for the regime's programme of environmental destruction. First, there's the draft decision of the Fast Track Panel to reject Trans-Tasman Resources' plans to mine the Taranaki seabed, on the grounds that there was a credible risk of harm to protected species and uncertain environmental impacts. The panel found that these significantly outweighed any economic benefit. It's only a draft decision, and TTR gets to comment on it, but it seems unlikely they will be able to overturn these findings unless they present significant and credible new evidence. Which means that one of the flagship projects of fast-track - a dirty mining project which has already been rejected by the Supreme Court - is dead. Good riddance.

Secondly, there's the news today that despite the regime bending over for the oil industry and repealing the offshore drilling ban, they're just not coming back, and will instead leave Aotearoa to small, bottom-feeder companies - which in turn may lack the resources to properly explore any permits they are granted, or to meet remaining cleanup obligations. Which means that National's desired levels of drilling seem unlikely to happen. Good riddance to that too.

Both the corrupt, Muldoonist fast-track program and the equally corrupt courting of the oil industry were absolutely central to National's policy programme. And neither seems to be working out the way they want. Which hopefully means they cause only limited damage before the election allows them to be repealed and the "consents" granted under them overturned.

No deals with the US

So, Shame Jones is officially trying to sell our country to Donald Trump, by negotiating a secret critical minerals deal behind everyone's back. My immediate reaction - along with a lot of other people's - is "fuck that"! And there are all sorts of good reasons why we should not be pursuing any deals with the US - and the Trump regime in particular - at present.

Firstly, there's the US's present status as a rogue nation. Aotearoa depends on a rules-based international order, but as Canadian prime minister Mark Carney pointed out, the United States has destroyed that order. We should not be rewarding them for doing so. Instead, following Carney's suggestion, we should be working with other like-minded countries to reconfigure the international order around the US. Which means no deals.

Secondly, there's Trump himself. It ought to be obvious to any observer by now that Trump does not regard any "deal" as binding on him, instead viewing them as a form of criminal interview, testing whether his chosen victim will resist escalation or comply. Just look at his various "deals" with Canada: he broke NAFTA to force them to negotiate the USMCA, then broke that by imposing tariffs, then broke the settlement he reached on that with more tariffs, and on and on it goes (Trump is currently threatening tariffs against Canada for making a trade deal with China, and is going to ground half the US domestic air passenger fleet by attacking the Canadian aircraft industry). So there is simply no point to making any "deal" with him, and instead we ought to be refusing to on principle, simply because his word can't be trusted.

And then of course there's the fascism... should we really be supplying critical minerals to a fascist state who will use them to wage war on the world (and on China, our largest trading partner) and oppress its own people?

We should have no fucking part of any of this. Even if you thought the US was once our ally, that situation has clearly changed. The US is now a nakedly predatory power, openly threatening its allies while working with imperialist Russia to enable aggression. I don't think any New Zealander wants that sort of world. And while Trump won't last forever, the underlying dynamics in the US political system which have brought them to this don't seem like they'll change any time soon. We shouldn't be making deals with them under these circumstances. Instead, we should cut them out of our lives as much as possible, and work with like-minded nations to build a new world system which does not depend on them. A regime which meets this situation by seekign deals with the US are simply quislings and traitors.

Climate Change: Losing the battle but winning the war

Aotearoa declared a climate emergency in 2020. Despite this, the government granted petroleum exploration permits to two companies in 2021, letting htem explore for gas and, if successful, convert the permit into a mining permit. Climate Clinic Aotearoa (previously Students for Climate Solutions) have been challenging that decision in the courts ever since, and losing at every turn. Today, they lost their final appeal in the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they might have won the war, because the Court ruled that Ministers must consider climate change when offering permits:

The country's highest court has found that governments must consider climate change when deciding whether to offer oil and gas blocks for tender.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on Friday that former Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods was required to take climate change into account when she granted on-shore exploration permits to two companies in 2021.

However, the court found that climate change is a mandatory consideration at the earlier stage of offering blocks for tender.

Climate change was "so obviously relevant" to a decision that could lead to the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels that it must be considered, the panel of five Supreme Court justices ruled.

