To mine or not to mine - that is the question

Nobody asked me, but… why are so many people getting so exercised about the mere mention by Government of possibly mining some parts of our country to increase our national income?
Judging by some of the reaction, you could be forgiven for thinking that the bulldozers and mining equipment were already ripping up the most pristine parts of Fiordland and Mt Cook was fast disappearing before our eyes. But that is not the case – just yet anyway.
All that has been done by the Government so far is the release of a discussion paper that has floated the idea of planning to take some land in the Coromandel, Great Barrier Island and parts of Paparoa National Park on the West Coast out of the protection of schedule 4 in the Crown Minerals Act.
The Government will also spend $4 million looking at potentially mineral-rich schedule 4 land in other parts of the Coromandel and in Paparoa National Park, as well as Rakiura National Park on Stewart Island.
Granted, the Government would not be floating such ideas if it were not keen to pursue at least some of them. However, when you are borrowing $250 million a week just to stay afloat; then I guess desperate times will promote desperate measures.
But is all that desperate of a measure to try and see if we can exploit some of the billions of dollars worth of minerals tied in the conversation estate to increase our national wealth and help pay for the kind of education, health care and pensions that people in this country demand and expect?
According to Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee and Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson a stock take has put the value of New Zealand's mineral resources at $194 billion, excluding coal and hydrocarbons, of which $80b was on schedule 4 land. There was potential for about $60b worth to be mined.
These sort of sums sure would go a long way to improving our national wealth. However, on the other side of the ledger, things like New Zealand’s clean, green image, any possible damage mining would do to the ecosystem and are is the country willing to sacrifice some of our conversation estate need to be weighed up.
As John Key says: "The question is whether the merits of the argument stack up. At the moment, what we're saying to New Zealanders is there is a real potential there, there is already extensive mining activity in New Zealand and here is an opportunity to potentially extend that."
Surely the PM is right and it wouldn’t hurt for the country to have a proper conversation about mining on the conversation estate? Would it not make sense for people to have a rational debate about how we expect New Zealand to continue having a first-world country and the services that we all expect?
While I accept and expect the usual bunch of suspects – i.e. the soap-adverse, work shy, ne’r-do-wells such as hippies, Greenies, professional protesters and Phil Goff – to be against the move.
Because? Well because it is an idea floated by the National Government and the work-shy, soap-adverse and Phil Goff are just philosophically opposed to anything proposed by a National Government.
You can’t blame Goff. After all he is Leader of the Opposition (apparently) and his job is to oppose anything the Government says and does – even if it is a good idea!
Meanwhile, you would expect nothing less from Greenies and Hippies. These soap-dodgers just hate the idea that anything may make people and the country financially better off. Their view of the world is: If it makes money it must be bad! If it is a tree – it must be hugged; and if it is a whale it must be saved!
So no surprises with the likes of Phil Goff and the sandal wearers being opposed to the idea of mining. But we now have National MP Nikki Kaye and Auckland centre-right mayor John Banks attacking the Great Barrier Island proposal.
However, I feel their disapproval of the idea should be taken with a large grain of salt and is more to do with political opportunism rather than any core belief.
Banks is an old campaigner from way back who is in the fight of his life to secure the mayoralty of the new super-sized Auckland. He probably feels he can secure votes off lefty rival Len Brown by coming out anti-mining. Banks is so desperate to win the mayoral chains of the new Auckland if he thought there were votes in eating babies her would do it!
Meanwhile, Nikki Kaye is a wet-behind-the ears ditz, who has done nothing and achieved even less in her lifetime. Quite frankly, she is a prime example of why twenty-something’s make such bad MPs. She has actually seen very little of life, apart from what she gleamed at university and the odd Young Nats meeting (which is apt as any Young Nat is distinctly odd) so her view of the world is not all that well rounded.
However, what Banks and Kaye’s faux opposition does show is that the Government has a real fight on its hands to win over Joe Public to the idea. It already has the combined forces of the Greenies, the anti-everything brigade and the Labour Opposition running a scare-mongering campaign and steadfastly opposed to the idea.
Currently the public mood is 50-50 on the idea and it will just be interesting to see where public opinion goes.
The Government has its lines polished. It points out that the country's books are in a parlous state and it needed money, which mining could help generate, to help families under pressure.
It says only a "tiny percentage" of land - 0.2 per cent - would be removed from the schedule under the proposal - "nothing like the vast tracts of land suggested to date by the environmental lobby".
"We're talking about an area of land that is comparatively the size of a postcard on Eden Park."
“As little as 500ha – the size of a sheep farm – will probably be mined.”
Mining could start in three to five years, with coal and gold reserves likely to be exploited first. But there was also considerable potential in rare earth elements, worth $300 to $500 a kilogram.
So the debate has begun – it will be interesting to see who wins the public’s support. The Government’s proposals or the anti-mining lobby!
It is not so much a case of what’s yours is mine and mine is yours. But more like, mine is yours and keep your mines off ours!

