transcript of proceedings environmental protection ...€¦ · rare earths have overwhelmingly had...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

HEARING

Trans-Tasman Resources Limited

Marine Consent Application

HEARING at

WAIKATO STADIUM, SEDDON STREET, HAMILTON

on 08 April 2014

DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:

Greg Hill (Chairperson)

Gillian Wratt (Committee Member)

Brett Rogers (Committee Member)

William Kapea (Committee Member)

Stephen Christensen (Committee Member)

Waikato Stadium, Hamilton 08.04.14

RESUMED [9.30 am]

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll reconvene this hearing, second day here in Hamilton.

Welcome to all the submitters who are going to be presenting today.

Just very quickly for those of you who weren’t here yesterday, I’ll just 5

very quickly introduce the panel to you who have been appointed by

the EPA to hear and decide the application.

Ms Gillian Wratt on my extreme left, Mr Brett Rogers, Mr Stephen

Christensen and Mr William Kapea. And I’m Greg Hill and I’m 10

chairing the hearing. Ms Ioane is the hearings manager. If you have

any issues, administrative issues, about the hearing can you see her first

and Ms Toh is also arranging schedules. So if you speak to either one

of those two.

15

I’ve got a list of submitters to be heard so I’m just going to call you in

order and just come to the – any issues? Anybody got any issues they

want to raise? Anything that’s not clear. All right, we’ll just then get

underway.

20

The first submitter I have is Mr Lenzer.

Just for everyone’s information, just before you sit down, we have your

submissions in front of us so we don’t need you to read your

submissions to us. What we’re really looking for is additional 25

information that you have got in terms of highlighting your

submissions. And again I’m relaxed if you want to sit or stand. It’s

entirely over you. And can you please speak into the microphone too.

The proceedings are being recorded so that we have a transcript of what

people have said. Welcome, good morning. 30

MR LENZNER: Good morning. I’m just going to get going. Kia ora and

good morning. My name is Ben Lenzner. I’m a Ph.D student in the

Department of Screen and Media Studies at the University of Waikato.

I was born and raised in New York City and I’ve lived in New Zealand 35

for two and a half years and in the town of Raglan for just over a year.

Today I want to briefly share my concerns about seabed mining in the

Tasman Sea off the west coast of New Zealand. In late February I

attended an academic conference in the Indian Media Economy held at 40

the Sunset Motel in Raglan. A number of esteemed professors from

India had flown in from the subcontinent in order to attend this

conference and at one point I struck up a conversation with Professor

Padmaja Shaw who teaches at Osmania University in Hyderabad. She

told me that she had noticed a number of signs in and around Raglan all 45

very clearly against seabed mining.


Professor Shaw a very sweet and older Indian woman told me that

recently the Indian government had been proposing exploratory seabed

mining in the Indian Ocean and she mentioned that citizens of India

unlike here in New Zealand wouldn’t necessarily have the right to 5

attend a hearing such as this and present their thoughts on the matter.

Quote “it’s very crazy” she whispered to me as a conference presenter

prepared his lecture. She told me quote “that they’re proposing all this

devastation to the marine environment for what? For money? For

wealth? For greed? For growth? And in such a beautiful place too. It 10

just makes no sense and even though they say that there won’t be

damage to the sea so easily they say, but really there’s no way they can

know. The risks I imagine are just too high”.

In a recent article on ocean based mining in the March 28th edition of 15

the Guardian Weekly which I have here and I’ll give to you all

afterwards, Sylvia Earle an oceanographic and explorer in residence for

the National Geographic states, quote “it’s like a land grab. It’s a

handful of individuals who are giving away or letting disproportionate

special interests have access to large parts of the planet that just happen 20

to be underwater”.

She continues “What are we sacrificing by looking at the deep sea with

dollar signs on the few tangible materials that we know are there. We

haven’t begun to truly explore the ocean before we have started aiming 25

to exploit it”.

And in a March 2014 video report on BBC World News online Nii A

Odunton the secretary general of the Kingston Jamaica-based United

Nations Govern International Seabed Authority stated in regards to 30

seabed mining exploration quote “those interested and who can put

together the resources, finances and technology to go recover them ie

the ocean based rare earths will be able to get as much of it as they

want”.

35

This statement by an individual in power and given the authority of

global oversight into the present and future seabed mining and other

forms of seabed abstraction within international waters further

reinforces one of my central fears about the core question of today’s

hearing. Should New Zealand at this moment in time allow seabed 40

mining to occur off its west coast?

How do we know what the negative impacts of seabed mining might be

if we can’t see it or hear it or feel it or smell it or taste it or even

beginning to understand it. 45


[9.35 am]

Trans-Tasman Resources has acknowledged that the immediate areas

of the seafloor where sand extraction takes place will destroy that area

of seabed. Furthermore, they also concede that seabed mining has never 5

taken place before on a scale they are requesting and never in a marine

environment as we have off the West Coast. They certainly don’t know

what the future environmental and impact of this mining will be,

neither do we. In fact, no one really does.

10

Perhaps the most disconcerting in my mind and most probably for the

marine that lives and migrates through these underwater regions will be

the constant boom that is bound to have multiple effects on the amount

of oxygen in the water as well as effects on the multilayer food

pyramid of that area of the Tasman Sea. 15

If Trans-Tasman Resources was applying to study or even mine the

seabed off the West Coast in New Zealand in search of rare earths or

plankton, or microorganisms that might have the potential to cure a

specific type of cancer or help with finding a vaccine for HIV, I would 20

be all for it. You would have no bigger supporter. Yet that is not what

they are doing. They intend on mining the seabed in order to make a

profit and if they are successful, they and many other multinational

companies will stop at nothing to continue to mine as much of the

seabed as they can get their hands on. 25

Is that the kind of gold rush we want to spark right here, right off this

coast? I mean just listen to what the Secretary General of the

International Seabed Authority has said: “they will be able to get as

much of it as they want”. Most upsetting is that we don’t know what is 30

there on that seabed. There really might be a specific plankton or

microorganism that could be that cure for cancer, or HIV, or

Alzheimer’s, it is possible. If we let this go ahead so swiftly, we might

never know.

35

Mining and the extraction of precious metals, oils, rocks, minerals and

rare earths have overwhelmingly had negative effects on the

environment. The environmental damage has been astronomical

throughout the globe. The Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada, have been

shown to have future detrimental impacts on global warming. The 40

Marcellus Shale in eastern North America where a boom in fracking –

a natural gas extraction method has impacted natural water supplies

across the state of Pennsylvania has also brought profound negative

impacts that were never predicted.

45


If one uses Google Earth to see the scars of these industrial methods of

oil and gas extraction, it is very evident, very clear their impact on the

surrounding natural environment.

What is scary about seabed mining is on that very minimal level, a 5

quick internet search with our naked eye, a bird’s eye view, we won’t

be able to see nor critique the impact of seabed mining. If one goes on

to the New Zealand registered internet homepage of Trans-Tasman

Resources, the tab one must click for further information on their

proposed seabed mining is titled and I quote “Iron sands”. This is 10

disturbing and can only make me think of the devastation wrought by

the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada, tar sands, iron sands – there seems to

be a parallel.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an experiment as, quote, “a 15

scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully

observe their effects in order to learn about something”, or “something

that is done as a test”, or “something you do to see how well or how

badly it works”.

20

What sort of experiment might this Pandora’s Box open up off our

coasts? Jose Maria Figueres, former president of Costa Rica and co-

chair of the Global Ocean Commission once suggested that the high

seas be a no-go area for commercial exploitation apart from shipping.

Figueres was recently quoted in the Guardian Weekly of May 28th, “do 25

we know enough about the seabed to go ahead and mine it? Do we

understand enough about the interconnection between the seabed, the

column of water, the 50 per cent of the oxygen that the ocean produces

for the world, the 25 per cent of the carbon that it fixes in order to go in

and disrupt the seabed in ways that we would if we went in and started 30

mining? I don’t think so, not until we have scientific backing to

determine whether this is something good or bad for the planet”.

I agree with the former president of Costa Rica on this matter. Why

take advantage of an area of the world that is so critical to our well-35

being only for private profits? The economic gains are still unclear and

if anything, what the New Zealand government will receive will be

petty in comparison to the return that Trans-Tasman Resources will be

reaping.

40

As a student in this country, I say, let us rethink this “deal” more

clearly and methodically. I stand here – I sit here – unwilling to put my

support behind extraction technique that undoubtedly has a potential

for numerous and long-lasting negative impacts on our environment

and future generations of New Zealanders and 195 or so other countries 45

on this planet that we call neighbours.


[9.40 am]

In April 17 2013, TV3 report on seabed mining titled “Stripping the

Seabed: Bonanza or Disaster?” makes clear that much of this iron ore 5

will make its way to China and specify that this ore, New Zealand’s

ore, its earth, will likely be used in China’s defence industries, I ask

you, do we want iron ore of the coast of New Zealand to be

contributing towards a further militarisation of the planet? Because

should we agree to allow seabed mining to take place in New Zealand 10

these global interconnections will be difficult to refute.

We as global citizens are at a crossroads, do we as a society give the

green light for companies to pursue the extraction of rare earths and

environmental costs of the planet that we have yet to ascertain? Do we, 15

one day as grandparents, want to tell our grandchildren that we

supported seabed mining or that we decided to take the high road, the

moral and ethical path forward and that we decided to take a stand in

2014 that in fact our seabed is not for sale, that money and industry and

economics is not what our pivotal values are centred around? 20

I am not wholly against seabed mining. There are certainly some

economic benefits of seabed mining to the New Zealand economy. I

believe however that we are going too fast, way too fast. It is critical

that we step back from all this talk of profits, this gold rush, and 25

reassess what the impacts of seabed mining might be to the

environment and to the economy. Let us examine the potential impacts

more critically, let us ask the tough questions and require Trans-

Tasman Resources to be more comprehensively accountable for their

actions and for the possibility that seabed mining may have devastating 30

impacts on marine life.

If Trans-Tasman Resources wants to go ahead with their proposed

mining and they are so sure that everything is going to be all good, I

would like to ask them, if their board of directors would be willing to 35

go to prison should their proposed seabed mining have devastating

impacts on the environment and thus future generations of New

Zealanders? Are they willing to risk their freedom on this gamble?

Because if they aren’t, I would kindly request them to take a step back

and have a precautionary approach to seabed mining. 40

Yet for me what would be beautiful is that I would like to be able to

call Dr Padmaja Shaw in Hyderabad, India, and tell her that New

Zealand has decided that seabed mining needs to be assessed more

rigorously before a large section of seabed is given to a company for 45

mining. I would like to tell her that yes, it is possible and it is positive,


and it is powerful that New Zealand, this small yet magnificent country

at the bottom of the world has set the mark and become a leader in the

way that a seafloor can or cannot be mined.

That New Zealand has the most stringent laws and regulations on the 5

planet in regards to seabed mining and that the strict requirements

make New Zealand a progressive world leader. New Zealand, I would

like to tell her, is a model for the globe to look up to, for other countries

to decide how they might begin to approach the untapped resources of

our oceans and our seas slowly, carefully, ethically and with a critical 10

eye towards the future of our planet and the many generations of

children to come all over the world.

I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Authority for giving

me the opportunity to present and make my views known at today’s 15

hearing. Thank you and I wish you the best of luck in your decision-

making.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lenzner, there may be some questions, I

will just - - - 20

MS WRATT: Thank you, Mr Lenzner. Not from me, but others may have.

MR KAPEA: Yes, good morning, kia ora, you suggested that you are not

against seabed mining, what part of it would you say is being 25

acceptable?

MS……….: Sorry, I can’t hear.

MR KAPEA: Should I start again? Morena, yes, and I just wanted to ask. You 30

just stated in here that you weren’t fully against seabed mining and I

just wanted to know what level of seabed mining or what aspects of it

would you consider acceptable?

MR LENZNER: Well, I think that is a very good question, thank you for your 35

question. You know I think in this case I feel that the proposed mining

that is on the table at this stage is almost too invasive and as of now I

would prefer the EPA and Trans-Tasman Resources to take a step back

and if you all decide that potentially they can go ahead with this,

perhaps there is a way that you can propose a way smaller portion of 40

the seabed for it, to just try out, you know, I don’t know what that

would be, I am not an expert, but I would just say if they are going to

potentially try this and you are going to allow them to do this, if you

decide, you guys can do this, maybe say, hey, you know what, why

don’t you do this in a much smaller – why don’t we try 500 square 45

metres and see how that goes, why don’t we try a 100 square metres


and see how that goes and let’s analyse that over six months, you

know, whatever that may be I think it should be just approached more

delicately.

[9.45 am] 5

Again the problem that with that would be if you see what’s happened

for example with the tar sands in Alberta they start off small and that’s

just wreaked devastation on that area, just expanded massively. So for

me that is the most disconcerting element of this because it is such an 10

untapped resource and this will be the first large seabed mining to take

place that you’re really just opening up a Pandora’s Box.

You have these seabeds that are in international waters, who knows

what – war in theory that this could spark if this company does make 15

hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. Think about the seabed

between Vietnam and China or Taiwan or China. China’s not going to

want to buy ore from you guys any more if they find ore in the seabed

off their coasts and they contest it with Taiwan then whatever they’re

doing off the coast here is going to be irrelevant. 20

MR KAPEA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your submission.

25

MR LENZNER: Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berczely’s not here? No. Mr Bosch?

MR BOSCH: Is it all right if we stand? 30

CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

MR BOSCH: Just make sure you pull the microphone up slightly.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a duet?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it is a duet. I rang up yesterday and asked if it was okay if

we could share our time. So my name’s Teratua (ph 2.10) I made the

submission. (Maori content 2.15-2.35) 40

I’m from up north from a place called Wainui but I’ve grown up and

spent my whole life out here on the west coast of Whangaroa. I threw

some (Maori content 2.47) together last night because my computer’s

broken and I couldn’t actually find my submission that I sent to you. 45


CHAIRPERSON: We’ve got it right here.

MR BOSCH: Good. So we stand here today as young men, as young Maori,

as brother, as sons, and grandsons, as descendants of our home land

and sea. We stand as ones who have been raised on our coasts, as ones 5

whose identity are tied up with our coast. We stand here as ones whose

whole lives have been sustained by our coasts with kai, with energy,

with purau (ph 23.24) all of these different aspects that we have in a

relationship with (Maori content 3.29).

10

There’s been others before me and there’ll others after me , after us that

have spoken about the science or that will speak about the science.

We’re here to speak about our relationship with the moana. It’s a very

real, very personal and very deep relationship with our moana. It’s a

relationship that’s being put at risk, an unknown risk, as has been 15

mentioned for what? For offshore profits. And it’s not really something

that’s really going to fight (Maori content 3.57) and not going to have

a positive impact here for our coast or for our people. It’s just not

worth the risk.

20

My bro Te Kahu (ph 4.09) is going to share a piece about his

experience with the consequences of the Rena spill. And just before the

people switch off and go that’s oil, it would be ignorant to think that

this piece is just about the oil. What we’re actually talking about is the

relationship we as a people have with our moana. It’s a piece about the 25

consequences that occur when an accident could happen or when

something that could happen through the impacts of these actions on

our coast. It’s about those consequences that can occur and it’s about

the negligence of those responsible to do the right thing. It’s about the

inadequacy and incapability and inaction of our government to take 30

action when it should of, how it should of, to sort of contain after the

actual accident had happened. And it’s about the impacts that it has had

on our moana and our people and these are impacts that will be felt long

term throughout the generations.

35

[9.50 am]

So we are standing here for our moana and we’re standing here to say

that it’s not worth the risk, that I’m not totally opposed to any actual

activity happening on our coast, but like we don’t know about what the 40

impacts could be, and once they’ve happened it’s often too late to

actually do anything about that.

So I’m going to hand the floor to Te Kahu to share.

45

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.


MR ROLLESTON: Kia ora. And so it began as theft, itself crept from the

monsters depths into the sand impacting all creatures from the air, sea

and the land, she was stuck. Stuck between a reef and a hard place

jammed like boiled fruit pulp in a jar case, her knife like features with a

sharp blade base pierced my moana, oozing and bleeding the stark 5

pace, she was stuck. No anchor. Nothing but a dark taste of volatility

spread, churning my once bright pantry and sanctuary into a dark place.

