Shane Jones backs mining at 'weapons-grade’ level, calls Sam Neill ‘anti-Kiwi’

Sunday, 30 November 2025

Resources Minister Shane Jones denies he is a hypocrite over his support for mining, and says a controversial gold mine proposed in Central Otago will be “akin to a beauty spot on the alabaster face of a beautiful woman”.

He has also fired a shot at actor Sam Neill, who has opposed Santana Minerals’ plan to create a huge open-cast mine near Cromwell, calling the Hollywood star “wrong and anti-Kiwi”.

Jones was reacting to accusations he has flip-flopped on mining, from being a stentorian critic, to becoming the industry’s champion.

A 2010 recording of then-Labour MP Jones in Parliament shows him railing against mining, dubbing it “an exercise in destroying New Zealand’s clean green image, destroying conservation values”.

At that time, he labelled it “Muldoonist”, “quarrying the nation”, and a “quick-fix remedy”.

“It will be a short fillip for foreign-owned companies, the jobs will be scarce, and the degradation in these very sensitive areas will be very long-term ‒ I would think irreversible.”

However, as a New Zealand First MP and Minister of Resources, and Regional Development, in the National-led government, Jones has promised to “turbocharge” the mining industry, and parades a cap emblazoned with “DRILL BABY DRILL”.

So what’s changed?

“There’s a great line out of the Bible. ‘There’s a season for all things’. And we’re in a different season. It’s Ecclesiastes.”

Jones said his 2010 comments followed the then-National Government’s plans to allow mining on Great Barrier Island, but current proposals, such as Santana’s Central Otago mine, weren’t the same.

“Coming out of Covid, no-one should underestimate the dire challenges we’ve got in our economy. And as I’ve taken on the role of being a regional development minister, I’ve had to adjust my historic approaches.

“This is the benefit of having adaptable politicians, like my good self.”

Jones’ near-Damascene transformation on mining was simply an example of responding to changed economic and social circumstances, he said.

“I find myself as a 66-year-old, not living in 2010, but living in 2025, where minerals are highly sought after.

“I’ve had to adjust, in fisheries and Māori politics. So I don’t think people should dismiss it as some hypocritical folly. It’s the hallmark of a very successful politician.

“I’m in the business of green-lighting mining.

“So no-one should be surprised that I’m promoting mining at weapons-grade levels.”

That support has provoked criticism that Jones is inserting himself into decisions on whether mines such as Santana’s Bendigo-Ophir project are approved.

Under the Government’s new fast-track process, which aims to speed up consenting for major projects, it is up to an independent panel to decide if mines like Santana’s go ahead - much to Jones’ dissatisfaction.

“My preference was for ministers to be in charge of all of the mining consents, but we came off second-best there.

“It literally is in the lap of the panel, whenever that gets up and running, despite my hyperbole.”

This week, the Environmental Protection Authority, which oversees the fast-track process, announced Santana’s application for its Central Otago mine was all in order, and would soon move to assessment by an expert panel. A decision could be made in six months, meaning construction might begin by mid-2026, with the first gold produced a year later.

The mine, which would be a few kilometres from SH8 between Tarras and Cromwell, would have four pits, the largest of which would be 1km long and 300m deep, that wouldn’t be filled in; a 2km tailings facility containing toxic slurry in perpetuity; a processing plant stretching 1km that used up to 1900kg of cyanide a day; and would operate 24-hours a day for at least 14 years.

It has stirred strong opposition from within the community and further afield, with concerns including arsenic poisoning when the millions of tonnes of rock was crushed into powder; irreversible damage to the landscape; and cyanide leaching into aquifers and the Clutha River.

Sam Neill, who is Central Otago resident, called the proposed mine “an environmental catastrophe”.

But Jones hit back, saying his party campaigned on reinvigorating the regions through expanded mining, and he wasn’t walking away from that.

“I thoroughly accept there are elements down in Tarras who fear their historic lifestyles will be compromised. And I know Sam Neill has taken a strong stance, wanting to oppose what he sees as a sort of disfigurement.

“But I’ve got to stick up for the working class, garden variety Kiwis who are desperate to have a life, and have a meaningful set of employment opportunities in regional New Zealand. I mean, very few of us have been born with the privileged professional existence that Sam has had.

“He may have starred in Jurassic Park, but he is wrong, and anti-Kiwi, to say that mining is going to have Jurassic implications. And he should not be allowed to state and run those arguments, unfettered, just because he’s a famous Hollywood actor.”

When challenged that Central Otago had the country’s lowest unemployment rate, and wasn’t in need of new jobs, Jones responded: “When we reinvigorate the regions, we’re not doing it to either reward or alienate the fortunate souls who live within spitting distance of Santana.

