TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ......TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY HEARING Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited Marine Consent Application HEARING

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

HEARING

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

Marine Consent Application

HEARING at

KINGSGATE HOTEL, 100 GARNETT AVENUE,

TE RAPA, HAMILTON

on 30 OCTOBER 2014

DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:

Neil Walter (Chairperson)

Dr Nicki Crauford (EPA Board Representative)

Dr Gregory Ryder (Committee Member)

Lennie Johns (Committee Member)

David Hill (Committee Member)

Page 1729

Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14

[9.03 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning and welcome to day 17 of the hearing. A

couple of changes to the schedule so far, there may be more. First, the

audio link hasn’t worked and so one submitter this morning and one 5

from yesterday are being invited to link up to us in Wellington during

one the sessions down there.

That leaves us with either three or four submitters this morning and at

this stage we don’t have confirmation I think of three of the four for 10

this afternoon. So we will just work our way through anyway and see

where we get to before lunch. It could be an early lunch. Is that rain

out there? But this is the Waikato, surely.

[9.05 am] 15

All right, so first on the list, Nicole Hancock, welcome and the floor is

yours.

MS HANCOCK: All right, so I have prepared a document and I am just going 20

to read it out.

All right, my name is Nicole Hancock and I have a master of sciences

in marine science from the University of Waikato and 13 years’

experience working in marine science, 10 of those years were at NIWA 25

in Hamilton doing benthic ecology and coastal sedimentation. Now, I

am an environmental consultant among other things. I also worked on

the TTR seabed mining case as an independent consultant helping my

client understand the science and prepare their submission and expert

evidence. 30

I was granted permission to act as an expert in this case specialising in

benthic science and sedimentation but due to other commitments I

chose to remove myself from the expert role and instead today I am

presenting at a general submitter. 35

Benthic ecology. As I am sure you have already heard the Chatham

Rise is an area rich in sea life with many different animal communities

living on and in the sea floor including corals, sponges, bryozoans,

brachiopods, giant isopods and bivalves to name but a few. 40

In their joint witness statement benthic scientists agree the Chatham

Rise is one of the most productive and distinctive ecosystems in the

New Zealand EEZ. It contains unique benthic communities, some of

which are protected by the Wildlife Act, and many of which are used to 45

a low sediment environment and are considered sensitive according to

Page 1730


the EEZ Act. Additionally, 90 percent of the seafloor where proposed

mining is to occur is in fact a benthic protected area.

The Chatham Rise seafloor is connected through the food web to the

life in the water just above the seafloor where there are fish, skates, 5

rays and sharks. Higher in the water column we find other species of

fish as well as whales, dolphins, orca and other mammals. The water

column is connected in turn to the air above where we find seabirds

including several species of albatross, gull, petrel and tern so it is not

just the seafloor we are considering mining but a web of life. 10

The proposed mining would take strips out of the bottom half metre of

the seafloor and its life would be sucked up, pulverised and spat out

again. I really don’t like that idea, it upsets me. However, there is no

argument from experts from either side about the fact that this is what 15

would happen if mining were to go ahead.

Some of the largest seafloor species on the Chatham Rise are very old,

much older than any of us are and ever will be. Not only are some of

these species rare and protected many animals, such as corals but also 20

sponges, hydrozoans and bryozoans, also provide important ecosystem

services by providing a three-dimensional structure and habitat on the

seafloor so that other animals may make the seafloor their home.

Seafloor communities depend on these larger older habitat forming 25

animals in a similar way that animals of the forest rely on the trees,

shrubs and grasses. Larger seafloor animals provide shelter, refuge and

something to attach to and grow on. They slow water currents and

create microclimates generally greatly enriching the seafloor

topography. 30

Without this three-dimensional structure animals are left with a flat

two-dimensional plane with few places to shelter, hide or grow thus

reducing their chances of survival. This idea bothers me, these animals

have lived in this part of the world for much longer than us, what gives 35

us the right to destroy this?

In their joint witness statement benthic scientists agreed there are

knowledge gaps about the structure and distribution of Chatham Rise

seafloor communities. They also agree they have not been able to fully 40

consider the role of seafloor communities. They have only covered

trophic aspects and left out biodiversity, nutrient cycling and habitat

provision. They agree there is uncertainty about Chatham Rise

biodiversity due to the lack of sampling meaning they may be unaware

of rare or cryptic seafloor communities. They agree there is a lack of 45

knowledge about seabed communities in the area surrounding the

Page 1731


mining site including the prospecting area. Benthic experts agree they

cannot predict overall mining impacts with confidence.

