Nikki Kaye hits out at Key’s mining plan

29 comments on “Nikki Kaye hits out at Key’s mining plan ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sanctuary 1

   23 March 2010 at 7:20 am

   Pffft, window dressing by a lightweight backbencher who knows her prattling will make no practical difference but sees her support disappearing faster than you can say “open cast”.
   • the pinkpostman 1.1

     23 March 2010 at 1:34 pm

     Right on Santuary.
     Remember “Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts.”” ;

     When Tories like Banks and his ilk start to soften their Right Wing rhetoric
     my guard comes up.
2. mickysavage 2

   23 March 2010 at 7:48 am

   This will be an interesting test. There is no good reason for mining Great Barrier and many reasons against it.

   I expect Side Show John to eventually at least remove Great Barrier from the land under proposals.

   Otherwise Nikki can kiss her electoral seat goodbye.
3. wyndham 3

   23 March 2010 at 8:03 am

   Mickey, You’re on to it ! Watch John and Gerry backtrack on Coromandel and then go ahead in one of the other areas. The spindoctors will call it ‘being sensitive to public concern’.

   Has anyone considered the N Z contribution to carbon emissions that opening up coal mines in Inangahua will make ? That’ll go down well in the international community !
4. Robert Winter 4

   23 March 2010 at 8:17 am

   They pretty much had to “hit out”. Ms Ardern is a strong candidate in Auckland Central and with a double whammy of the Supercity and mining, Ms Kaye will feel vulnerable. And as for Mr Banks – with friends like the National Government………
   • SPC 4.1

     23 March 2010 at 10:29 am

     I agree
5. Cnr Joe 5

   23 March 2010 at 8:22 am

   So this now expected pattern emerges from John Keys mob – make it horrific – “listen to nzers” – make the ‘changes’ ( oh its not that bad after all..) and then win the day with their ‘watered down “consulted” changes’.
   I feel dirty and manipulated and I haven’t done any mining this morning.

   captcha discovering
   • SPC 5.1

     23 March 2010 at 10:30 am

     Yes, I’ll need a shower and a swim.
6. Tiger Mountain 6

   23 March 2010 at 8:24 am

   To add to the the obvious environmental issues, it is not clear yet who exactly would perform any mining, most money would have to go on it being multinational exploiters-refer the pacific rim and Australian track record of such outfits. So the implication is a further outflow of capital in repatriated profits to overseas owners, impacting on the current account deficit. In the absence of a wholly NZ Govt. owned and run mining SOE (like that would happen), the best that could be hoped for would be a percentage deal for the NZ Govt.

   A spanner in the proverbial of course may be the usual suspects from our own kiwi Appalachia-SI West Coasters.
7. toad 7

   23 March 2010 at 9:14 am

   Come on Sandra Goudie, where the bloody hell are you?
8. Connie Mist 8

   23 March 2010 at 9:21 am

   Just heard Kathryn Ryan ask John Banks if it could be a decoy – put Great Barrier and Stewart Island in, let the public erupt, take them out: Victory for the environmentalist. Win, win?

   Meanwhile, let’s get the bulldozers into Paparoa National Park – they’re not looking…
   • Bill 8.1

     23 March 2010 at 10:44 am

     That would be my pick.

     Which is another reason why all opposition must adopt a zero tolerance approach to mining in schedule 4 land or suggestions to remove any land from that designation.

     Aside from which, as Pascals Bookie repeatedly points out, if just one small piece of s4 land gets mined, then that means the legal protection for all of the rest of it is gone.
9. tc 9

   23 March 2010 at 9:27 am

   The ever present hand of big business up the nat’s back pulling the strings is just so blatant now……Kaye/Banks mumur the chords of discontent….boo hoo welcome to life in the born to rule party when it’s not your turn in the lolly scramble.

   Kaye/Banks could form a knitting group of MP’s/mates being politically disadvantaged by Sideshow John and the other clowns as there’ll be a few more Nat MP’s around akl who know they can’t bluff/bludgeon Supercity/mining past without collateral damage now as it’s too late.

   They can’t back down as it’s just not in their nature.
10. kaplan 10

    23 March 2010 at 9:56 am

    Without wanting to belittle this, at all, the more I read on this the more it seems that the Nat’s have only low intention of allowing mining on Great Barrier, and probably not in the Coromandel either (Unless the struck it lucky and no-one objected of course).

    That’s not a good thing, it’s a very bad thing because it does appear that this is their MO of threatening the worst then after the dust settles saying “OK, you win, we’ll just mine here, here and here.”

    You can see it in Key’s negotiation mentality. Look at this comment:
    “You would expect those who come along to those type of significant negotiations to start at their extreme or hardest position,”
    Key plays down US trade warning
    The thing that gets me is he’s not negotiating business deals here, he’s negotiating destruction.

    For this reason, and for my part, this needs to be fought on the basis that 0.00 Square Millimetres of Schedule 4 land be opened to mining. End of story.
11. David G King 11

    23 March 2010 at 10:08 am

    I’m probably being somewhat naive, but do “mineral deposits” only appear under conservation land? The spin I’m hearnig suggests that there is nothing of significance anywhere else in NZ.

    Captcha : Oppositions
    • Bright Red 11.1

      23 March 2010 at 10:17 am

      they reckon there’s $194 billion in total in NZ, $80 in conversation land, a fraction of which will be schedule 4.

      In all cases remember that just because it’s in the ground doesn’t mean it is economically viable to dig up.
12. big bruv 12

    23 March 2010 at 10:22 am

    Dig baby dig!
    • Pascal's bookie 12.1

      23 March 2010 at 10:26 am

      Palin’s career has gone stellar since then. A real step changer. If you think quitting a job with power to cash in by selling lies to rubes counts as step change.

