Dunne's Weekly: A Government Backbencher's Lot Not Always A Happy One
Opinion – Peter Dunne
Over the next few weeks, it will be the government backbench lobby fodder that will have to do the lions share of facing up and responding to the anger of those adversely affected by this legislation.
Being a backbench government Member of Parliament is at best a mixed blessing.
On the one hand, there is the excitement of being part of the government team, able to interact with Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards about what the government is doing and generally being 'in the know'. Through Caucus committees, government backbenchers can work alongside Ministers on the development of policy ideas which may eventually come to fruition as government policy.
Government backbenchers can also lobby Ministers about issues of particular importance to the electorates or districts they represent and can generally expect, for obvious political reasons, any such representations to be treated more favourably than if they were coming from an Opposition MP. Locally, they can then claim the credit for moves beneficial to their electorates or regions.
But, on the other hand, the ultimate decisions still rest with Ministers and the Cabinet, meaning government backbenchers are often no more than influential supplicants. And because of collective Cabinet responsibility – the doctrine that binds all members of the Executive, including Ministers outside Cabinet and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to support all Cabinet decisions – the Executive virtually always has the numbers to prevail in any Caucus discussion.
The formation of the Budget each year, and major policy decisions are almost entirely the province of the Cabinet, with backbenchers usually informed of the details after the event. In case of the Budget, government backbenchers are normally briefed on its contents only about an hour before it is delivered in the House – about the same time as senior Opposition MPs are given an embargoed copy in a pre-Budget lock-up, and considerably later than the media whose lock-up begins hours earlier – yet they are expected to support it enthusiastically when it is debated in the House.
It is often a similar process regarding controversial legislation pushed through under Urgency. In what has become the classic but no means only example, in late 1988 Labour MPs were informed at an early morning meeting of Cabinet's intention to introduce at 9:00 am that morning under Urgency a Bill to make 'some minor technical changes' to the way departmental chief executives were appointed – that Bill was the infamous State Sector Act.
Almost certainly, the same process would have been followed with this week's dramatic and controversial changes to the way pay equity issues are addressed. The fact that this was an ACT-driven initiative adds a further complication to the process. But the surprise that accompanied its announcement suggested as few people as necessary were aware in advance of the plan for obvious security reasons. Government backbenchers were unlikely to have been in this group.
The upshot was that when Parliament resumed this week after a three week recess this legislation was introduced under Urgency, to be passed through all stages as soon as possible without any reference to a select committee or opportunity for public submissions. The Cabinet simply wanted the legislation passed as quickly as possible, to prevent the possibility of any legal or other challenges before the law was changed.
To do so, it relied on the support of the government backbench for the obligatory occasional brief supportive speeches and the necessary votes in Parliament for it to happen as quickly as possible. As they did so, the backbenchers would have had to endure the usual standard cries of 'shame' and outrage from the other side of the House, notwithstanding that they too when in office – like every government – used and will continue to use Urgency in this way to pass controversial legislation.
Over the next few weeks, it will be the government backbench 'lobby fodder' that will have to do the lion's share of facing up and responding to the anger of those adversely affected by this legislation. They will also be the ones challenged to explain why they supported it. Ministers, meanwhile, will have shifted their attention to the Budget due at the end of May. Between now and then, as is customary, there will be an ever-increasing drip-feed of announcements from Ministers about the good things they have secured in this Budget.
But for the government backbenchers, the same old grind will continue. Once they have weathered the storm over the pay equity legislation, they will need to gear up to support and explain the Budget in its entirety, despite having had a similarly minimal input into its development. And all the while they will be focused on convincing their constituents that they are personally having an impact on what the government is doing and are therefore worth re-electing next year.