The full judgement is here, and there's a bunch of good stuff in it. First, the court found that the words "for the benefit of New Zealand" in the Crown Minerals Act's purpose clause isn't just meaningless praise for the mining industry, but an actual constraint. Prospecting, exploration, and mining can be carried out only when it is "for the benefit of New Zealand". Which means Ministers must assess that overall benefit. The court is clear that they have pretty wide latitude, but there are things they need to consider beyond just jobs and GDP.

Secondly, the headline: thanks to our international agreements and the scale of the issue, climate change is so obviously relevant that it is a "mandatory consideration", something the Minister has to consider.

So why didn't Climate Clinic win the case? Because they were too late. The government argued, and the court agreed, that the important step where climate change must be considered is the decision under s24 of the Act to allocate permits by public tender - what the government calls a "block offer".

This is because the decision to offer an area for tender is an in-principle decision that exploration may be permitted in the area. And as the respondent concedes, the process thereby set in motion is undertaken in expectation that successful exploration may in the future lead to successful extraction of petroleum. We accept also that it would undermine the promotional intent of the CMA to invite tenders pursuant to a s 24 decision but then decide under s 25, and for reasons that could have been weighed at the s 24 stage, not to allocate any permits. Such an approach would not build the investor confidence necessary to promote exploration and mining.

But that decision was made in 2020. Climate Clinic was challenging the 2021 decision under s25 to grant the permits. They needed to go to court earlier and challenge the block offer decision itself. Also significant is that, while not required to do so, the Minister of Resources at the time, Megan Woods, did consider climate change to some extent in her s25 decision-making, at a level of the court found appropriate given the limited climate change framework in existence at the time (a 2050 target, but no budgets or emissions reduction plan).

So what does this mean for the future? It seems like it will be very hard for future governments to lawfully open block offers, unless they can demonstrate that they are consistent with climate budgets and targets. And while the regime has moved away from the block offer system in favour of allowing direct applications for petroleum permits, it is going to cause problems for that as well. Because if climate change is a mandatory consideration for a block offer, its hard to see how it will not be for essentially a direct grant, and the problems the court identified of opening land for exploration then not actually allocating any permits would not arise.

So, when the regime decides to hand out gas permits to its foreign cronies early next year, that decision should be challenged. Given the regime's demonstrated problems with both proper record-keeping and making lawful decisions, such a challenge is likely to prove successful (for example, it will be hard for regime lawyers to argue that Shame Jones, a man who rants about "green banshees" and "demonic eggbeaters" while spewing outright climate denial into the parliamentary record, approached the issue of climate change with the open mind required of a decision-maker). And at the least, it will delay any permits until after the election, allowing the next government to surrender in court and accept their revocation.

The orcs are back

Last time National was in government they tried to pillage the conservation estate and open our national parks for mining. But we told them to go fuck themselves, and they slithered off. Unfortunately, Minister for Corruption Shane Jones, who shamelessly takes "donations" from mining companies, didn't get the message:

New Zealanders need to “get over ourselves” and identify which areas of the land administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC) can be used for economic purposes, including mining, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.

[...]

Jones said he would be making a “major speech” about the mining industry and related economic matters in Waihi next Friday.

He would be saying: "We have an inordinately large DOC estate, much of which is overrun with weasels and rats and stoats and noxious weeds,” Jones told Newstalk ZB on Friday.

"Weasels and rats and stoats and noxious weeds" sounds more like a description of the current cabinet.

Kiwis of all political persuasions value the conservation estate, and understand that it is for conserving, not exploiting. If National doesn't want its own "blue green" supporters to abandon them again, it needs to tell Jones to shut the fuck up, and rule out any mining on the conservation estate (including any recategorisation of conservation land to enable it). As for the other parties, the best way to kill this idea dead is to deter investment, by making it crystal clear that any mining or exploration permits granted will be legislatively revoked, with no compensation, and that any investment made will be lost. Its worked well against the oil and gas industry; now the opposition needs to apply the same tactics to defend our natural taonga.

