Taking Stock 25 June 2026

Businesses and international investors from many countries watch with a mix of curiosity and dismay, so perhaps it is premature to congratulate Matthew Muir (KC and retired judge).

He and his panelists are still contemplating the conflicting opinions and evidence as the Fast-track panel undertakes its task of hearing Santana Mineral's application to begin a gold mine project of great significance to the economy.

Muir and his panel have been impressive and professional in politely enduring a mix of useful discussion and, in my opinion, strident, hysterical nonsense.

The panel is tasked by law to weigh evidence-based information against economic benefit, the hardest calls being how much value you place on matters like the importance of lizards, and how much credence you place on the likelihood of apocalyptic events such as a Noah's-like flood.

Much of the debate will be on the skills of Santana to use adaptive management wisely. Its people have excellent track records.

Some of the decision-making will depend on the rights claimed by various parties who want the status quo — no new activity disturbing their area.

If Muir's panel was simply responding to a popularity poll, the project would be consented today. As a recent Curio poll displayed, nationally the project is favoured by more than two to one, and locally the figure is said to be nearer nine to one.

But the decision is NOT based on a public vote, nor should it be, given that less than 1% of the public have ever worked on a mining project, let alone performed the studies and gained the experience to know how to build a mine, operate it, and adapt to unexpected events, let alone apocalyptic events.

As I will discuss later in this newsletter, much of the "evidence" produced has come from people without a clue as to safe, successful mining, many of those self-acclaimed "experts" being university academics, whose applauding audience would likely be their equally ignorant colleagues or long-suffering families.

To the credit of the panel, they have waded through thousands of pages of opinion and theory, listened to dozens of pompous opinions, and politely allowed "experts" to repeat untruths as though a lie, if repeated often enough (as in Animal Farm), becomes conventional wisdom, indeed the "truth".

I tip my hat to the panel's professionalism. As a disclosed investor, I concede my tolerance of nonsense is low, but if the panel concluded the project did not have a nett benefit for New Zealand, I would still applaud the panel's behaviour and respect its professionalism.

Right now the panel has stopped its public hearings, the last of these in Wellington, over a period of a fortnight.

My lasting memory of the Wellington proceedings are of three insightful responses by the panel Chair, revealing both his calm and respectful attention during presentations, and his sense of irony.

He wondered why the Historic Place’s spokeswoman was so emotionally attached to the “archeologically important” remnants of an 1860s gold mining site, yet not so respectful to modern gold mining.

He asked Iwi if it felt that Iwi had a right of veto to the project. (Iwi, wisely, replied “No”).

He wondered why there was certainty that post-mining the site could not be remediated, given he had visited in California much larger sites which, post-mining, have become wonderful, tourist-attracting nature reserves.

Given the minutes of nearly 200 meetings between Santana and Iwi, he might have read enough to wonder at what point the consideration of “compensation” became irrelevant to the Iwi opposition.

He was a polite, intelligent, and highly experienced judge, and now brings those qualities to the Fast-track panel.

The panel now has several weeks in private to differentiate important science from silly prattle and, if necessary, to call back witnesses to clarify issues and in two months will put back to Santana the opportunity to adjust its application to allay any worries the panel believe to be relevant to the consenting decision. Muir acknowledges the time frame is inflexible.

As an example of a potential adjustment to the application, Santana could respond to one "expert" who spent some time seeking to influence the panel into believing that Santana might manipulate its financial affairs to avoid the remediating of the land, as Santana has promised. Part of that commitment would be a $50 million fund to underwrite the promise. 

Perhaps Santana might be invited to place that sum now into some sort of trust fund, so that the money cannot be otherwise used, defusing those who believe Santana is not trustworthy.

In essence, the months of adversarial testimonies are now over. 

Ultimately, the decision will be declared on or before October 29. My expectation is that the panel will consent the project after imposing some relevant conditions.

This process would have been absurdly expensive — tens of millions — and is one very few countries in the world would have endured.

In most countries, the project would already be producing gold.

Yet I believe it has been a worthwhile process, for reasons unintended. It has produced a value by uncovering a number of highly unsatisfactory NZ practices, not addressed by current law.

