Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) legal adviser Allan Brent said it believed that permitting wildlife to be killed to facilitate road building was not in line with the act.
“We believe this authority is contrary to the Wildlife Act’s protective purpose. DoC doesn’t have the ability to grant authorities to kill wildlife for purposes unconnected with wildlife protection. We also view the almost complete lack of conditions attached to the authority and the use of environmental offsetting in the decision-making to be unlawful,” he said.
Brent said the department could have chosen a different route.
“DoC had the ability to refuse to grant the authority and Waka Kotahi would have to go about its business at its own risk. What that would mean is that Waka Kotahi would have to take all reasonable steps to avoid killing wildlife.
“One of the issues is that the permit DoC has issued to Waka Kotahi doesn’t necessarily require it to do that, so the permit is actually worse than the default situation.”
Brent said the ELI recognised the practical issues of building a road where wildlife was present, but believed the authority went beyond accounting for “collateral damage”.
“The authority goes a little beyond that. The authority granted to Waka Kotahi allows for unconstrained killing, so it just gives authority to kill, for example, kiwi. It doesn’t say that the killing is in the context of collateral damage.”
Brent said the ELI did not want to bring construction sites across New Zealand to a grinding halt.
“We’re just saying the very highly protective purpose of the act isn’t being acknowledged and it isn’t being factored into DoC decision-making and DoC can use the act a hell of a lot better than it does without reviewing it.”
ELI had tried to engage with DoC over the decision for close to a year with little result, Brent said.
DoC declined to comment because the case was before the courts.
In a statement, Waka Kotahi said it was committed to treading lightly on the land and had an environmental focus for the project, including pest management across 3650 hectares, restoration and landscape planting, and the protection of native species of flora and fauna.
“Work will continue on site, under the provisions of the permit we have been granted. As per standard practice during our work at Te Ara o Te Ata - Mt Messenger, and indeed across all our activities nationwide, we take all practical steps to avoid and minimise any effects on wildlife in the area.”
The transport agency said it took pride that Te Ara o Te Ata was an environmental project as much as it was a roading project.
“Our work targets restoration of the mature native forest surrounding the bypass route, which has been seriously damaged by pests such as rats, stoats and possums. We aim to boost the forest’s recovery from this damage and provide an environment where threatened species such as long-tailed bats and kiwi can thrive once more.”
It said a recent example of the care it was taking included putting in place a 40-metre exclusion zone around a kiwi - named Tom - after he was found to be incubating an egg.
“Following an appropriate period of incubation, the egg was safely transferred to the Kiwi Burrow in Wairakei. The chick will be cared for at this specialist facility and brought back to the Mt Messenger area once it is large enough to fight off predators like stoats,” Waka Kotahi said.
The judicial review was due to be heard in the High Court in Wellington next April.
