Iron sand mining decision defended

The company behind plans to mine the seabed for iron sand 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.

Yesterday 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 consents were subject to conditions, including a two-year monitoring period before extraction.

The area to be mined was turbulent and rugged, Smith said. The environment changed rapidly and recovered regularly, regardless of Trans-Tasman Resources. Oil and gas installations were already in the area, which was also intensively fished by trawlers.

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 Environmental Protection Authority had appointed a fourperson decision-making committee to consider 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. Salmon said the chairman was legally obliged to vote against the application but Justice Peter Churchman said he was ‘‘struggling’’ to accept the proposition.

Opponents say the work would have adverse cultural effects, and harm the environment, fish stocks, and possibly critically endangered marine mammals such as Maui’s dolphins.

The appeal hearing is expected to end this week.