We were going wild, live, spinning out of control with the amount of

wildlife killing that was occurring as the government sat around 10

downing their Caesar salads, just chilling.

How dare they poison the swells in the realm of Tangaroa, then stood

around and watched as time ticks on while doing nothing at all to those

with the access and knowledge that’s a food basket and store. Payments 15

made with the practice of kaitiakitanga, tikanga and LORE, lore, until

that day when this blanket of death lay on our seabed and she was

almost a beach dead foreshore.

I saw them, there was an army of taniwha surfing the waves in the 20

shape of shipping containers though nothing within them could be

contained, armoured in steel, stealing and taking the life of my moana

away. Unless you were raised to be at one with the sea you could never

see, believe, understand or feel this sort of pain, and while it was

happening there was a culture clash. Money versus mana. 25

Who determines and measures success of wealth? Is wealth the ability

to be able to collect enough food to sustain yourself or is wealth forever

to be acknowledged as the assets in your possession and cash in your

bank account? Because the sea, now that’s a resource for practices of 30

capitalism, but what’s a resource to our mauri source, my peoples very

essence of living.

Soon as it happened we were there. An army in gumboots and latex

gloves that protected nothing, believe me, that’s the sort of power and 35

love shared and felt between whanau, hapu and iwi.

I mean we drill holes deep into our mother, we chop down our brothers

forests and still we have the nerve to wonder why Ruaumoko is under

this earth quaking on us. 40

Kia ora.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

45


MR BOSCH: So I hope you felt the message that we’ve come here to bring,

and we’re standing here as maungi, I know definitely we’re standing

here as maungi for at least hundreds, most probably thousands that

don’t know how to participate in a hearing like this, don’t have the

confidence to participate in a hearing like this, and don’t have the 5

means of getting here to be able to share the message, so I know we’re

standing here representing a lot of people who have this feeling, this

sort of relationship with our moana that you can’t measure in dollars,

you can’t measure in that sort of wealth, but it’s a wealth that we can

have for our whole lifetimes, and we’re thinking about the mokopuna, 10

we’re thinking about the generations to come after us.

And so as young men, as citizens of Aotearoa, as tangata whenua, as

Māori, we’re standing here to really just bring that message, that it’s

not all about money, but it is about our lifestyles, and I’ve grown up – 15

that sea has raised me, like every day in the moana that sea has raised

me, first thing in the morning down at that moana that sea has raised

me, and there will be thousands of others afterwards, and what we’re

worried about is the potential impacts, we’re talking about oil in this

piece over there, but it could be the plume that kills everything, and 20

who knows what sort of impacts that can have later on.

(Māori content 4.46). And, yes, we really hope that you, as brothers

and sisters, as parents, as grandparents, as grandsons, as

granddaughters, think about that sort of impact, a personal impact, the 25

real impact that it will have, like this could be the pop the cork and then

there could be others all over the coast, and Aotearoa, New Zealand,

we’re a coastal people, like the furthest you can go away from the coast

is about three hours, everywhere else we’re on the coast and this is a

really important taonga for us, for everyone, for our future generations. 30

[9.55 am]

Tena tatou.

35

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

MR ROGERS: Sorry, Te Kahu?

MR ROLLESTON: Yes. 40

MR ROGERS: I didn’t catch your – is that your full name?

MR ROLLESTON: Yes, Te Kahu Willis Rolleston.

45

MR ROGERS: Willis?


MR ROLLESTON: Rolleston.

MR ROGERS: Rolleston. Okay, thank you gentlemen.

5

MR CHRISTENSEN: Mr Bosch, I was just going to ask you, you say in your

written submission, which I know you can’t find on your computer - - -

MR BOSCH: My computer’s broken.

10

MR CHRISTENSEN: You say as a professional person, what do you do?

MR BOSCH: So I run a youth development programme, so I’m working with

a whole lot of rangitahi and wharekura all across New Zealand, both of

us do, (Māori Content 1.12) and even in the last couple of years we’ve 15

been running these national youth events where we start off around the

coasts, around the country working with the rangitahi and get them to

reach out to the korero near the histories and traditions of their rohe, of

their regions, and then they bring those stories, bring them together to a

national event. We actually just had our last national event a couple of 20

weeks ago down in Kawhia at Maketu Marae right on the sea, and so

each kura brings their traditional stories and they share them all in the

same place.

In our first year the kaupapa, Matua, the overarching kaupapa was Wai, 25

and so we went around and got the students to ask their kaumatua and

kuia in their regions what’s their relationship as a people to the waters

of their region, and so some of them – like in Taupo it’s the lake there,

it’s the moana there, but others were around what’s their traditional

relationship with this part of the coast, over in Kahungunu they’re 30

famous for the paua and those students went then and started

researching the lifecycle of the paua and stuff and brought those sort of

contemporary scientific knowledge in and wove that in with the

traditional knowledge that we have had passed down.

35

So that’s the sort of kaupapa that we’re working with. All our young

people across Aotearoa, and all these young people at the national

event – we couldn’t let everyone go swimming because there was 100

and something people, and you know when you’re trying to monitor

100 and something people in the water, it’s quite a hard deal, so even 40

through that event, because we said no swimming, the whole time that

was the thing, everyone was drawn to the ocean, everyone has a

relationship to the ocean, and even just not being able to swim for those

three days was hell for a lot of people. So if any further effects happen,

you know, that’s the sort of thing that we’re speaking for, we’re 45

speaking for all of them.

38


MR CHRISTENSEN: Thank you.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

5

MR BOSCH: Tena koe.

MR KAPEA: When you take those rangitahi down to the coast, especially

when you take them onto the water, what is the first thing you people

do, or you boys do? 10

MR BOSCH: You know that answer.

MR KAPEA: Tell me.

15

MR BOSCH: (Māori Content 3.35), even when I go down by myself. (Māori

Content 3.41), if I’m going down for a 10 minute swim, I’ll go down

and karakia, mihi to Tangaroa, because Tangaroa is not just a resource

for us, he’s not just a thing that we can use, it’s a life force and he feeds

us and every day - I work in the city, I work in Hamilton, so I drive 20

home and during the summer every day I bypass my house, straight to

the beach, go and have a swim, wash off all the energy of sitting around

on a computer, wash off all that static and all that stuff out in the

moana, so it’s healing, it’s a food source, it’s so much more than just a

resource. 25

MR KAPEA: So you are it, and it’s you?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

30

MR KAPEA: Kia ora, that’s all I need to know.

MR BOSCH: Tena koe.

CHAIRPERSON: Kia ora, thank you very much. 35

Mr Citizen?

MR CITIZEN: Tena koutou katoa. I have, in my written notes, I refer to a lot

of in tax referencing, so for the purposes of this I will probably just 40

skip the in tax referencing for, you know, ability to read it.

[10.00 am]

My name is Joe Citizen and I work as a lecturer in visual arts on the 45

Media Arts Degree Programme at Wintec here in Hamilton. The nature


of my role means that I come into contact with a broad range of

society.

My presentation today will argue that Trans-Tasman Resources

Limited’s application for a marine consent threatens contemporary 5

ideas of a New Zealand identity, particularly with regards to the

evolving relationship between Maori and Pakeha isn’t consistent with

the principle of partnership as required by the Treaty of Waitangi, does

not genuinely engage into the spirit of consultation as required by the

Treaty of Waitangi, is intent on avoiding its responsibilities with regard 10

to the existing relationships between Maori and Pakeha and intent on

avoiding its corporate responsibilities as those typically protected under

the Treaty of Waitangi.

Has attempted to set an agenda through the use of selective 15

terminology which effectively shuts out wider existing interests

typically those interests protected under the Treaty of Waitangi. Has

not considered how their proposed activity will affect New Zealand’s

existing tourism interests as represented by the 100 percent pure

branding strategy, has not provided any strategy or research into how 20

they will mitigate or remedy potential damage to New Zealand as a

clean and green destination brand.

As a tertiary level educator I am keenly aware of the evolving sense of

partnership between Maori and Pakeha particularly when this is 25

articulated by students describing their own sense of identity. This

occurs within my field as a mediator arts lecturer intent of facilitating

students’ knowledge with regards to curricula grounded in identity and

representation through the expression of (Maori content 1.59) within

the daily class structure and a range of other cultural and arts based 30

practices endemic to being part of the wider academic community.

I am aware that to some people identity is a concept which might seem

to be intangible and ill-defined quality but within the socially cohesive

space of a classroom it is a powerful expression of how individuals 35

both see themselves and are informed by others as to who they are and

where they might fit within society.

In my experience ideas of identity based on cultural perspectives in

relationships serve to motivate, validate, provide purpose and bind 40

together people at a core societal level.

Central themes common to many articulations about personal identity

by students frequently include expressions about what it means to be a

New Zealander. Students often refer to their own sense of self in 45

relation to the idea that Maori and Pakeha exist on a continuous


spectrum. This is typically expressed through identifying where one

comes from, what signs and symbols are appropriate or inappropriate to

be used for a particular purpose and by who and a willingness to

engage with norms of culturally appropriate behaviour.

5

Despite media representations of students being socially irresponsible

the students I teach at polytech come from a wide range of people of all

ages and backgrounds. I have often been surprised that despite this

diversity there are common expressions that place value on

responsibility, equity, justice and social cohesion. Ideas about the 10

ongoing partnership between Maori and Pakeha are not uncommon and

whilst the Treaty of Waitangi is not referred to typically in a daily

sense, unless of course it is part of a classroom discussion, it none the

less often provides the backdrop to every day ideas about a united sense

of national identity. 15

I am very concerned, however, that if the proposed application by

Trans-Tasman Resources Limited goes ahead significant damage will

be caused to this evolving sense of national identity. In particular I am

apprehensive about the unique and special relationship that exists 20

between Maori and Pakeha as this proposal directly ignores the

principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I am particularly concerned with the lack of regard Trans-Tasman

Resources appears to have with regards to consultation processes that 25

are an integral part of the Treaty partnership. It its statements of

evidence document Bill Bissett (ph 4.42) refers to a consultation

process by way of a large number of scanned letters sent to regional

iwi. Looking at this letters it becomes immediately apparent that the

majority of them used the same wording. A large number of them seek 30

meetings with a limited timeframe which imposes a difficulty for iwi,

hapu and whanau groups who face time and finance limitations.

[10.05 am]

35

What is most apparent, however, is that this documentation of the

consultation process seems almost overwhelmingly one sided as very

little return correspondence is included this evidence it seems

somewhat dubious to categorise this process as a consultative one.

40

Diane Buchan’s social report seems to exist in a country a long way off

from the one I live in. It does not once mention the Treaty of Waitangi

or its principles but in section 59 she refers to a “cultural impact

assessment”. However, I am unsure of what this document she is

talking about is as it is not mentioned elsewhere in her document nor 45

does it exist in her reference list. Perhaps she is referring to Rose


Austen-Falloon’s consultation report who in section 108 says that

based on her experience at the Office of Treaty Settlements, “I do not

believe the project will impede the ability for the Crown to offer

redress over the affected area. I make this assumption based on the fact

that historical Treaty settlements have not included the EEZ and that 5

other activity such as petroleum activities have not impeded the ability

to settle claims in Taranaki”.

I’m not a legal expert but I find this claim a little disingenuous. Treaty

settlements are after all a recognised remedy for past grievances. Not a 10

basis for consultation. Despite such settlements not being included in

the EEZ the Treaty principles as identified by the lands case of 1987

typically recognised active rather than passive protection of Maori

interests to the fullest extent possible.

15

Rose Austen-Falloon however makes it clear that she thinks that Trans-

Tasman Resources need not be responsible for the maintenance of the

Treaty principles when she says in section 106, “as Treaty settlements

are an agreement between the Crown and iwi Treaty settlements have

limited effect on private operators such as TTR”. Whilst I can 20

appreciate that Rose Austen-Falloon thinks that Trans-Tasman

Resources can have limited responsibility with regards to Treaty

settlement this statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the

principles of the Treaty of the Treaty of Waitangi.

25

These are well described by Janice Hayward writing for Te Ara

Encyclopaedia of New Zealand website. The Treaty signified a

partnership between Pakeha and Maori requiring each other to act

towards the other with utmost good faith. This good faith specifically

relates to the partnership between Pakeha and Maori. Good faith does 30

not refer to a strategy by which material advantage may be gained by a

body corporate that seeks to abdicate its responsibility in favour of the

Crown’s past restitution processes.

Rose Austen-Falloon and Trans-Tasman Resources appear to have 35

missed the point as to what partnership actually means. It cannot be

reduced to a limited liability contract between the Crown and Maori,

rather it refers to a cultural relationship that is integral to the very core

of what it means to be a New Zealander.

40

As with any partnership a lack of consultation with one partner affects

both partners. It is not just those who identify as Maori who are

affected here. But those who identify themselves as Pakeha as well.

The legal entity known as the Crown may claim representative

authority but they cannot claim to speak for the vast complex 45


interrelationships that define what it means to be both Maori and

Pakeha in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand.

Similarly a corporate body that seeks limited liability with regards to

the effects that actions might have on this partnership requires closer 5

scrutiny. This is not simply an economic transaction. There are

potential consequences here that require greater investigation in a

greater time period than the very short period provided for by this

hearing.

10

Let us be clear here. It is not just Maori who will be affected by this

lack of consultation and breach of Treaty partnership. Pakeha are also

protected under the Treaty of Waitangi as partners. Pakeha too have an

ongoing and evolving relationship with the ocean with regards to

spiritual, emotional and personal beliefs that include ideas about 15

sustainability, guardianship, hospitality and reciprocity.

The avoidance of responsibility by Trans-Tasman Resources with

regards to the Treaty of Waitangi cannot be simply dismissed as a

potential future settlement claim from which they see themselves 20

exempt.

Trans-Tasman Resources do, however, identify in section 4.2 of the

request for further information dated January the 29th, 2014 their

responsibilities to existing interests under a number of different Acts, a 25

number of which do in and of themselves refer to the Treaty of

Waitangi.

[10.10 am]

30

Trans-Tasman Resources identify these acts as “potentially relevant

marine management regimes”, which is a phrase defined in section 7 of

the EEZ Act. To call them “potentially relevant” appears somewhat

misleading since under section 39, paragraph 2(4) of this Act they are

obligated to include any measures that are required by other marine 35

management regimes. That such a large body of law relating to existing

interests has such little mention by Trans-Tasman Resources Limited

appears to demonstrate what little regard they have for the effects of

their proposed activity that are not defined within scientific or

economic terms. 40

In my chosen field of media studies the constant reference to particular

terms that ignore or seek to diminish the effect of terminology that does

not conform to once own objectives is called “agenda setting”. The vast

majority of this application process by TTR appears to be located 45

almost exclusively in language that seeks to limit their responsibilities


to economic and ecological discourses. Whilst this agenda might suit

an application which favours strategies based on providing managerial

regimes for these concerns, it does not fundamentally address

definitions of the environment that incorporates spiritual, emotional,

personal and fundamentally cultural relationships with regards to the 5

effects of their proposed activity.

It is precisely these concerns that the principles of the Treaty of

Waitangi addresses as provided for under Section 7(12) and 39 of the

EEZ Act. In contrast, TTR’s application has an almost complete 10

absence of terminology that relates to ideas of kaitiakitanga,

manaakitanga or whakawhanaungatanga. To all Maori in reference to te

reo is strangely absent from its application. The language and style that

they use is most often couched and specialised scientific jargon and

illustrated by the use of diagrams that require specialised knowledge to 15

decode.

Under Section 39, paragraph 2(2)(b) of the EEZ Act, TTR is required

to prepare the impact assessment in sufficient detail so that existing

interests can understand their proposed activity. Their almost exclusive 20

use of scientific and economic jargon however effectively shuts out the

average person on the street from engaging with these processes.