Who the bloody hell cares!

Nobody asked me, but… who the bloody hell cares about the machinations of Michael Clarke (MC) and Lara Bingle’s (LB) recently terminated relationship?
Well, apparently everyone on both sides of the Tasman does – if you have reading the papers lately!
Well, Clarke is a pretty handy cricketer and current vice captain of the Australian team, while model Bingle sure is pretty and probably best known for donning a bikini in those Tourism Australia ads and famously asking: “Where the bloody hell are you?”
All the fuss started a few weeks back, when it was revealed that there was an unauthorised topless photo of young Lara doing the traps around various footy clubs and schoolboy internet accounts throughout Australia. (I am still a bit bemused as to exactly why Lara was so upset about this anyway – considering that in her day job she prances round mostly naked in an effort to make a few bucks selling trips to Australia or mobile phones to the masses).
Anyway, it appears the rogue photo was taken by an ex boyfriend of Lara’s – a boofhead, Aussie rules footballer named Brendan Fevola – who happened to be (and I think still is) a married man when he and Miss Bingle were doing the horizontal bungee jump. A classy guy on so many levels!
But stone the bloody crows or fair suck of the Sav – as your average, Aussie battler is fond of saying it seems this story is of such huge interest to the punters (no, not Aussie captain Ricky ‘Punter’ Ponting’s family, but Jo and Joanne Public) that lovely Lara – commercially-minded little Shelia that she is – managed to flog it off to a women’s magazine for a cool $2 million! Nice work if you can get it.
However, Lara’s enterprising endeavours to extrapolate as much cash out of her dodgy photo situation as possible, forced Clarke to interrupt his flaying of the Black Caps’ bowling attack – in the midst of the one-day series against NZ – and catch a plane back to Oz.
However – to use cricketing parlance – rather than the master batsman digging in to support his little woman, it appears Lara’s latest stunt was the final delivery that clean bowled the lucky country’s 'It' couple's (think Posh and Becks, but with Aussie accents) perfect engagement.
By all accounts, the romance was not so much the fairytale we were all led to believe – as all the magazines which had paid them to tell us all that it was.
Mind you one does have to ask: ‘Where the bloody hell’ was Clarke’s brain when he decided to propose to Lara.
She is one of those girls who are euphemistically described as having a past. And looking at LB's past it's possible she has had more naked sportsmen go through her than the showers at the MCG.
We have all heard the warnings about ‘a woman scorned’ and all that. But to flush the $200K diamond engagement down the dunny after Clarke called it quits on the romance. And her latest stunt to have her mother and brother hawking off her story on the break up to the highest bidder is taking things a little far.
So while Clarke might have been somewhat Po-faced and down in the dumps on his return to the New Zealand cricket tour. One suggests a couple of good knocks in the test series with the bat, a few beers with his mates and the search for a new trophy-WAG will ease his pain and help him come to realise he may have dodged a bullet by punting the high maintenance Lara for touch.
As some wag (no not slang for wife and girlfriend, but for witty person) suggested the other day, it appears Michael Clarke is not the first well-known cricketer to be done in by a dodgy LB.

Why all the fuss over Brian’s Destiny?