Sedimentation. The mining process will also cause an increase in

suspended sediment concentrations, SSCs, and deposition rates over a 5

certain distance beyond the direct mining site. I am concerned that the

animals and habitats outside the mining strips will also be negatively

affected due to indirect effects of increased SSC and deposition.

[9.10 am] 10

My main concern comes from knowing that many of the habitat and

structure providing animals living on the seafloor are suspension

feeders such as sponges, hydrozoans and corals. Suspension feeders

rely on filtering the water to get their food. They are negatively 15

affected by even small increases in SSC and deposition. This is

because they have to spend more time and energy on filtering water and

separating inedible sediment particles from food. This causes them to

lose condition and do poorly or even starve to death. In other words

their resilience is lowered and ecosystem health is negatively affected. 20

Benthic experts agree the reproduction larval settlement and early

development of coral, a suspension feeder, would be negatively

affected.

My second main concern comes from knowing all the work on 25

sediment distribution and deposition thus far is based on modelling.

There are no actual data and the models are not verified.

The benthic joint witness statement says the spatial and temporal extent

of indirect sediment impacts are uncertain and they have insufficient 30

information to assess effects of sedimentation on the seafloor. They

also say they have no information on sensitivities of animals or

communities for changes in the sediment regime. They also say mining

methods have not been finalised.

35

These issues concern me. What also concerns me is that much of the

proposed mining area is not well mapped. This creates a great deal of

uncertainty. It is not possible to determine consequences of mining if

we do not know what is there. This is a tricky environment. Two

major bodies of water one cold from the Antarctic and the other warm 40

from the Pacific of very different density, temperature and character are

converging over a large area of complex bathymetry. This is not an

easy environment to work in or understand.

How can it be? Uncertainties aside, quite frankly I am surprised this 45

case has gone as far as this hearing. How is it possible that a section of

Page 1732


a seafloor set aside as a benthic protected area with endemic and

protected species of animals, as well as economic and cultural value,

can even be considered for seabed mining? How did the applicant even

gain a mining permit for this area?

5

The Chatham Rise has been very well known as a very biologically

productive area for a long time, important for fish, bird and mammal

species. Furthermore, while I do not condone commercial fishing

bottom trawling practices because they are also destructive of the

seafloor, I will say I know the Chatham Rise supports 60 percent of 10

commercial fishing in New Zealand. Mining in this area would clearly

put that enterprise at risk with potential negative economic

consequences.

The phosphate argument. But here we are talking about the details of 15

the consequences of seabed mining in the Chatham Rise so what is the

phosphate for? The Chatham Rock Phosphate marine consent

application and environmental impact assessment opens by saying

New Zealand needs to secure its own supply of phosphate for fertiliser

for agricultural productivity for the wellbeing of New Zealanders and 20

the New Zealand economy.

But here’s the thing, New Zealand lakes and rivers have a serious

problem caused by excess phosphate. Regional councils and scientists

have been trying to contain this phosphate problem for a number of 25

years. Not only is it costing us, taxpayers, the New Zealand economy,

a huge amount of time and money the source of the problem, which is

too much phosphate going on the land, is not even being discussed.

So why is phosphate a problem? In brief rain washes phosphate 30

fertiliser off the land and into our fresh waterways including streams,

rivers, wetlands and lakes. Phosphate attaches to sediment and settles

to the bottom of our lakes where it drives toxic algal blooms in lakes as

Rotoiti, Rotorua. Rotoehu and Lake Ellesmere to name but a few. This

causes not only environmental problems but also economic and quality 35

of life ones like not being able to swim, problems with tourism, fishing

and that kind of thing. On top of this phosphate is bound to other

bioaccumulating nasty compounds including cadmium and uranium.

Adding heavy metals to our agricultural land will not benefit the

wellbeing of our agriculture industry and economy. 40

So before I talk any more about the consequence of mining our seabed

for more phosphate, it makes sense to me to spend a moment looking at

alternatives. There are local methods both under development and

currently proven for recovering, recycling and reusing phosphate with 45

Page 1733


positive downstream effects reaching harbours and estuaries, the

nursery ground of many of our fisheries.