NZ needs new precise law to prevent opprobrium felt by its global partners over the obstacles NZ is placing over our economic recovery.

Those issues may extend beyond what I list below but they certainly include my list.

What right beyond a case against the Crown does Iwi have to stall a project on private land?

What right does Iwi have to seek money from private companies operating on private land?

What is the logic of allowing irrelevant parties like the Tarras activists to seek to intervene?

The current law offers involvement to those on abutting properties, not those 18 kilometres away.

What defines "expert" knowledge? University academics display poor research and repeat utter nonsense? ("All the money goes to Australians")

Can spiritual beliefs be regarded as scientific evidence, and be used to form an objection to a project?

What sanctions can be applied to appalling mainstream media outlets who allow the ideology of juvenile reporters to convert to a media campaign? Should such media be denied access to hearings?

Should the process demand substantial bonds from parties who appeal the panel's finding? A vexatious or frivolous or stupid appeal costs time and money. Natural justice is usually served by the court awarding costs against such appellants. Should the Fast-track Act define a bond (say at $500,000) to be available to the injured party if the appeal is found to be simply irksome?

Might the vexatious party then walk away, claiming it had no ability to pay?

All of these issues justify detailed discussion, and then lead to new laws.

The issues around Iwi are difficult.

My own view is that it is respectful and logical for a party such as Santana to communicate carefully and warmly with Iwi.

The Iwi decision-making structure is complex.

We have Iwi which can often be small groups of local hapu, dozens or sometimes hundreds, often sharing a marae, each adult a potential voter. Unanimity is absent.

We have runanga, which often represent several hapu but may allow hapu members to vote.

We have a tribal organisation like Ngai Tahu, of often highly skilled people with access to very significant funds, skilled legal advice, and with easy access to politicians. Ngai Tahu itself has an advisory board.

In Santana's case it is simply respectful and business-like to confer with all groups. Where is a binding agreement made?

Iwi will typically make up the majority of the mine's workforce. The jobs are highly paid and enjoyed by those in the workforce.

Scholarships and pathways to management are logical. So, too, is the use of Iwi expertise, in matters like the regular testing of water qualities, and the optimal way of respecting the local flora.

Grants to Iwi can be seen as credible sponsorship.

But runanga or hapu claims of tens or hundreds of millions as some sort of "compensation" equate to extortion or corruption, in my language.

Stock exchange law prevents companies from indulging in corruption.

The Fast-track legislation ought to define corruption and extortion, and ban offenders from the hearing process. Which parties must be invited to make submissions needs careful thought, and ultimately tight law.

We already have elected regional and local councils to represent ratepayers. They will surely learn to exclude activists from the people they ever hire as "consultants".

The lobbying of these councils ought to provide sufficient opportunities for the myriad of often uninformed or irrelevant groups (such as the self-appointed Tarras group), leaving it to councils to represent the pro, and anti, local groups.

Admittedly councils have great difficulty in competing with law firms, accounting firms and special consultancy companies to acquire staff with special skills.

But if councils are to receive grants from GST or royalties, they should have the funds to be the relevant voice of a democratic and rational lobby.

We already have the ideologically-intransigent Department of Conservation. Let them have a voice.

If the project touches Maori land, Iwi would have a loud voice and should be heard.

A much smaller number of eligible voices might help the country move away from the child-like belief that university academics are essential, let alone useful, contributors to such a process.

The country's mindless acceptance of ideological and often intellectually dishonest presentations of those whose careers are aeons away from the real economy is a mindset that is discredited.

It is hard to forget the documented cases in the Insider documentary that followed the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. This presentation outed university professors claiming absurd personal money for such nonsense as one Columbian university professor, who agreed to write a one-page baseless, untrue letter praising Icelandic banks as evidence to support a dishonest financial offering. He was paid US $120,000 for his real-world ignorance.

Such offerings led global investors to billions of dollars of losses, including here, where a Dunedin-based fund was engaging with Icelandic banks.

Nor can one forget one Wellington university, where one of its staff published in the local paper with faux horror the inequity of one Wellington suburb having better houses and cars than was the case in another suburb. (Are we ready for communism?)

