Will the Government’s new mining strategy deliver more than coal and gold?

Published Feb 3, 2025, 4:00 PM

Mining has become a key part of the Government’s plans for economic growth.

Resources Minister – and self-appointed ‘Matua of Mining’ - Shane Jones has unveiled a plan to double exports to $3 billion by 2035, alongside a list of 37-strong Critical Minerals List and a national minerals strategy.

While the plan has been met with criticism from environmentalists and the opposition, there has been some positive feedback from academics, praising the plan for its commitment to ‘pipe-line development’.

But do the numbers stack up? And how many of those critical minerals are actually sitting beneath our feet?

Today on The Front Page, Massey University Professor of Geography Glenn Banks is with us to dig into the government’s mining plans.

Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.

Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills

Kyoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Mining has become a key part of the government's plans for economic growth. Resources Minister and self appointed martywa of Mining Shane Jones, has unveiled a plan to double exports to three billion dollars by twenty thirty five, alongside a list of thirty seven strong critical minerals and a national mineral strategy. While the plan has been met with some criticism from environmentalists and the opposition, there has been some positive feedback from academics, praising the plan for its commitment to pipeline development. But do the numbers stack up? And how many of those critical minerals are actually sitting beneath our feet today? On the front page, Massy University professor of geography Glenn Banks is with us to dig into the government's mining plans. Glenn, you wrote recently that society needs mining, and mining itself is not inherently or necessarily rapacious. Can you expand on that for us?

I suppose two parts.

One is our society is built on minerals that are mined. The mining industry has a nice little saying that goes, if it's not growing, then it's mined, and that applies to everything within society. So everything from the technology we're using today to the desk you're sitting at to the building you're in heavily reliant, totally reliant on a mining sector.

So we need it now.

In terms of does that mean we should give them free license to run around and do what they like. For a long time we kind of did, and then really from the nineteen sixties seventies onwards, there's been increasing regulation of the sector to try and make sure that they don't or that they behave in a responsible way in terms of their environmental impact but also their contribution to the economy and to society generally. So that's why you see mining companies have big corporate social responsibility programs where they make sure that they're very visible in terms of what they're doing in the communities that they operate in. So, yeah, we need them, and they don't necessarily always make a horrible mess. These days, it's much better. It's much better regulated, and I think one of the things about the draft Mineral Strategy that was released was that there was a very nice statement in there and the introduction to it which talks about exactly that, about we need a mining industry, but we need one that actually behaves. A lot of the mining sector does behave pretty well.

With all that in mind, I guess what was your first reaction to the government's new mining policy.

Well, like I say, I.

Think there's some good stuff in there, and I think Shane Jones is he's completely right that we need a longer term vision for what we want from the mining industry.

For too long, it's just been hidden miss.

You know, the miners will come and go, but we haven't had a clear sense of the sector and the way in which it can contribute to society generally. So that strategic element I think is good. There's very little in terms of detail about what that means in terms of how the industry is going to be managed differently now to what it was previously. Shane Jones's line that you know, now we'll be able to miners will be able to get up and operate. They were previously the Federation gold Mine in Reefed and started up under the previous government. It got all it's consenting under the previous government through the regional Council and local council. So it's not like mining was completely off the cards previously. You know, he's trying to make a case that, ah, there was no mining. You know, mining was.

Impossible before it wasn't.

So it's a little bit hard to see exactly how things are going to be very different the fast The linking of the mineral strategy with the fast track legislation is probably the most obvious sign that we're going to see less real detailed examination of the new mining prospects out there, the way in which well I'm sure you know and lots of the listeners would know about the criticism of the fast track legislation, just removing some of that oversight of the environmental impacts and certainly reducing the amount of public consultation in the process.

So that's that's of concern.

If we're starting to wind back the dial in terms of the amount of really close looking at the industry before we allow for new minds around the place.

Well, labor reckons that it's shortsighted, environmentally, reckless and a giveaway to private mining interests. Are they right to have those concerns?

Do you think? Yeah?

I think they absolutely are and that was one of the things that struck me about the changes that were made to the Criticalerals list when that came through, when Shane Jones talked about that on Friday, including gold and the coal on the Critical Minerals list. I mean, the current the way in which critical minerals have been defined globally in the last five years when the terms come back into vogue, has been about minerals that support the green transition.

That's been the real emphasis. And to put.

Coal on that list just seems a bit obnoxious, really, and it completely undermines the credibility of the list in the eyes of anyone with an interest in green transition processes. It's really about securing the place of the existing industry and making sure that the minerals we have are able to be exploited by corporate interests. It's nothing to do with supporting the green transition. You know that critical minerals doing our bit for the green transition.

That's just a cloak.

For more coal and more gold as far as I can.

See, right, I mean, what would be the climate impacts of that of increasing coal extraction?

Well, it's not there's no very little climate impact on an extraction.

Sure, but that's straight to to burn, right, Yeah, and.

So when our coal goes to places like India, their coal is high ash, ours is low ash. So it's actually better for the environment. Obviously, people want to stop using coal, but at the moment people are using coal. We have coal. We have coal mines on the West Coast where mining is about a fifth of the GDP.