Here are just a few quick examples. Bruno is a freshwater scientist for

the Waikato Regional Council. He developed a method whereby koi 5

carp, an invasive pest bottom feeding fish that naturally bioaccumulates

phosphate at it feeds, are trapped and turned into a special potting mix

which Raglan Harbour Care use for growing native seedlings. The

trees were then planted around wetlands thereby locking up phosphate,

providing shade over waterways, reducing light to prevent other 10

problem aquatic plants and thus closing the loop.

[9.15 am]

Three weeks ago Bruno won the Kudos award in recognition of his 15

work. With support his work can be turned into a non-commercial

venture that not only removes pest fish from our waterways but also

gives an environmentally friendly phosphate recycling opportunity and

provides jobs supporting the New Zealand economy and people.

20

Rebecca Evers is a PhD student in the final stages of her research at the

University of Waikato. She has been investigating how constructed

wetlands and silt traps can capture and recycle phosphorus enriched

sediment from dairy farm runoff. One of the dairy farmers Rebecca is

working with, Andrew Hayes, is already underway with reducing his 25

farm’s environmental footprint by following a whole farm management

plan created by Alison Dewes, owner of Headlands Agribusiness

Consultants.

Recent analysis of Andrew’s silt trap found an average of 2,000 30

milligrams of total recoverable phosphorus per kilo of dry matter.

Andrew has now been spreading sediment from his silt trap back on his

fields for the last five years reducing the need for additional phosphate

fertiliser and reducing his costs. Before Rebecca’s research Andrew

wouldn’t have considered the sludge accumulating in the silt traps to be 35

a resource. Andrew is one of the top 10 most profitable farmers in the

Waikato region.

Charlie is investigating a way to treat dairy farm effluent using a series

of ponds and constructed wetlands to not only clean the water and 40

recycle phosphate and other nutrients but to actually harness the

nutrients to grow a certain species of algae in a controlled manner that

will then be used as food for an already successful aquaculture venture

to grow whitebait and eels. This venture has been successful in

securing initial funding of about $50,000 from both the Bay of Plenty 45

Regional Council and the Sustainable Farming Fund to start up his first

Page 1734


trial. If successful his venture would provide another method of

cleaning water of phosphate and other nutrients and contribute to the

local economy by creating a saleable product and a number of jobs.

AgResearch and Landcare. I wish I had another good story to tell 5

about these guys and their research, however their recent application to

investigate phosphate recycling in Waikato peat soils was declined,

perhaps that needs to be reconsidered.

At the moment New Zealand’s agriculture fertiliser approach is a bit 10

like bucket chemistry, dumping large amounts of fertiliser all over the

land with very little prior analysis of what is required. If we look

overseas we can find examples of precision farming. In the USA and

Japan they are using aerial footage from robotic craft or drones with

normal and infrared cameras to find and target areas of pasture that 15

need nutrients or water. Could this be the future of farming in

New Zealand? Perhaps so. Already in Raglan, New Zealand, we have

Aeronavics, a small business employing almost a dozen staff, who

specialist in robotic craft with the technology to survey our farms. This

technology is here and it is growing fast. 20

If the justification for mining the seafloor with its certain damage and

uncertain risks is to secure New Zealand’s supply of phosphate

fertiliser, but we already have an excess of phosphate in our fresh

waterways that is causing problems plus phosphate carries other nasty 25

compounds onto the land with it. And we already have proven

methods for changing the fertiliser approach and we already have

proven New Zealand based examples of how to recycle excess

phosphate, cleaning up our fresh waterways and providing jobs. Plus

we have more ideas on phosphate recycling if there were funding and 30

the capability to move towards precision farming, why would we dig

up our biologically, economically, culturally, productive, protected and

treasured seafloor? Our planet’s resources are finite, we need to use

them sparingly, thoughtfully and carefully.

35

In summary I think the seabed mining case has given us an opportunity

to look closely not just at the issues around mining the seabed but for

alternatives to our phosphate problem which is far inland and may

require a change in thinking.