Nobody asked me, but …why are some in the media so interested in the machinations of Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church?
Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki – and self-proclaimed bishop – appears to be like a red rag to a bull to some hacks. The media versus Destiny saga was stirred up again after the not so shy and retiring Tamaki gave himself another spiritual role at his church’s annual conference in Auckland recently. Tamaki – rather modestly – proclaimed himself the church's spiritual father and designated 700 men of the church his spiritual sons. The men swore a "covenant oath" of loyalty and obedience to Tamaki and were given a "covenant ring" to wear on their right hands.
The covenant is described as "a solemn oath of commitment that is binding, enduring and unbreakable". It instructs the so-called ‘spiritual sons’ to always be respectful and speak of Tamaki in a favourable and positive light. It also requires the sons to stand when the bishop and his wife entered a room and not to begin eating before him.
Also whenever Tamaki speaks all other talking must stop. The sons must never openly disagree with Mr Tamaki in front of others and must not become familiar which could lead to contempt.
It appears this covenant has been the catalyst for the latest round of media bashing of both Tamaki and Destiny. And right out front leading the media pack of critics are TV3’s John Campbell and the NZ Herald.
I am no apologist for Tamaki or Destiny. But so far, he hasn’t done me any harm. I actually think he is a bit spooky, far too flashy and shallow to be a man of god. Also, I have never really been keen on the happy-slapper, type of Pentecostal churches that Destiny is part of.
But, then again, I don’t see big, bad, Bishop Brian (as Campbell et el like to portray him) or his acolytes from Destiny marching down the streets forcing people into his church to worship. In fact, from what I have observed, Destiny church members all seem to somewhat enthusiastically, but voluntarily worship and tithe freely (although admittedly it appears frequently prompted to do so) at the feet of Bishop Brian.
So what is both Campbell and the Herald’s beef with the Bish?
Surely it is not illegal yet to be spooky and flashy. If it were, then the sycophantic and creepy Campbell would be the first one to be locked up. The Herald and the creepy one are quick to lambaste Destiny’s tithing policy or make big news out of one of its pastor’s leaving the church. But do you see them criticising their owners for milking advertising revenue or demanding a full enquiry when someone walks out of TV3 or the Herald?
Meanwhile while media are all too keen to point out the self-proclaimed Bishop’s many faults – and there are many – they continue to ignore the fact that he and his church do a lot of good work in some of the poorer parts of the country. The fact is that Destiny has a helped many families.
"You would think this a breath of good news, positively, over 700 men who represent families who've taken a covenant to be better husbands to their wives, better fathers to their children and better men all round - what's the ruckus?", Tamaki pointed out recently
Is Destiny was a cult? That appears to be the essence of what its critics are saying.
Tamaki’s image and behaviour in public only adds fuel to the fire for his critics. He does himself no favours by flaunting his wealth. But then again, it is his and Destiny’s money and what they choose to do with it is their own business – even if we don’t like it.
Could you imagine the sycophant Campbell stalking the Dali Lama – who appears to be the religious leader du jour of the politically correct – and harassing him about claiming to be a living god and living a jet-style life, while his fellow Tibetans live in abject poverty?
The fact is Tamaki has made many enemies – particularly with the liberal intelligentsia. His staunch criticism of the Helen Clark-led Government’s social engineering policies and Destiny’s ‘enough is enough’ anti-gay march against the Civil Unions Act a few years back has made him public enemy no 1 with the liberal elite.
Brian Tamaki – the Bishop to his followers – has made himself an easy target for media liberal-types like Campbell to attack, because he is the very antipathy of everything they stand for. But this does not make him necessarily evil or bad.
Sure he is different and a little weird, but that is not enough of an excuse for media to ignore some of the good stuff he and his church does in the community. Perhaps they should follow some of the advice the Bishop surely administers to his flock: “Let he without sin, cast the first stone.”

Do you want fries with that?

Nobody asked me, but …why are all these food Nazis so up in arms over the deal Weight Watchers has recently done with the fast food chain McDonald's to endorse some items on its menu?
I have no doubt that Green MP Sue Kedgley is in an apoplectic rage at the very thought of McDonald's and healthy food in the same sentence. However, putting aside silly Sue’s (and others of her ilk) mad rantings, surely it is a good thing that all the lard arses - who line up for their daily fat fix at 150 golden arches outlets up and down the country – now at least have an opportunity to pick something healthy rather than scoffing another burger and fries?
Admittedly, there is probably more chance of your regular, triple-cheeseburger-scoffing punter only taking up one seat on an economy flight, than opting for a salad and water rather than an upsized chips and large Coke. But at least there is the opportunity for Parekura Horomia or a member of his family – who are going to go to McDonald’s for their meal anyway – to opt for a healthier option.
Even so, McDonald's branches are now offering three meals - a Filet-O-Fish, Chicken McNuggets and a Sweet Chilli Seared Chicken Wrap - that each add up to 6.5 Weight Watchers' points. (The Weight Watchers’ points system allows people on its slimming programme between 18 and 40 points each day, which they must stay within to obtain and retain their goal weight.) Salads and water or diet soft drinks are served with the meals.
While McDonald's New Zealand’s chief executive Mark Hawthorne over-hyped (no doubt on the solid advice of the fast food company’s fancy PR people) the deal somewhat by declaring the arrangement with Weight Watchers a “noble cause”. He did make a good point about his company serving 1.5 million meals a week in New Zealand, and how this arrangement offered a chance to generate behaviour change in consumers about making healthy food choices.
One would have thought nutritionists and obesity experts would have welcomed the move of people making healthier food choices. But – to coin a fast food theme – fat chance!
The naysayers claim the partnership is a marketing ploy to lure people into McDonald's where they will buy more fat-laden foods.
''Make no mistake, this is about selling more burgers and fries,'' Boyd Swinburn, from the Australian Society for the Study of Obesity at Deakin University, said. ''Mum can go in and feel good about her Weight Watchers meal while she buys the kids burgers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.''
Now I agree that McDonald’s obviously sees a commercial benefit in its deal with Weight Watchers. They won’t be doing it for love. (See, I am not as naïve as Mr Swinburn suggests.) However, this does not make the idea a bad thing.
Even the aforementioned critic - Boyd Swinburn - concedes in his swipe at the arrangement that at least mum may consume a healthy option – even if her kids opt for the burger and chips. While not perfect, surely it is still some benefit to our nation’s collective expanding waistline, even if only one person in a family dining at McDonald’s opts for a Weight Watchers option?
I get the distinct impression that criticism of this arrangement is more to do with the increasingly popular belief – fuelled by the anti-American and multi-national sentiment of politically correct liberals – that anything McDonald’s does is evil and bad. Sorry, but I just don’t buy this argument.
Sure, the fast food giant is out to make a buck – but then again who isn’t.
Outfits like Healthy Organics, the Body Shop and Hubbard Foods – all who trade on a socially responsible mantra – are in business to make profit.
Wouldn’t it be better if the food Nazis took a deep breath, accept the fact that people will continue eat fast food no matter how bad it is, and use McDonald’s new partnership with Weight Watchers to encourage more of them to opt for the salad rather than the fries.