National's fast-track fucks our future

A few years ago, we looked to be on-track to a decarbonised future, with an international consortium led by BlueFloat Energy announcing plans for huge offshore windfarms off Taranaki and Waikato. But National's corrupt fast-track law just fucked all that:

Spanish offshore wind developer BlueFloat Energy is cancelling plans for wind farms off the coast of Taranaki and Waikato, citing “key uncertainties” about the route to market and the competition for allocation of the seabed.

The move comes after a controversial seabed mining plan was revealed to be among the 149 projects listed in the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill.

Developers, including BlueFloat, have previously said the seabed mining project could shrink or completely eliminate the area available for offshore wind in South Taranaki, which is considered to have the country’s best wind resource.

This is an absolute disaster. In addition to GW of renewable generation, these offshore wind developments were expected to result in 10,000 jobs during construction and 2,000 ongoing ones for maintenance. It would have been a lifeline for the Taranaki economy, a replacement for its current fossil industry which would have allowed many fossil employees to move directly into new work. But National prefers to rip, shit, and bust for a tiny number of mining jobs with no wider benefits, to help a company which lies to the stock exchange.

Heckuva job, National. Hope you're proud of yourselves.

This is what corruption looks like

When National first proposed its Muldoonist "fast-track" law, they were warned that it would inevitably lead to corruption. And that is exactly what has happened, with Resources Minister Shane Jones taking secret meetings with potential applicants:

On Tuesday, in a Newsroom story, questions were raised about a dinner Jones had on the West Coast on February 16. It only came to light because it was mentioned by Barry Bragg, deputy chair of coal mining company Stevenson Group, in a letter released by ministerial officials under the Official Information Act.

[...]

On Monday, Jones told Newsroom his dinner with Bragg wasn’t included in his regularly disclosed ministerial diary because “it was very much a last-minute thing”.

But after more questions were asked, Jones is correcting the record. Not only was the dinner organised in advance, it had two other participants.

There's no suggestion any money changed hands. It's "merely" secret lobbying, which Jones "accidentally" failed to declare in his published diary. I think we can draw our own conclusions about that. Meanwhile, it blows any suggestion that he could be an impartial and unbiased decision-maker over any fast-track application from these polluters out of the water. And the fact that Jones is too stupid or greedy to see this shows that he is simply unfit to be a Minister.

More criminal miners

What is it with the mining industry? Its not enough for them to pillage the earth - they apparently can't even be bothered getting resource consent to do so:

The proponent behind a major mine near the Clutha River had already been undertaking activity in the area without a consent.

Hawkeswood Mining Ltd has applied to establish and operate an alluvial gold-mining operation in a rural resource area at 1346-1536 Teviot Rd, Millers Flat, Roxburgh.

The proposal will go to a hearing, but a Central Otago District Council spokeswoman confirmed activity was already happening near the planned mine without a consent.

Council planners have apparently recommended they be denied resource consent because of the impact on the local environment, and have issued them abatement notices. So instead the company plans to apply to Shane Jones for a fast-track "consent" instead. Which I think shows us again that the fast-track process is designed for criminals and vandals who would not be able to get consent by lawful means.

A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies

Submissions on National's corrupt Muldoonist fast-track law are due today (have you submitted?), and just hours before they close, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has been forced to release the list of companies he invited to apply. I've spent the last hour going through it in an epic thread of bleats, and its basically a who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies.

In addition to the seabed miners who have been rejected by the Supreme Court, and the coal miners who have been rejected by the Environment Court, there's also:

• The irrigation company which poisons the local water and doesn't want to pay easement fees to use DoC land;
• the scrapyard company which can't be bothered getting resource consents, and whose scrapyards regularly catch fire;
• A company which wants to build an "equestrian centre" in Canterbury. I guess we know why they're on the list then;
• The Australian mining company whose plan to mine the barrytown flats has been rejected multiple times;
• The Auckland property development company who just happen to have a member of their family in the National caucus.

The last one so obviously fails the political hygiene test that you really have to wonder how it got through. Or maybe National really is as shamelessly corrupt as NZ First?

These are precisely the sorts of projects which should be going through robust processes to assess their merits and consistency with environmental bottom-lines. Instead, all of that is going to be bypassed, replaced with a Muldoonist rubber-stamp, so that the coalition parties can raise funds through corruption. Which just makes it all the more necessary for the next government to review every "consent" granted by this process, and legislatively cancel every one which should not have been granted.

National's total reversal on marine protection

In 2015, then-Prime Minister John Key announced plans for a huge ocean sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands, banning fishing and mining from 15% of Aotearoa's EEZ. It was bold, it was ambitious, and it suggested that National might actually care about the environment. Except they fucked it up: Key failed to consult iwi, in violation of the 1992 Treaty settlement on fisheries, resulting in a threatened court case and ACT - ACT! - pulling its support. The bill then sat on the order paper for the next nine years while first National, then Labour, tried to do what should have been done in the first place, and negotiated with iwi. For six of those years, when Labour was in power, National would ask about the bill regularly, suggesting strongly that they still supported it.

...and now, they've killed it:

The Government has given up trying to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, with Cabinet scrapping the bill proposing the marine reserve.

It’s almost a decade since former Prime Minister John Key first announced plans for a 620,000sq km sanctuary at the United Nations in New York in 2015.

Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones said in a statement Cabinet had decided to pull the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill from Parliament’s order paper, stopping further progress on establishing the sanctuary.

He argued the current marine reserve around the Kermadec Islands, which extended 12 nautical miles, was “ample” to preserve the environment and marine life.

Worse, yesterday Jones mentioned "manganese nodules in the Kermadecs" in response to a question on seabed mining - so it seems that National has gone from wanting the EEZ around the Kermadecs to be effectively the marine equivalent of a national park, to wanting to mine it - a total reversal.

The lesson here: we can't rely on National to respect Te Tiriti, and we can't rely on them to protect the environment either. If we want people to work in good faith towards those outcomes, we need to vote for someone else.

Shane Jones' orc fantasy

There's a scene in Lord of the Rings where Saruman is directing the orc "renovations" to Isengard, where he instructs the orcs to rip down all the trees. And that's basicly Shane Jones' speech during the address-in-reply debate last night. NewsHub highlighted comments about the government not meeting "the 2030 dreamy, fairy-tale, aspirational figures that we'll be freeing ourselves of fossil fuels as a source of generating energy", stopping work at the Ministry for the Environment,a nd restarting oil and gas drilling. But reading the full speech its a lot worse than that:

In those areas called the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate, where it's stewardship land, stewardship land is not DOC land, and if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it's impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy. We are going to extract the dividend from mother Nature's legacy on the DOC estate in those areas previously called stewardship land.

[...]

Couple more things: we will have a strategic, fast-tracked piece of legislation in this House... Stand by for the fast-track process where the authority rests with the politicians. Fast track for aquaculture, fast track for mining, fast track for energy, fast track for infrastructure.

Last time the government tried to mine the conservation estate, they were greeted with 50,000 people marching down Queen Street. Next time there will be more. This isn't the twentieth century anymore, and people are no longer willing to tolerate the rape of the environment.

As for the second, the lesson from Australia is clear: putting resource consent decisions in the hands of politicians is a recipe for total corruption. But Jones probably sees that as a feature. After all, his party's secret foundation demonstrably took secret donations from interested parties in exchange for policy changes on housing, fisheries and racing. Being able to extort vig from every aquaculture or mining project and every property developer probably sounds great to them.

This is the government we have now: fundamentally corrupt orcs. We need to throw them out at the first opportunity. If not, we'll end up like Queensland.

Labour will allow offshore drilling

Last month I noticed that Todd Energy had applied to turn its sole remaining offshore gas exploration permit - which it had sat on for twenty years after discovering gas in 2004 - into a mining permit. The application is permitted under current loopholes in Labour's offshore drilling "ban", but the government has a bill on the order paper which would close that loophole permanently. Which raised the obvious question: was Labour going to let this happen?

Sadly, it looks like the answer is "yes". The House is currently in urgency for the end-of-term wash-up, and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which would close the loophole, was not in the urgency motion. Which means that its unlikely to be passed before the election, giving Todd Energy a good couple of months to slip their application through and get a mining permit. Which in turn will enable them to extract that gas and burn the planet.

