MPI ready for legal fight to push through farm plan

A cabinet paper shows the Government was expecting kickback from its proposal to move salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds, with one eye on the cost of beating any legal challenge before it was even made public.

The paper shows Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy was also concerned about the ‘‘public perception of the Government acting for one company’’ as it looked to shift up to six New Zealand King Salmon farms.

Especially as the cost of intervention fell on the Crown and not King Salmon, Guy wrote in his paper.

The Ministry for Primary Industries announced in January it wanted to relocate a number of King Salmon farms from low-flow sites to higher flow sites in the Sounds.

In the paper, Guy estimated the entire proposal would cost the Government about $750,000, plus an additional $250,000 if the proposal went ahead and was challenged in court.

About $450,000 was budgeted for staff, contractors and consultation, with the remaining $300,000 for the Marlborough Salmon Farm Relocation Advisory Panel process.

A spokesman for Guy said he had not made a decision on the relocation proposal - it would not happen before the election, but beyond that no timeframe could be provided.

On the fact legal costs were discussed before the proposal was made public, he said Guy was required to identify any real or potential costs when seeking cabinet approval to consult.

The cabinet paper also assessed the cost to King Salmon if, instead of the Government process, it had applied for a plan change and consents through the Environmental Protection Agency.

Guy estimated this would have cost between $4 and $5 million, plus an additional $400,000 or so to defend against any appeals. Instead, it ended up paying significantly less.

The minister wrote in the paper that the company, the largest salmon farmer in New Zealand, would pay between $50 to $75,000 to consent each farm if relocation occurred.

It had also paid $1m for the assessments of environmental effects used in the proposal, something Guy highlighted as a potential perception issue.

‘‘There is also a risk that the environmental impact assessments that have been commissioned to date are perceived as not being credible as they have been paid for by King Salmon,’’ he said.

However, he noted the ministry commissioned the research while King Salmon picked up the tab.

For the relocation to go ahead, the Government would have to trigger never-before used powers under the Resource Management Act to change local council aquaculture rules.

‘‘The proposal could be seen as overriding local government and reducing the opportunity for public consultation,’’ Guy said in the cabinet paper. ’’But I have designed a consultation process that provides an opportunity to be more inclusive and less adversarial but still ensures a robust and independent assessment of effects.’’

He gave a raft of reasons why the Government should assume the cost, and kick-off the process by initiating consultation.

This included the opportunity to increase GDP and job creation while improving environmental performance, all without increasing the surface area of the farms.

The proposal was also in line with government policy on aquaculture, and relocating the farms to higher-flow sites would improve biosecurity management and resilience to increasing sea temperatures, Guy wrote.

However, Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor said the entire process ‘‘stinks’’ and the Government should not be ‘‘subsidising’’ a private company. He said the society had not ruled out a judicial review, adding when the decision came through the organisation would seek independent counsel.