Yeah.

Shane Jones noted that of the thirty seven minerals included on that list, we produce or have the potential to produce twenty one here in New Zealand. Does that mean that there are some we might be able to produce but we don't actually know for certain what's happening with the other sixteen.

Well, the ones down the bottom of his list, the other sixteen are ones that we it's been decided that we need to try and secure supplies of them for the ongoing functioning of our industry and manufacturing. And so the statement's quite clear that the ones that we can't produce in the country, the only way that we're able to secure supply is building good relationships with the countries and the companies that are involved in extraction of those minerals. So it's about supply chain security rather than anything that we might potentially do in the future. The critical minerals list that we have is quite unique. We're the only country of the major countries that have produced a list.

Of critical minerals which have aggregate on.

It, so quarries rock and sand for construction when that was on the draft list. And one of the things that struck me about that was that was actually a fairly realistic proposition. If you look at the easily the largest number of mining operations, if you can call them that quarries and aggregate gravel pits that we use to get the stones that we need for construction and roading and all of those those other supplies. That's, in a sense, that's a much more strategic interest to us. And I thought it was quite realistic, as I say, to put aggregate on the list of critical minerals. But what it does is it shifts that that dial completely away from this notion that the global notion the critical minerals are the ones to support a green transition. It's more about it's a much more a strategic list of minerals that we need rather than a list of critical minerals. Right.

So minerals like copper, nickel, and cobalt, they're key in the production of many clean energy technologies, right, They're needed to make batteries for electric vehicles and wind turn bins and things like that. But they're also I guess used for other more nefarious I guess purposes, weapons and things like that. How do we strike a balance between looking at things that we need to create clean energy versus perhaps those other kind of things.

Yeah, and that's where things become very very muddied. The critical minerals we need for the green transition. If you listed some of them out there, copernickel, things like lithium, to regard it as the much more in terms of volume, far and away the most significant ones for a green transition. So it's things that we already produce and we already use for the wide range of things across society, including some of those what you labeled nefarious activities. So the military sector in the US is highly dependent on massive amounts of supply of those same minerals. So it's not like these things that are just used solely for the green transition, and that to say that, you know, we need to do more of this for the green transition is again it's a cloak for other forms of use that a lot of these minerals are put towards.

How do we strike a balance though, or do we just have to trust companies to do the right thing.

Yeah, and in some commodities there are we are starting to see companies and regulators they're really looking at where these things are coming from and conditions of extraction. So the obvious one conflict diamonds that have been around for a while now, where basically the ones that you're supposed to be buying in shops are coming from areas which are certified not to be involved in violent conflict of one kind or another. So gold is another one which they're starting to look at in terms of where it's coming from. There's real concerns about cobalt and coal, tan and some of those other critical minerals needed for green energy transition coming out of places like the DRC Democratic Republic of Congo, because they are coming out of conditions of conflict, of child.

Labor and all sorts of human rights abuses.

So trying to find balances in terms of the extraction where these things are coming from is a little bit easier than trying to regulate how they are used.

Once they hit the global markets.

So yeah, there's a fair element of trust, but there's also a blindness that we have to adopt to some of these things. When you think about the size of the military apparatus that's operating around the world that consume such vast quantities of these minerals.

You mentioned that many of these minerals are being mined in poorer countries. Hey, wasn't it actually until last year when we were talking about the New Caledonia riots on this podcast that I actually learned that those islands are a major source of the world's nickel, something Tesla uses for its evs and stuff.

Nickel is huge in New Caledonia. They have upwards of twenty percent of global reserve. Some estimates say up to thirty percent of global nickel reserves, and it's a very precious metal and used in electric vehicle batteries. In fact, a deal was struck with Tesla back in twenty twenty one for one of the major minds there in New Caledonia. So the significance of New Caledonia is not going away.

Can we ever move to a greener society? Without utilizing these resources or does it come hand in hand.

Yeah, there's a fairly lengthy academic literature on the relationship between mineral extraction and conflict, and there's a sense in which in a lot of parts of the world, particularly where governance isn't great, you get a vicious cycle between increasing extraction of minerals that leads feeds into economic mismanagement, corruption, violence, conflict, and all of these sorts of things. So there is a real concern about that. Yeah, neucleodonia is interesting. There's some really interesting stuff going on in terms of nickel extraction these days out of Indonesia, which is completely reshaped the nickel supply chain quite markedly. Interestingly, there's massive Chinese investment in nickel in Indonesia in particular. So the geopolitics of all of this become really interesting when you think that, roughly on taking across all of the various elements, about forty percent of global supply of the so called transition minerals come out of China.

You mentioned gold and coal on the list of thirty seven. I understand that this is a push to perhaps introduce new minerals to our market, be able to export different kinds of minerals. But what do you think the chances are of this happening and they're just being a whole bunch more gold mines pop up.

Well, I think one of the points that may have been changed Jones. It may have been one of the other commentators made was to start up a gold mine, or to start up any kind of mining, there's actually a fair lead time associated with it, so we're not likely to see we might see a gold mine or.

