Pat Seymour, returned unopposed in the Tawhiti-Uawa ward, and Larry Foster, standing for re-election in the city ward, said any granted consent would cover or constrain any environmental effects.
Taruheru-Patutahi ward sitting councillor Malcolm MacLean believed economic benefits of port expansion outweighed environmental risks.
City ward sitting councillor Dowsing said any economic benefits were difficult to assess, based on a single industry that had seen a massive downturn in value.
“With the extent of disruption in the industry due in large to the value of creating carbon sinks, I worry that much of our pine may be locked in permanent forest instead of harvested,’’ he said.
“With the risk to the crayfish nursery we know exists, I would seek to enhance this environment, not damage this irreplaceable taonga.”
Mayor Rehette Stoltz said the council used the Resource Management Act (RMA) to ensure protection.
“I have not studied the details of the port case in front of independent commissioners (aside from what is in the media), so I cannot comment on specific economic gain versus the environmental impacts.
“Saying that, the RMA is in need of an urgent review to make sure it is still current and fit-for-purpose to protect our environment sufficiently.”
City ward councillor Amber Dunn made similar comments.
“I am not familiar with the full details of expansion of the port. What I do know is our planning ‘playbook’ (RMA plans) is outdated and no longer fit-for-purpose in terms of protecting our environment and addressing the risks, and it is these planning instruments that enable us to assess the economic benefits and environmental risks.”
City ward candidate Debbie Gregory said she was aware of Ngati OneOne concerns. But, like fellow city ward candidate Alice Kibble, she needed more information in order to make an informed decision.
Courtney Waikari, standing in the city ward, said it was impossible for her to answer “without having looked into what the actual economic benefits and environmental risks are”.
“If the wharf does extend, then environmental effects need to be mitigated. Also, what are the relevant social factors ie. how does the project give back to people in the community?”
City ward candidate Rachel Lodewyk said it was not a case of “one versus the other”.
“The extension can not come at the cost of the environment.’’
City ward candidate Tina Karaitiana said her heart said no, but her “top two inches” said find a solution that benefits all parties.
Lizz Crawford, standing in the city ward, said she believed the environmental risks with waste entering waterways for more than 30 years was at a “critical level and (should) take priority”.
“Extending the wharf will bring economic benefits in the future.”
City ward candidate Mary Liza Manuel said pollution and any form of discharge into the water was a risk. If elected, she wanted to look at the RMA and Exclusive Economic Zone, but “most importantly the Environmental Protection Authority, where notification becomes more about public participation and iwi recommendation”.
“Iwi stakeholders need to be at the table with an equal partnership. They have a cultural obligation as kaitiakitanga to nurture our land.
“One thing that needs to be addressed is how does this entity exercise what seems like a fit-for-purpose structure of ticking boxes when lots of the community are disengaged.”
Waipaoa ward candidate Frank Murphy said the issue should be determined by a referendum.
“It is not important what I believe. It is what ratepayers and residents believe.
“A referendum should be held so the region’s views can be properly evaluated.”
