Taranaki Regional Council rebuffs calls to oppose seabed mining
Photo:
RNZ / Emma Andrews
Taranaki Regional Council has rebuffed calls for it to get off the fence and take a stand against a proposal to mine the seabed off the Patea coast.
Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) has approval to vacuum up 50 million tonnes of sand annually from the South Taranaki seabed for 35 years to extract iron, vanadium and titanium, but the company still needs consent to discharge 45 million tonnes of unwanted sediment a year back into the shallow waters.
TTR - which is currently going through the Fast Track consenting process - says it can do this environmentally safely and that its project will significantly boost the national and regional economies.
The regional council has twice made neutral submissions on TTR's proposal and at Tuesday's powerful policy and planning committee it chose again to walk that tightrope, arguing that to take a stance could jeopardise its future opportunities to influence the project.
A 2024 hīkoi in Patea to oppose seabed mining.
Photo:
Supplied/ Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui Trust
Earlier it heard a deputation from Protect Our Moana Taranaki spokesperson Fiona Gordon - who helped co-ordinate a paddle-out protest attended by about 1200 people at west coast beaches over the weekend.
She reminded councillors the TRC was the region's environmental watchdog.
"Opposing seabed mining aligns with your statutory duty to protect ecosystems and coastal waters for the interest of future generations. The areas within your direct jurisdiction would be harmed and there is no safeguard, no accurate modelling that can really portray what will actually happen."
Gordon wanted the TRC to unite with Whanganui and South Taranaki district councils who had come out in opposition of Trans-Tasman Resources' proposal.
"Being neutral is not an option when you have a duty to uphold the care of our ecosystems and the well-being of our communities."
Ngāti Ruanui iwi member and Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also addressed councillors.
She said TTR's application for Fast Track consents was no different than had been knocked back right up to the Supreme Court and all eight Taranaki were united in their rejection of the proposal.
"Is this council going to stand with us, are you part of us or are you going to stand on the side on you're little island away from the rest of us who've been fighting this, away from the rest of us who have to confront this ... where do you belong."
On Tuesday, the policy and planning committee was considering a new report on the issue: Fast Track Approvals Act and Taranaki VTM Project (Trans-Tasman Resources).
A map showing the area covered by the South Taranaki Bight Project.
Photo:
Trans-Tasman Resources
Following the deputations, committee chair Bonita Bingham outlined her reservations about taking a stance against the project.
"I'm concerned that you are urging us to take a stance as a council to opposed seabed mining because we are in the privileged and lucky position where this organisation is going to be possibly or even probably one of the very few that get to submit to the hearing panel.
"Now if we in the room approve a motion to oppose seabed mining that would create a conflict of interest and we will be immediately struck off that hearing panel which gives us no voice."
In the report, strategy lead Finbar Kiddle, clarified that if the TRC took a stand against seabed mining it could jeopardise its ability as a "relevant local body" to recommend a member to the expert panel considering TTR's application.
"The council will very likely be considered a relevant local authority for the Taranaki VTM Project application. This means council will have the opportunity to nominate a panel member and make comment on the application.
"The council needs to approach its assessment of the application in a similar manner to if it was assessing a resource consent application. This means avoiding any inference of predetermination, undertaking a robust review of the relevant documents, and focusing on the regulatory tests set in the legislation.
"To do otherwise, risks prejudicing council's engagement and undermining its input into the process. Predetermination, either for or against the project, would ultimately harm the position put forward."
Councillors voted to receive the report and no motion to oppose seabed mining was put forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Memo to Shane Jones: What if NZ needs more regional government, not less?