40

I think my work in benthic ecology and marine sciences has given me a

different perspective when it comes to understanding and feeling

connected to the seabed. I have observed it for many years through low

tide walks, snorkelling, driving and hour upon hour of underwater

video footage so I have grown fond of the seafloor. 45

Page 1735


[9.20 am]

Now when I look out at sea I don’t just see the water surface, I see

seafloor landscapes and communities, shoals of fish and seabirds, a

web of sea life, in the way that someone hiking through the forest or a 5

farm sees familiar trees and hears familiar birds and feels a sense of

connection. I see rocky ridges the size of houses covered in a dozen

kinds of seaweed with starfish, crabs, sponges, crayfish, stingrays,

sharks and the flash of a shoal of 1,000 small fish.

10

I see a sandstone channel covered with sponges and a loan great white

shark. I see inquisitive baby snapper the size of a milk bottle top

hovering above a sandy seafloor.

Like a gardener who is fond of the work of her earthworms, so I am 15

fond of the work of the critters of the seafloor who form the foundation

of the food web reaching all the way to the seabirds. That is their home

and they do good work.

So when I hear about an application to remove the top metre or so of 20

the seafloor I feel distressed, there is no doubt, it has been clearly said,

the seafloor and what lives in it and on it would be destroyed.

I think New Zealand needs to look carefully at opportunities to reduce,

reuse and recycle phosphate. Cultural benefits of recycling phosphate 25

would include reparation to Māori or to its taonga, and the wider

community. Many non-Māori people in New Zealand are also

developing a connection to the environment.

Much of the seafloor where proposed mining is to occur is a benthic 30

protected area for a reason. Experts agree the Chatham Rise is one of

the most productive and distinctive ecosystems in the New Zealand

EEZ, it contains animals protected by the Wildlife Act and has unique

benthic communities that are used to low sediment environment and are

considered sensitive according to the EEZ Act. 35

Benthic experts agree there is a great deal of information about the

seafloor and its contribution to our ecosystem that is not sampled, not

known or not considered in this case.

40

The mining process will also cause an increase in SEC and deposition

rates beyond the direct mining site.

My question to the DMC is from what you have heard about SEC and

deposition modelling, can you be sure you know what the sediment 45

Page 1736


effects of the mining would be and do you know for sure how far the

plume will spread?

While I understand this trial has to run within a short timeframe,

preparation time prior to lodging the application was not short, yet CRP 5

have not even finalised their mining methods. There is no excuse for

this lack of data resulting in large uncertainties, making it impossible

for experts to predict potential mining impacts with confidence.

In the expert joint witness statement there is discussion of adaptive 10

management approach methods in the face of uncertainty. However,

considering we are talking about possible effects on our most

productive and distinctive marine ecosystem in New Zealand’s EEZ, I

do not think experimenting is a good idea. More data is required.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Hancock. That’s a very

thoughtful and very well presented statement. Much appreciated.

MS HANCOCK: Thank you.

20

CHAIRPERSON: And although we won’t respond to the question you pose to

us, because we’re not meant to, I hope you will be prepared to respond

to questions we might pose to you.

MS HANCOCK: All right. 25

CHAIRPERSON: David, do you have any?

MR HILL: Yes, thank you, Ms Hancock, nicely put.

30

Can I just ask you or can I pose, I guess, a rhetorical question to you, I

guess on the basis of what you’ve told us I’m not persuaded that

anymore additional data would make any difference to your conclusion.

MS HANCOCK: I think it really would. Like, from my experience of 35

working at NIWA, we did lots of habitat mapping and there’s a certain

process that you follow when you do habitat mapping, you start out by

getting a broad sweep of the whole area with the most basic form of –

you know, you get the bathymetry, which I think they have, and then

you’d go back and you’d target areas with side scan sonar and 40

multibeam, and I get the feeling from what I’ve looked at – and then

you’d go back again and you’d sample the seafloor, and I realise it’s

very deep water and that’s hard to do, like it’s hard to do in 50 metres,

it’s hard to do in 30 metres, so in 300 metres I can understand it is

really hard to do, but it’s possible. 45

Page 1737


MR HILL: That is possible, how would that then give you any comfort about

the project going ahead? It’s simply going to provide more information

about the sort of seafloor that you seem to be opposed to any mining

on.

5

[9.25 am]

MS HANCOCK: I am not opposed to mining entirely, I’m opposed to mining

that can’t be proven to be sustainable and I’m concerned about mining

areas where we haven’t mapped it properly and we’re not sure what’s 10

there, like in the joint witness statement, the benthic scientists agreed

that there could be rare and cryptic species that haven’t been

discovered because not enough mapping has been done and I’m of the

same opinion that there could be things there because there isn’t yet

enough data to be able to rule out that they’re not. 15

MR HILL: Yes, all right. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Good of you to answer a rhetorical question. Someone

once said where would the world be without rhetorical questions. 20

Greg?