For some, the motivation will be a noble belief that their government is always right. For others it will be a case of proving their loyalty to the team and willingness to take the good with the bad, in the hope that one day they will become Ministers. Then they really will be able to have a proactive and meaningful impact on what the government is doing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kiwiblog
2 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: PM must reverse the ‘Power of General Competence' to stop activism in local government
A guest post by a reader: As powerless ratepayers face the ongoing tyranny of marxist councils over rates bills and the local government minister's repeated demands for sensible spending fall on deaf ears, the Prime Minister continues to ignore the obvious solution. Requests by Simon Watts imploring Tauranga and other councils to rein in the wasteful spending are ignored as renegade mayors like Mahe Drysdale go crazy (like kids in a sweet shop) giving away taxpayer owned land to Maori and other corrupt, wasteful spending. Reversing 'the power of general competence' legislated by socialist Helen in the early 2000s, would force attention back on delivery of essential services, rein in rates rises and improve the standard of living of long suffering rate payers. Unlike Trump who goes in like a bull-at-a-gate and changes things, our PM and ministers stand by wringing their hands timidly asking marxist councillors and staff to do the right thing. This is like so much virtue signalling on an issue Simeon Brown was threatening to address before he was promptly moved to the health ministry early this year…. curiouser and curiouser. Instead a deflecting Willis now turns our attention to a task akin to pushing back the tide: lowering supermarket prices; admirable, but probably impossible. Luxon showed that he is quite capable of some slick sleight of hand when it suits his purposes. (to get a budget over the line) Consider the pay parity bill. Now you see Labour's old version, then, faster than Dynamo, the new improved bill produced out of Brook van Veldon's hat, was passed into law under urgency. If the government genuinely wanted to help struggling New Zealanders they would have begun enacting the bill reversal in 2023. However it suits them to virtue signal and let councils carry out race based policies they profess to be against and can blame them for. They lie. The force working in government, so Luxon doesn't have to, is opportunist Tama Potaka, winning Hamilton West in the 2022 by-election, knowing Labour were heading for the wilderness. Luxon, forgetting his election promises and intent on taking his own path (like Ardern) once in power, has given full rein to Potaka, his Maori spokesperson, a new star. Speaking out on issues, referring to New Zealand as Aoteroa New Zealand in the House and else where without a murmur of dissent from so called tough commentators like Mike Hosking, who has coined the late Bob Jones' 'Maorification of NZ' as his own. When questioned Luxon defers from knowning or owning that nasty term. He mostly leaves that unpalatable stuff to his activist Maori spokesperson. Tut tutting on Twitter (X) when Seymour spoke of 'racist' media questions and of Maori targetted spending as 'racist'. (Seen as the ultimate taboo by the radical media ideologues.) Potaka is all business Tony Vaughn on Breaking Views opines: 'Tama Potaka is not a moderate. He is the acceptable face of racial separatism. A handsome cipher in a navy-blue suit, offering respectable cover for policies that are, in effect, apartheid with PR spin.' I couldn't have put it better. No doubt Potaka had a say in forcing the vote forward on Maori wards to this year's election so even those councils who voted against; their Maori wards have another term before they cease. Seymour folded like a wet umbrella on that one (not being the master of the behind -the-scenes tantrum like Winston) I know our city voted against Maori wards back in 2019 during the year, so come the election that year, there were none. Easy peasy. Luxon fires on all cylinders, speaking with authority, when he is one step removed from the decision. Consider the punishment doled out to to the Maori MPs for their 'Haka of Victimhood' (to quote Shane Jones) with 3 weeks ban and removal of pay. I wouldn't like his chances arguing the point against fiery Collins and Peters. However he can quite rightly say that the powerful privileges committee decision is final. And never waver. In the end they are carrying the can, not him and that is just the way he likes it. He lacks the courage of his convictions, necssary for real leadership. This decision will count in the government's favour, with a public sick of the Maori Party's antics. And it is a just decision considering the baptism of fire Seymour had gone through, from the shonky running of the Treaty Principles Bill's select committee; the ungracious behaviour of 'activists' Luxon and Potaka; with official records which will conceal corrupt counting methods and processes; culminating in a dramatic intimidating adult tantrum gaining global attention for all the wrong reasons. Also given the Maori Party leaders' sketchy attendance record in the House where they get paid whether there or not, losing three weeks pay might just about even it up! The Maori Party, unused to accountability, are finally finding their actions have consequences. Hard of hearing Speaker, Mr Brownlee who could have stopped the clown show before it got underway (by cutting the live feed for a start) will be most unpopular if he, in his quest to incorporate all things Maori into parliament, thinks rude imbecilic behaviour like this counts as 'Te Kanga' (behavioural guidelines for living with others) And here was I under the impression that mythical 'obligations to the treaty' were to be REMOVED not added, as part of the Coalition Agreement. If you are to get your point across you will have to brush up on your tantrum technique, David!