I make these claims based upon my experiences as a tertiary educator

working with broad sections of everyday communities. There has been 25

a groundswell of public opinion against this proposed application with

expressions of dismay, disgust and anger that may not fit inside neatly

defined scientific and economic terminologies. These are articulations

may seem out of place in the agendas of this application, but they

demand both acknowledgment and consideration as provided for under 30

the body of law and policy that are recognised under the principles of

the Treaty of Waitangi.

I would like to turn now to my other major objection concerning this

proposed discretionary activity, particularly my concerns regarding 35

how this activity might damage New Zealand’s international brand

image of being clean and green.

Whilst attention has been paid by TTR to economic arguments that

centre on direct cost benefit relationships, no research appears to have 40

been conducted with regards to how this application might have an

effect on the existing interests of the 100 per cent pure brand which is

arguably one of the most internationally recognised brands of New

Zealand as marketed by Tourism New Zealand.

45


The 100 per cent pure brand has been described as the 10th best brand

in the world by the Anholt-GMI nations brand index in 2005 and is

identified as being a core aspect of Tourism New Zealand’s marketing

by the January 2014 Tourism New Zealand Briefing Paper for the

Incoming Minister of Tourism. 5

As an existing interest the 100 per cent pure brand has a lot to lose

from international perceptions that New Zealand as a destination is not

as clean and green as advertised. According to Tourism New Zealand

tourism is vitally important for New Zealand’s future economic 10

growth; it contributes $18.6 billion to the economy each year, nine per

cent of New Zealand’s gross domestic product.

Its key sites are perhaps best described by Chisholm (2006) in the

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration as 15

“including transportation, accommodation, entertainment and the

natural environment”.

[10.15 am]

20

It is also a very diverse industry; Bramwell in the Journal of

Sustainable Tourism describes it as “a mix of private commercial

businesses, government organisations, NGOs, community and media”.

These diverse interests are all stakeholders in the way in which New 25

Zealand is perceived by both domestic and international tourists. This

perception has since 1999 been largely shaped by the 100 per cent pure

branding strategy which has expanded to include the associated brands

100 per cent pure romance, 100 per cent pure spirit, 100 per cent pure

experience, 100 per cent pure exhilaration, 100 per cent pure brilliance, 30

100 per cent pure discovery and 100 per cent pure Middle Earth.

According to the Ministry of Economic Development Review of

Economic, Industry and Regional Development Policies and

Programmes (2005) an Evaluation of Brand New Zealand (2006), the 35

100 per cent pure New Zealand branding strategy is part of an overall

national branding strategy which seeks to portray New Zealand as a

highly innovative and entrepreneurial country in order to encourage

foreign investment and develop further exports.

40

As Justin Westgate (2009) puts it in his paper Brand Value: the Work

of Ecolabelling and Place-branding in New Zealand Tourism “In New

Zealand tourism is a key economic sector and is an example of world-

leading practice and destination branding”. Destination branding is the

practice of linking a destinational country to a set of associative values 45

that are considered desirable by target markets. Destination branding is


not the same as product branding, it typically takes much longer to

establish as a brand and marketeers need to realise that they must

recognise their role as a steward rather than as a consumer of resources

and that the marketer has little or no control over the tourist-perceived

experiences. 5

New Zealand’s destination branding relies heavily on the natural and

physical environment for creating the New Zealand Tourism brand, in

particular the clean and green imagery. Current research of

international visitors’ perceptions of New Zealand as a destination 10

brand is provided by Hall (2010). He refers to a Ministry of Economic

Development review which sampled international visitors to the

Canterbury region in 2007. In this survey 66 per cent of international

visitors perceive New Zealand as a tourism destination being clean and

green and 74 per cent perceive New Zealand as a tourism destination as 15

being naturally beautiful.

One of the easiest ways that the clean and green brand might be

damaged is, as Morrow puts it, “the accusation of greenwash”. In other

words there is a risk that international visitors might perceive the brand 20

to be inauthentic because of what they see or hear reported through

international media outlets.

Tourism is particularly vulnerable to greenwash. As Westgate puts it

“Crucially, New Zealand’s environmental credentials are being more 25

readily scrutinised, posing a threat to its clean-green image”. In today’s

world international visitors are more often than not likely to gain their

perception of New Zealand via the internet. As such the impact of

social media cannot be underestimated.

30

The potential to damage New Zealand’s clean and green brand image

through its decisions that makes regarding the environment cannot be

underestimated either. As Insch says, “The consequences of

contaminating a green brand image by word-of-mouth in social media

platforms can be severe as others learn and complain about, 35

recommend or discourage others to visit”.

Westgate makes comment with regards to recent shifts of the New

Zealand government’s willingness to wider environmental concerns.

He says, “The current government’s reduced focus on sustainability has 40

implications to the perception of the wider place-brand and indeed may

work to undermine the favourable associations developed by the

tourism sector”.

Tourism New Zealand however is cleanly aware that in order to 45

maintain its international brand currency it must provide experiences


that are both authentic and sustainable. The two key values it

emphasises at the start of its New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015 are

kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga which are also key values referred to in

contemporary Treaty of Waitangi legislation.

5

Tourism New Zealand are also aware that they cannot achieve this goal

in isolation, that they need the cooperation and engagement of both

other businesses and governmental organisations. This is best

expressed on page 11, where they state “The tourism sector is so

intimately woven into New Zealand’s economy and across New 10

Zealand’s communities that we need a nation-wide commitment to

sustainability. This requires all areas of government and all economic

sectors to play their part and to acknowledge the connections that exist

between us.”

15

[10.20 am]

Therefore, considering the wide range of possible economic

implications that might occur as a result of how this proposed activity,

and how it may be seen by an environmentally savvy and discerning 20

market, as cited in Morrow 2013, I ask that Trans-Tasman Resources

provide further information as to how they intend to mitigate or remedy

the potential damage to the existing interest of New Zealand as a

destination brand.

25

In conclusion, my presentation today argues that Trans-Tasman

Resources Limited’s application for a marine consent be declined on

the basis that it has attempted to avoid its responsibilities as a corporate

citizen under the laws of New Zealand, which refer to the protection of

the partnership between Māori and Pakeha under the Treaty of 30

Waitangi.

It has also not taken into consideration the possibilities this activity

may cause on New Zealand’s wider international brand image and the

potential for it to damage our tourism sector. 35

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Citizen. There may be some questions.

40

MR CHRISTENSEN: Mr Citizen, I was interested in your comments about

the tourism brand for New Zealand and I don’t know whether you’ve

had the opportunity to see it, but there’s a joint witness statement that

was prepared and is in evidence in front of us from Ms Buchan,

Mr Greenaway and Mr Fairgray, who are the experts who are giving 45

evidence to us on that topic.


Now, we haven’t heard from them yet, but one of the things that their

joint witness statement concludes with is to say that any effects of the

proposal on New Zealand’s tourism brand would be very difficult to

measure. Do you have any comments in relation to that? 5

MR CITIZEN: I think that the art, science study of branding is fairly well

established and particular there has been quite a lot of study with

regards to New Zealand as a destination brand. With regards to

measurement of it, I do agree that more research is needed within this, 10

and within the context of this application this is something that requires

a great deal more scrutiny. I think that within the context of this

application the Trans-Tasman Resource Limited needs to set aside and

to scrutinise more closely as to how their activity may cause potential

damage to this really important sector within the New Zealand 15

economy, as do other governmental organisations.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Thank you.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora. 20

MR CITIZEN: Kia ora.

MR KAPEA: I am puzzled as to, and your name here Joe Citizen, that’s not

your real name? 25

MR CITIZEN: It’s been my legal name for the last 25 years.

MR KAPEA: That’s your legal name?

30

MR CITIZEN: It exists on my passport.

MR KAPEA: Okay, that’s cool, because I was just thinking whether it was

Joe Citizen public person out there with no face or - - -

35

MR CITIZEN: My full legal name is Joseph Alexander Nicholas Citizen.

MR KAPEA: Cool. That’s all I needed to know, because when I’m speaking

to you kanui to kanui, eyeball to eyeball, I want to make sure who I’m

speaking to and so I was a little confused about that. 40

MR CITIZEN: Fair enough.

MR KAPEA: I am really interested in the relationship you talk about between

Pakeha and Māori, and have you, in your generation, do you 45

acknowledge a shift in that relationship?


MR CITIZEN: Yes, I do. And I think I see it particularly with my experience

as a tertiary educator, that I see it often articulated within a classroom

environment, that I see it on all levels. I have worked with a wide

section of the community, and yes, I do see a shift. I see the shift as 5

being dynamic, as evolving and very much with the sense that all levels

of society wish to engage with this type of partnership relationship.

MR KAPEA: Thank you.

10

MS WRATT: Thank you, Mr Citizen. One of the things that I struggle with a

little bit about this 100 percent pure New Zealand tourism brand is that

we rely on international tourists who come here in aeroplanes that

require – are built out of resources that are extracted in other parts of

the world, burn hydrocarbon fuels that are predominantly extracted in 15

other parts of the world, contribute to carbon dioxide emissions, yet we

say it’s 100 percent pure, and I guess I just appreciate your comment on

that, on your emphasis on, you know, we’ve got to take into account in

this proposal its impact on 100 percent New Zealand pure brand, but at

the same time we’re saying we don’t want these activities in New 20

Zealand, some of which are actually upon which our tourism industry is

actually based.

[10.25 am]

25

MR CITIZEN: You know, I think that any branding strategy relies upon a

visual rhetoric which is in a sense based purely within the study of

semiotics, and therefore there is some degree of drift between reality

and the ideas that are associated with it. Nevertheless, Tourism New

Zealand have identified within its own branding strategy that a need for 30

authenticity and the need for sort of a – you can see it in their New

Zealand Tourism Strategy 2015 report, that they are interested in

providing, for tourists, the need for an authentic experience, and

particularly grounded within the idea of sustainability.

35

I think that when you refer to such things as international visitors

perception or domestic sort of conversations or discourses that are

located within the ideas of carbon footprints, steel production and what

have you, it’s not an either or kind of decision, it’s actually a much

longer conversation based around sustainability, and I think that – and 40

seeking ways to mitigate or remedy the sort of respective industries

which contemporary society has a reliance upon is an ongoing kind of

process. It’s not something that, yes, one can say we have chosen

between two parts.

45


MS WRATT: Although by criticising Trans-Tasman Resource’s application,

isn’t there a little inconsistency in that, in them basing one of those

objections on New Zealand’s 100 percent pure brand, which is not

quite as 100 percent pure brand as we like to present.

5

MR CITIZEN: I think my central concern is the way in which international

visitors will perceive that brand, so I think within the notion of

branding strategy, that perception is paramount. So in terms of the sort

of need for there to be a one to one correlate in terms of notions of

inconsistency, I think that’s something that comes with branding per se. 10

MS WRATT: I understand the branding message, I guess my question is

about your message to us and the total consistency of that message.

MR CITIZEN: Sorry, I don’t understand your question then. 15

MS WRATT: Well the consistency in putting up that a concern about this

proposal relates to 100 percent pure New Zealand, which is a tourist

brand, which relies on a tourism market, for which the sort of extractive

industries that I am hearing you don’t want to see in New Zealand, 20

have to happen elsewhere in the world for that tourism industry to be

successful.

MR CITIZEN: There’s several responses I have to that. The first is that the

100 percent pure brand is a destination brand and so what makes New 25

Zealand distinctively different when competing in the global market is

this brand and the relationship that we have with our clean and green

imagery in relation to that brand message.

The second is with regards to the way in which these extractive 30

industries might occur in the rest of the world. Yes, that’s certainly

true, as I believe other respondents have said, the shift towards

sustainability is something that occurs both here and by international

audiences.

35

MS WRATT: Okay.

MR CITIZEN: Thank you.

MR ROGERS: Morning. 40

MR CITIZEN: Morena.

MR ROGERS: I am quite surprised to see some of these statistics here

because I had not picked up that New Zealand branding includes trying 45


to portray New Zealand as highly innovative and entrepreneurial in

order to encourage foreign investment and develop further export.

MR CITIZEN: Yes, it’s part of a wider branding strategy.

5

MR ROGERS: Because if we were minded to grant consent because we

thought it was actually environmentally okay, that that is something

that is part of the procedure, and I suppose the other one that was

interesting to me was that basically people see us as pure, our 100

percent pure is about a 66 percent pass mark when you look at 10

international visitors which I suppose, what I pick out of that is that

while we talk a lot about our 100 percent brand, most people will make

their own judgements on it and form their own opinion.

[10.30 am] 15

MR CITIZEN: That’s correct.

MR ROGERS: And that they’re actually probably about right based on my

view. So you agree with that? 20

MR CITIZEN: I believe that the nature of branding is based around

perception, yes.

MR ROGERS: And so just to take it a bit further, and you’re in media studies, 25

so what do you think would be a more apt or better brand for New

Zealand going forward? Because there is a lot of discussion at the

moment about some of the, you know, we’ve got dirty rivers, we’ve got

dirty waterways on land. Have you discussed what might be a better

brand for NZ Inc? 30

MR CITIZEN: I believe that Tourism New Zealand actually has it right. I

believe that their engagement with authenticity and sustainability is the

way forward.

35

MR ROGERS: Okay, cool, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I just have one specific question really, just to make sure

I’ve got my understanding right. On page 7 you talk about as an

existing interest for 100 percent pure branding, you talk about, of 40

course existing interest is defined, are you saying to us that the 100

percent pure is an existing interest and therefore we must specifically

take that point of view?

MR CITIZEN: Look, I want to be really clear in terms of what I mean by 45

existing interest. In one sense there’s the brand, in another sense it’s


the way that the brand relates to audiences, particularly with regards to

identity, both at home and overseas, and the perception of that identity.

So that’s quite wide.

CHAIRPERSON: But you use the word existing interest and I’m just 5

interested in what you mean by existing interest in that context.

MR CITIZEN: I mean the brand.

CHAIRPERSON: For the brand. But do you relate that to the existing interest

definition of the Act or are you using it in a sort of broader context? 10

MR CITIZEN: In both senses.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that’s clear to me. Thank you very much.

15

MR CITIZEN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Those were the submissions we had in the morning for the

first session, but I’ll see. Is Stephanie Philip here?

20

MS PHILP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to present your submission now? Thank

you.

25

MS PHILP: It’s Philp, not Philip. And I need to say that my computer’s hard

drive crashed a couple of weeks ago and I lost my original submission.

CHAIRPERSON: And we have it in front of us so.

30

MS PHILP: I thought you probably had, and I’ve only got this one on my

iPad at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve got it here.

35

MS PHILP: So first of all I think that there’s a huge incongruence between

the government’s constant promotion of New Zealand as a clean and

green tourist destination, 100 percent pure etc, and that it’s even

considering allowing TTR to start seabed mining is at complete odds to

that. 40

Not only is New Zealand Tourism promoting us overseas as clean and

green, 100 percent pure, but the government and Prime Minister is as

well. And to even think about seabed mining seems at complete odds

with that. 45


But I wanted to focus more on the systemic nature of life, a big broad

topic. Everything is connected to something else. Nature is not a

straightforward cause and effect type processes we used to think that it

was. Nature is an organic, intricately woven set of connections

expanding in many different directions at the same time. 5

It’s virtually impossible, even with our advanced technology, to see and

hear where those connections go or, indeed, often what they are

connected to.

10

Humans have an incredible ability to upset this balance, simply by

forcibly taking something out of a system or putting something into a

system, either way history has shown us that this results in disaster.

Sometimes a disaster is evidenced immediately, other times it takes

decades or generations by which times it’s often too late. 15

[10.35 am]

So some examples of this from New Zealand’s history. Deforestation

of New Zealand’s forest into farmland. The result is erosion of vast 20

areas of lands, slips, landslides, people losing their houses and their

lives.

Overseas, vast areas of deforestation have changed the weather patterns

– who knows, they might have changed New Zealand’s weather 25

patterns as well. Loss in New Zealand of many native species.

Likewise, the introduction to the environment of things that don’t

belong there can have equally devastating effects. Using New Zealand

as an example again, introducing farming, farm effluent getting into our 30

waterways and rivers leads to killing off plants and animals and

enabling weeds that further clog up our waterways.

