Editorial Tuesday September 2, 2014

Peter Jackson, Editor, The Northland Age

PARENTS once had an uncanny ability to predict disaster, even when their offspring were confident that everything was under control. 'There will be tears before bedtime,' was the saying, and in the writer's experience, whoever uttered that warning was invariably right.

It's a prediction that seems tailor-made for the stoush that is rapidly getting out of control between Maori Te Runanga o Te Rarawa and iwi/hapu members who are determined to beat off the government's plan to explore what might loosely be called the Far North sea bed for oil, and, if oil and/or gas are found, to exploit those resources.

The ignominious end to a hui in Kaitaia last month, at the hands of exploration opponents who apparently saw upending tables as the only means of being heard, seems likely to be just the entree to protests that iwi leaders will not be able to control. And if - or when - a genuine rift develops within Te Rarawa, and no doubt other Te Hiku iwi, all hell could break loose.

There is absolutely no doubting the sincerity of those who want to see the back of Statoil, and the current government's desire to exploit resources that, if they exist, could deliver huge financial and social benefits to this country. Some critics would have it that 'could' is the operative word; there is apparently no shortage of examples of local (and indigenous) people missing out when mineral resources are tapped, although we are constantly being told that Taranaki enjoys significantly greater prosperity than do most regions thanks to its long-established energy industry.

That's putting the cart before the horse though. There is no point talking about money and jobs until we know what is lying under the sea bed waiting to be exploited. It seems likely that it will be some years before anyone really knows what's there, although those who don't want to see oil drilling platforms off the coast (well out of sight but not out of mind) are right to be drawing their line in the sand as it were now. Their position would be significantly weakened if they were to wait in silence until it has been established that instant riches await exploitation. The key is where that line is to be drawn.

The exploration process itself is not without controversy either, despite the protestations of Statoil, a Norwegian government-owned outfit that claims to have a very good environmental record. We are now being warned that exploration could do significant harm to marine mammals.

It's not easy to tell whether that's a genuine concern or simply an opportunity for opponents of deep sea drilling to garner support from those who might not yet have strong feelings either way but would lean towards the opposition if it meant whales and dolphins were going to die.

The arrival of two dead whales on 90 Mile Beach has been taken by some as a sign of what they believe is to come, but that seems to be a long bow. It is encouraging that experts will be examining bits and pieces removed from the baleen whale that came ashore near Tauroa, hopefully to establish whether it died of natural causes or as a result of human activity.

In any event, while the arrival of two dead whales in quick succession might be unusual, carcasses have been arriving on Far North beaches for centuries. Whales do die of natural causes, and their bodies will sometimes find land. Anything the experts can tell us about the Tauroa whale will be welcome, but it would be foolish to read too much into that event until we know what we're talking about.

It's hardly surprising that the prospect of exploring for and perhaps drilling for oil and gas has encountered stiff opposition, however. Opposition is a fact of life for those who seek and extract oil or gas in a pristine environment, and assurances that accidents might not be entirely unknown but are rare, and can be ameliorated, are never going to be believed but some.

The 21st century reality though is that the current government, and its successors, are unlikely to abandon plans to establish what New Zealand owns by way of mineral wealth and exploit it because some people don't want them to risk their environment. The best opponents can hope for is that the explorers don't find anything worth going after, and that the exploration process does not have a significant environmental impact.

The position taken by Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, as expressed by chairman Haami Piripi, seems to be the rational response. Mr Piripi has clearly accepted that the government and Statoil are not going to go away because some people in Te Hiku don't want them jeopardising the environment. And while that obviously goes nowhere near satisfying the critics, he is claiming some success.

He said last week that the iwi had made extensive, but unsuccessful, submissions covering wahi tapu, te ara wairua and taniwha when the sea bed off 90 Mile Beach was offered by the government for exploration. Statoil, however, was not only prepared to talk with Te Rarawa in a bid to avoid any cultural transgressions, but more importantly perhaps had offered to make its exploratory data available to the iwi.

Te Rarawa had planned to discuss setting up an independent iwi-run monitoring regime so it did not have to rely upon what the government and/or Statoil offered after the six-year exploratory period ended, and Statoil had agreed in principal to allowing iwi representatives on to its ships.

The whole idea, of course, is to protect the environment in which Statoil will be exploring, and drilling might one day begin. It is an eminently more realistic approach than that taken by protesters who seek to achieve the same thing by overturning tables and threatening worse. No New Zealand government, and no oil company that is in New Zealand at the government's invitation, is going to concede defeat to protesters. They will do whatever it takes to ensure they can go about what is, after all, their lawful business. The best that those who fear for the environment and for cultural values can do is to co-operate, however reluctantly, with a view to protecting that environment and those cultural values from harm.

It goes without saying, surely, that no New Zealand government and no oil company would ever want to see an environmental disaster in this country. That's not to say that anyone should take their assurances that such a calamity is so unlikely that it is not worth worrying about, and that even if there is one it will be contained, at face value. Statoil can point to its record but can give no iron-clad guarantee, and the government might well be accused of wishful thinking; its promises are very much reliant on the ability of those who explore and/or drill to do so safely and without risking, let alone causing, environmental damage.

Opponents of the process now under way need to box a little more cleverly than they have thus far. They need to accept that this is a war they cannot win, and focus on making the most of any opportunity they have to be part of the process so they can wield some degree of control. If they cannot do that they will lose, and the door that Te Rarawa has opened will be slammed shut. And then there really could be tears.