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Seymour on Māori funding: Need over race in Government policy shift
He went from being abused at Waitangi this year to the Bombay Hills to the opening of Tipene, St Stephen's School, a new charter school on the former site of the old St Stephen's College, which was closed in 2000. Untangling Government targeting can be confusing. Apparently funding for Māori-focused schools, be it charter or kura kaupapa, is fine. But funding for a Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora, ended last year, and the authority was disestablished. Specific funding for Māori housing programmes was cut from Budget 2025, and funding for Māori trades training was cut. But funding for Māori wardens was increased, and continued for Whānau Ora. It is okay for Māori health providers to be contracted to increase immunisation rates for Māori babies. But when ACC tendered this year for expertise to reduce work injuries for Māori and Pacific people in the manufacturing sector, where they are over-represented, Act contacted the ACC Minister, and the Minister asked ACC to rethink. Ethnicity has been removed as one of five factors in what is called an equity adjustor for waiting lists in the health system, and a move by the last Government has been scrapped to screen Māori at a younger age for bowel cancer on the basis that they get it earlier. So when is targeting okay and not okay for Māori under Seymour's philosophical approach? Essentially, it's when all factors other than race have been ruled out. But he is defensive about the way Act has been criticised for it. 'In a lot of this debate, people assume we are opposed a group of people or a culture where in actual fact we are opposed to an arbitrary way it comes about.' When it comes to charter schools, Seymour says they present no discrimination, and that the fact that some are set up for Māori is neither an advantage or disadvantage. "There is a misconception that I and Act are opposed to anything Māori," says David Seymour. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'There is no discrimination in the policy. It says if you want to set up a school you must basically demonstrate three things: that you've got an idea, that you've got capacity to plausibly deliver on it and that you have community support. A wide range of people were doing it, including a kaupapa Māori school. 'The thing there is nothing in the policy that says you have advantage or disadvantage in being a Māori school.' The difference with the Māori Health Authority On the other hand, the Māori Health Authority had effectively said that New Zealand would have two health commissioning agencies because the most important thing about a person was their ethnicity.' 'With a charter school, by contrast, there's no putting different patients into different boxes,' said Seymour. 'People themselves can choose a school with a certain style. The difference is that charter schools are bottom-up. The Māori Health Authority was top-down.' Seymour cites the Cabinet Office Circular headed 'Needs-based service provision', which was issued to all in September last year as part of National's coalition agreements with Act and NZ First to set out its expectation that services should be delivered on the basis of need, not race. The salient parts state: 'The Government seeks to ensure that all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity or personal identity, have access to public services that are appropriate and effective for them, and that services are not arbitrarily allocated on the basis of ethnicity or any other aspect of identity. The circular draws on international law, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, for temporary circumstances in which affirmative action is acceptable. It quotes the convention: 'Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved'. The circular is essentially Government policy and sets expectations for ministers, chief executives and officials involved in service design, commissioning, and delivery of government services. Voucher system in tertiary education Seymour does not have a problem with the variety in the education system but does have a problem with any affirmative action courses that have lower standards for Māori or other groups. 'Tertiary education now, at least, is essentially a voucher system,' he said. 'You go to any registered tertiary institution and the state will fund your places. 'Do I have a problem, for example, with Te Waananga? No. If people want to go to the University of Auckland, they should. If they want to go to the Waananga, they should. Will they get different treatment at each one? Probably, but that's a pluralistic society. 'That I don't have a problem with.' But he was completely opposed to lower standards of admission for Māori to say, medical school. 