What is Known About a Mining Application to Remove Gemstones from Gemstone Beach? Part Three: The Applicant Responds

Part One examined in detail the public summary of an Application to mine gemstones from Gemstone Beach. Part Two described the public outcry that followed when the Application became known. This Post looks at the Applicant’s response to this public reaction as reported in two newspaper articles.

On 4 September, two newspaper articles appeared on this matter, one in The Southland Times “Backlash follows mining permit application at Gemstone Beach”, the other in the Otago Daily Times “Gemstone Beach mining application upests locals” (see below). I had spoken to the Otago Daily Times’s Invercargill-based reporter, telling her mainly about the significance of Gemstone Beach nationally to stone fossickers.

One of the strengths of good news reporting is that both sides of an issue are heard. So the reporters had contacted the Applicant, Mr Reedy, who said he is from Queenstown, and were able to convey his views.

THE SOUTHLAND TIMES ARTICLE

In the Southland Times article, Mr Reedy said he wants to take garnet, jasper and quartz stones from the beach to add to a polished concrete floor and to make jewellery. He indicated he would only be hand-picking stones “off one cubic metre of the beach a year” in a non-commercial and non-mechanical way. “There will be no heavy machinery or anything like that.” I’m not sure what collecting stones “off one cubic metre” of the beach means – I wonder if he actually said he would take one cubic metre of stones off the beach each year. [This is most likely the case, that he seeks to collect one cubic metre of gemstones in total.] Later in the article, Mr Reedy is quoted as saying “the area he would take stones from would only be one cubic metre a year”, another ambiguous statement. Either way, he is providing a sense of the relatively small amount of stones he wants to remove. Why his Application is NOT for a hobby or recreational operation, but does include “surface mining”, is unclear.

One part of the Southland Times article I found to be confusing was the following: “While thousands of visitors and tourists remove tonnes of gemstones from the beach each year as a memento of their visit, he said he had to apply for a permit to comply with the law. While fossicking for rocks on the beach was a permitted activity, gemstones and minerals belonged to the Crown. He had checked with Crown Minerals and a permit was needed to do what he wanted to do, he said.” So, collecting stones from the beach during casual fossicking is a “permitted activity” – does this mean it requires a permit? or does it mean it is allowed (permitted) without a permit? The problem with this wording is that it could mean opposite things. NOTE, 11 September: I have now seen a communication from Environment Southland that states that a “permitted activity” means one where “no consent is needed”.

If casual fossicking requires a permit why do most people think that it doesn’t? In fact, an article on Gemstone Beach in The Guardian last year included the statement: “People are permitted to take stones from the beach within reason. No more than a cubic metre is allowed to be taken and they must be gathered by hand, the regional council Environment Southland said.” On the other hand, if casual fossicking is allowed without a permit, why does Mr Reedy need a permit when he’s only hand-picking stones in a non-commercial and non-mechanical way? I suspect Mr Reedy means that a permit is required to remove even a handful of stones from a beach because, he believes, semi-precious gemstones belong to the Crown.

Towards the end of the article, Mr Reedy again emphasised the low impact nature of what he intended: “It’s essentially a hobby permit for hand-picked stones. I can understand why people would be upset to see a mining application in the coastal area and I’m actually opposed to large-scale commercial mining of the coastal marine area, but this is just for some hand-picked stones to make some jewellery.” Unfortunately that doesn’t explain why “surface mining” is one of the methods applied for in his Application.

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES ARTICLE

The Otago Daily Times article begins: “The man behind a mining permit application on a Southland beach known for washing up gemstones says it is not a commercial or mechanical operation and no-one will be banned from taking stones found on the beach.” So the reassurance that Mr Reedy will not be disturbing the beach is again provided. However, he has added this idea that no-one will be banned from casual fossicking. There are two issues here. First, Mr Reedy in the Southland Times article seemed to be implying that a permit is needed for anyone to remove stones from the beach – but he now says there’s no problem with that. Second, no-one will be banned… As I noted in Part One in this Series, a Minerals Mining Permit gives a holder exclusive rights to the class of minerals specified in the permit – in this case, including semi-precious gemstones. So the banning of their taking is in the power of Mr Reedy. He is currently saying he will not ban it, but he would be within his legal rights to change his mind at some point. As the Otago Daily Times article points out, locals very strongly believe that one man should not be able “to control something which is really special to the people who live there”.

That Mr Reedy assumes he will come to have significant power over the taking of stones from the Permit area is apparent also from the following in this article: “In fact, once he had gathered two and a-half tonnes of stones, he wanted to turn the area into a public fossicking area — the first in New Zealand.” Unfortunately, the reporter did not ask Mr Reedy to expand on this. If he is not banning people from taking stones, wouldn’t it already be a public fossicking area? He seems to be implying that the public in New Zealand do not have the freedom to fossick for stones on the beaches.

The article also states: “Mr Reedy said… he would be walking up and down the beach looking for high-quality sapphires and gemstones. ‘It won’t even include a spade. It will be just me and a bucket, walking down the beach.'” Unfortunately, this is not what is envisaged in a Minerals Mining Permit allowing surface mining. It sounds a lot like a hobby or recreational operation, which Mr Reedy has not applied for.

The Otago Daily Times article concludes: “A minerals mining permit grants the holder the exclusive right to mine for specified minerals. It does not grant exclusive use of the area.” Which is some comfort for families visiting the beach on a sunny afternoon, and dog walkers, and people out for a stroll. But it is of no comfort to casual fossickers and passing motorists interested in the stones. And if Mr Reedy changes his mind and brings in heavy machinery to undertake surface mining, and he might have the right to do that, there could be significant disruption for everyone.

A permit can be sold to someone else. If you google Mr Reedy, a 2022 newspaper article comes up, “Want to strike it lucky? Gold mining claim up for sale on Trade Me could be yours”. Mr Reedy has sold at least one mining permit before. He could sell his permit to mine gemstones from Gemstone Beach, should it be granted – that would be his legal right. His promises to remove only a few stones by walking up and down the beach with a bucket will not apply to someone who buys the permit – it is the conditions of the permit that will apply. And what those conditions are, and what their limits are, is not clear.

I have asked Environment Southland if the Applicant would need a resource consent to surface mine gemstones on Gemstone Beach, and whether public submissions would be allowed. I have not yet received a reply. Others I know are seeking to clarify whether people are free to collect a few stones from Southland’s beaches.

NOTE, 6 September: A further newspaper article appeared in the Otago Daily Times today, “Fossicking not stopped by application”. It starts as follows: “People will be free to fossick at Gemstone Beach in Southland despite a mining permit for much of the beach being applied for.” It noted the Application made to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZPAM) by Mr Reedy to take stones from the beach. “Mr Reedy said he had applied for the permit as it was the correct thing to do. But that led to the question whether anyone who took a stone from the beach would now have to possess a permit.” The article finished with this as the main point: “NZPAM took a discretionary approach to its compliance activities that prioritised fair, reasonable, and proportionate responses and effective use of its resources. At Gemstone Beach, where Crown-owned industrial rock and non-metallic minerals were collected by hand, or using hand tools, in small, non-commercial volumes, it would not seek to enforce the requirement for a mining permit.”

*** ***

Part Four in this Series is “Environment Southland Rules About Removing Stones From Beaches”.