Introducing rabbits, stoats, possums, myna birds, all these creatures

fulfil a valuable role in their countries of origin, they simply destroy 35

our ecology in New Zealand.

So what would be the impact of introducing heavy, noisy equipment to

our ocean floors? How will the sounds impact whales and dolphins?

What impact will the disruption to their sonar have in their echo 40

location? How far out might those impacts go? At the moment, I

believe we have no idea, absolutely no idea.

Hat about removing stuff from the environment? If TTR remove our

sand in the quantities they’re forecasting, how will this impact the 45

micro-organisms that fish feed on? The plankton that whales feed on,


the waves that reach our shores? The surfers and tourists that use the

sea as their playground? The tourism industry and our clean, green 100

percent pure tourism industry? The accommodation providers, the

fishers etc, etc?

5

The answer simply is that we don’t know. It’s not been done in New

Zealand’s unique situation before. Is it really worth the risk of

upsetting our delicate ecosystem and by ecosystem I mean the whole

intricate web of life in which the ocean floor is connected, as illustrated

above. 10

I believe that it’s not worth that and that we can’t forecast where those

webs go. We can only see in hindsight. We can only connect the dots

in hindsight, and then hindsight might very well be too late.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. You’re not off the hook that quickly.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora. You referred to deforestation and, I suppose, from a

Maori perspective, we’ve sat around and watched the removal of the

Kowhai or Papatuanuku and it’s been quite devastating. In terms of 20

your observation from the areas that you’ve seen, you talked about

slips. Are there any other adverse effects that you’ve seen from the

deforestation?

MS PHILP: Well just the look of the place. I mean just driving from Raglan 25

this morning, every where’s completely brown. Instead of nice, green

hills like you can see in some areas, you see these brown things with

steps in which is completely burnt off. And so probably the next lot of

rain we have, will be slides, slips.

30

As I said before, I’m not sure that we actually know how much of an

impact it has had on our weather because it’s been, I don’t know, a

century or more since deforestation occurred. But I know in large

forests around the world where it’s happened, it’s affected the weather

as well as every living being that lives in it. 35

And event today in the Waikato Times, apparently there's something

about farmers saying now that they need to plant trees and plant shelter

belts and plant shade for the cows and etc, etc.

40

So, you know, I think that for me, when I work with people, if I work

with a woman to, say, get a job and she’s never worked before, I’m not

just working with the woman, I’m working her family. How is it going

to impact on them if she gets a job? How is it going to impact on her

husband? How is it going to impact on paying the mortgage? It is like 45

it is not just one thing. We have to take into account all the connections


before we make changes and sometimes we just cannot make those

connections, except in hindsight, which is too late.

[10.40 am]

5

MR KAPEA: So those social effects can be mirrored in this example of this

application.

MS PHILP: Exactly. It is not just the environment, people are part of that

environment and it impacts them as well. 10

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

MS PHILP: Kia ora.

15

MR CHRISTENSEN: Good morning.

MS PHILP: Good morning.

MR CHRISTENSEN: I would like to just explore that a little bit further, the 20

complicated nature of the interconnectedness of things. I am grappling

with the difference between, if we imagine an activity, let us say there

were 20 different examples around the country of this type of activity

and someone came along and said “well I would to do the 21st type of

activity”. I imagine in that situation it is easier perhaps to understand 25

the implications because there are other examples to point to.

MS PHILP: Mm.

MR CHRISTENSEN: And in this situation it is different because there is not 30

another example that you can point to and so we are looking into the

unknown in a greater sense. Is your advice to us or your view, that

where we are contemplating activities which are new, in the sense that

there is not enough that you can go and look at to say “well this is how

it works and these are what the effects are”, that that in itself is a reason 35

why an activity should not be allowed to proceed, just because you

cannot compare it properly to anything else.

MS PHILP: I think that is one reason. I think the other thing though is that

because it is in New Zealand and in our waters, is it worth the risk? 40

You know, because we have seen the impact of other things that

somebody has started and centuries later or decades later we have seen

the result. And even if there is 20 examples where it has gone okay, it

may be that it is another decade before we see the negative impact of

that. It does not happen overnight because an ecology and some things 45

can live for 30, 40 years and not reproduce because of changes in the


environment. It is not just one thing and I think it is really one eyed of

us to think that if can just that it will not affect everything else. So in

the past we have gone, okay if we do this, this will happen, this will

happen, this will happen. What we have found is that if we do this,

okay, this happens, this happens, this happens but also, this happens, 5

this happens, this happens, this happens, this happens and it is just

bigger, and bigger and bigger.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Okay, thank you.

10

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your submission.

MS PHILP: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just going to check what other people are here who 15

want to be heard now. Is Mr Dobson here?

MS DOBSON: Mark cannot leave the hospital to get here until 11.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that is fine. 20

MS DOUGLAS: We are speaking as a unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay

25

MS DOUGLAS: We made one presentation that has 10 minute blocks. We

want to speak it as a block.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, so - - -

30

MS DOUGLAS: I am Doctor Heidi Douglas.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so right.

MS DOUGLAS: He is coming at 11 and these are Jack and Edi (ph 03.32) 35

CHAIRPERSON: So you are all doing that as a block?

MS DOUGLAS: Right.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so I think what we will do then, we will take the

break now and we will come back at about 11 o’clock.

MS DOUGLAS: Okay.

45

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much everybody.


MR KAPEA : Just before we do that Greg. Can I have you two you fellas

come up here please?

DISCUSSION 5

ADJOURNED [10.43 am]

RESUMED [11.10 am]

10

CHAIRPERSON: we are going to hear now, Mr Dobson, and are you going

to present yours as a block, is that what you are - - -

MR DOBSON: I will come up first and then my wife - - -

15

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, right, Mr Dobson then.

Just before you start, Ms Ward-Holmes is here I think, is she? We will

just come back to you, are you okay for a little bit? Great, thank you.

20

MR DOBSON: Good morning everyone, my name is Mark Dobson. I am a

resident of Raglan, a New Zealand citizen, a father of two children and

husband to Heidi Douglass.

I am certified project manager and have been for over 10 years now. I 25

am not going to divulge how many years just because that will divulge

my age.

MS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Hey, Mark, do you (INDISTINCT 1.06)

30

MR DOBSON: Okay, thanks. There we go – too far, sorry. I am speaking

today in opposition to the proposal to do seabed mining in the South

Taranaki Bight. I am going to focus on the strength of the business case

and the potential costs as a result of a possible project to do seabed

mining in the South Taranaki Bight. 35

Upon hearing about this proposal to do the mining, I had assumed that

the financial return would certainly be in the billions of dollars. Upon

reviewing the estimates provided by TTR, I am left wondering how this

proposal has gotten so far. From the estimates that I have read, the 40

business case in my mind has no merit, especially if we consider that

government expenditure appears to wipe out the potential tax take of an

estimated $54 million per annum. And if I can propose a question to the

panel: Am I reading that correctly? That the tax take would be wiped

out, based on the government’s expenditure estimates? 45


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dobson, I think your role here is to give us information,

so you need to tell us what you are concerned about and we need to

take that into account in the realm of making a decision.

MR DOBSON: Okay, so I will move on from there. The other benefit that the 5

proposal appears to give is a potential of 200 jobs in New Zealand.

They might be all New Zealand’s citizens, they may not be, depending

on the type of role. And I compare that to the current 6,700 jobs in the

mining industry in New Zealand. So it appears to me that the 200

potential jobs is a small number, if we look at the potential destruction 10

of seabed mining. So I ask myself, Mark, as a project manager, where

is the attractive ROI, where is the return on investment for this

proposed seabed mining?

It appears that the shareholders of TTR would do well out of it. Those 15

shareholders, unfortunately, are 90 per cent offshore, so New Zealand

would not benefit financially from that. So, in my mind, New Zealand

citizens do not do very well out of the business case at all.

[11.15 am] 20

If I can move on to non-benefits. Based on the proposal, New

Zealand’s primary and secondary industries do not benefit from the

proposal because the ore is shipped overseas for processing and

production into steel. New Zealand does appear to be at risk for picking 25

up a lot of the expenses.

So, moving on to my next slide regarding cost, if we take a

precautionary approach to seabed mining in the South Taranaki Bight,

that would mean that we have assessed the risks and we have validated 30

the assumptions from the proposal and I stress that if an assumption is

not validated, if it is not proven correct, then we have a potential risk

that may or may not be realised. Therefore, there is a potential for cost

escalation.

35

And if we look at the proposal to span a period of some 20 years if

approved, incremental costs are likely to mount based on those

unvalidated assumptions. We are looking at potential loss of habitat

and loss of mammals, namely the Maui dolphin, which has a feeding

ground in this region. The whales that have been identified to frequent 40

the area are high in number. There is risk to those animals being

harmed and potentially killed or simply that they will move away from

the area.

The other costs we have a very likely potential for destruction of the 45

ecosystem in the area, regional disruption of the ecosystem based on


the movements of the plume from the ship as it discharges material.

The risks of oil spills at sea and the risks of the ships that take the ore,

they cannot handle rough conditions, and there is a risk for them

breaking apart.

5

Light and sound pollution are other costs that perhaps are hidden costs,

not necessarily – we don’t see them relatively as monetary costs

always, but hidden costs that may be happening below the surface, that

we are not so aware of.

10

Scientists cannot predict the costs to the environment, we are only

guessing. But again, I return to the concern that each assumption is

made about a project like this that is not validated, has a risk.

The further costs that I wanted to highlight include New Zealand’s 15

international reputation. What do we stand for? Do we stand for

anything anymore? I am not sure. New Zealand’s tourism industry,

which has annual revenue of some $23 billion – that is certainly

something to cheer about. New Zealand’s clean-green image is at risk.

It is already at risk and this will further tarnish it, if not destroy it. 20

So what comes next, if this proposal is approved, it certainly won’t be

approved based on the business case, which has no merit. If this is

approved, what comes next? Fleets of ships, dredging and destroying

the seabed and harming all the life in the region? What is at stake here 25

is our future generations, my children and my wife sitting over here and

the people in attendance today. We have a bigger picture for New

Zealand. We have a long-term plan for New Zealand, a plan with

sustainability.

30

So, I am in opposition to the planned or the proposed seabed mining in

the South Taranaki Bight. The costs far overwhelm the potential return

on investment. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just before you go, there might be some 35

questions.

MR CHRISTENSEN: In terms of the cost benefit kind of analysis, and I am

asking you from your experience as a project manager.

40

[11.20 am]

MR DOBSON: Yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Where you’ve got costs that have uncertainty attached 45

to you, and I’m thinking of environmental costs, in particular, where


you say, as you point out, the scientists say well we don’t know

everything for sure, there are uncertainties out there about what those

effects are.

Would you be expecting, in terms of a cost benefit, well how would 5

you expect that uncertainty to be accounted for in the cost side of the

ledger when it comes to doing a cost benefit analysis?

MR DOBSON: I would think that consideration must be given to the effects

that are likely to, or could cause, an escalation in costs. If each 10

potential cost is examined and, like the RMA, those effects are

mitigated, in terms of the potential for cost escalation there may be

some merit to the project.

But based on the current proposal, we don’t have enough visibility into 15

what those costs, long term could be. Does that answer your question?

MR CHRISTENSEN: It’s helpful, thanks.

MS WRATT: I do have a question. 20

MR DOBSON: Yes.

MS WRATT: You mentioned government expenditure wiping out the tax

take. Can you just clarify for me what government expenditure you’re 25

referring to there?

MR DOBSON: Yes. I’ve seen a number quoted in the documentation refer to

government expenditure as 71 million dollars per annum, compared to

a royalties and tax take of 54 million dollars per annum. So my 30

interpretation was that the government spend, if that spending to

manage the process wipes out the tax take. Can I ask that?

MS WRATT: I can’t recollect having seen that figure, so you don’t have

where that figure is in the documentation? 35

MR DOBSON: In the official documentation is where I read it first of all.

MS WRATT: Which official documentation? We have, as has been

commented, we have over 60 thousand pages of submissions, let alone

the application and all the rest of it. So I really need to know where it 40

is.

MR DOBSON: It wasn’t from a submission.

MS WRATT: Yes. 45


MR DOBSON: I first read it, I believe, in the proposed documents as

submitted by TTR on the business case analysis. There were a number

of numbers that I recall seeing, including New Zealand’s projected

export earnings increase, the estimated royalties.

5

MS WRATT: So was that in the economic modelling that was done?

MR DOBSON: I believe so.

MR CHRISTENSEN: It’ll be the NZIER document. 10

MR DOBSON: Yes, I believe that’s where I read that. I believe that's where I

saw that, yes. So I was confused, is the government expenditure based

on the proposal, does it actually wipe out the potential tax take?

Which, if I've read that correctly, would undermine, pardon the pun if 15

you will, undermine the business case?

MS WRATT: Okay, seems a valid question.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Well, can I follow up on that, because what I've got in 20

front of me is the joint expert witness statement from the economists.

And you may not have seen this, this is a document that’s - - -

MR DOBSON: I certainly may not have.

25

MR CHRISTENSEN: - - - a couple of weeks old. Only, in there, at paragraph

39, the experts agree that under the baseline assumption, the economic

benefits of the project are estimated to be approximately 50 million

dollars, based on royalty and tax payments per annum. Now that's the

benefit the proposal. 30

MR DOBSON: Yes, that’s about the right number I saw, I guess, yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Okay. And then they go on to say that the project is

likely to have a positive net, economic benefit. And then they go on to 35

talk about the environmental costs - - -

MR DOBSON: Okay.

MR CHRISTENSEN: - - - as a separate heading. 40

MR DOBSON: Was there any mention of the government expenditure number

of 71 million per annum?

MR CHRISTENSEN: Not that I can see in that document but we’ll follow 45

through on that, thank you.


MR DOBSON: Okay, thank you.

MS WRATT: And just one other question. When you talk about the business

case, are you talking there about the business case for NZ Inc. 5

essentially? Or are you talking about the business for the investor, so

for TTR and questioning their business case as a commercial business

case for the company?

MR DOBSON: It’s a good question. My approach to the business case is, 10

what is the financial benefit to New Zealand, not necessarily TTR.

MR WRATT: Thanks, yes that clarifies that.

MR DOBSON: Thank you. 15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I presume that your PowerPoint is

now available.

[11.25 am] 20

MR DOBSON: It is all together, it is one PowerPoint.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is available? Have you got it?

25

MS WRATT: Yes, I have got it.

CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you very much. Welcome.

DR DOUGLASS: Thank you. I am Dr Heidi Douglass and I live in Raglan. 30

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you start. We are recording this, I just want to

make sure if you are happy to stand there, it is fine but just move the

microphone back a bit.

35

DR DOUGLASS: I am Dr Heidi Douglass and I live in Raglan.

CHAIRPERSON: Great.

DR DOUGLASS: I am here to oppose the seabed mining application of TTR. 40

I am looking that way just so I can read my slides.

CHAIRPERSON: Exactly, and we have got the screens here too. You have

probably seen.

45


DR DOUGLASS: Yes. I am not opposed to every seabed mining application.

I could make one exception. If all of us humans in New Zealand were

going to die a tragic death from some catastrophe and mining the

seabed for something was the only way to save all life in New Zealand

then I could consider that application, but not this one. This one is non-5

essential.

Who am I and why do I care anyway? That is me, a child of the sixties

growing up in America in a small town called Swansea Massachusetts.

A small coastal community next to the city of Fall River, which for 10

over 250 years was an enormous mill town and they made fabric and

the dyes from the fabric all went into the town river which then went

into our bay. Silver smelting and all kinds of industry were allowed for

a long time to dump all kinds of chemicals in there.

15

So, when I was little kid in the early seventies I could take free

swimming lessons at the Swansea town beach. My experience of the

town beach up there in that part of the world, was to go to a beach with

brown sand, brown water, garbage and the water was so polluted I used

to get sties in my eyes on a regular basis. But there was no other place 20

for us local kids to swim. At that time, if you wanted to take a child like

me to see sea life, you could not go to the Swansea town beach because

was not any sea life. You had to go to the Boston Aquarium or the

Mystic Aquarium in Connecticut.