'That is different access to opportunity based on your race, versus presenting and delivering the opportunity in different ways in a marketplace place and the latter I completely support, and that's what charter schools are.' He said he recently chastised a supporter of his who had complained about a netball tournament in Whanganui where you had to speak Māori for the whole tournament, and you could be penalised for speaking English. 'And I just said, 'Why is this a problem?'' It was no different to a camp for French language students where you could speak only French at the camp and there would be no problem with that. 'We have no problem with multiculturalism. It's discrimination and preferential allocation of resources that we have a problem with.' Seymour said he did not have a problem with using Māori health providers to have better access to Māori patients with defined needs. 'If you can genuinely show that ethnicity is your variable and that is better than any other way in making sure that all patients get better service, then we support that. 'But what we don't support is a framework where the starting premise of the law is that we are divided into tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, and that is the lens through which we must always look. That I think is wrong. 'There is a misconception that I and Act are somehow opposed to anything Māori. We are really not.' Changes to ACC targeting So why did Act object to ACC's tender to reduce work injuries in the manufacturing sector, with targets for Māori and Pacific workers who have disproportionately higher injuries? 'There are two very different things here,' said Seymour. 'Do we believe in devolution and competition, and choice in the delivery of social services and we absolutely do. 'But then there is the question of 'should you then group your patients and commission different levels of service, regardless of who the providers are, by their ethnic background?' ACC Minister Scott Simpson had initially believed he had followed the cabinet circular, said Seymour. 'But the cabinet is very clear. It says you can use ethnicity as a variable for directing resources but you need to be very sure there aren't other variables that you could have used first – because we have so much more data than just a person's ethnicity and we can do far more accurate targeting if we are prepared to use the richness of data we have in the IDI [Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure] rather than just defaulting to race. 'We need to be a lot more nuanced and sophisticated in our use of data,' said Seymour. ACC has since changed its practices. New guidance for staff has been developed to support the application of the Cabinet Office Circular to ACC's commissioning practices, said Andy Milne, ACC deputy chief executive for strategy, engagement and prevention. 'This will ensure that we evidence the need for any targeted commissioning and demonstrate that we are following the guidelines set out in the Government's circular.' ACC data showed that Māori and Pacific people disproportionately experience high injury rates in the manufacturing sector, which is one of five high-risk priority areas for ACC. In 2024, 18% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Māori (Māori constitute 14% of the workforce), and 11% of work-related weekly compensation claims in manufacturing impacted Pacific people (10% of the workforce). The original tender sought a target outcome of 5461 claims to be saved by the end of the benefit realisation period (approximately 10 years from the delivery phase). At least 18% of the claims saved were to be from Māori, and 11% from Pacific people. After Act and the minister's intervention, the tender was reissued by ACC without the ethnic targets, and closed last week. Targeted services is 'good government' Nicola Willis took the paper on the circular to cabinet last year as Public Service Minister, and it also revoked the previous Government's affirmative action, the progressive procurement policy, which aimed to get Government agencies to award 8% of their contracts to Māori businesses. 'I am concerned that retaining targets for a specific group (or groups) of businesses based on ethnicity sends the wrong signal to agencies about awarding contracts first and foremost on public value,' Willis wrote. 'I consider this approach, regardless of how carefully it is implemented, leaves an impression of an uneven playing field and a perception (whether warranted or not) of potential discrimination.' The cabinet paper acknowledges the benefits of targeted services, not just to ethnically defined groups but disabled people, seniors, people living in rural area or those with diverse sexualities or gender identities. 