On the road to nowhere

Phil Goff, the Mt Roskill MP – who was a member of the 1984-90 fourth Labour Government, a high-ranking Minister in the Helen Clark administration from 1999-2008 and purported to have been Leader of the Opposition since November 2008 – has been reported missing.
A Labour party spokesperson said Goff, 56, was last seen around Parliament some time ago – “but nobody really remembers or cares”.
Just like the invisible man, Goff has not registered on any political polls since taking over as Labour’s leader. Last reports had him with a minuscule 8 % rating - a whopping 40-plus percentage points behind Prime Minister John Key.
Goff’s vanishing poll fortunes have him on a par with his former dear leader Helen Clark – who actually disappeared off the NZ politic scene over a year ago. Ms Clark is believed to be now running both the world and the Labour Party from the UN’s headquarters in New York.
The New Zealand Labour Party said Goff had been due to make an impact on the polls since early last year, but so far had failed to make even the slightest dent.
However, a party spokesperson rather forlornly added: “Our focus group reports claim that Phil is a warm, friendly guy who interacts well with the public. Labour is confident that if he does come out of hiding, people will stop ignoring him and begin to take him seriously soon.”
But that perception is not reality in the eyes of most voters. Fifteen months into his reign, John Key and National continue to enjoy overwhelming support from New Zealanders.
One recent poll has National on 54%, with Labour 20 points behind on 34%. Another has Labour at 29 - 27 points behind National which sits on 56.
However, the ubiquitous Labour spokesperson dismissed all polls unfavourable to Goff and Labour as rogue.
Instead , the ambiguously, non-gender specific Labour spokesperson, blamed a plot between the National Party and Telecom, and the teleco’s beleaguered XT Network for both Labour’s and Mr Goff’s disappearance from New Zealand political landscape.
“Telecom has deliberately and regularly crashed their XT network to prevent both Labour supporters and our research unit from registering support for Phil in any polls conducted since before the last election and until eternity.”
Meanwhile, Phil Goff, it seems has picked up the Telecom network's disease and completely vanished. Goff’s wife Mary told reporters she received a note from her husband on February 28, which had caused her to grow concerned about his whereabouts.
Reports claiming that Mr Goff was seen boarding a bus in Auckland recently. It was meant to be heading to Dunedin on a Labour Party-inspired anti-GST increase campaign. However, with Goff’s reluctance to rule out dropping any proposed rise in GST if elected, it is thought the bus journey - described as being on the road to nowhere - is likely to carry the struggling leader fo the opposition further into political oblivion.
"He sounded despondent," Mary told reporters, adding, "It is just like him trying to talk with punters, nobody really cares what Phil thinks."
Supposed friends and colleagues of Goff, including MP Shane Jones and Labour Party President Andrew Little, have taken to Twitter asking anyone with knowledge of his whereabouts to post tweets at #philgoffismissingbutnoonecares.
“We need to find Phil so I can stab him in the back and replace him as leader as soon as possible,” a smiling Jones said.
“Not so fast Jonesy,” Little added. “I have designs on the job too and intend stepping on Phil’s dead political corpse to get the leadership as well.”
However, political pundits say Goff is Labour's best chance of winning the next election – which is less than zilch!
Updates on Phil Goff’s possible whereabouts and information about his likely return can be found at: www.whogivesatoss.co.nz