      Bought her book bruv?
    • felix 12.2

      23 March 2010 at 10:30 am

      What does it say about the NZ right that they would deliberately ape the style and phrasing of the failed campaigns of the Sarah Palins of this world?

      Mind you, this is BB who also calls John Key “Neville” because HURR DURR THAT’S WHAT THE KOOL KIDS SAY ABOUT OBAMA HURR DURR.
    • kaplan 12.3

      23 March 2010 at 10:38 am

      BB’s comment kindly sponsored by the sewer.
      Fomenting quality debate since 2003.
13. SPC 13

    23 March 2010 at 10:28 am

    You cannot win the Auckland Central seat backing mining on local environment assets or supporting the removal of democratic accountability in the running of Auckland utilities (thus Kaye and Banks have to seem independent). Hopefully centrists vote Brown and Ardern anyway.
14. Tammy Gordon 14

    23 March 2010 at 11:32 am

    I say National should go ahead and try and mine Great Barrier Island. The entertainment vaule would be priceless. How are they going to ship in all that heavy equipment for a start? There’s no deep-water harbour. But the thing that would be really worth watching will be the deeply, deeply, desperately pissed off locals waging guerrilla warfare against the mining company.

    What a shame they’ve already made the movie.
15. Peter 15

    23 March 2010 at 2:06 pm

    And this from Mr Slaters’ Blog..

    Harden Up One Can
    Nikki “One Can’ Kaye needs to HTFU. If she truly was a hard-working MP car­ing for her con­stituents she would whole­heart­edly back min­ing on Great Bar­rier Island in order bring much needed devel­op­ments and improved eco­nomic con­di­tions to the residents.

    Think about the infra­struc­ture that would be needed to be built on the island to sup­port min­ing oper­a­tions, think about the reduc­tion in fuel costs by hav­ing large con­sumers of fuel effec­tively sub­si­dis­ing fuel and think about the increased access to the island cre­ated by improve­ments to the air­port, thee wharf and the addi­tional ferry ser­vices that would be needed.

    I can see noth­ing but good from sac­ri­fic­ing but a small scrub cov­ered part of the island.
16. tc 16

    23 March 2010 at 2:08 pm

    “….they reckon there’s $194 billion in total in NZ…” how on earth do they get that number and what’s the valuation…..todays LME spot rates perhaps so they must know the mineral breakdown or more of that banker maths sideshow excels at.

    What method’s been used ? Airbourne/magnetic surveys of every sq Km of this land, methinks not.

    Agree that the truth will be minimal and strategically placed so Ger/Sideshow can flip flop about it but doesn’t NZ deserve to know where $194b is lying around or is it just an arbitrary pro-rata style estimate of mineral wealth based on these hills have gold so all hills have gold…mmmmm.
17. Richard 17

    23 March 2010 at 2:14 pm

    So, Nikki Kaye, does mining “stack up” in the Coromandel or in Paparoa National Park? Or is it inappropriate just in your own back yard. Go on Nikki, criticise the whole Schedule 4 mining proposal like you know you want to. Otherwise you are just a NIMBY trying to save your seat.
18. Zak Creedo 18

    23 March 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Gee, this looks to me like this government have granted themselves a wedge issue… yeah.. just to see how it goes.. with those opposed.. why so.. answer being to set the lower bound for subsequent polling etc.

    Strange, too, how we only found out today about the MP’s okay from the PM’s people.. government announces one day, its local MP and Mayoral hopeful strike their compound note right after this.. and now the MP slides her backstory… unbelievable. Frankly.

    Still, like I say, wedges don’t have to be believed—they have to be effective. Read: watch your backs boys and gals..
19. Roger 19

    23 March 2010 at 8:02 pm

    How is opening up the conservation estate for mining really going to deliver a sustainable hi-tech economy? Well done Nikki Kaye for opposing the proposal. But what about proposals to mine in conservation estate land outside the Auckland area?
20. the pinkpostman 20

    24 March 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Anyone who takes the word of Kaye or Banks on the mining issue is living in cockoo land .
    Stuck with this issue they will say anything to keep voters on their side.
    The questions that should be asked is how many mining shares are owned by National MPs and Miinisters? Of course they will hide behind their so called “Blind Trusts” . But lets not forget Key’s quick footed shuffle over his Railway shares , he should have been charged with having inside information , he was lucky he was not. It would also be interesting to have some idea who is in line for the mining business , if its American then we have to ask is there any pressure on the National Party from their membership of the Democratic Union which is funded by big business mainly USA.
21. RAWIRI 21

    29 March 2010 at 7:02 pm

    WHO CARES ABOUT TOURISIM AND THE SO CALLED MILLIONS WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING OUR HERITEGE AND THE HEART OF OUR LAND .IT MIGHT BE UNDERGROUND BUT CAN YOU LIVE WITH A HOLE IN YOUR HEART . SO IF THIS HAPPENS THEY ARE TAKING OUR CULTURE AND OUR BELIEFS. KIA KAHA
    PMS DONT CARE
    THESE ARE WORDS BY DAVID PUATA
    “IN THIS TIME OF NEED, WE EXPECT ALL, BUT GET NOTHING BUT GREED’

    [lprent: Don’t SHOUT – it offends my eyes (and it is totally unnecessary). Similarly dropping the same comment across posts is a fast way for me to start considering that you might be a troll – read the policy about trolls. ]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS