In his speech to the conference, he said ACT would open up conservation land to the basic research needed to establish what resources were there. The nation could then have debate about whether we are going to pass up “the potential of billions of dollars of wealth, and thousands of high paid jobs” for the sake of preserving untouched some tiny patches of our total conservation estate.
In answer to question in Parliament few days later, acting Energy Minister Hekia Parata affirmed to Hide that the Ministry of Economic Development estimated the gross value of New Zealand’s in-ground onshore minerals, excluding hydrocarbons, was $194 billion. But the country had had robust debate about mining on “schedule 4 land”, Parata said. The Government had listened to the debate and ruled out removing land from schedule 4. But it was keen to see New Zealand’s extensive mineral wealth used “in responsible way for the benefit of all New Zealanders” and it was taking steps to encourage that.
Asked about the job and opportunity losses represented by leaving $80,000 million of minerals under the schedule 4 land, Parata said the Government was focused on the $114 billion worth of mineral potential on non-schedule 4 land, “and that is what we are exploring”.
But the alluring billions of dollars bandied about during the mining debate need to be treated with caution. As one Labour analyst has noted, the numbers don’t necessarily stack up. Anyway, something more than mining is needed. The Business Roundtable’s Roger Kerr emphasised a few years ago that policies, not mining, were responsible for Australia’s prosperity when remonstrating with Michael Cullen.
The former Finance Minister had said: “Don’t forget Australia’s wealth is very largely built on its quite crude minerals exports, particularly gas and coal.” But the Australian mining sector was far too small to be the driving force of the economy, Kerr countered. In the 2006/07 June year, mining contributed just 7.1% of Australia’s GDP. Its percentage share of total employment was even lower – only 1.3% in 2006/07.
Kerr’s emphasis was on the need for productivity improvements – these had been estimated to account for around 40% of Australia’s recent GDP growth compared to around zero at best for New Zealand. And productivity improvements are product of good policies.