As education changes, this type of problem of one-sided ideology and false claims of expertise may sort itself out, but the Santana project provides convincing evidence that Fast-track processes gain nothing by listening to people without real expertise or experience, but with political objectives.

In Santana's case there were repeated "expert" comments on the "10,000-year lakes of poison", the nett proceeds being paid to Australians (the ratio is around 70% NZ, 30% Australia) and the pouring of "cyanide" into “dams”.

All of this evidence revealed profound ignorance and a blatant absence of research and knowledge. Or else the claims were deliberate lies.

Do we need to define the credentials and experience of "experts" qualified to offer useful evidence? Very few university academics would qualify as being relevant, if my observation is the guideline.

The definition of the relevance of spiritual beliefs is, I accept, difficult.

Like most people, I avoid judging the various spiritual convictions of others.

It would be frivolous to discuss those very small number of Iwi who genuinely believe their ancestors' spirits are offended by modern disturbances and somehow must be appeased.

Not even the Waitangi Tribunal would succeed in finding a mutually acceptable pathway to accommodate the tiny numbers who argue what others see as mythology. Perhaps the solution would rest in what is evidence-based.

Any claim I made about my ancestors' spirits being offended would fail for lack of evidence.

The issue of the mainstream media is serious and must be addressed.

The Otago Daily Times, whose readership is built in the area where the mine is planned, has been badly served by what appears to me to be a weak, incompetent editor, who has allowed an ex-Brit reporter of no visible merit to colour all her coverage of the Santana story with her own Green Party dogma. 

What is the editor thinking? Readers have received very little balance to the reporting.

In some cases, angry responses to her often childish reports have been hidden behind a paywall, despite her articles being available in public. Is this practice not deceptive?

The public response of outrage has not led to better behaviour. It has cost the paper money. Good. It deserves the penalty.

The Otago Daily Times has lost around 5% (5,000 people) from its circulation while other papers have increased their circulation.

I am told that many ODT reporting staff have been nauseated by the display of editorial bias, probably personally absorbing the abuse and frustration of readers.

But the relevant issue is that the public has been mis-informed and given very little balanced information on an important subject. Expect the Media Council to intervene, soon.

The Post and Sunday Star Times in Wellington have committed similar errors allowing a reporter from Luggate (near Cromwell) to colour his reports with what seems like his beliefs, that are irrelevant to his readers.

Mercifully The Post has appointed a new editor, Matthew Hooton, who is highly unlikely to allow his reporters to present their opinions as having any value to readers.

Perhaps the Fast-track Panel law should give the various chairpeople a clear right to debar those organisations who abuse the hearings by colouring coverage with ideology.

All of the issues I raise should be included in the review of the Fast-track legislation which the Minister of Resources has promised, if the current coalition government is re-elected.

For example he is outraged by the hapu claim at Tauranga for around $435 million, to offset their cultural "losses" when the Port of Tauranga develops its port.

The Minister, Shane Jones, has said he would eliminate such parties from the consultation process.

So he should!

If NZ is to continue to have such lengthy expensive Fast-track processes, it should make incremental improvements to remove self-important but inexpert activists and "experts". This would reduce repetition, and reduce cost.

Most of all we need the process to restore New Zealand as a credible country in which business is conducted transparently, respectfully and fairly, without delay, stepping well away from what is often, perhaps too often, written off as "wokeness".

Matthew Muir and his panel have endured an ordeal to try to deliver an optimal decision. These people deserve our respect for their sufferance, and hopefully for their wisdom. They need better law to help them.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Paraparaumu Seminar

The first of our seminars this year will be held at Southward Car Museum, Paraparaumu, on 7 July. Please contact us via email if you would like to attend.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

New Financial Adviser Position

We are currently looking to add an experienced Financial Adviser to the Chris Lee & Partners team.

This is a long-term role based in Paraparaumu, working closely with our long-standing clients throughout New Zealand.

If you are interested in learning more, please contact us confidentially at office@chrislee.co.nz.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Travel

26 June - Napier - Edward Lee

Chris Lee

Chris Lee & Partners Limited