Taking Stock 19 March 2026

AT THE risk of boring investors who might have no reason to care about the Santana Minerals proposed gold mining project, I record that the consenting application is now taking on a much wider degree of importance than just a resource consent hearing for a gold mine.

Because of its size, its extraordinary discovery, and the high level of cross-party political support, the consent application may well become a proxy for the next election and may provide a boost for race relations.

Do we as a country support the extraction sector to create jobs, higher income and regional development, or do we want the status quo funded by a redistribution of wealth? That remains a question that may point to the election result.

Last week in an unusually-balanced Sunday paper article, the journalist who wrote the article hypothesised that the debate was between the rich wine-drinking snobs (who oppose the mine) and blue-collar workers who want the jobs, the higher wages and regional development.

The characterisation of this being snobs fighting workers was based on one set of social media warriors being opposed by a growing and already much bigger number of those who want the project to begin.

Clearly this is the sort of clickbait nonsense that would be relevant if the consenting process was really a popularity contest.

It is not such a contest.

The outcome, as was disclosed by the Fast Track panel last week, will be determined by evidence-based science and maths, not by emotional opinions of film stars, painters or university activists.

I suggest this explains why a video featuring beautiful bush, singing birds, picnicking kiwis and wekas and fluttering takahes would be seen as of no relevance, an indulgence for fanzone followers.

Nor would the claim that prostitutes would overwhelm the settlements surrounding the mine be of any interest other than to fanzone people.

The panel wants to know that the mining would be done safely, with total respect for waterways, the air, flora, fauna and surrounding hills. It wants to know what the financial benefit should be.

If the science illustrating safe mining processes was evidence based and sound, and the margin between extraction and sales would lead to worthwhile financial success, the consenting process would be straightforward.

I have to add, that one more question would have to be answered.

That is, would the process be consistent with the act that was written to support the settlement of Ngāi Tahu claims in 1998, when Sir Tipene O'Regan, helped by Jarden investment bankers, negotiated a billion-dollar plus solution to a long-running dispute? Within that law was a reference to communication, binding parties to communicate properly when interacting with iwi.

Communicating properly has come to mean communicating respectfully, listening and responding to concerns, and ensuring that in such processes with iwi there would be every effort made to achieve a solution supporting a benign partnership outcome.

If iwi alleged that the communication was not up to this standard, potentially this could lead to a claim that the Treaty had been breached.

Perhaps in some versions of the original Treaty of Waitangi there were words that had similar expectations of any negotiations.

Fairly clearly, the last four years have brought changes in how New Zealand is responding to issues of the environment (climate change) and of iwi rights. The reason for this was political, at least initially.

Ardern’s undisclosed agenda to lock in the Māori vote was uncovered during the co-governance Three Waters issue and the Public Interest Journalism Fund.  That led to heat and division.

It is likely it led to the small town butcher shop ugly incident, unreported, that preceded by days the “empty tank” plan to exit politics.

The strategy has been logical but the communication and debate before attempting to execute the strategy was not that of an experienced, skilled leader.

Yet, in my opinion, Ardern succeeded in initiating discussion which has led to desirable change in the quest for better partnerships with iwi.

New Zealand has measurably developed better understanding of iwi culture, knowledge and better appreciation of the obvious high-value skills of the likes of Ngai Tahu, Tainui etc.  By any standards these groups are an attractive commercial partner, as well as upholders of their people’s culture.

Particularly, this new mindset is now relevant to negotiating power when a project seeks resource consent.

My reading of the apparent failure of the financially attractive Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) request to mine off the Taranaki southern coast, has its origin in a failure to embrace Māori and to be respectful of their opinions.

Much of the media reporting of the preparatory work a decade ago implied old-fashioned, crass Australian responses to iwi concerns about the sea-bed mining proposal.

In the last decade, the media has highlighted any boorish TTR reactions and trumpeted the opposition case. 

Media and slowly the public have sided with the Māori opponents, as have the courts. 

A highly valuable project seems unlikely to proceed. Social licence matters.

The Santana consenting application will have most certainly learned from the errors of TTR, noticing the media emphasis on the Australian disregard for respectful behaviour.

In my view the most likely obstacle that could trip up the Santana application would be a failure to communicate in the manner defined by a modern interpretation of Treaty law, endorsed increasingly by a widening number of the public and by the courts.

That the Treaty is now in focus is not just my opinion.

The Fast Track Convener, Jane Borthwick, an Environmental Court Judge, expressed concern when the allegation was made by the head of a relevant rūnanga that the communication might have breached the Treaty guidelines.

At the pre-hearing discussion, created to help Borthwick set the timing and pick appropriate panellists, a request was made for two Ngāi Tahu representatives to be on the panel, alleging potential Treaty breaches.

Borthwick expressed real concern about any allegation of a Treaty breach.

I inferred that no panel she selected would want to take on the task of the Waitangi Tribunal.

She selected a highly-skilled KC, Matthew Muir, to chair the panel and choose a range of panellists, each of whom has relevant skills. None were from Ngāi Tahu.

Very clearly, it was left to Santana Minerals to ensure its communications with all relevant iwi groups was respectful, responsive and properly documented.

Just as clearly, an outcome that was supported by Maoridom and respectful to its concerns and culture would eliminate the need for the panel to resolve the sort of issues that might best be considered by the Waitangi Tribunal or the High Court.