By Jeffrey McNeill of Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Analysis - If the headlines are anything to go by, New Zealand's regional councils are on life support. Regional Development Minister Shane Jones recently wondered whether "there's going to be a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist". And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is open to exploring the possibility of scrapping the councils. This has all been driven by the realisation that the government's proposed resource management reforms would essentially gut local authorities of their basic planning and environmental management functions. Various mayors and other interested parties have agreed. While some are circumspect, there's broad agreement a review is needed. At present, each territorial council writes its own city or district plan. Regional councils write a series of thematic plans addressing different environmental issues. All the plans contain the councils' regulatory "rules" that determine what people can or cannot do. Under the coming reforms, the territorial and regional councils of each region would have only a single chapter each within a broader regional spatial plan. Their function would, for the main part, involve tweaking all-embracing national policies and standards. Further, all compliance and monitoring - now a predominantly regional council activity - is to be taken over by a national agency (possibly the Environment Protection Authority). This won't leave much for regional councils to do, compared with their broad remits now. In truth, regional councils have been targets since they were created as part of the Labour government's 1989 local government reform. Carried out in lockstep with the drafting of the Resource Management Act (passed in 1991), this established two levels of local government. City and district councils were to be responsible for infrastructure and the built environment. The new regional councils were more opaque, essentially multi-function, special-purpose authorities, recognising that some government actions are bigger than local but smaller than national. In the event, they became what in many countries would be thought of as environmental protection agencies. Their boundaries were drawn to capture river catchments, reflecting their catchment board antecedents, which looked after soil erosion and flood management. Other functions were drawn from other government departments. Air-quality management came from the old Department of Health. Coastal management was partly inherited from the Ministry of Transport, shared with the Department of Conservation. Public transport and civil defence were tacked on, given their cross-territorial scale and lack of anywhere else to put them. All their various functions have meant regional councils determine who gets to use the region's resources - and who misses out. And political decisions are a surefire way to make enemies. For example, the Resource Management Act applied the presumption that no one could discharge any contaminant into water unless expressly allowed by a rule or a resource consent. Regional councils therefore required their territorial councils to upgrade their rubbish dumps and sewage treatment systems. Similarly, farmers could no longer simply take water to irrigate or empty cowshed effluent straight into the nearest stream as of right. The necessary infrastructure upgrades were expensive. Ironically, these attempts to minimise the immediate impacts of such demands on water users saw urban voters and environmental groups criticise the councils and the government for being too soft on "dirty dairying" and other polluters. Parochialism also plays a part, as does the feeling in some rural communities that they're forgotten by their regions' cities, where most voters live. The perceived poor handling of events such as last year's Hawke's Bay flooding and the 2018 Wellington bus network failure have not helped. The government even replaced Environment Canterbury's elected council with appointed commissioners in 2010 over performance concerns, particularly in water management. Yet the regional council model has largely survived intact - with two exceptions. The Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council was replaced by the Nelson City and Marlborough and Tasman District unitary councils in 1992, as a token sacrifice to the conservative wing of the National government, which vehemently opposed the new regions. The genesis of the Auckland Council super-region can be traced to the 1999-2008 Labour government's frustration at getting a unified position from the city's seven councils on where to build a stadium for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Not everyone is happy with the resulting metro-regional solution. If regional government is indeed put to rest, it will be another phase in this piecemeal evolutionary process. But the new model will still require central government to have a significant regional presence - and commensurate central government funding. But central government has had a regional-scale presence for a long time. Police, the fire service, economic development and social welfare agencies all have their own regional boundaries. Public health and tertiary training and education are also essentially regional. All these functions are inherently political. And in many other countries, they are are delivered by regional governments. Maybe, once the implications are looked at more closely, leaving regional councils intact will seem the easier and cheaper option. Indeed, there is a counter argument that we need more regional government, not less. The current impulse for local government change - including district council amalgamation - continues an ad hoc process going back more than 30 years. As I have argued previously, the form, function and funding of local government need to be considered together. The regional level of administration will not go away. But the overriding question remains: who should speak for and be accountable to their communities for what are ultimately still political decisions, whoever makes them?
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Opposition reacts to shoplifting crackdown as retailers celebrate overdue changes
Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Retailers say the government's crackdown on shoplifters is overdue, despite the opposition blasting the law as confused. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced instant fines and tougher sentences for shoplifting offences. It's the latest in a slew of changes to the justice system, this time an instant ticket of up to a $1000 for those caught shoplifting. Under the proposed law, shoplifters caught stealing lower-value goods could be stung for up to $500. The maximum punishment for theft would go up to a year in prison for goods worth $2000 or less, or seven years for more serious cases. On Auckland's Queen Street, Queens Arcade property manager Ian Wright said it was a positive change. "These recent initiatives that the government's bringing in are what we've been asking for for a long time, and certainly was missing in the last regime," he said. "It's exciting, it's all about holding people to account, and this is just another step in the right direction." He had seen his share of crime in the area. "There are these recidivist offenders, and I think some of these new initiatives are really going to make the difference where, if you can clamp down on those are remove those from our communities, it's going to make the whole place a lot safer and the crime will drop." Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announce the new infringement regime. Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel Labour Justice spokesperson Duncan Webb was unconvinced. "I just think it's hotchpotch and confused," he said. "I just don't think it's effective. It's making noises and saying 'we're doing something' when, in fact, you've still got to have the police to attend and enforce, we're not seeing that." Webb thought the government was posturing. "They're sort of lording it as 'oh, we're going to get tougher on shoplifters,' in fact, between one and two thousand dollar offences, the penalty is going down," he said. "That's what I mean, it's confused." Webb said under the new regime, the government had taken what was three bands of offending and turned it into two. "In doing that, the band between $1000-$2000, which currently is seven years imprisonment maximum, now becomes one year imprisonment maximum." He said resourcing the police force was vital. "We need more cops on the street, but also better resourced cops," Webb said. "It's no good them sitting at their desks, doing emails and filling forms, they've got to be freed up from that so that they can actually do frontline police work." Police faced a backlash earlier this year after RNZ revealed an internal memo suggesting lower-level retail crime - like shoplifting - would not be investigated. The new regime added an aggravating factor for high-value theft carried out in an "offensive, threatening, insulting, or disorderly" manner. Sandringham Business Association chair Jithin Chittibomma said the fines would make offenders think twice. "Yes, surely there will be people that don't care," he said. "But I'm sure there will be people that do care about their future, and even if it is a 10, 20 percent reduction, I'll take that too." Legislation for the new infringement regime was expected to be introduced in the next few months. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
'We're cleaning up their mess' - oyster farmers want Watercare to deal with sewage overflow
A group of oyster farmers in the north of Auckland have reached their breaking point over sewage overflow and want the government to intervene. The 10 marine farms have been in a seven-year battle with Watercare to stop sewage overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour, which contaminates their oyster crops. At least one farmer is having to close their business, while many fear they will not survive the year, despite a pipe upgrade in September that will provide a short-term fix. At this stage, a long-term solution to the piping problem on Elizabeth Street in Warkworth is not expected until 2028. Oysters help remove pollution in water, but this means there is a high risk of food poisoning if they were eaten. Photo: Nick Monro Minister for Oceans and Fisheries Shane Jones said Watercare had "failed in their statutory duty of care to the Mahurangi oyster farmers". "They are solely responsible for the collapse of the infrastructure that has ruined the businesses of the Mahurangi oyster farmers. "I am astounded that this colossus will not step up to the plate and offer financial compensation to these marine farmers, who through no fault of their own are now penalised because of the failure of water care," he said. An oyster farm in the Mahurangi Harbour. Photo: Nick Monro Jones said he was looking into what levers the government had over Watercare. "There are many areas where the Auckland City Council wants the assistance of central government. The Auckland Council is in control of Watercare, and it seems extraordinary that we're expected as central government to deliver positive outcomes for the Auckland City Council, yet one of their organisations is driving local marine farmers to penury and offering no assistance, no relief whatsoever. "Watercare is a well-heeled organisation, they're not short of capital. What they're short of, though, is corporate responsibility and obviously, don't place any importance on the maintenance of a social licence to continue to operate. "Their organisation should be renamed Zero Care. But more importantly, this is a comment on their culture," said the minister. "They know and they've known for a long time about how weak the piping system is around Mahurangi. They've chosen to find every excuse in the world to delay fixing it up and now the oyster farmers are the casualties of this corporate delinquency." An oyster farm in the Mahurangi Harbour. Photo: Nick Monro According to the farmers, the pipe network was originally scheduled to be upgraded in 2021, but never was. RNZ has asked Watercare for a response to the minister's comments and the marine farmers' concerns. The issue of wastewater overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour has been ongoing since 2018, when farmers first raised it with Watercare. Because oysters are filter feeders, they help remove the pollution in the harbour but by doing so, there was a high risk of food poisoning if they were eaten. Mahurangi Oysters farmer Jim Aitken. Photo: Nick Monro Mahurangi Oysters farmer Jim Aitken said his own health working the oyster farms was also at risk. "Yeah, we're cleaning up their mess and we're not receiving any support for literally working in human waste," he said. "This farm is the exception, but most of these farms, you are in knee-deep in mud, waist-deep in water, getting cut on sharp oysters, nails, all kinds of things, and now we have to worry about potentially getting quite serious infections from sewage. "When we get 9mm of rain - which is happening almost weekly - that should not be triggering a spill so easily, and consistently too. Like it's not a random thing, and we're told that the pipes that are connecting storm to wastewater have been disconnected, which should never have been connected in the first place. "But the increase has tripled, so far it's on track to quadruple the number of spills because we've already doubled what we did last year, what they did last year for spills, it's pretty astounding that there isn't even an increase in rainfall compared to last year." "We're wondering what's going on here, why has it suddenly increased so dramatically, is another question too, what we're trying to figure out," said Aitken. Lynette Dunn of Orata Marine Oysters Photo: Nick Monro Lynette Dunn of Orata Marine Oysters said she had not been able to sell any locally grown produce since Christmas and had to approach Work and Income for financial support. She said the members of Parliament needed to take action to save the estimated $8 million oyster industry in the Mahurangi Harbour. "They need to start hammering the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, telling him we need some action. The government's the only person, or the only identity that's going to take Watercare on." Dunn's family business has run for 30 years and has overcome many adversities, but she said this has been the toughest period. "Every day I've been crying, you know? I think to myself, like, I'm not going to cry today, you know? Because it's not our fault, it's their fault and they're not doing anything about it. "You wail awake at night time, thinking, 'okay, how much sewage is going to go into the harbour', you know? "We used to have, like, 5 or 10 mils of rain, and we'd be closed for fresh water, or 50 to 60 mils of rain, we'll get closed for 10 days for fresh water, but now we're getting closed 28 days constantly on 5 mils of rain. "In some instances, there's no rain and there's sewage spills, but this last one was 670 cubic metres of sewage pumped into the harbour on Thursday. You know, like, the water in the streets of Warkworth, running down their pipes are overflowing and sewage coming out," she said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