"Climate emergency"? Yeah, nah.

So, if you believed that Labour was doing the right thing about offshore drilling, ha ha, they fooled you. Cynical arseholes in Wellington who see everything as a PR stunt played you for a sucker. If you're angry about this, the best revenge is to vote for a party which takes the issue seriously and which will follow through on its policies. Which means voting for the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.

Will Labour allow more offshore drilling?

Offshore gas exploration permit 38602, held by Todd Energy, was due to expire today, and I was looking forward to announcing its demise. First granted in 1993 to Todd Energy, it was apparently the site of a gas discovery in 2004. But rather than exploit it, Todd sat on it for twenty years, repeartedly extending the permit for "appraisal" to ensure they could claim the value of this "asset" on their books. The most recent extension was in 2019, and was one of the first signs of the emptiness of labour's offshore gas ban. But when I checked today, it looks like Todd have applied to convert it into a mining permit.

This is perfectly legal, thanks to Labour's chickenshittery. While they banned issuing new offshore petroleum permits, a sneaky little transition clause buried in a schedule ensures that reapplications must be determined "as if the Amendment Act had not been enacted". Because we wouldn't want that "ban" to actually mean anything, would we? But the new Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (currently waiting for its committee stage) seems to fix this, with a new transition clause saying that existing applications will be determined in accordance with the amended Act (which of course includes the offshore ban). The question now is whether Labour will actually pass this before the election, or whether by cowardice and chickenshittery they'll effectively enable a continuation of offshore drilling, in violation of their own "ban". And if they do, will voters tolerate that gutlessness at the ballot box?

[For the curious, I'm tracking petroleum permits here. The next expiry after this isn't until December next year, though if we're lucky we'll see some surrenders as a result of "drill or drop" clauses]

Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day, and first up is the first reading of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill would ban an enormously destructive form of mining before it gets started, which is consistent with the government's international position, but for some reason chickenshit Labour doesn't want to vote for it, so they've contrived their own, separate select committee inquiry to pretend they're doing something, while really doing nothing. The bill does have problems - it immediately guillotines all existing offshore oil and gas mining permits, and while those permits need to be cancelled quickly, I'm not sure that an overnight guillotine rather than a five-year sunset is the best way to do it. But that is the sort of thing which can be resolved by a select committee. Sadly, chickenshit Labour isn't going to give them the chance.

Once that's out of the way, there's the second reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, and the first reading of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. They should go quickly, which means the House should get on to the third reading of Marja Lubeck's Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, and probably Ian McKelvie's Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill. If it moves really fast, it might even make a start on the second reading of Camilla Belich's Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill, but I don't think it will get any further. There will be a ballot for one bill tomorrow.

More foot-dragging from Labour

Undersea mining is a big issue at the moment, and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill is up for its first reading next Member's Day. But rather than vote for it, to allow a select committee to examine the issue and whether a full ban is necessary, Labour has instead decided to announce its own select committee inquiry:

Environment Minister David Parker has proposed a select committee inquiry into seabed mining - a move Te Pāti Māori says is weak and disappointing.

Parker said the inquiry would consider if changes were needed to seabed regulation in New Zealand's domestic zone, looking into risks and benefits of mining.

[...]

With Labour holding a majority on the select committee, the proposal seems certain to succeed.

So, it will basicly parallel the inquiry the committee would make into the bill, but without any chance of actual change emerging from it. Which is really Labour in a nutshell, isn't it? Happy to "consider" things and hold pointless inquiries, provided nothing ever changes.

Why won't Labour keep its promises?

Back in 2017, Jacinda Ardern promised "There will be no new mines on conservation land". NZ First stopped her from doing it in her first term, but since winning an absolute majority in the 2020 election Labour has refused to move on it - and has explicitly voted down a bill which would implement that promise. So why? Its not as if keeping conservation land for conservation is unpopular. Quite the opposite:

But a new poll commissioned by Forest and Bird found the majority of Kiwis (66 percent) think the Government should implement its 2017 promise to stop new mines on public conservation land. Sixteen of the respondents disagreed and eighteen percent were undecided.