I salute the Māori leaders and Santana’s Chief Executive Damian Spring, who seem to embrace the new paradigm, and clearly want to avoid an impasse.

The planned project would be of great value to iwi, who have sought hundreds of well-paid jobs at Santana’s work site, and to Ngai Tahu and rūnanga which target growth and economic improvement in the South Island.

It seems obvious that Santana’s experienced Chairman, Peter Cook, an Australian, would stand alongside his CEO in the quest of good communication and a sensible agreement.

If the result is a benign outcome, finding solutions that embrace concerns, my guess is that the Fast Track panel would be mightily relieved.

Indeed, I expect that ticking that box with sincerity and goodwill might be the key to the panel’s decision. A consent would then have provided a template for all applications that involve iwi considerations.

Already, we have some sort of a template from the Waikaka Gold project consent, granted a few weeks ago, after the iwi communications were effective and led to harmony.

Although this consent was awarded by the Environmental Court, not Fast Track, its process is a useful guide.

The applicant, Waikaka Gold, wanted to move a waterway, more like a creek than a stream, during its alluvial mining project, restoring the creek in stages and remediating the land after mining concludes.

Iwis' concern is often based on the view that if you extract something from the sea or the land, you can compensate by making community grants that recognise the value of the extraction.

In Waikaka’s case, the recognition and the grant led to scholarships awarded and career pathways opened by the gold miner.

Ultimately, all parties were brought together.

The key man at Waikaka was New Zealand’s outstanding mining leader, Warren Batt, now 80. He was, with Kim Bunting, the key to the Santana discovery. Batt has a long history of solving problems. He worked closely with the rūnanga.

It seems fair to assume that his wise approach will have been observed and may form a part of the template all applications for consent would find helpful.

Perhaps the final line is that evidence-based science, arithmetic accuracy based on credible assumptions, and courteous communication will be the most valued aspects to put to the Fast Track panel.

The panel has displayed some wisdom itself. No party that has any value to offer to the process would want the Fast Track panel’s decision to be appealed, perhaps by an appeal to a court for a judicial review.

The Fast Track panel’s decision should be the final word. Heaven knows it will have cost enough - more than $10 million - to form a judgment.

The panel hearing Santana’s application has now sought to eliminate a pathway to an appeal that might have arisen from any group that could claim its views, however absurd, had not been heard.

Accordingly, the panel’s chair, Muir, has invited a number of apparently small and hardly relevant groups to submit their thoughts to the panel. The panel will listen politely. 

One imagines not too much time will be granted to those who manufacture faux claims.

One group, a Facebook grouping of 7,400 people who favour the project, would want to submit evidence-based opinions, while another Facebook would need to do better than claim that the mine is "ugly".

The Santana application, being of such immense scale (billions of dollars of revenue for the Crown over 10 years, hundreds of well-paid jobs, billions of exports) that if its application processes cover all bases, it would have done NZ a great favour.

The template would be invaluable.

Those New Zealanders who have invested hundreds of millions in the project would be well rewarded, providing the gold price settles at a satisfactory level.

Amongst them will be more than 20,000 people who have invested via the Sharesies platform that allows beginners to get their first taste of investing.

A successful project would lift their wealth, perhaps by a multiple of three times.

The outcome rides on the skillset of Santana in meeting the expectations of relevant parties, in a harmonious way.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

THOSE Sharesies new investors may be enjoying their gold mining risk money, but many should also be contemplating their error in investing in Air New Zealand. Were they wise to invest without knowledge?

A year or three ago, when Air New Zealand shares well exceeded $1, institutions and carefully advised investors were selling, largely to a huge number of Sharesies clients.

Admittedly, those Sharesies clients received a morale boost after the price fell to 60c.

At that time the Air NZ CEO, Greg Foran, disclosed to the public that he had bought some millions of shares in the company he managed, at around 61 cents.

The small shareholders might have felt they were in good company in placing their faith in the airline. 

At the time, Air New Zealand was the share most favoured by Sharesies’ clients.

It may have been the share least favoured by those with access to useful analysis, bar Foran, who may have been trying to inspire investors.

Today the share price is just above 40 cents as the business model continues to be tested by social demands and commercial realities.

Many airlines with much bigger markets than Air NZ have been bailed out by governments, including Air Malta. Of course, Air New Zealand has been bailed out at different times.

One imagines that there is some value for new investors in learning the hard way, providing the sum gambled was small.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mercury Energy Bond OfferMercury NZ Limited is considering an offer of up to $250 million of 7-year senior fixed rate bonds. Further details of the offer are expected to be released next week.

Mercury is one of New Zealand’s largest renewable electricity generators and retailers and is 51% owned by the New Zealand Government. The company currently holds an investment grade credit rating of BBB+ from S&P Global Ratings.

The interest rate for the bonds has not yet been announced, however given current market conditions, we are expecting it to offer around 5.00%. This will be confirmed when the offer documents are released. Mercury is unlikely to cover the brokerage costs for the offer. This will be confirmed next week.

If you would like to register your interest, pending further information, please contact us promptly with the amount you wish to invest and the CSN you intend to use.

Please note that indications of interest do not constitute any obligation or commitment to invest.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Travel

13 April – Taupo – Johnny Lee

14 April – Hamilton – Johnny Lee

15 April – Tauranga – Johnny Lee

16 April – Lower Hutt – David Colman

17 April – Napier – Johnny Lee

Chris LeeChris Lee & Partners Limited