'Services targeted or designed for specific population groups are an established feature of good government,' she wrote. But where targeted services were proposed, 'I expect these to be informed by clear evidence of a disparity, and evidence that culturally responsive or population-specific service models would be more effective. In other words, targeted services should coincide with a focus on need…' She said the proposals were consistent with the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 'We are committed to achieving equitable outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I acknowledge this will often require services targeted or tailored to specific ethnic population groups, subject to the analytical rigour proposed in the circular to confirm such need.' 'I believe the need is overwhelming." Labour Social Development spokesman Willie Jackson. Photo / Mark Mitchell Former Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson was one of the first to condemn cuts to targeted programmes in this year's Budget, including the Māori Trade and Training. 'The Government should hang its head in shame after a budget that takes a knife to more Māori programmes,' he said on Budget day. He felt it keenly. For six years as a minister in the Labour-led Government, he worked with Finance Minister Grant Robertson to build up targeted funding for Māori to a total of about $1b a year by 2023. He also drove the now-ditched progressive procurement policy for Māori businesses to get a slice of the $50b annual procurement of Government agencies. In his view, targeted funding, particularly using Māori providers in health and social services, is the most effective way of getting to Māori in the most need. 'I believe the need is overwhelming and the facts show the need is overwhelming in terms of Māori,' he told the Herald. 'There is a big group and a growing group who just trust Māori processes, and their Māori health provider. And they are shell-shocked at the moment.' 'Our people trust our people' He believes the reason Seymour is averse to targeting on race is because it was his way of 'walking away from Treaty obligations.' So why did Labour decide to set up a Māori Health Authority? Was it a Treaty obligation or a measure for more targeted delivery? 'The inability to access health was a huge factor in terms of the Māori Health Authority. Always at the forefront was need, but of course the Treaty was there too,' said Jackson. 'But I believe we always operated from a position of need, and Māori absolutely fulfilled that criteria. That is why I pushed so hard over that time for targeted Māori funding. 'He can call it racist, but our people trust our people.' There were 'incredible gaps' in Māori statistics that needed to be addressed with ''for Māori, by Māori' strategies.' And he believes most New Zealanders supported it. 'They just want common sense. They want fairness. They don't want extreme in terms of the Māori stuff and where Māori funding is due. They don't want separate everything.' Jackson was not sure if Labour would go to next year's election promising to reinstate the Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora. 'But we will bring back in absolutely Māori-targeted funding. We are committed to targeted funding,' he said. 'We have learnt some of the lessons of the past' 'The reality is Māori want more funding and more resources. I just want to get our people the necessary funding and resources. 'It doesn't have to be in any separate entities, and maybe it won't be if we get back in because we have to learn some of the lessons of the past.' But Robertson acknowledged that funding and resourcing for Māori had been minimal. That was why target funding under Labour rose so much. 'And that is no racist funding. That is funding based on need. 'But also, there is a Treaty obligation. We are a partner, and that's how governments should look at things,' said Jackson. 'It doesn't mean that there is a Māori takeover. It is just an acknowledgement that the biggest need in this country is Māori.' While Jackson believes that National is 'buckling' to David Seymour's view of targeting, it is clear that National's ministers are less vexed by it. 'It was a fiscal, not philosophical' Speaking about the Budget in May, Social Development Minister Louise Upston justified ending funding for Māori Trades and Training on the basis it had been time-limited funding and that was where she first looked for savings. 'The Māori Trades Training fund was established during Covid times and then extended in 2022 and due to expire 30 June 2025,' she said. 'For things that were due to end, there had to be a very, very strong reason why I would have to continue them and have to find savings elsewhere.' Budget 2025 had focused on employment, and the intervention that had been the most successful was case management 'so that is where we have focused the resources'. In the past year, it had funded $21 million for 52 providers for expenses incurred on programmes that supported Māori through Trades and Training. But Upston insisted it was a fiscal decision, not a philosophical one based on the Cabinet Office Circular approved by Cabinet. Louise Upston said the focus in this year's budget went on case management. