Last updated 17:58, April 18 2018
SUPPLIED/TRANS-TASMAN RESOURCES
The 65 square kilometres, in green, off the South Taranaki coast where Trans-Tasman Resources applied to mine iron sand.
The 65 square kilometres, in green, off the South Taranaki coast where Trans-Tasman Resources applied to mine iron sand.
The company behind plans for seabed iron sand mining says the decision to grant consents for it was based on good information.
In August Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd was granted marine and marine discharge consents, subject to conditions, for a site off the south Taranaki coast.
Eleven parties have appealed against the consents, at a hearing at the High Court in Wellington this week.
Ngāti Ruanui members show their opposition to iron sand mining off the South Taranaki coast. (File photo)
On Wednesday it was the turn of Trans-Tasman Resources lawyer, Justin Smith, QC, to respond.
Much of the criticism of the 35-year consents claimed a lack of information on which the Environmental Protection Authority committee based its decision.
Smith said there was no basis for the High Court to say the information before the committee was not the best available.
There was no compelling argument to say more should have been obtained, or the available information was not sufficient for the committee's purposes, he said.
The committee set hard limits for a range of environmental factors, with no allowance made for non-compliance.
The consents were subject to conditions, which included a two-year period of monitoring to establish a base of information before extraction began.
The area to be mined was turbulent and rugged, with strong waves and currents, and affected by river outflow which shifted millions of tonnes of sediment, Smith said.
The environment changed rapidly and recovered regularly, irrespective of anything Trans-Tasman Resources would do. Several oil and gas installations were already in the area, which was also intensively fished by trawlers.
The nearest marine mammal sighting was a whale 14 km from the proposed mining area, he said.
The grounds of appeal stated as legal questions were in reality challenges to the committee's factual findings, Smith said.
The appeals have put Greenpeace and fishing industry interests on the same side for perhaps the first time, lawyer for Greenpeace and Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, Davey Salmon, said.
The proposal affected a huge sweep of parties, he said.
The Environmental Protection Authority had appointed a four person decision-making committee to consider the Trans-Tasman Resources' application.
The committee was split on the outcome, giving the chairman the deciding vote to grant the company consents to annually mine up to 50 million tonnes of iron sand in the South Taranaki Bight.
The ore extracted would be exported for steel production, and the remaining approximately 90 per cent of sand would be returned to the sea.
Opponents say the work would have adverse cultural effects, and harm the environment, fish stocks, and possibly critically endangered marine mammals such as Maui dolphins.
Damaging factors include sediment in the water and machinery noise.
When the decision committee was deadlocked because of insufficient information, Salmon said the chairman was legally obliged to vote against the application. Justice Peter Churchman said he was "struggling" to accept the proposition.
Taranaki iwi Ngāti Ruanui, and Trustees of Te Kaahui o Rauru, along with Greenpeace, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board, Cloudy Bay Clams, the Federation of Commercial Fishermen, Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Company, Talleys Group, and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, have appealed against the authority's approval.
The appeal hearing is expected to end this week.