Shane Jones Pushes Ahead With NZ-US Minerals Deal as Environmentalists and Iwi Push Back
The New Zealand government is pushing ahead with negotiations for a bilateral critical minerals agreement with the United States, with Resources Minister Shane Jones directing officials to resume work on a deal that could open New Zealand’s mineral reserves to extraction under a partnership aimed at reducing American dependence on Chinese supply chains.
The move follows a Trump administration push to secure long-term access to critical minerals — the materials underpinning everything from electric vehicles and consumer electronics to defence and national security technologies. China currently dominates global processing and supply of many of these minerals, and Washington has been pressing allied nations to offer alternative sources. New Zealand, which holds significant deposits of minerals including titanium, chromite, and platinum group elements, has been identified as a potential partner.
A Cabinet paper from Jones, obtained by Newsroom earlier this month, recommended officials continue drafting a bilateral agreement with the United States while also exploring wider partnerships with what the government describes as “like-minded nations” — including the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. Jones has framed the deal as part of a broader diversification strategy rather than a purely bilateral arrangement with Washington, telling reporters that New Zealand was “not in the weapon-making business” and that any mining activity would remain subject to the country’s environmental and legal safeguards and Treaty obligations.
Not everyone is convinced. Greenpeace New Zealand director Russel Norman has been among the most vocal critics, warning that Donald Trump is pursuing minerals not to fuel a clean energy transition but to support military ambitions. “Donald Trump hates renewable energy,” Norman said, describing the deal as one that would serve to “fuel his war ambitions.” Norman pointed to the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining proposal — rejected by the Environmental Protection Authority after sustained public and iwi opposition — as evidence that New Zealanders have consistently pushed back on destructive extraction when given the chance.
University of Auckland professor Nicola Gaston has raised an alternative approach, arguing that New Zealand should not treat new mining as the only pathway to participating in the global minerals economy. Gaston pointed to companies such as Mint Innovation and Zethos that are building circular economy models to recover critical minerals from electronic waste and industrial scrap. “We don’t need to lock ourselves into some sort of exploitation that is not able to be managed according to our own policy goals or the social licence that we have in New Zealand for mining,” she said.
Jones has rejected these objections as impractical. “They never have practical alternative solutions,” he said of environmental advocacy groups. That comment drew further criticism from those who argue the recycling pathway Gaston describes is precisely the kind of practical alternative the government has declined to seriously evaluate.
Iwi concerns add a further layer of complexity to the negotiations. Officials have reported that Maori groups reaffirmed “strong concerns” about both the process and the substance of the proposed agreement, and about the nature of a partnership tied specifically to the United States. These concerns span Treaty obligations, the management of resources in areas of cultural and environmental significance, and the question of whether New Zealand’s values and independent foreign policy traditions are being adequately protected in an arrangement that links resource access to the strategic interests of a larger power.
The negotiations have also run into a domestic regulatory complication. Earlier reporting noted that the fast-track consenting pathway the government had hoped to use for new mining approvals is not available for this type of bilateral arrangement, which constrains the pace at which any extraction could realistically proceed. That limitation had earlier led some to question whether the deal as envisaged was workable within New Zealand’s existing legal framework.
A Cabinet risk assessment flagged a number of concerns the government acknowledges but argues are manageable, including potential pressure to commit future Crown financing to support mining development, and the risk of degrading the broader social licence for mining in New Zealand if the arrangement is perceived as being driven by a foreign government’s strategic needs rather than New Zealand’s own interests.
New Zealand is not the first country to navigate this territory. Australia, Canada, and several European nations have entered various forms of minerals cooperation arrangements with Washington in recent years, with mixed results in terms of balancing strategic alignment against domestic sovereignty over natural resources and the rights of indigenous peoples.
For Jones, the political logic is straightforward — New Zealand holds something the world’s most powerful economy wants, and stepping back from discussions about how to develop that would mean leaving national economic potential unrealised. For his critics, including environmental organisations and iwi, the question is whether any deal being shaped partly to suit Washington’s strategic interests can genuinely prioritise New Zealand’s environment, its independent foreign policy, and the rights of tangata whenua over resources whose significance extends well beyond their commercial value.
Do you think New Zealand should be developing a minerals agreement with the United States? Should New Zealand’s natural resources be opened up to help reduce Western dependence on China, or does the deal put our environment and independence at risk? Share your thoughts in the comments below.