25

And when my children were with us there when they were little, we

would sometimes take them to Boston and we would be near the

harbour and we would say, you know, look around to if you see

anything. And the kids would be like, “mum is that a jellyfish in the

water?” And I would say “no, sorry honey, that is a shopping bag”. 30

And then Eve would be like “but mum, look at that little thing, that is

little a baby fish” and she would get all excited and I would be like,

sorry honey, that is a cigarette butt.

So that is my experience from up there and that is part of why I am 35

here. Because when I moved to Raglan a few years ago, to Lorenzen

Bay, I had this amazing experience: that the creatures that I used to

have to go to the aquarium to sea were swimming right where I was.

Stingrays, we see them down there all the time. We have seen the Orca

come up the harbour many times. They chase the stingray. The kingfish 40

are there. There is an enormous amount of sea life. The water is

cleaner. I can watch the Orca while sitting on my sofa in the living

room and I am not watching it on a TV, I am watching live in the

ocean.

45


You have a precious resource here on the west coast of New Zealand. It

is pristine, compared to the sea where I grew up. You must stop taking

it for granted and fight to protect it. What you have is rare nowadays.

Do not allow seabed mining in your pristine environment.

5

There is a certain amount of human arrogance that you have to have in

order to think seabed mining makes any sense. Seabed mining requires

some basic assumptions: human needs are paramount, human life is

valuable, but the life of the sea is not, because you grind it up and kill it

in the process. The sea and its life is nothing more than a resource to 10

use up. Destruction of a precious resource, shared in common, is okay.

I say that is completely wrong. This is an example of a tragedy of the

commons. A situation where something that is owned by every human

on the planet, the ocean, is going to be exploited and potentially 15

destroyed for the benefit of one small group of people. That is the

tragedy of the commons and that relates seabed mining off the South

Taranaki Byte.

The sea and its creatures are precious and if we cannot see that, we 20

humans are just being arrogant.

[11.30 am]

In 1928 a man named Henry Beston lived on Cape Cod and he wrote 25

this quote, which I thought applied here, “The animal shall not be

measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they

move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we

have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They

are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught 30

with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the

splendour and travail of the earth”.

Seabed mining is a short-sighted, arrogant human mistake. If we stay

on this path, where we allow humans to destroy all the animal life and 35

use up all of our resources, New Zealand will go from being a beautiful

wild place to this – could you put the video on, please? It is only a

couple of minutes, keeps me under 10. And there is sound, if you could

make sure there is volume, please?

40

[VIDEO SHOWN]

DR DOUGLASS: So thank you for your time and thank you for listening to

me. Please don’t let New Zealand become like that.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, I will check, there might be some

questions for you.

MR KAPEA: I am just a bit depressed now.

5

DR DOUGLASS: But you can turn the tide, you are in the power seat.

MR KAPEA: It is interesting that you talk about your experiences growing up

and your bay.

10

[11.35 am]

And you are not alone. I mean, we have witnessed this in New Zealand

in terms of – even in Manukau harbour, and it was very, very similar to

your situation, they couldn’t swim there either. These are a generation 15

before me. And the one good thing that I know about nature, if you

give it a chance, it will restore itself. And the Manukau today is not the

place it was 50 years ago. And that is because with places like this,

people like us, that people are listening and changes are being made.

But life goes and our grandchildren, that we talk about leaving things 20

to, unfortunately, all want a mobile phone, all want the things that we

never needed, because that is the world. And we have to make

decisions based on that, I mean - - -

DR DOUGLASS: I would be quite happy to give up my cell phone to keep 25

orca, if I had to choose.

MR KAPEA: I would, too, but I doubt whether my grandchild would.

DR DOUGLASS: Well, someone might need to educate him about the 30

difference. It is hard choices, you are right, we have difficult choices.

MR KAPEA: Exactly, and the thing is – what I wanted to say was that in that

short time in my life, I have seen something that was – like you saw –

and we have celebrated the return of part of that Manukau harbour 35

back.

DR DOUGLASS: Was it pollutants that did it?

MR KAPEA: It was abattoirs. 40

DR DOUGLASS: Okay, so it is a pollution source that went in.

MR KAPEA: Yes, a pollution source and, of course, the thing that really

turned it all around was a shifting of the treatment plant from the 45

doorstep of my people, Ngati Whatua, to another hapu, and they


wouldn’t allow the degradation to occur and it started to change, and

we have one of the best treatments plants in the world now. But I just

wanted to share that in terms of, we have watched that in 50 years in

my lifetime.

5

DR DOUGLASS: Right, and I hope it will improve. The Gulf of Mexico is

still dead, it has been dead a long time. There can be a tipping point.

We are talking about chemicals going in. The application presented

today is about ripping stuff out, in a volume that maybe has never been

done, hasn’t been done off of New Zealand before. So we don’t know 10

if it will ever recover. There is no data from any scientist that can

guarantee it.

MR KAPEA: And I know and we are the ones sitting here with that sitting on

top of our shoulders and the thing is, while we have all this, if you like, 15

picture of doom and gloom, we are also leaders in this country in

technology, in all sorts of fields, and I just put it out there, can we be

leaders in sand mining? I am not suggesting in any way that that is

where we should go, but that if we be leaders - - -

20

DR DOUGLASS: I could be a leader of prostitution probably. I could

probably be really good at prostitution, but I am not going to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think we will go there.

25

DR DOUGLASS: I think you have to make smart choices. What do you want

to stand for? Mark had talked about that before. You have to make

choices. What do you want your country to represent? What do you

want it to stand for?

30

CHAIRPERSON: And you have clearly put that to us.

MR KAPEA: Okay, that is fine.

DR DOUGLASS: Okay, thanks. So Jack it is your turn. 35

CHAIRPERSON; Thank you, just before you – I might just check with the

board. No?

MR ROGERS: I do, actually, just a question, Dr Douglass. Have the inputs to 40

that base since being better regulated?

DR DOUGLASS: They have improved in terms of water pollution; I am

talking about this as an example of a water pollution situation, not

mine. 45


MR ROGERS: No, I understand that. And has there also been ecological

remediation?

DR DOUGLASS: I don’t know about in the Swansea area. I know parts of the

Taunton River have improved because they have been left alone and 5

not disturbed. But there are still problems because some people want to

do dredging up there or move sediment. And there are big fights about

it. If you move the sediment it is going to activate the sediment and

cause all the pollution to surface back and infiltrate again.

10

MR ROGERS: So, some big legacy issues, thank you.

DR DOUGLASS: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 15

DR DOUGLASS: Thank you. All right, sweetie, you want to stand up and

you want to go loud and slow, can you see the screen from there?

CHAIRPERSON: Welcome, Mr Jack Douglass, age 13, of Raglan. 20

DR DOUGLASS: So, if you stand over there and I will click the buttons for

you.

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Cool, cheers. 25

DR DOUGLASS: Yeah, you ready?

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Hello, this is what I think of seabed mining on

our wild and beautiful West Coast. 30

DR DOUGLASS: If you could put the video on, it is just a short clip.

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: So, just to 1.05.

35

[11.40 am]

MS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: This is not our clip

[VIDEO SHOWN] 40

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: It’s insane. Seabed mining. This is where the

Maui Dolphin’s live it’s insane. I am not the only one that thinks so in

my town of Raglan. In 2012 the TTR came to Raglan to meet at the

Marae. In less than 24 hours’ notice, 200 people turned up to march 45

peacefully and protest, to align the bridge while a TTR car passed.


Messages of protest were shown to TTR as children of Raglan escorted

the car through the crowd.

[VIDEO SHOWN] 5

[11.45 am]

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: You can stop the video now.

10

I am here to speak up for the creatures of the sea. I hate public

speaking. I do not want to be here, but someone needs to say “Stop”.

Seabed mining off our wild and beautiful west coast of New Zealand is

dumb. There will be nothing good about it for New Zealand. 15

Destruction of a wild, beautiful place is insane.

Want metal? Mine the one thousand landfills in New Zealand.

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to 20

get better, it is not. The only dolphin in New Zealand with a rounded

fin, we save the kiwi bird, why aren’t we saving the Maui’s?

DISCUSSION

25

MR DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Seabed mining is insane. Maui dolphin’s

neighbourhood. New Zealand’s rarest dolphin on the verge of

extinction and DOC says that it is critically endangered; only 55 left,

no higher rating of risk of extinction.

30

Like the kiwi, the Maui’s dolphin is an important part of New

Zealand’s natural heritage, if we do not act now this endemic dolphin

will be lost forever. Only found here. The smallest dolphins in the

world, they use echolocation. The mining sounds will hurt them, they

will not be able to find their way. The seabed mining will kill all of 35

their food and the plume will suffocate them.

We all have an obligation to speak up for them. The Maui’s will be

driven to extinction from seabed mining. Only 55 left, and that is the

area where they live. 40

So, please stop this insane idea. We need to do everything within our

powers to protect and save the last few remaining Maui dolphins.

Thank you for listening.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much all, thank you. Thank

you very much for coming in.

MISS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Hi, I am Evey and I am 12 and I live in

Raglan. 5

Seabed mining is not good for New Zealand in any way, shape or form,

watch this.

[VIDEO SHOWN] 10

MISS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: The South Taranaki Byte is an important

feeding ground for blue whales. Blue whales hate seabed mining, the

racket, the destruction and the pollution.

15

[11.50 am]

So, this is just showing you how big a blue whale is and how small we

are. Yep, so the blue whales are the one all the way at the top and as

you can see it is the biggest thing there. 20

All right, I am here speaking for all the innocent sea creatures that

could be affected by seabed mining.

So why would any person in their right mind want to take away our 25

sand? Money, sure, but what about our ocean? It is a practically

deserted area of sea. Wrong. Marine biologists say it is a hotspot for

many species. It is also said to be a pit stop for blue whales. Who wants

to hurt big, beautiful blue whales? No one.

30

It is all about the money. But it is not really the money that really truly

matters: it is the wellbeing of our ocean and sea life. So, I ask you to

erase the idea of seabed mining completely.

So, this is just a little picture that I drew. So, you start with a healthy 35

whale just happy in his ocean and then they eat Krill. So, it is about

eight tonnes a day. And the seabed mining is just going to wipe away

all the Krill, which is going to kill the whales.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Baleen Whales were the 40

most vertebrate group in the southern ocean in biomass terms. But

hunting during the last century when over two million large whales

were slaughtered, probably reduced their biomass to one tenth or less.

They have suffered enough. Do not let seabed mining be allowed

anywhere near our country and our blue whales. It is my responsibility 45

and yours to protect them.


Aside from the value that we attach to the particular species, it is also

valuable in itself. International law accepts that all biodiversity is an

intrinsic value. Being large marine mammals, whales occupy a special

place in the marine ecosystems. Many species of whales have unique 5

characteristics.

Whales and me. I am a mammal and so are whales. I live in a loyal

family group and so do they. Parent whales will defend their babies just

like my mum and dad would defend me. Whale babies stay with their 10

parents for at least 10 years. Blue whales sing songs and so do I.

Whales stay together when one of them is sick, even if it puts them all

at risk. That’s love, just like my family loves me. We need to love them

back and protect their home. Seabed mining is totally dumb.

15

We need the seabed as it is so we can continue to feed all the creatures

that live in the sea and the fish that we humans like to eat. It horrifies

me to think of all that will be murdered by the seabed mining.

Sea life and sea creatures ground up to 270 days each year for 20 years. 20

That feels like genocide to me. No amount of money makes that okay.

If it is allowed to happen I will not feel happy anymore when I walk

along the beach. I will feel sick and I will cry knowing that it is

happening in the waters that wash upon my feet. Do not allow it here, 25

there or anywhere.

Thank you for listening to us and for taking action to stop seabed

mining in New Zealand by foreign owned TTR. I say nothing is worth

risking our precious ocean. The end. 30

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions of - - -

MR KAPEA: No.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Evey, I have got a question for you. 40

MISS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Can we go back to your picture of, well I think it was

your drawing of the food cycle for the whales? 45


MISS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: And I think that is a great drawing. Did you know that

we have got the help of lots of scientists whose life’s work is to be

concerned about that life cycle? So, I think something that we can be 5

really proud of in this country, is that we get to make these decisions

with the help of science, so that we can understand as much as we can

about these issues and be very careful about what we do. So, thank you

for your drawing it was really good.

10

MISS DOUGLASS-DOBSON: Cool.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you, thank you.

Ms Ward-Holmes. Thank you.

15

DISCUSSION

[11.55 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, pull that down towards you please. Kia ora, welcome. 20

MS WARD-HOLMES: My name is Hinemaria Ward-Holmes. Ko Ngāti

Tama, me Te Atitwa, me Ngāti Te Whiti ngā iwi. Thank you for

allowing us to speak in Hamilton, much appreciated.

25

I am aware and concerned about this issue. For around and probably

over eight years now and daily I am still learning about this issue.

There is a lot to know.

We are land dwellers. We have limited knowledge of the marine 30

environment and its complexities. I am a teacher, I am a mother, I am

curious person of this country and I like to be informed of issues that I

believe will concern my family, my friends and I. And that also

concerns the environment I live in.

35

I chose to get involved and to inform myself about this experiment that

is happening in our ocean. The experiment that I believe will be, well,

who really knows, who knows what the effects of opencast seabed sand

mining will have on our ocean, what impacts this will bring. Another

name I have heard many people call what is in our ocean, is our crown 40

jewels, our toanga. Something that is very precious to us as people

from this land.

50 million tonnes of sand every year for 20 years. It is not a very small

amount. 67 square kilometres big of opencast mining of the seabed. If 45

someone were to say “let us open an opencast mine in an area of 67


square kilometres on land”, pretty much the size of Rarotonga, that is

16,500 approximately acres. One square kilometre is equivalent to 240

odd acres, the size of an average farm. I mean, what is an average

farm? I have heard of 100, 300, 700 acre farms but yes, 16,500 acres?

That is a big area to deal with. 5

The main benefit being, that all effects of the land mining can be seen,

and measured and contained. Also, the mined area can be replanted and

hopefully put back. I believe it will be a lot easier than trying to do this

in the ocean. 10

All mining is pretty destructive, but at least on land you can make it

look like you have tried to put back the pieces. And this is the size of

the first application for this experiment to happen in our waters. This

experiment of opencast seabed mining is more than likely from 15

evidence given by Liz Slooten, I think I have spelt her name wrong, to

mean no more Maui dolphin. As you heard the children say before.

Gone forever, deleted, extinct. And with new exciting evidence on the

blue whales from Dr Leigh Torres, it is possibly going to happen to the

blue whales as well. 20

I definitely do not want to be a part of a generation that did not save a

mammal from becoming extinct. Why would we not want to keep a

breed of mammal from dying off? It is that simple, is it not? It goes

against Kaitiakitanga. This goes completely against Kaitiakitanga, our 25

stewardship as tangata whenua in coastal communities over the

environment.

There has been inadequate information. Both the government and

Trans-Tasman Resources have neither informed nor consulted properly 30

with myself, my family, my iwi and the people of New Zealand. And

we have not had enough time for this information to, we have not had

enough time to properly understand the effects of this experiment.

Threat to the fisheries; I want to be able to eat fresh fish from the ocean

of New Zealand, why wouldn’t you? 35

[12.00 pm]

This means I’m asking the Environment Protection Authority, please

have a full understanding of the life that exists in the area of where this 40

experiment is happening.

Trans-Tasman Resources say they want to minimise the effects. What

does that mean exactly? I would like to ask. Please can that be

explained? That was quoted on the website. This is what it says. 45


“Based on the environmental research conducted by NIWA and

overseas experience, we have refined our extraction and process

methodology to minimise the potential environment effects of our

operations. TTR is committed to conducting all activities in a safe and

environmentally sustainable manner.” 5

I ask how safe would Trans-Tasman Resources be meaning? What

type of environmentally sustainable manner are Trans-Tasman

Resources wanting to carry out?

