Alick Shaw made a casting vote as chairman of a four-person decision-making committee for the Environmental Protection Authority. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Alick Shaw made a casting vote as chairman of a four-person decision-making committee for the Environmental Protection Authority. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The man who made the fateful decision that pulled mining company Trans-Tasman Resources into the courts three times says he was doing his job the best he could.
Alick Shaw was the chairman of an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decision-making committee in 2017.
His was the casting vote that grantedmarine consents to mining company Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR).
It was an incredibly difficult decision, he said, and he was doing his job as best he could.
The decision was made with "high quality legal advice and high quality science".
"I don't get to say whether I made the right decision. That's a job for the courts. Three of them have made a decision, so what I think is utterly irrelevant."
He's not embarrassed, aggrieved or angry, and nor is he anxious to be involved if the application is reconsidered.
TTR plans to get key elements of its seabed mining application reheard and its chairman is optimistic that its previously granted consents will stand.
The company wants to mine iron-sand from the seabed over 66sq km offshore from Pātea in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone.
However, groups that opposed the consents through seven years of legal battles are certain the Supreme Court decision leaves no hope for the mining proposal.
Alan Eggers is the executive chairman of Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd
The EPA will reconvene a decision-making committee, TTR executive chairman Alan Eggers said.
Successive court decisions have whittled down the matters that remain to be addressed.
The top one is whether harm to the environment is absolutely prohibited. The Supreme Court didn't say it was, Eggers said.
"We can cause harm to the environment as long as we can mitigate or remedy it - which we can."
The other matters are to do with the Treaty of Waitangi and customary rights and interests. The court has given guidance the company will follow on that matter.
Those against the mining are equally sure that TTR's consent has been quashed and the company will have to start afresh.
"The consent has been quashed by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court," Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) chairwoman Cindy Baxter said.
"I don't think they have got much of a chance under those decisions to get the past application reassessed or across the line."
"Material harm" to marine mammals and seabirds was specifically mentioned by the court, she said.
"Are they going to feed the penguins if all the fish go? Are they going to give earplugs to the whales, because of the noise?"
Much more research would be needed, and a fresh attempt at consents would be "good money after bad", she said.
Former Ngāti Ruanui kaiarataki Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has spent years fighting the proposal for seabed mining. Photo / supplied
Former kaiarataki of neighbouring iwi Ngāti Ruanui and Pāti Māori MP and co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the application failed on three key points - Treaty of Waitangi legislation, taking account of tikanga and taking a precautionary approach.
If none of that is changed, she doesn't believe it would be worth reassessing the application.
"TTR have never been able to prove that what they are doing isn't going to desecrate the environment and never met tikanga for us as mana whenua, and the EPA completely breached our rights under the Treaty of Waitangi."
Getting the application reconsidered is "almost a desperate plea from a typical profit-focused organisation that has to make it look good to investors," she said.
Ngarewa-Packer would like to fast track her bill banning seabed mining, so that no other community has to go through what hers has.
Mining is an "archaic" means to economic growth, she said.
"There are much better constructive ways of developing our economy."
The marine consents were granted by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2017, on TTR's second application.
A statement from the EPA said it welcomed the Supreme Court's clear directions on the application of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.
They are a significant development in New Zealand environmental law, it said.
The authority is already using points of law gleaned from the Appeal Court's decision on TTR as it works through other applications, and it will use those from the Supreme Court as well.
It cannot comment further, given that the Supreme Court has referred TTR's application back to the EPA to be reconsidered.
The Green Party, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace are pleased with the Supreme Court decision and back a ban or moratorium on seabed mining.
Trans-Tasman Resources proposes to use an integrated mining vessel to mine the South Taranaki seabed. Image / supplied
But Eggers said those backing a ban were motivated by "ideological opposition to something new".
TTR has offices he uses in Auckland and Nelson. It hires consultants and is now "basically based in the cloud".
As well as having key points of its application reassessed it will embark on two years of monitoring, and it will raise funds for mining equipment when it has consents agreed, he said.
It has spent more than $80 million so far on the mining proposal.