That's a pretty big public mandate, and more people than voted for Labour and the Greens in 2020. Actually keeping their promise would be a popular move. So why won't Labour do it? Do they work for their voters, or just for a small clique of big donors?

This sort of betrayal undermines trust in the Labour Party, and in the political system as a whole. It builds the impression that politicians are just liars. But its also a driver behind Labour's fall in the polls. After all, Labour clearly doesn't care about its voters. So why should they care whether Labour stays in government?

Submit!

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has called for submissions on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Submissions can be sent using the form here and are due by Monday, 23 January 2023.

The main thing the bill does is fix this problem, where the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act to "promote" mining means that nothing miners want to do can ever be refused and major environemtnal issues like climate change cannot be considered, even when another law says they can be. Which is a good thing, and its probably worth telling the committee that. But weirdly, despite this being absolutely urgent (especially given that there are mining permits up for extension soon), it won't take effect until July 2023.

This is likely because of the other thing the bill does - strengthen consultation requirements with iwi and hapu. Obviously, that's something which takes time to set up, and so a delay for that is reasonable. But there's no reason the bill has to come into effect all at once, and the vital change to the purpose clause should not be delayed. Instead, it and the related changes (part 1 and sections 7,8,9,17 and 20) should come into effect the moment the bill becomes law. That way, the problem will actually get solved, rather than NZPAM having another 6 months in which to rubberstamp permit extensions. So, if you're planning a submission, please add a few words urging immediate implementation of the change to the purpose clause.

Writing a submission isn't hard - basicly "I support this bill, but this is what I'd like to see changed". Mine was all of 189 words, which is about a hundred words shorter than this post. So please, fill out the form and send yours in today.

Climate Change: Fixing the Crown Minerals Act?

Back in August, the High Court ruled that the Zero Carbon Act isn't worth shit and that the government can continue to approve new fossil fuel exploration without having to consider climate change. The core of the problem is the Crown Minerals Act, and in particular its purpose: "to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand". Now, the government is finally fixing the problem:

The Government will change “nonsensical” mining legislation that requires it to grant oil companies permits to look for new fossil fuels.

[...]

Energy Minister Megan Woods announced that a crucial sentence about promoting mineral exploitation will be changed, so the Government can say no to companies.

This is good, of course - but the government needs to go further. We don't just need a minerals regime that allows mining companies to be controlled - we need to phase out fossil fuels. And that means not just being able to reject new permits for coal and petroleum, but banning them, while sunsetting existing permits and their associated resource consents. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill will do that for offshore mining, and Eugenie Sage's Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill would do it for coal. Labour opposes both. Which tells us exactly how un-serious they are on climate change.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the court decision, NZPAM has been extending gas and oil permits right, left and centre. It would be good if the legislation explicitly overturned those self-interested, politically-motivated decisions.

Climate Change: Labour's policy of murder

Floods in Pakistan have killed more than a thousand people this week and displaced 50 million, and put a third of the country underwater. Locally, Nelson has been devastated by floods. Meanwhile, the latest ice-loss data from Greenland says we're looking at at least 27cm (and maybe as much as 78cm) of sea level rise by the end of the century from Greenland alone. And while this is going on, Labour has quietly extended a fossil fuel mining permit, increasing future greenhouse gas emissions for another 13 years.

The permit is number 38159 ("Surrey"), held by Greymouth Petroleum. It expired on April 4. But its owners applied for and were granted an extension until 2035. According to MBIE, the permit produced 65,000 barrels of oil in 2021 (which means about 32,500 tons of CO2). If that rate of production continues, then the government's decision has just allowed an extra 420,000 tons of CO2 to enter the atmosphere - all of which was completely avoidable. I wonder how those 50 million displaced Pakistanis feel about that? Or the people of Nelson?

But Surrey isn't the only permit. There are two more permits (53803 and 55491) which have also recently expired, and where the owners have also applied for extensions. And based on their current behaviour, it looks like Labour will grant them. Its clear from this that they have no intention of enforcing the Crown Minerals Act against polluters, and no intention of allowing even a gradual shutdown. Instead, they're going to protect the status quo, and let them keep polluting forever. And in the current situation, this is simply a policy of murder.