10

The economic worries simply don’t add up. No adding of value to our

amazing clean, green image that we have here in New Zealand. That's

why people come to this country, its tourism is huge. It’s horrifying to

think that foreigners are given priority over the health and well-being

of our country’s marine environment. 15

It is not worth the risk of this precedent setting application to go ahead.

It will be absolutely devastating.

When I was a child and I went crab hunting, I was always told to put 20

the crab back where I lifted it out from, or to put the rock back. I was

told that was the crab’s house. How about we do not destroy the home

of our crown jewels, our taonga.

That is why I believe that this experiment of opencast seabed sand 25

mining, taking up the size of 67 square kilometres, is not a good idea.

Many thanks for your time. Please make the best decision for you and

your family, for me and my family and for all other New Zealanders

and their children and their children still to be born. To this land, our 30

land, yes, I hope that you will study the evidence. We are clever

people, we don’t allow destruction for no reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

35

MR ROGERS: Afternoon Ms Ward-Holmes. In your submission you made a

reference to Mundaka in Spain, which had a surf break. Is that your

submission?

MS WARD-HOLMES: Yes. 40

MR ROGERS: And in that, you mentioned that it was decimated by seabed

mining, the mining stopped and the waves are coming back, but

apparently are nowhere near world class 10 years later. Can you just

explain a bit more about what occurred there, your understanding of 45

that, please?


MS WARD-HOLMES: I actually don’t have all the details with me right now.

It was something that I read, I’ll have to find the information.

MR ROGERS: Okay. 5

MS WARD-HOLMES: I’m really bad at keeping it in my head. But yes, it

would have been something that I would have found the information

on.

10

MR ROGERS: Okay, because I think one of the things that comes through

clearly is it’s dealing with the stuff we know is fine, it’s the stuff that

we don’t know or the stuff that we don’t know that we don’t know

which is the ones we need to be careful of.

15

And that’s why I, personally, am quite interested to hunt out

international examples where things have gone right or wrong so that

we can actually use that as part of our decision making. So if you

could.

20

MS WARD-HOLMES: Yes, I think that’s a brilliant idea, yes, to see what’s

be happening.

MR ROGERS: So if you can locate that - - -

25

MS WARD-HOLMES: Find that information.

MR ROGERS: - - - and give us better information on that, that would be

appreciated, thank you.

30

MS WARD-HOLMES: Sure.

MR ROGERS: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just raise one issue with you and it’s what other 35

submitters have raised, it’s the issue of precedence setting application

and I’m just interested to know whether you see precedence setting as

because this is the first one and if this one is granted it opens a door or?

MS WARD-HOLMES: Yes. 40

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what you see it as?

[12.05 pm]

45

MS WARD-HOLMES: Yes, it is setting a precedent, basically.


CHAIRPERSON: So if another - - -

MS WARD-HOLMES: So if this goes through, like you just said, yeah so, we

are going to get of many more and because basically we trust in you to 5

look at the evidence and obviously you are thinking the evidence is fine

for it to ahead, that nothing is going to be destroyed, or - - -

CHAIRPERSON: So if this application were, say, declined, because we were

not satisfied they have met the test, are you saying that therefore no 10

other applications would be brought or are you saying that - - -

MS WARD-HOLMES: Well, every application is different, isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON That is the point I was trying to make, right. 15

MS WARD-HOLMES: Because, you know, there could be small land area

size that they are going to mine, everyone is going to be different, but

and then in particular this is a pretty big amount.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no, I understand, thank you very much for that,

excellent, thanks for the submission.

MS WARD-HOLMES: Thanks.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS WARD-HOLMES: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Those are all the submissions that we had listed for this 30

morning and in the afternoon we have got Cunningham, Darwin,

Edwards and Te Manawa, are even of them here who want to be heard

now, otherwise we will just break for lunch and we will wait until –

there are allotted time. Are any of them here? No, so on that basis we

will just take a break now. Thank you, everyone. 35

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will just – we will see when they turn up, that is

what I am saying, so, if they come.

[12.10 pm] 40

CHAIRPERSON: Just take them, what – yeah well tell me what is in them?

MR KAPEA: Oysters.

45

MS TE MANAWA: (laughing)


CHAIRPERSON: So, that is one copy, is it? Because we need to make sure,

whatever you give to us we need to make sure the applicant has a copy

as well.

5

MS TE MANAWA: Yeah, there is actually three copies.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so we can organise one for the applicant and we can

organise some for ourselves, right, thank you.

10

MS TE MANAWA: That is fine, thank you, because it was rather expensive,

so I couldn’t do the lot. Anyway, let’s begin.

So, ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Taupiri te maunga, ko

Tainui te iwi, ko Ngati Mahuta Tahapu, ko Tauranga, wai Waimu, 15

Waihi pa, nga morehu (ph 00.00.54), ko te manawa ahau.

I am Te Manawa, I am mother of the nations and I have held that office

since November of 2007. Te ahi ahi ka.

20

I would like to start by invoking in international law, humans rights UN

Declaration of Rights of the Indigenous People, Maori Customary

Rights and The Bill of Rights.

This is not just a simply a Maori issue so I acknowledge our pakeha 25

brothers and sisters whose hearts are true. I wish to thank KASM

especially for the help that they have given me and Greenpeace and the

many voices who have spoken out against the seabed being mined.

They are true heroes of our nations.

30

This unites Maori and our pakeha brothers and sisters in a cause we

address today, but overall in a common threat against life. In my

introduction I said Waikato is a river and Taupiri is the mountain. This

is important to understand because all Maori whakapapa to these two

things, the mountains and the waters be they inland or coastal. This 35

determines not only the tribal area but the hapus within the tribal area

and the guardianship and responsibilities of each tribe and its hapus for

the well-being of the whole.

Now this is the Taranaki Coast Marine Consent TTR hearing, Taranaki 40

being the area determined by the mountain, Mount Taranaki, and the

coast being determined by the Patea River in the south. Through very

specific intertribal marriage, all Maori can whakapapa back to all

mountains and waters, in this way the interweaving of sovereignty of

all the lands, territories and waters was established and to this day is 45

maintained.


The site where mining is intended to take place is of significance to

Maori. The reef is traditionally fished and culturally harvested for over

1500 years. The north and south traps in the Graham Bank has been

traditionally respected and is held sacred. The mana whenua holds the 5

mana of protecting these sites over all those generations with cultural

practices handed down the generations all inclusive. The whole

existence, behaviour and wairua is kept sacred even to today.

Indigenous nations have lived within its environment and its waters

managing it, caring for it and surviving in harmony with it through 10

active guardianship and sovereignty.

Since colonisation, adverse impact to taonga (ph 3.18) has been as

devastating to the lands and waters as it has been to the generations of

Maori. 15

New Zealand is green by reputation. Mining the seabed is moving away

from that reputation and we will hurt New Zealand’s reputation as

green rather than move New Zealand forward in it. The boat once used

to be a carbon ground for large numbers of whale in winter and spring, 20

their number extensively reduced by whaling with only a handful of

cows visiting this area regularly today. This water is also confirmed to

be the only known feeding ground for blue whales, so the 50 spotted

Monday the 3rd of February 2014 foraging in the South Taranaki Bight

are a great sign to leave this area alone. 25

The wealth of their return far outweighs that of profit. Monetary wealth

is not the foundation upon which leadership must reside, thus must

never be given such rights to decide what is best for life. The latest UN

report on global warming, while disputed in its entirety, does justice to 30

the harm being done to our oceans, adding to the reasoning for denial

of the applicant’s desire to mine our seabed.

[12.15 pm]

35

While environments are being broken down by those who would have

money over life our Maori customary title is not broken down by a

hapu or tribe residing in an area. All area is of Aotearoa and her

territories and waters belong under customary title to that sovereignty,

yet we are repeatedly asked to attend costly hearings over small areas 40

to prove who we are and our sovereignty. And I view this as an

attempt to break us down.

It is the Crown, plus New Zealand government and parliament that

slice and dice the argument separately, therefore in the minds of the 45

people, not only the issue but the lands, territories and waters


themselves, each segregated part dealt with as though it has no

connection to the other, when in truth all parts make up the whole.

This application is an issue for the whole. Every mountain is the status

of Maori sovereignty, this is relevant to the seabed as it is to the land. 5

The mountains beneath the sea, the Maori long ago gave names to thus

the landscape there is well known to us. The mountains are the area

and all mountains are so settled. All area never has been abandoned,

thus sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Maori never ceded

sovereignty of the lands, territories and waters of Aotearoa, to do so 10

Maori would have to abandon all these things, and we view it as a gift

from God and our covenant with God.

The moment section 2 of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment

Act 1973 happened, being a breach of New Zealand’s legal continuity 15

occurred. A breach of legal continuity cannot imply legal independence

or legal anything, or following after illegitimate. True evolution is

simply nonsense. This clear breach in legal continuity, along with

various evidence cleared the way for Maori sovereign people to accord

moral authority and binding force to the new order, which has also 20

occurred. We are the sovereign state of Aotearoa.

This clear breach in legal continuity, along with the various evidence

did clear the way for this. The New Zealand government, plus

parliament, are instructed to cease any further attempts at usurping 25

sovereignty established, and with Māori including attempts to place a

written constitution and replace the Crown flag. Maori sovereignty

already has both written both the constitution and our flag established.

The will of the sovereign peoples of Aotearoa is also established.

30

Now due to globalisation our Pakeha brothers and sisters are aware

they are under common threat as broad and deep as that which has

happened to Maori, and indeed to aboriginal peoples, and in this canal

shelter under the umbrella of our sovereignty in true unity, and share

partnership beside us, which the New Zealand government, parliament 35

and Crown have never offered to both or either.

It is my duty to notify you that the current New Zealand government,

plus parliament and the Crown has been notified and requested to

transition peacefully. I now reaffirm this in full. The Attorney General 40

has been notified, as has the UN, so the hearing for the mining of the

seabed needs to be delayed until the applicant can talk to the correct

people legitimately.

Any action against this by the New Zealand government plus 45

parliament and Crown can only be seen as further acts of entrenchment


and what has been a long term, and basically has been a long term soft

coup attempt, as those involved mislead the people in concurrent

governments and acts against the people of New Zealand and the guise

of continuity and evolution, the seabed and foreshore and open act of

this against sovereign Maori and their sovereignty. 5

In conclusion, mining leaves behind emptiness, culture and life dead. I

invoke the right to life and to culture, under international law as I

invoke the sovereignty of Aotearoa in its true format. The application

for license to mine the seabed off the coast of Taranaki must therefore 10

be denied.

Now I submit these papers to you for further information. Everything I

have given to you today I have backed up 100 percent, researched it

considerably. Now I’m not a lawyer, but I know that what I have given 15

for you to read through is accurate. I know that this is a difficult

moment for all of us, and I understand and comprehend that, however,

truth is truth and it can’t be denied just because some of us think it

might be unpleasant. This is the time for New Zealand to gather its

unity, to stand together and say no – no to corporations who want to 20

take and rape our wealth and our resources. No, to governments who

like to pretend that they’re sovereign when they’re not. No, to being

taken advantage of.

[12.20 pm] 25

Humanity is really changing, we’re all aware of that. The awareness of

waking up has gone right throughout the globe and it’s time for it to be

done here, to be done peacefully, to be done at the table in dialogue.

Thank you. 30

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON: Kia ora.

35

MR CHRISTENSEN: Can you explain to us please what the documents are?

MS TE MANAWA: Yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: It looks a scary, big pile. 40

MS TE MANAWA: It is a scary, big pile but it’s not really. I've given you a

copy of things like the Declaration of Rights to Indigenous People from

the U.N. A copy of the Tu Tira (PH 01.02). Some of the documents

there are things like a copy of the Bill of Rights. 45


There are statements there of things that some of the Judges in this

country have talked about and some M.P.’s, past M.P.’s, as far as

sovereignty is concerned. A lot of it will show you quite clearly that

what I have said today is accurate, and I think that it is time for us to

deal with that rather than continue on with something that may not be 5

appropriate for all of us.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Can I just follow up on that last comment, and it came

through when you were speaking to us earlier? Our authority comes

from appointment as an independent panel under this particular piece of 10

legislation via the EPA.

MS TE MANAWA: Yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Is it your submission that the legislation, in fact, which 15

sets up the whole structure in the whole system is unlawful?

MS TE MANAWA: It’s questionable. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, so it would

be lawyers that would have to take a look at that. But in my view it

definitely is. A government that has, and I’m talking of previous 20

governments, not just this one, that has started to govern through a

break of continuity and assumption, has definitely got the big question

mark over it as to what is deemed legal and what is not.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Okay, thank you. 25

MS TE MANAWA: Thank you.

MS WRATT: Just to perhaps follow on a little bit, in terms of the papers

you’ve got, do you also have for us copies of what you just read from? 30

MS TE MANAWA: Yes, absolutely.

MS WRATT: We would like to have a copy of that each. I don’t think we

need a box full each, but at least a copy of your summary each would 35

be very useful.

MS T MANAWA: Certainly. One thing I would like to point out is that I have

just taken a copy of an article out of the Herald which is about the TPP

and the fact that the TPP has not been ratified by parliament and that 40

the M.P.’s themselves are really questioning the governments moving

in the way it has because it is just assuming, once again, that it can do

these things.

It’s not following protocol, as an example of what I am talking about. 45


MS WRATT: I have one other question if I may, and it’s putting those issues

aside that you’ve just raised. But specifically going back to the blue

whale issue and, as a committee, we have very specific things within

legislation that we have to answer and bring into our considerations.

5

And the joint witness statement on marine mammals which, like the

joint witness statement, that Mr Christensen referred to, you may not

have not have seen, but it’s a couple of weeks old now. It makes the

comment that experts agree that blue whales feeing in the South

Taranaki Bight, most likely on krill (INDISTINCT 03.53). 10

There are sources of upwelling occurring around Kairangi (PH 03.56)

Point, with productive plumes moving eastward into the South

Taranaki Bight area. Blue whales will follow prey, including moving

inshore following the movement and circulation of krill patches. 15

Blue whales usually feed in waters deeper than 100 metres but can also

feed in shallow waters, depending on the abundance of the food supply.

Krill patches could move into the TTR mining area and therefore blue

whales could follow and feed there. However, the TTR mining area 20

may represent the edge of the blue whale feeding area but feeding may

still extend into the mining area on occasion.

So what I’m hearing from those experts is that, yes there is, and from

the information on the sightings is that the sightings are in fact of 25

Kairangi, off Farewell Spit. Whereas, the project area is a significant

distance from there and, yes, there is a possibility that blue whales may

go in there, but it’s not the centre of any likely blue whale feeding area.

Is that different from your understanding from? 30

[12.25 pm]

MS TE MANAWA: No, it is not. What I am saying is that whole area really

with the blue whale coming back and returning, it should be nurtured to 35

bring those numbers up and that is a great sign to Maoridom, our

whales are very important to us. They are very sacred signs, so that is

saying that that area really does belong to the whale right now, and this

is how we operate and this is what we do, we protect life, that is

guardianship. 40

MS WRATT: All right, I appreciate that. We have to also take into account the

scientific evidence that is being presented in front of us in terms of - - -

MS TE MANAWA: Well, I would say on scientific evidence that one can 45

justify and debate on either side and come up with the answer you


want. The thing is that we go by signs. We go by signs of nature which

is never wrong, okay.

MR …..: Thank you, Mr Rogers?

5

MS TE MANAWA: Happy with that gentleman?

CHAIRPERSON: No, sorry, I have not got a question.

MR ROGERS: Thank you, Ms Te Manawa. Just a question, you gave us a bit 10

of the background and actually it is quite interesting because I thought

we had all the legal, sort of, do your head in ones up front but you have

made me now again, wrong. So that is good but in terms of that

timeline that you have described since some document in the seventies

where continuity was lost, you referred to advising the Governor 15

General, when was that, about?

MS TE MANAWA: October of last year.

MR ROGERS: Okay, so this is a recent - - - 20

MS TE MANAWA: This is a recent event, it has gone over to the UN as well.

So, I would understand that the government is expecting this.