“We’re doing it so New Zealanders who are in strugglers’ gully in other parts of New Zealand have the opportunity to relocate to a different region, and create a meaningful life in New Zealand.”

Jones said he was at a Kerikeri hotel recently and met several men in their late-20s who were heading to Australia to work in the mines.

“And they all said to me, ‘How come in New Zealand we don’t have that quality of opportunity?’

“I mean, how come it’s acceptable for Kiwis to fly in and fly out of Perth, but we’re not going to let them fly in and fly out of Dunedin, to go and work in Otago?

“This is the type of cultural eco-mania elitism that I rail against.

“I do feel that Sam Neill and the other activists - it’s almost like they have the eye of Sauron on me - they’re grossly exaggerating the downside, in my view.”

Neill did not respond to a request for comment.

Jones said he wanted mining’s footprint expanded across not only the West Coast and Otago.

“Whether they all see the light of day, whether or not it represents some kind of fatal blight on the lives and the environment down there - we have to rely on the panel.

“But in all honesty, the size of these mines - they’re akin to a beauty spot on the alabaster face of a beautiful woman.”

Beauty, as always, however, is in the eye of the beholder.

Suze Keith, chairperson of the main community opposition group, Sustainable Tarras, said Jones’ analogy was misogynistic and “like something out of a Benny Hill skit”.

“To put the scale of the mine in perspective - the rock removed will weigh half as much as the whole of Lake Dunstan.

“Perhaps the minister should look out the window of his Santana-sponsored helicopter from Queenstown, and size that up.”

Keith said Jones’ transformation from mining antagonist to apologist couldn’t be explained away as a mere adaptation to changing circumstances.

“This is hypocrisy, political shapeshifting, and should be called out as such.”

Keith said Jones’ claims Santana’s mine was needed for economic prosperity ignored reports showing Otago’s economy was already booming, with the highest employment levels in the country.

“The extractive mining Jones is trying to push on Central Otago will have the opposite effect: devastating landscapes and the environment; piling pressures on regional infrastructure and housing already under strain; and reducing growth in our thriving tourism economy.”

Open pit gold mining remained “a dirty and environmentally damaging business,” Keith said, and “guardrails” Jones suggested would protect the environment, were a shadow of regulations required in Australian mines.

“His commentary is like a hysterical hobbit - to use his own terminology - cheerleading and predetermining Santana Minerals’ untested and contentious submissions while they are under the due process of an independent fast-track evaluation.”

Keith said her group was trying to give the community a voice and natural justice, while Jones was trying to muzzle it.

“We’re sticking up for people who work the land, and their local businesses … not a privileged few overseas mining executives and their investors who are here to extract, devastate, and disappear.”

Sustainable Tarras has repeatedly criticised the Australian company for ignoring those living in the area.

In a statement earlier this week, when Santana’s Fast-track application was accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority, the group said it was outraged those living near the mine had been locked out of the process so far.

“It has been clear from the outset that Santana will bypass the local community, and show disregard for our environment.”

As an example of this, Sustainable Tarras pointed to Santana’s submission on amendments to the already controversial Fast-track Approvals Act (FTA), which it labelled “shameful”, saying Santana was trying to prevent the public having any say.

The proposed government amendments, which are being pushed through Parliament under urgency before Christmas, aim to further speed up the fast-track decision-making process.

Santana’s submission recommended removing the ability of the panel considering applications to get comments from others, when making its decision.

It stated that in order to facilitate projects, “the intent of the legislation was to limit the opportunity for involvement in the comment process.

“In practice, this hasn’t been reality, with some applications having over 160 parties invited to comment,” the submission said. “This undermines the purpose of the FTA and contradicts Parliament’s intent to prioritise efficiency and timely delivery of eligible projects.”

Santana’s chief executive, Damian Spring, told The Sunday Star-Times its submission simply reinforced the aim of the Fast-track Act, which was to avoid “an open-ended free-for-all”.

Spring said Sustainable Tarras’s claim the community had been “locked out” was contradicted by the 58 drop-in sessions Santana had held across Central Otago, and the hundreds of residents they had spoken with directly.

Santana had also launched a Community Liaison Group, which Sustainable Tarras opted not to join, arguing it was unfairly controlled by Santana and was a proxy for true community consultation.

“They elected to stay out of it,” Spring said. “If that’s considered exclusion, it raises real questions about what definition of ‘engagement’ our critics are using.”

Spring said claims they were bypassing process and avoiding scrutiny were belied by the fact the company had spent more than $8 million on scientific and environmental analysis, and provided a 9400-page fast-track application, which was now being independently assessed.