The seabed mining protest at the weekend. Photo: RNZ / Emma Andrews
Taranaki Regional Council has rebuffed calls for it to get off the fence and take a stand against a proposal to mine the seabed off the Patea coast.
Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) has approval to vacuum up 50 million tonnes of sand annually from the South Taranaki seabed for 35 years to extract iron, vanadium and titanium, but the company still needs consent to discharge 45 million tonnes of unwanted sediment a year back into the shallow waters.
TTR - which is currently going through the Fast Track consenting process - says it can do this environmentally safely and that its project will significantly boost the national and regional economies.
The regional council has twice made neutral submissions on TTR's proposal and at Tuesday's powerful policy and planning committee it chose again to walk that tightrope, arguing that to take a stance could jeopardise its future opportunities to influence the project.
A 2024 hīkoi in Patea to oppose seabed mining. Photo: Supplied/ Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui Trust
Earlier it heard a deputation from Protect Our Moana Taranaki spokesperson Fiona Young - who helped co-ordinate a paddle-out protest attended by about 1200 people at west coast beaches over the weekend.
She reminded councillors the TRC was the region's environmental watchdog.
"Opposing seabed mining aligns with your statutory duty to protect ecosystems and coastal waters for the interest of future generations. The areas within your direct jurisdiction would be harmed and there is no safeguard, no accurate modelling that can really portray what will actually happen."
Young wanted the TRC to unite with Whanganui and South Taranaki district councils who had come out in opposition of Trans-Tasman Resources' proposal.
"Being neutral is not an option when you have a duty to uphold the care of our ecosystems and the well-being of our communities."
Ngāti Ruanui iwi member and Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also addressed councillors.
She said TTR's application for Fast Track consents was no different than had been knocked back right up to the Supreme Court and all eight Taranaki were united in their rejection of the proposal.
"Is this council going to stand with us, are you part of us or are you going to stand on the side on you're little island away from the rest of us who've been fighting this, away from the rest of us who have to confront this ... where do you belong."
On Tuesday, the policy and planning committee was considering a new report on the issue: Fast Track Approvals Act and Taranaki VTM Project (Trans-Tasman Resources).
A map showing the area covered by the South Taranaki Bight Project. Photo: Trans-Tasman Resources
Following the deputations, committee member Celine Filbee outlined her reservations about taking a stance against the project.
"I'm concerned that you are urging us to take a stance as a council to opposed seabed mining because we are in the privileged and lucky position where this organisation is going to be possibly or even probably one of the very few that get to submit to the hearing panel.
"Now if we in the room approve a motion to oppose seabed mining that would create a conflict of interest and we will be immediately struck off that hearing panel which gives us no voice."
In the report, strategy lead Finbar Kiddle, clarified that if the TRC took a stand against seabed mining it could jeopardise its ability as a "relevant local body" to recommend a member to the expert panel considering TTR's application.
"The council will very likely be considered a relevant local authority for the Taranaki VTM Project application. This means council will have the opportunity to nominate a panel member and make comment on the application.
"The council needs to approach its assessment of the application in a similar manner to if it was assessing a resource consent application. This means avoiding any inference of predetermination, undertaking a robust review of the relevant documents, and focusing on the regulatory tests set in the legislation.
"To do otherwise, risks prejudicing council's engagement and undermining its input into the process. Predetermination, either for or against the project, would ultimately harm the position put forward."
Councillors voted to receive the report and no motion to oppose seabed mining was put forward.