MR ROGERS: Right but the flaw in the fabric, so to speak, is in the seventies? 25

MS TE MANAWA: Yes, it goes back to that act and there is other acts

inclusive following that which also represent the same thing.

MR ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

30

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

MS TE MANAWA: Kia ora.

MR KAPEA: I want to go back to the Wairua aside or Māori and the difficulty 35

with these applications it that the applicant sees an area defined by the

crown and who they should speak to. And you mentioned the work

whakapapa.

MS TE MANAWA: Yes. 40

MR KAPEA: In your opinion, does that whakapapa run the breadth of that

coast when you talk about Māori, those affected?

MS TE MANAWA: When I talk about Māori, whakapapaing back to their 45

mountains and their rivers, every single tribe has had important


intertribal marriage which brings Maoridom into a weaving of their

sovereignty covering the breadth and depth of New Zealand. So, I

mean I can whakapapa back to Taranaki but I belong to Tainui. I can

whakapapa back to Ngā Pui, but I belong Tainui and it is the same with

every Māori and I know you know that. 5

MR KAPEA: Ae, ae, but the hurt on a toanga can be felt by all of Maoridom?

MS TE MANAWA: By all Maoridom, by all Maoridom, there is no doubt

about that. It does not matter if it happens in Taranaki or Ngāpuhi up 10

the top of the north island, every one of us suffers because that is our

whanau, that is our land suffering.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora. Now I want to go back to the treaty and you will find

under the minerals Act it does not recognise the treaty, is that right? 15

MS TE MANAWA: I do not know. I am not going to sit here and tell you

something that know or do not know. I do not know that.

MR KAPEA: I was trying to sort of, in terms of the information you have 20

brought to us and the challenges. I am aware that the minerals Act does

not recognise the treaty.

MS TE MANAWA: How interesting.

25

MR KAPEA: And, so, if you have a mining extraction in terms of minerals

Māori do not have any say in that minerals Act.

MS TE MANAWA: Wow.

30

MR KAPEA: But anyway I will leave that right there.

MS TE MANAWA: Well that is perhaps my next mahi.

MR KAPEA: And my next thought is to read yours. But the thing is in 35

listening to you in terms of the breaches or further breaches and I was

going to ask you, do every Māori have a claim with the crown in terms

of that minerals Act or in terms of those toanga inside the EEZ?

MS TE MANAWA: If they do not, they should. One of the attitudes that I 40

particularly have is that tribes have, you know, past grievances in treaty

settlements and that is fine for that area but what of all Māori for all of

New Zealand. And that includes our seabeds and our foreshores. It

includes our minerals. We have had in practice, our sovereignty, for

over 1500 years without a break. It goes on in every marae over the 45

country, all day, all night long as they stand up and whakapapa back to


the mountain and to the river. That is our expression of sovereignty. So

all inclusive, I said all inclusive.

[12.30 pm]

5

MR KAPEA: Okay, we have a claim in terms of all our indigenous fauna and

flora on the whenua, then we should be looking at having a claim on all

our fauna and flora on the seabed?

MS TE MANAWA: Absolutely, no doubt about it. 10

MR KAPEA: Because it is all intrinsically whakapapas to each other.

MS TE MANAWA: That is right.

15

MR KAPEA: I am just trying to get you to tell us, so everyone else hears it.

MS TE MANAWA: Yes, okay, sorry, all right. It is very simple, just as we

whakapapa back to the lands and the rivers on land we also have named

those mountains beneath the oceans, that is our practising sovereignty 20

of the seabed and foreshore. So it is inclusive all the waters, all the

minerals, all the flora, it makes no difference whether it is on land or

beneath the waves, it was charted by great ancestors of ours long ago, it

is not just legend, it is absolutely evidential and it can’t be denied, and

we won’t allow it to be denied because this is what we have as the 25

descendants of those ancestors, a responsibility to stand up for what we

are and who we are in truth.

And if that is inconvenient, it is inconvenient, but it is the truth and it

can’t be changed. 30

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

MS TE MANAWA: Thank you.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Kia ora, thank you very much for your submission.

MS TE MANAWA: Thank you, would you like this box?

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think you are going to give us a choice, are you? 40

DISCUSSION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, everybody. Just checking again, there are three

people who still should be heard today Anna Cunningham, Niall 45

Darwin and Ms Edwards, who is not scheduled for this afternoon then,


are they here? No, that is fine, thank you, so what we will do now, we

will take the lunch and we will come back at 2 o’clock, thank you.

ADJOURNED [12.32 pm]

5

RESUMED [1.58 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Reconvene the hearing and continue on with the submitters.

Ms Cunningham, is she here? Welcome. Now we have your submission

in front of us as well so over to you. 10

MS CUNNINGHAM: Lovely.

CHAIRPERSON: Welcome.

15

MS CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much. So, hello, my name is Anna

Cunningham and I am a resident of Raglan. I also a run a thriving and

award-winning campervan rental company. I am very worried about the

potential effects of seabed mining in the Taranaki area as proposed by

TTR in this application and I really appreciate the opportunity to be 20

before you guys and make my concerns heard.

Whilst talking to our customers I have discovered that most of them are

drawn to New Zealand because of our unique and beautiful natural

environment. I can understand that because that is what drew me here 25

to visit and to immigrate. The clean green image of New Zealand is

internationally recognised. Tourism is one of our largest export

industries, second only to dairy. It contributes to 9 percent of GDP and

directly and indirectly employees one in every nine kiwis. It is an

industry that the New Zealand economy cannot afford to compromise. 30

We are based in Reglan and almost half of our customers are surfers,

most of them from overseas. These guys come to New Zealand because

they have heard of the amazing surf breaks that we have and they want

to travel around and experience them for themselves. From what I 35

understand, the proposed seabed mining activities could hamper their

enjoyment of our beautiful country.

From what I understand there is currently not enough evidence to show

that the applicant’s proposed seabed mining will not have a significant 40

impact in New Zealand’s coastal and marine environment. I understand

that the proposed processes have the potential to cause coastal erosion.

This erosion could impact some of our world renowned surf breaks and

the beaches that all of my customers come to visit. Word gets around

the world very quickly nowadays and if New Zealand is seen to be 45


destroying its natural environment then I am sure that we will see fewer

tourists coming to our company and our country.

This is a new process which is being proposed within the wild waters

of the west coast. I believe that there has not been enough research 5

carried out to identify the true impacts of seabed mining within this

environment. I also understand that the underwater dredging activities

and the movements of the sand plumes could have devastating effect on

our local fisheries. Does this mean that my customers will not be able

to find a good portion of fish and chips while they are over here? 10

I am here to ask you to take a precautionary approach. Until the

applicant can provide robust evidence showing that their process is safe

for the marine environment, please do not grant them consent. Thank

you. 15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions?

MS WRATT: Yes, talking about surfers and surf breaks. Where on the

national sort of, surfing list do those beaches around the South Taranaki 20

Byte come?

MS CUNNINGHAM: I know that in the past week two of our sets of

customers, and they are the two that have come through this week, have

been like, we are really excited about the Taranaki. They just know that 25

all the way around the Taranaki there is a place called the surf highway

and there are surf breaks all the way around that area. Depends where

the swell and where the waves are depends how good they are but it is

definitely a known place. They heard about it before they even came to

New Zealand. 30

MS WRATT: Thanks.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Could you tell us a little bit more please about your

business, your campervan business and I am particularly interested to 35

know about how you market yourselves?

MS CUNNINGHAM: So, we have a small fleet of campervans, 95 percent of

our customers are international tourists, we market ourselves through

the internet, most people book their campervan rental at about the same 40

time as they book their flight over here. It is usually between six

months and one month before they actually get to the country so they

are doing a lot of their research before they even get here. What else

would you like to know?

45


MR CHRISTENSEN: Well, I am interested to know whether you market

yourself in association with the, if you market to the surfing tourism

portion of the market?

MS CUNNINGHAM: Yes, we do. Our vans have got straps in them to hold 5

surfboards out of the way. It is one of the things that is quite annoying

when travelling with surfboards. They are bulky and they are fragile so

we saw a niche in the market to fit straps into the roofs of our

campervans which means that the surfboards are out of the way when

you are off tramping in the middle of the country or in places where 10

there are not surf breaks. We market ourselves through our website

direct at surfers. We also advertise with surfing websites and surf

publications.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Great, thanks. 15

[2.05 pm]

MR KAPEA: Kia ora, Ms Cunningham. In terms of the surfing community

that you interact with, how well is their understanding of surf generated 20

conditions in terms of where these sandbanks occur and disappear and

come back?

We’ve learned a great deal as you can appreciate, in the weeks that we

have been sitting. 25

MS CUNNINGHAM: I’m sure you have.

MR KAPEA: I know very little about how surf breaks are created in terms of

the movement of sandbanks and how long they’re there. How savvy 30

are the surfers to these conditions?

MS CUNNINGHAM: Surfers are very savvy. They have a number of websites

which tells them about the conditions. There are a number of New

Zealand based ones and there are a number of international based 35

websites and a lot of our customers will come in and they’ll say, right,

I’ve been looking on Surfline but where else do you suggest I find out

about the conditions?

And each of the breaks will have ratings and word passes around really, 40

really quickly. And one of my bits of advice to most of our customers

is talk to the locals because they will point you in the direction of the

places which are working best.


Sandbanks are very variable so you talk to somebody down near New

Plymouth and they might say “Oh yeah, head down, because it’s

working really well at the moment.”

MR KAPEA: So they don’t get protective, they don’t go “Oh, no, no, no, go 5

and surf that one over there, it’s really good bro”? So they can have the

other ones to themselves?

MS CUNNINGHAM: My experience is that Kiwis are incredibly open and

incredibly sharing compared to what we’ve heard from some of our 10

customers, they’re from the States, they’re from Australia, they’re from

Europe, where there are so many more people.

People get a little bit protective, but over here, one of the joys of

surfing in New Zealand is that there’s relatively few surfers and an 15

inordinate number of breaks. And so people come here to find deserted

waves which are world class, as good as any that you would find in the

States or in Europe.

MR KAPEA: Is that culture growing? Is it getting bigger and bigger in terms 20

of new industry?

MS CUNNINGHAM: Yes. I think more and more people are hearing about it

and are able to travel and the New Zealand tourism industry is a

growing industry. 25

\

MR KAPEA: Okay, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one question from me. You said to us we should take

a precautionary approach and I just want to make sure I understand, 30

whether your understanding of that is the same as mine.

Because precautionary in terms of don’t grant consent or precautionary

grant consent but carefully, with carefully crafted conditions so that

information can be gathered. I’m just wondering where you sit on that 35

spectrum?

MS CUNNINGHAM: I would like the information to be gathered before

consent is granted.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Right, okay, that’s clear, so precautionary. Thank you very

much.

MS WRATT: Just one more question, sorry. I was just looking for the joint

witness statement on the waves and surfing that came out last week, I 45


think it was last week or the week before. Are you aware that in their

joint witnessing, they did agree that the, I’ll read out.

That we agree the results reported in the evidence of Dr Shaun Mead

(PH 03.21) indicating only minor affects from mining activity on the 5

quality of surfing and surf breaks in Taranaki are soundly based. Are

you aware of that assessment?

MS CUNNINGHAM: Not aware of that assessment, no.

10

MS WRATT: That is in the joint witnessing statement and I think from

having had the witness on the stand in Wellington, he looks like

someone who more land researches at a computer than he also

researches in the surf.

MS CUNNINGHAM: So the thing that I just read out is maybe very surf-15

centric but I was looking at it from the angle of, I make my money

through tourism and if the proposed processes did have an effect on the

marine and coastal environment, then it could very well affect my way

of making money.

20

It’s not just surfing, it’s also the beaches, it’s also the presence of

marine mammals, the presence of beautiful seafood. I know that my

customers come to experience all of that and that they see New Zealand

as almost an unspoilt paradise compared to places that they live.

25

And I know that if things were to happen within the coastal and marine

environment which had a significant impact on marine mammals, on

coastal erosion, on fisheries, people will find out about that. Word

would get around the world and they’ll find somewhere else to go on

holiday. 30

[2.10 pm]

MR KAPEA: I just wanted to ask another question, just listening to you talk

about your business, is there a threat of overpopulating the industry in 35

terms of having too many people coming in? You probably won’t in

terms of your business, but in terms, you know, how it demands on

anything that you have want to become as popular, you have those

computer interests for surf breaks and for carnivals and things like that

and then of course you have pollution coming in and those other 40

effects, if you like.

MS CUNNINGHAM: That is a very real problem, I don’t think New Zealand

is quite there yet.

45

MR KAPEA: Okay, thank you.



MS CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Niall Darwin? Welcome.

MR DARWIN: Okay, hi, I am Anna’s partner, so you are probably going to

hear a lot of similar things, I am sorry, I am Welsh New Zealand

resident, I have got a professional engineering background, but I know 10

this campervan rental company with my partner Anna. I am not here to

really query the experts or try and pretend to be an expert, I am just

here to state my concerns.

Similarly to Anna, we run a tourism business, 50 per cent of our 15

customers are surfers, 95 per cent of them are international so 95 per

cent of our revenue is what you call exports. The West Coast is a

significant part of New Zealand’s attraction to surfers. The Taranaki is

a major part of that. You asked Anna about breaks in the South

Taranaki and I was just checking on the website as you were asking 20

that question, there is at least five just listed as ones, you can just check

the conditions right now, which means that there is several – probably

15 unlisted ones.

As well as the surfing there is the clean-green image of New Zealand 25

which to me it seems to be very well marketed, and if the clean-green

image gets damaged, rightly or wrongly, you know, if this application

goes ahead and if nothing actually happens other than it gets really bad

headlines, we are still risking our $23 billion tourism industry.

30

Your queries about, is New Zealand going to be carrying over

exaggerated with tourists, the Tourism Industry Association released a

report recently reckoning that tourism is to increase 100 per cent to

something like $40 billion in the next four or five years, which made

me think exactly what you thought, because “Oh my God, it is going to 35

be overrun”. However, it is a significant industry, that is what they are

hoping to do and they will not be happy at anything that dents their

ambitions.

For me personally, it is much more than just my business I am worried 40

about but I realise that hearings like this seem to be mostly economics-

based, seem to be industry-based, so I would just like you to be

rigorous and thorough in your analysis, listen to the experts on the

various topics, not just listen to what the industry wants, not just listen

to trying to grow our economy today. Think about New Zealand in 45

long-term, think about what you are going to leave for your kids and


your grand kids. That is basically what I have to say and thanks very

much for taking the time to hear me.


5

MR CHRISTENSEN: Yeah, I do, and, Mr Darwin, the issue of the ability for

West Coast tourism to grow, so, you know, from say Raglan South to

the Taranaki Bight and so on, would you say that it is not an area that

we are trying to market as a wilderness area, and I am there drawing a

contrast with some places, say, on the conservation estate, where we 10

deliberately set them aside on the basis that they are remote and

inaccessible and when we you go and experience them you can feel like

you are the only person that has ever been there.

But these are areas that are able to withstand quite a bit of human 15

presence and quite a bit of human use and still maintain their qualities

for tourism.

MR DARWIN: Certainly, yeah, it depends on what you mean by the qualities

for tourism, and for me, I like the wilderness. But yeah, the Taranaki 20

coastline, I mean, Stent Road which is one of the – a world class surf

break.

[2.15 pm]

25

It is just a gravel road through some dairy farms to the coast, there is no

infrastructure, there is no nothing there beyond the road and a long

drop toilet. I can easily see in five to10 years’ time there will be three

or four cafés, there will be this, that, there is plenty of room for people

to develop that. 30

MR CHRISTENSEN: And the surf will still be there, that is the point?

MR DARWIN: The surf will still be there, yeah, if you are developing the

land the surf will still be there, if you have TTR and if their mission 35

goes well in terms of finance, how many other people, the surf – I

know Shaw is a good surf and I know he is passionate, so that is what I

am saying, you know, listen to the experts on things like that.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Thank you. 40

MR ROGERS: Is Pee Wee Wee yours?

MR DARWIN: Yeah.

45

MR ROGERS: Where did you get that name from?