Two in the next few years.

This stuff around Central Otago, for example, and certainly around where there's some fairly advanced gold prospects, again all developed under the previous government.

But in terms of some of the.

Things like vanadium and antemy might be slightly different in the sense that it's often co produced with gold. So the reeft and deposit that they're looking at for antimony is co produced with gold in many instances. So there's a possibility that if gold gets up and running relatively quickly there, we might start to see some increased supply out of the West coast. But things like vanadium, which trans Tasman resources are suddenly discovered. Late last year was fairly high quantities in the ironstand that they're looking at off Taranaki, that is probably going to be a longer term prospect. So you know, ten years from binding a prospect to opening a opening a mine of any kind is not one typical in the industry. Shane Jones clearly wants to try and speed that process up. But whether we actually start to see any of that, give that the expiration for a lot of the transition minerals still need or the critical minerals on that list still needs to be done. So it's going to be ten years at least before any of these potential and perspective critical minerals start to come online.

Now, I know this anoise some of the green beetles, but they're never ever going to accept my pro industry, pro growth agenda, and I just have to acknowledge that their players and their stakeholders in the broader political system and respect of mining, we are going to turbocharge mining. We are going to increase our export revenue from mining, our job prospects and mining, and it'll be done within guardrails. But we're not going to have mining tainted and stigmatized by false information and have it blighted high history onics and that's pretty much what the Green Party and their fellow travelers represent.

Glenn, you and a colleague once proposed seven key behaviors for a mining sector committed to sustainable development. What are some of the key things these companies need to commit to.

Well, there's a few that really stand out. The first is that they in terms of the sorts of behaviors, they should be aiming for absolute world best practice in terms of environmental and social management practices. The mining industry here might like to and you know, there are some pretty responsible operators, but there's also some lapses from time to time. So, just in the last six months, I've been keeping track of the number of breaches of environmental monitoring conditions that coal and gold mines around the place have found themselves in trouble with.

So McCrae's Blackdown and Sinfilote.

Were found in breach of the monitoring requirements that they had, the environmental monitoring requirements they had down there, the Stockton mine, the coal mine, some of the rehabilitation efforts there. The amount of money that the government's having to invest in the rehabilitation and monitoring of that exceeds the royalties that we're receiving from the mind itself, so you know that those sorts of environmental aspects need to be improved. They're also interestingly in that the Critical Mineral Strategy and Shane Jones did and say very much about this, and one of the points that we made was that the industry needs to pay more attention to and actually proactively get involved in reuse and recycling of minerals. There's a lot of minerals that we don't need to mine if we were to be to take much more seriously the idea of reuse and reminding a recycling of minerals that currently just find themselves on the way to waste stumps. So those sorts of behaviors, greater transparency, and one of the ones that I really think we need to talk about a lot more here in turn rower is the notion of a fair share of the mineral resource. So making sure that a fair share of the value of resources actually resides in the country. It's not a discussion that we've actually had as part of either the Critical Minerals or the Draft Mineral Strategy. We hear that twenty one million dollars in royalties came to the government in twenty three twenty four from the mineral sector. When you think about the value of minerals that we also in the same breath here are being exported, then that's really a very very small share of the total value comes back to the New Zealand people. So those sorts of behaviors, I think are ones that we need to really look quite closely at in terms of if we go forward with an expansion of the mineral sector.

Right, so, do you think that doubling mineral exports by three billion dollars in a decade is realistic?

Well, the price of gold went up by six percent last year in one year, so if that trend continues, then shange zones and the mineral sector won't have to do anything at all to double mineral exports. It could happen in the next three years at that kind of rate. So that kind of figure is just to me, it's just a complete perfect There's so much volatility in the mineral prices globally, you know, the sorts of things that he's looking at or that the sector is looking at. Vanadium, for example, the prices bounce all around the place. So in any one particular year you might find that mineral resources. The value of mineral exports might well double even if there's not a significant uptick in production from those minerals, and that volatility, by the way, makes it really hard to regulate the sector from the point of view of the government too, So investors are much more interested in investing in gold or any of these other minerals when the prices are high, So regardless of what the government does, it's going to get much more attention if the prices of commodities like gold or vanadium or any of these others start to increase quite dramatically. Vanadium, by the way, the market consensus seems to be that prices are likely to fall between twenty twenty six and twenty twenty seven. So whether the market for that actually holds up, and whether that plays into trans Tasman resources that the economics of their operation is going to be interesting to see. Are we going to double mineral exports in the next ten years, Ask the market, have a look at what the market's doing, and it's going to be really hard to pick. So it's more I think a more realistic approach to ask whether we're going to see an increase in the actual amount of mining that happens across the country. Given the approach that's been taken with the fast tracked legislation, I think the answer to that is yes, but it's also worth pointing out I think that the established gold mines, and particularly the Oceanian gold ones, have a relatively limited light, not much beyond the twenty thirty five limit. So McCrae's flat and why he could well both be exhausted by twenty thirty five twenty the next ten to fifteen years.

Thanks for joining us, Glenn, no problem at all. That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot co dot mz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.