‘God does not play dice with the environment - neither should we’: Strong warnings at Santana gold mine hearing
Friday, 1 May 2026
Allowing a large gold mine in Central Otago would result in “managed destruction” of a landscape at the heart of New Zealand’s premier tourist destination, a leading winegrower has warned.
Hayden Johnston (Ngāi Tahu), who owns a vineyard and event centre 5km from where Australian company Santana Minerals proposes to build a mine between Tarras and Cromwell, said his business would suffer irreparable and terminal damage if the mine was approved.
His comments came on the second day of hearings by the fast-track expert panel appointed to decide if the mine should be given the go-ahead.
The mine, which will include four open pits as well as underground mining, has proved extremely controversial, with the local community split between supporters and those who consider the mine an environmental catastrophe.
Read more:
The expert panel, chaired by retired High Court judge Matthew Muir, KC, heard from Kā Rūnaka, a grouping of four southern Ngāi Tahu hapū, on Tuesday in Dunedin, before moving to Cromwell for two days to hear from affected and interested parties it had invited to make submissions.
Johnston, who established The Canyon more than 20 years ago, said the mine was simply incompatible with the landscape and existing industries such as tourism and wine production.
He warned that the premium marque of Bendigo wines would be destroyed by having a large industrial gold mine beside vineyards currently producing some of the best wine in the world.
The associated damage to Central Otago’s reputation would also affect New Zealand’s international image, Johnston told the panel.
“If we mess it up here, we mess it up for the rest of the country.”
Johnston noted the size of the mine ‒ over 600ha, and stretching across two valleys, with a 1km processing plant and a 2km dam containing a slurry of chemical waste ‒ saying “this is a big chunk of Te Waipounamu that’s going to be messed up”.
He believed there had been a lack of information from Santana, despite its extensive 9500-page application to the fast-track panel.
Although Johnston had visited the proposed mine area with Santana’s CEO, Damian Spring, he said no amount of site visits and drop-in sessions were sufficient without reliable information, otherwise “it’s really just a marketing exercise”.
“I just don’t buy the reassurances from [Santana] that we’re not going to hear or see anything.”
Others with properties near the proposed mine also outlined poor communication from Santana since the project was mooted.
Ross Hanan, whose family has owned land near Tarras for 40 years, highlighted the lack of information and knowledge about the potential contamination of waterways downstream from the mine.
He said this risked the fast-track panel making its decision with incomplete or deficient data.
“What’s the urgency? The gold will still be there in a year’s time.”
Hanan said the panel should decline Santana’s application.
But if it did approve the mine, he urged it to impose the most precautionary approach possible, with exacting standards and enforceable conditions.
“The consequences of even a small miscalculation can have negative implications on this part of Otago, and the water that we and my family drink.
“To misquote Einstein: ‘God does not play dice with the environment - and neither should we.’”
However, Santana argued it had provided an appropriate level of information, with the company’s counsel, Joshua Leckie, insisting they weren’t taking a “suck it and see” approach.
The panel heard from several submitters that Santana had commissioned a social impact assessment, and received views from residents near the mine
However, this report had never been released by Santana, and wasn’t included in its application, with suggestions this was because it contained conclusions Santana didn’t like.
Leckie said the reason the report hadn’t been released was because Santana had concerns about its “methodology”, though he acknowledged he hadn’t read the report.
However, Leckie argued the panel had already heard a range of community views directly from submitters, and the lack of Santana’s report was “not a material gap”.
Panel chairman Matthew Muir, KC, suggested the panel could draw an inference from the fact Santana had commissioned a report, but not released it, and Leckie accepted this was the panel’s prerogative.
Muir asked Leckie whether Santana regarded residents near the mine as “collateral damage”, but Leckie insisted the views of these people were relevant for the panel to consider, and the company was committed to ongoing engagement with them.
Dean Fraser, co-chairperson of the Otago Conservation Board, called for the land “to be returned to the exact same state as it is today” if the mine was consented.
“We think a large, gaping hole in any world is unacceptable.”
Two of the four pits Santana proposes to dig, including the largest, which will be 1km across and 300m deep, will not be filled in.
Fraser said what will be left, “won’t be a beautiful lake that the community can swim in. It will be an area that can not be used. Whatever is left in that large hole is not appropriate for the environment.
“We must be challenged to do better.”
The fast-track process will now move to six weeks of expert conferencing, or “hot-tubbing”, in an attempt to work through differing views.
A final decision on whether the mine is given approval will be made by the end of October.