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'Totally and absolutely. It had nothing to do with the name of it. I looked at all programmes that had a time limit.' She said she had felt no need to conduct any reviews of programmes in Social Development in the light of the circular. 'If you look at Social Development, it is pretty clear who is over-represented in job seeker numbers. It is young people, it is Māori, it is Pasifika, it is disabled and to a lesser degree, women. 'What I wanted to do is make sure we are funding initiatives that are effective, and we have data and evidence to prove they have the greatest impact at supporting people back into employment.' The He Poutama Rangatahi programme for young people not in education, employment or training (Neets) continued, with $33 million, down from $44 million, but that is targeted at all Neets. Housing Minister Chris Bishop, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis, says he wants a more granular housing system. Photo / Mark Mitchell Housing funding consolidated Housing Minister Chris Bishop said the targeted Māori housing fund, Whai Kainga Whai Oranga, administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Te Puni Kokiri, had been consolidated into a single funding source with several other housing funds. 'The money hasn't disappeared. It has just been consolidated into a different fund, and one of the things that fund will be looking at is who they can partner with in order to deliver houses for people in need. 'The intention is for the Government to be much more deliberate and targeted about the housing solutions that are invested in around the country. 'That fund will end up investing in a range of different Māori housing solutions around the country.' He was confident it would be an effective fund for supporting iwi in post-settlement governance entities and Māori land trusts that wanted to do things in housing. 'What we are doing with the housing system is to move towards a much more granular system, more evidence-based, where we focus on the right house in the right place for the right people. 'The system at the moment is way too much one-system-fits-all.' He said he wanted the system to be more targeted to need. 'We know where the housing need is, but the system doesn't actually cater for that at the moment. We know where the regional needs are.' There was a role in working with Māori housing providers 'in the same way as there is a role for kura kaupapa, there is a role in working with Māori health providers, who did an excellent job during the Covid pandemic, for example.' Bishop's office later confirmed that $188 million in uncommitted Māori housing operating funding and $383 million capital funding were reprioritised. New housing priorities include: $200m for 400 affordable rentals to be delivered through Māori housing projects ($48m opex; $151m capex) $168m for 550 social housing places to be delivered in Auckland ($128m opex; $40m capex) $300m for 650-900 social and affordable rentals through the new Flexible fund ($41m opex; 250m capex) What's the answer to disadvantage? So, back to Seymour for the last word. What would Seymour's approach be to lifting Māori out of the state of disadvantage they find themselves in in so many social statistics? The answer is dynamism. 'First of all, it's not all Māori and not only Māori. I would say all people who are in a state of disadvantage will benefit from a more dynamic opportunity because when there is more dynamism, there is more opportunity. 'For example, if there are more homes being built, it is more likely a young person will end up owning one. 'If there are more companies being formed with more capital investment, it is more likely that someone who doesn't have a good job or opportunity right now will get one. 'If there is more innovation and more schools opening up that are engaging students in newer and better ways, it is more likely that a person who doesn't have a good opportunity to get an education will get one. 'In my view, it is dynamism. We are seeing this with whole countries. You look at South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Ireland, some of the more successful eastern European countries such as Estonia, they've gone, often in less than two generations, from a situation where essentially everyone is destitute and down on their luck and lacking opportunity…to dynamic opportunity. 'Suddenly, new companies are being built, new houses are being built, and people have recovered their self-esteem because they have taken on challenges and overcome their challenges. 'That's the only thing in my view that makes anyone feel good.'
Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Yes, all that glistens is not always gold
There is other, better gold than gold itself in Otago, Jonathan West writes. Santana Minerals proposes a vast open-cast gold mine to cut through the Dunstan Mountains above the Clutha River. CEO Damien Spring says "the gold rush has started" and his company trumpets big sums: perhaps $5 billion revenues for this small band of Australian miners and their investors; perhaps $1b in taxes and royalties for the government. Truly impressive returns, especially for a company that's never built or operated a mine before. What will the result be for local communities and Otago? Perhaps 200 jobs, and downstream spending. It's too easy for Otago residents to be starry-eyed about gold, remembering the wealth sieved from shining rivers. Yet Central's riches have long been in tourists, wine and fruits. Natural beauty, clear air and pure water underpin a booming economy doubling every 20 years. There is no shortage of wealth or jobs in Central Otago. Acknowledging the potential financial rewards, we must equally consider the impacts and risks of open-cast mines in the region's heart for Otago's people, existing economy, and natural world. As economist Geoff Bertram writes: "Mining will not increase economic welfare — on the contrary, it will often reduce it — if done in the wrong place, or in the wrong way, or without a proper legal and regulatory framework." Whether a mine is a good idea is always a matter of what, where, how and who. Do we need more gold? It mostly becomes jewellery or is reburied in bank vaults. Simon Upton, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, is one person baffled by Cabinet's last-minute addition of gold to our critical minerals list, against official advice. Santana's open-cast mine is not like the alluvial operations of Central's past. Hillsides will be cut away to open pits a kilometre wide and hundreds of metres deep. The rock will be crushed to dust and soaked in cyanide to leach out the gold. Santana eventually expects to mine right through from the upper Clutha Basin over Thomsons Saddle to Ophir, on the Manuherikia Plain. This will outstrip Macraes, making it our biggest ever gold mine. Other overseas mining companies have exploratory licences covering most of Central Otago, and plan to follow Santana's suit. Climbing Thomson's Saddle, you can look back over the upper Clutha and up the Lindis with the Alps behind. The overwhelming sense is of peace in the hills, quiet prosperity in the valley. Open-cast mining at this scale will remove the existing landscape, its life, and the traces of the past. This is a deeply historic landscape: once the Kai Tahu pounamu trail and followed by 19th century surveyor John Turnbull Thomson coming inland to survey Otago, then the miners' town of Bendigo and pastoral stock route. This land was also Crown-owned land under pastoral leasehold till tenure review established freeholds. The proposed mine site is recognised as Outstanding Natural Landscape and covered by a conservation covenant. Locals name the prevailing nor'wester "the Matakanui Freight Train". Arsenic is concentrated in the rock the mine will crush, and locals fear cancerous dust storms. Wineries and other businesses nearby depend on tourists coming for beauty and tranquillity. It is hard to see them surviving the mine. The regional fabric of wine and food growing and tourism will very likely suffer too: the mine will be widely seen from the tourist highways or when flying into Queenstown. It is disingenuous for Damien Spring to tell locals "It's like a chip in your windscreen when you drive by". Placing a tailings dam above the Clutha River poses significant risks. That dam will need to hold tens of millions of tonnes of toxic rock and water slurry containing cyanide, arsenic and heavy metals. Santana reportedly trusts the schist rock is so tight the dam can be left unlined, but seepage is a forever risk. A dam rupture would potentially be catastrophic for the Clutha's wildlife, aquifers, and drinking water of the towns downstream. Such dam failures keep occurring across the world. So do cyanide incidents. Santana is unwilling to commit to a bond to cover long-term monitoring or the risk that the tailings dam fails. The company is also yet to commit to the "International Cyanide Code" that regulates cyanide use. "There will be no residual adverse effects", Damian Spring has told the local community. The government's new fast track one stop shop exacerbates risk. Fast-tracked projects must succeed unless adverse effects are "sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project's regional or national benefits". After several delays, Santana aims to apply to the Environment Protection Agency for approval by end of June. They can expect a decision this year. A convener will appoint the four-person panel who decide if the mine proceeds. The panel will include a member of either Central Otago District Council or Otago Regional Council. Only affected adjacent landowners, the local councils and relevant Crown agencies such as Doc have the right to "comment" on the application. And they have only 20 working days to do so. Then the panel will have just 30 more working days to reach a final decision. Santana's application will include detailed technical reports on mine construction and effects. The company has explicitly assured local community group Sustainable Tarras and councils that, to make consultation meaningful, it would give access to such reports well ahead of the submission date. However, the company has since reneged on this, without explanation. Under the Fast Track law, even the evaluation panel will have limited time to ask for independent peer review or otherwise test the company's proposals. Unless the panel convener varies some timeframes, the whole process will take only 15 weeks. The Fast Track is designed to narrow public participation, but it is possible to influence this decision. Local councils will be represented on the panel and can comment on the application. Our representatives can test all aspects of Santana's proposal. This mine is not inevitable. If you share concerns about what this open-cast mine will do to Central Otago, it is time to speak up. Now. — Jonathan West is a writer and environmental historian.