MR DARWIN: Do you want the long story or the short story?

CHAIRPERSON: Short.

5

MR ROGERS: Both.

MR DARWIN: Both, I will give you the short one now. An Aussie who we

met in Peru, she was actually born in England, lived her life in

Australia, so she was sort of pommy, sort of an Aussie, so she called 10

herself a Paussie. We have been moaning the fact that we haven’t

thought of a good name for our company, she said, well you are going

to be Piwis, because you are pommies, but you are going to be kiwis,

pommy-kiwi, and I just replied that I am not a pommy, I am Welsh,

and so I got called a Wee Wee, and then we got called Pee Wee Wee 15

Wee, and it stuck.

MR ROGERS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 20

MR DARWIN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Edwards, welcome.

25

MS EDWARDS: Thank you, kia ora tatou, my name is Sarah Edwards and

just firstly I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in person

today about my very deep concerns about this application to mine our

seabed. So I am speaking as a person whose home has been South

Taranaki, I am also speaking as a person who has spent a large amount 30

of time in the ocean, who spends a large amount of time in the ocean

down in South Taranaki, but all along our West Coast and I am also

speaking today as a global citizen of our planet, who I believe has a

responsibility to care for what we are all a part of.

35

So what I would like to speak to is about my deep concern about the

impact and the whole approach of this proposal. I have been trying to

follow the process of this proposal for about the last five years and to

get my head around the implications of it. As a layperson, I am no

expert, and also working and living a full life, it has not always been 40

easy to understand and really all of the information and I am still trying

to get my head around on the information that has been presented and

posted on the EPA website.

What I read does not allay my concerns, unfortunately. Trans-Tasman 45

Resources wish to embark on this endeavour of scouring out millions


of tonnes of our ocean floor and destroying the life that exists within

that mining zone and also not knowing with surety the facts about the

wider impact on our natural environment, this does not feel acceptable

to me.

5

Excuse my emotion, people might say this isn’t a place for emotion, but

when I speak about us all being a part of this earth and this land to me

that is actually an emotional issue as well, because it is our place,

mother earth is what holds us and sustains us all, so excuse my emotion

but I am not going to excuse my emotion at the same time. 10

I have read the expert witnesses, I tried to read a lot of them and I see

that there are still concerns around the impact of noise on marine

mammals, in particular the B12 and also the amount of metals, in

particular nickel that – if this happens – will be put back into the ocean. 15

The other thing that really concerns me is that I read the reports and

read things like “SKM concurs with the conclusions of the TTR marine

consent application that impacts on fish life are low”.

20

[2.20 pm]

So my question is what does low mean? They want to scour 65 square

kilometres. It is not a small amount, to have 65 square kilometres and I

understand that they do acknowledge that nearly all life will be 25

destroyed in this area or nearly all life and 100 metres from this mining

site.

So to then say that the effects are low that just raises alarm bells for me

and then when they speak of the impacts on zooplankton for example, 30

they say that the effects are minor because these vast other areas to the

north that are not being mined. And this also does not make sense to

me and makes me feel very concerned. It actually sounds like

minimising the actual impacts which is just so concerning. I also

understand that this is just the first application of more that TTR are 35

planning to put forward which could mean that mining of far greater

areas of the sea. So to use that as a justification just does not feel right

to me.

And for me it feels that it is this kind of approach and attitude that has 40

led to so much environmental degradation over the last 100 years in

particular on our planet and I believe it just needs to stop. Having this

kind of attitude means that papatuanuku, our mother, our mother earth

is going to continue to be degraded, degenerated, made unhealthy and

sick and I believe that none of us need to be scientific experts to know 45

this. It is just not wise. We have already damaged our planet so much,


we need to be taking responsibility, to be putting our energy and focus

and resources into projects that are life enhancing and not depleting.

It concerns me that I understand that our government has contributed

millions of dollars to TTR to actually help fund the investigation into 5

this project. That is millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and that

really concerns me. I also want to say that I know that we have all

benefitted in many ways from this approach that we have taken over

the last 100 years or more of extracting minerals and the things that

have been created from them. 10

I know I drive a car, I drove a car here. I know I fly on planes and that

is all very true. However, I do not feel that this is a justification of us

continuing to make choices in the same destructive vein. I know that

we are still finding solutions of how we can all live sustainably and 15

well on this planet, however, I am so sure that part of the solution is

stopping this approach of degrading the earth for the benefit of

economic gain which a lot of the time is actually only benefiting a

minority. I know economics are important and it is important for all of

us to live well and money helps our communities thrive but the way we 20

are approaching and I question where is this money going to go? Is it

really going to benefit our wider New Zealand community? I cannot

know the answer to that but once again that concerns me and I want

answers to that.

25

And my question is to, how is it going to benefit us overall looking at

the long term picture, looking at the future of our children and

generations to come? Not just us. Are they going to have clean water to

swim in? Okay. Are they going to have an earth that is going to sustain

them as well? So that is what I wanted to speak to, thank you for your 30

time and my hope is that you will be honourable custodians of the

environment you have the power to protect and that you will take a

cautionary approach to this application. And what I understand of

cautionary approach is that you would not grant it. Thank you.

35

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON: That saves me asking my questions so thank you for that.

You have very good anticipation.

40

MS EDWARDS: Yes.

MS WRATT: Thank you, Ms Edwards. I am interesting in your comment

about “whatever the science says, it does not feel right”. I mean, I

certainly appreciate that, you know, what we feel is important but we 45

are tasked with making an important decision and legally we have to do


it on an evidence basis and we to put that scientific information and

then we have to question it. And, you know, decide for ourselves

whether we think the risks are adequately identified and whether that

science information is adequate.

5

[2.25 pm]

But, I guess, the message from you is almost ignore what the science

says?

10

MS EDWARDS: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not saying to ignore

what the science says. What I’m saying is that from the things that I

read around some of what has been put forward as expert witness from

a scientific perspective, what I’m reading, I’m getting a gut feeling,

yes, it brings up concerns for me. 15

And I don’t have the scientific expertise myself to judge that but my

gut makes me ask more questions, because it really concerns me. I’m

not saying to ignore the scientific evidence at all, but I ask you that you

really ask these questions and not take things like minor effects and 20

insignificant effects and low impact and words like this, like, what does

that really mean?

Because if we, you know, keep moving round the earth and having low

impact here and low impact here and minor, insignificant impact here, 25

judged on whose perspective, we going to continue to degrade the

earth.

And we know that hundreds, probably more than hundreds of

applications have gone forward based on these kind of arguments and 30

then we have had environmental disasters as a result. And not just

environmental disasters, but on-going degradation over time of our

environment based on these kind of arguments. So that's my point.

MS WRATT: Okay, thank you for clarifying. Just one clarification, I think, 35

from, well, certainly in the way I see this process, is that there's

comments being made about this being precedent.

And I would just like to make it clear that we make a decision on this

particular application and if there is another application to mine in 40

another area, then that decision will be made specifically on that

location and there are very clear criteria in the act which says these are

the issues that you have to consider.


And nowhere in the Act does it say, because this was approved at

location A, you can therefore approve it at location B. So I’d just like

to clarify that.

It’s easy to make the comment that this is precedent setting but there is 5

nothing in the legislation that actually identifies anything to do with, if

you tick this one off then that means the next one will be ticked off. It

is quite clear that we have to make some decisions on certain criteria.

MS EDWARDS: Okay. 10

MS WRATT: So I guess that’s not a question, that's a comment.

MS EDWARDS: Yes.

15

MR KAPEA: Kia ora. It’s stated in your evidence here that you have been in

Taranaki for several years and I just wanted to ask you how much of a

change have you seen along the foreshore? And in terms of your

community, are they aware of changes that occur, like foreshore

erosion. 20

I know that you’ve got some foreshore erosion happening along there.

Is that a focal point for the community?

MS EDWARDS: Just to clarify, I’m not living there anymore but I still work 25

down there regularly.

MR KAPEA: Right, that's okay.

MS EDWARDS: And so I’m travelling down there regularly and, yes, there 30

are issues definitely identified that are big concerns to, certainly, the

communities that I am connect to down there. With coastal erosion and

also with pollution of the waterways. You can feel it and smell it when

you’re in the ocean, you know, there's time when the water is most.

35

I mean it’s a different issue, but it’s still the same principle that, you

know, the industrialisation of the farming there and the way that it’s

being managed is that when you’re in the waterways, whether you’re in

the rivers or out in the ocean, you can smell the pollution and feel the

pollution when you’re there. 40

MR KAPEA: Okay, I’m just trying to gauge that in terms of community

awareness of what’s happening around their coast. I mean, I can feel

that in your emotions in terms of your connection to the whenua and to

our environment and those taonga and it’s nice to have those feelings 45

from local people in terms of what they notice is happening.


And does it trigger, especially when you have an application like that,

does that trigger fear that more is to come sort of thing?

MS EDWARDS: Yes it does, absolutely, because you’ve seen it and felt it

already and so it probably, because you’re witnessing the effects of it 5

first hand, like you said, probably creates, yes, fear and some mistrust

in the processes and what people are pushing through because you’re

saying okay. So these things have been okayed but you are actually

still seeing the actual very real destructive effects. So, I think it is a real

fear, I do not think it is an irrational fear, it is very real. 10

[2.30 pm]

MR KAPEA: It is that gut feeling.

15

MS EDWARDS: Yes, which is not so silly.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your submission. On my 20

list those are all the people who wanted to be heard today. So, unless

there is anybody else, that there was no one else that was going to be

heard? No. So, on that basis we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at

9.30. Thank you everybody.

25

MR ALBON: Excuse me. I have not got anything prepared but do I have

confidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you a submitter?

30

MR ALBON: I have not put in a submission in. So this is just - - -

CHAIRPERSON: What is your name, sir?

MR ALBON: Vic Albon. 35

CHAIRPERSON: And you had not asked to be heard?

MR ALBON: I had not asked to be heard, no.

40

CHAIRPERSON: And what might you tell us?

MR ALBON: Well, as a result of some of the things that I have been hearing

it seems to me that one or two of the points were not unhelpfully

covered and I would just like that to be sort of, put into the equation as 45

it were. Not really a specific nature more of a nature of principle. And I


have just finished reading the second book of the same title which is

called the Sixth Extinction, I do not know if you had read it. But it put

it pretty accurately that since humanity has been on the scene we have

now managed to cause right at the moment what is going on which is

actually the sixth extinction. Now, the first that I then - - - 5

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just stop you for a moment.

DISCUSSION

10

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beatson, what is your view? Are you happy?

MR BEATSON: I am in your hands, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, yes, thank you. Come forward. 15

MS ……: Sorry, could you give us your name again?

MR ALBON: Vic Albon.

20

MS ……: Okay, thank you.

MR ALBON: Yes, thanks for hearing me on such short notice.

CHAIRPERSON: That is all right. We will just bring up your submission, we 25

have got them all here.

MR ALBON: My input was with Ron Hepworth yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you are a submitter in your own right? 30

MR ALBON: I put in an earlier submission but just in writing, you know, a

long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: That is fine. 35

MS ……: 522 on the original one.

MR CHRISTENSEN: 62,344 page.

40

CHAIRPERSON: But we have got the pages.

MR CHRISTENSEN: 105

CHAIRPERSON: What is it now? 45


MR CHRISTENSEN: 105, 615.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 522.

MR CHRISTENSEN: B334F 5

CHAIRPERSON: You will be pleased to know that your submission is on

page 522 of 64,118 pages.

MR ALBON: I am delighted. 10

MR CHRISTENSEN: And that was just the second lot.

MR KAPEA: 502?

15

MS ……: 522.

MR KAPEA: It is not good when you are numerically challenged. It is the

one that looks like all the others.

20

MR CHRISTENSEN: Do not say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got it?

MR KAPEA: Are you a Raglan resident as well? 25

MR ALBON: No, I am from Muriwai.

MR KAPEA: Are you?

30

MR ALBION: So, that is my place for the last 30 years and I have yes, I have

travelled the west coast quite a bit. So, most places, yeah.

MR KAPEA: Kia ora.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got Mr Albon’s submission up?

MS ……: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you. 40

MR ALBON: Okay, so just to continue and as I said this is more in general

terms then being probably specific about it, but reading the first book

that I read which is Richard Leakey’s book which is called the Sixth

Extinction. What I felt was a sense of species shame which is, I think, a 45

pretty weird expression. But I am a human being here and I actually


feel pretty ashamed of being one and there was a part in that book

where he refers to the work of David Rorp who is a palaeontologist

who tells us that the background extinction rate is about one species per

four years. And at the moment it could be as great as 30,000 species a

year. Now, I know many of these things are little squidgy things and 5

the forest and there are lots of things that are not even discovered.

[2.35 pm]

But we need to know that we are a species that is wiping out the other 10

people, the other entities, the other non-humans that we share the planet

with that ultimately keep us alive and we’re wiping them out at the tune

of perhaps a 120 thousand times a day now.

Well, I mean, that’s such an enormously disgusting kind of statistic. It 15

seems as if it should be a starting point for everything that we do on a

daily basis. So with that in mind, I think that it is really most important

that we clean up our act at every possible opportunity.

And an awful lot of that means scaling back what we do and I would 20

say many of the reasons for us wiping out such a gross number of non-

humans have been things that have seemed like a good idea at the time.

They probably even passed through committees, people have talked

about it in this way and that and things have gone ahead.

25

I mean, there will be other things as well but, you know, the things that

are official would be having just a gigantic effect. So I think, you

know, as a sort of a philosophical context of starting point, we

somehow need to, you know, just have that in mind.

30

The second book that I’ve just finished reading, same title exactly,

which just surprises me. This is by a woman called Elizabeth Colbert,

just come out about a couple of months ago, so it’s very, very current

thinking.

35

And it covers the same sorts of things not perhaps on quite such a big

scale, but it gets very much more into the specifics. Two books very

worth reading.

The third book I might mention, “Cradle to Cradle”, I don’t know if 40

anyone’s come across that; it’s now 10 years old I think. And this is

the kind of the attitude of the future really if we’re going to make it as a

viable species on the planet and be kind of welcome to remain. That

we can no longer take, use and waste.

45


We have to think in terms of the waste has to be reused. Well

extractive technologies are going to be very hard pushed to do that. So

that’s not going to be the way forward in my opinion. There’s going to

be, as was talked about yesterday, huge amounts of mayhem at the

bottom of the food chain that, you know, the ocean goes everywhere, it 5

can mix as it wishes to, and it’s going to just disrupt the bottom of life.

So it’s not a very viable proposition when we bear in mind that this is

what keeps the whole planet working. So that was pretty much all I

wanted to say. It’s caused me in recent years to think that if I wanted 10

to make a statement to the rest of my species at any stage, what would I

want to say and I would say I want us as a whole to sit.

So what I do now in my little woodwork shop is I make contemplative

benches and I make meditation stools because I think that what we 15

need to do is think first, or contemplate first, really, really deeply and

kind of feel this whole living system that we are part of before action.

And what we seem to do at the moment is a huge amount of action and

then might think up afterwards. So I think that about summarises what 20

I felt had not been said.

One other thing I just will mention briefly was the work of Polly

Higgins putting forward to the United Nations the notion of ecocide

becoming a criminal offence. 25

MR CHRISTENSEN: Other submitters raised it here yesterday.

MR ALBON: Yes, I know there's a term now, ecocide, and it seemed to me

that they are aiming at getting that into international legislation by 30

2020. And then I imagine if that takes place, if there is enough public

support for that, then it will be much clearer from a legal perspective as

to how to go through the decision making process.

So, I just felt that also needs to be kind of underlined somehow. 35

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I’ll check whether there’s any

questions. Anyone else have questions?

MR ……….: No, no. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming along.

MR ALBON: Okay, well thanks for the extra five minutes.

45


CHAIRPERSON: That’s all right, thank you. Thank you everybody, we’ll

adjourn now until 9.30 tomorrow morning.

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 2.39 PM UNTIL

WEDNESDAY, 09 APRIL 2014 5

transcript of proceedings environmental protection ...€¦ · rare earths have overwhelmingly had...

Documents