Seven appeals lodged in High Court to fight Taranaki ironsand mining plan

Thursday, 31 August 2017

Whanau members Raukura Waitai, Akina Hawira 6, Te Huatahi Hawira and Rahera Ocean Hawira 2, at the announcement for plans of a new marine sanctuary in South Taranaki.

At least seven groups have filed legal challenges in the High Court against the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial decision to allow seabed mining off South Taranaki.

South Taranaki iwi Ngati Ruanui is leading the fight against the August 10 decision allowing Trans Tasman Resources to mine 50 million tonnes of ironsand from the seabed off Patea for 35 years.

A petition singed by 6000+ people calling for a moratorium on seabed mining was presented to Parliament by Ngati Ruanui in 2016.

More than 13,700 submissions were received by the EPA, the majority of which opposed the application, and the deadline for appeals passed at 5pm on Thursday, August 31.

Ngati Ruanui had filed its appeal on a number of points of law, kaiarataki Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said.

* Greens propose marine sanctuary to stop seabed mining off South Taranaki

* Controversial plan to mine seabed for iron ore approved in split decision**

Fisheries Inshore New Zealand Ltd, which represents commercial fishing interests, including iwi, is appealing on grounds including that Trans Tasman Resources had not provided the EPA's decision-making panel (DMC) with enough information and baseline data to properly assess the impact the operation would have on the marine environment.

A major issue was the unknown effect of a sediment plume from discharging 45,000 million tonnes of sediment into the sea each year, chief executive Dr Jeremy Helson said.

'We also think the DMC erred in their application of some quite clear principles in the act, that is favouring caution and environmental protection when there is uncertainty. Very clearly there is a lot of uncertainty in this.'

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) had appealed on 15 different points where it considered the EPA erred in its decision, spokesperson Cindy Baxter said.

Their appeal also contends the EPA failed to apply environmental bottom lines and failed to require TTR to provide adequate information, baseline data and an adequate environmental impact assessment.

Other points included that the EPA did not make public its rules around the chair's casting vote, failed to apply caution and environmental protection, set out consent conditions that amounted to an adaptive management approach (which is illegal), failed to impose a bond on the company and set conditions it was not legally allowed to.

Conservation group Forest and Bird has also filed an appeal, as has another of the affected iwi, Ngaa Rauru, Greenpeace and Te Ohu Kaimoana, the Maori Fisheries Trust..