Pitched as a "line in the sand" against the most destructive mining, the Green Party says a government it is part of would revoke fast-track consents already granted for coal, hard-rock gold and seabed mining — and block any new ones.

The Policy: Green Party Mining Consents Policy — November 2025 →

_Neutrality note: mining is a contested topic. Positions below are attributed to the people and organisations who hold them; figures are sourced; supporters and named critics both appear._

What it does:

• Commits a future Green-influenced government to revoke or refuse consents in three categories — coal, hard-rock gold and seabed mining — that have been granted under the coalition's Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, which came into law in December 2024 and can cut multi-year consenting to as little as six months.
• Co-leader Marama Davidson announced the policy in mid-November 2025, telling miners their "consents are not safe, and they are not secure"; resources spokesperson Steve Abel called it a "very clear line in the sand" around the most destructive mining.
• The Greens named seven fast-track projects they would target, including Trans-Tasman Resources' South Taranaki seabed mine, OceanaGold's Waihi North and Macraes Phase 4 gold projects, and West Coast coal continuations.
• The flagship target, the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed proposal — 50 million tonnes of seabed material a year for 30 years — was overtaken by events: a fast-track panel issued a draft decline in February 2026 over harm to marine life, and TTR withdrew its application on 19 February 2026.
• By contrast, OceanaGold's Waihi North became the first major mine approved under the fast-track regime, on 18 December 2025, forecast to support about 800 jobs over an 18-year life and $5.2 billion in gold and silver exports — the kind of granted consent the Greens say they would revoke.
• It sits alongside a separate Green member's bill, drawn in May 2026, to ban new mining across 8.5 million hectares of public conservation land, and the party's standing aim to end coal, oil and gas extraction in line with 1.5°C.

The result: As an opposition pledge for the 2026 election, this is aspirational, not enacted — it would require the Greens to be in government and to legislate. It directly collides with the coalition's strategy: Resources Minister Shane Jones, who launched a critical minerals strategy in 2024 targeting a doubling of mineral exports to about $2 billion by 2035 and 2,000-plus jobs, warned that retrospectively removing consents is a "sovereign risk". Minerals Council chief executive Josie Vidal called the pledge "performative nonsense", and Labour leader Chris Hipkins signalled Labour would not tear up consents already granted — a coalition obstacle, since the Greens would likely need Labour to govern. Supporters include Greenpeace, whose seabed campaigner Juressa Lee welcomed the TTR rejection as a "win for the moana" and called for a permanent ban, and Te Pāti Māori's Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who framed the seabed outcome as vindication of "years of fierce resistance".

The impacts to watch:

• Investor confidence and "sovereign risk": revoking granted consents would be legally novel and, critics warn, could deter foreign investment across the resources sector.
• Jobs and regional economies, especially the West Coast and Hauraki, where Bathurst's Buller coal continuation and OceanaGold's gold mines are pitched as hundreds of jobs — the Greens counter that a just transition can replace them.
• Climate and conservation outcomes: coal combustion and seafloor disturbance are the Greens' stated reasons; the policy's reach depends on whether voters return a Parliament that can pass it.
• Coalition arithmetic: with Labour cool on retrospective revocation, how far the policy could go in practice would be decided in any post-election negotiation.