DR RYDER: Yes, thanks. I had a similar question to Mr Hill really, so he’s

stolen my thunder to some degree, but I presume your concerns about

the mining would remain regardless or not of whether the benthic 25

protection area is present, so if there was no BPA in that area, your

concerns about mining the seabed would remain? It wouldn’t change

your view at all?

MS HANCOCK: Well, it would probably would, I mean I think the benthic 30

protected area is really there for a reason, you know, it’s a heavily

fished area, and it’s a highly productive area and they’ve set that aside

since, I think it was 2007, for no fishing. When they do the bottom

trawling they’ve got really, like weights as tall as me rolling along the

seafloor and that also breaks the structure of the seafloor and rips it up 35

and knocks it over, and so they’ve set that aside for a reason, because

they know that there’s, you know, important communities there, and in

order to be able to continue fishing they need sort of like a bit of a park

where things can remain the same. I can’t really wrap my head around

the idea of if it wasn’t there. 40

DR RYDER: I mean the seabed would still be destroyed by the mining

process that’s being proposed. When I mean destroyed, up to half a

metre or so of the bed is going to be removed, along with everything in

it. 45

Page 1738


MS HANCOCK: That would be destroyed, yes.

DR RYDER: So given the way you’ve written your submission here about

your concerns about the seabed and protection of it, it seems to me that

whether or not the BPA is there wouldn’t make much difference to 5

your views on that.

MS HANCOCK: Well, I think it’s a matter of scale. Like, if you have a huge

area which you’ve mapped and you know what’s there and you know

that there’s repetition of the communities over a large area, thousands 10

of square kilometres, and you want to take some of that, I’m actually

okay with that because I can understand, you know, like it’s the same

as farming, you have lots of forest, you understand what’s there, you

don’t go in willy nilly and rip it out and then go “oh, woops, that was

actually really unique”, you go in, you map it, you know what’s there, 15

which is easy to do on the land.

DR RYDER: Yes, well, that’s interesting about the scale issue. So in terms of

mapping, what area of seabed, in your view, would be required to be

mapped before you had confidence of what is present within the 20

proposed mining area is either representative or found elsewhere quite

extensively or not?

MS HANCOCK: Yes, well, I know it’s a big ask because it’s a really difficult

area to work in because of the depth, but I think – well, for a start I 25

think the benthic protected area needs to be really well mapped and the

whole prospecting area really needs to be well mapped. It’s a lot, which

I can understand, and you can’t – I know that when we did our

mapping you don’t sample every single spot, but you do do the broad

scale stuff, you do the sonar and the multibeam because it gives you an 30

idea of where to go next with your more intensive sampling, your grab

samples, your ROV samples or your video samples.

But, you know, ROV and video, you can only look at what’s on the

surface, you can’t see what’s in the seafloor, and you know all the 35

critters in the seafloor are also providing important information, so you

do, you need samples, and I know it’s a hard place to work, but if

you’re going to rip parts of it out, you need to be pretty sure that it’s

living somewhere else so that it can be kept alive somewhere.

40

DR RYDER: Okay.

MS HANCOCK: Does that make sense?

DR RYDER: Yes, thank you. 45

Page 1739


DR CRAUFORD: I’m interested in what you’ve put here regarding reusing

phosphate and phosphate recycling, can you tell me a little bit about the

AgResearch and Land Care application that was declined?

[9.30 am] 5

MS HANCOCK: Not a lot really because I was aware that I was going a little

bit beyond the scope when I started talking about phosphate recycling, I

am a marine scientist not a freshwater scientist, so I kept it pretty short

and really I only put that example in there just to show that there are 10

people who would really like to work on this and that people are

thinking about it and that we do have options to do that kind of work.

So what I know is that was pretty recent I think and they wanted to

look at phosphate recycling in peat soils because I think peat has 15

particular issues with phosphate. I am not a soil scientist so I do not

really know sorry, yeah. I could find out for you.

DR CRAUFORD: Well no I am just interested because I mean it would

impact say the market for phosphate over the next 25 years. 20

MS HANCOCK: Yeah, I think these are all affected.

DR CRAUFORD: The other comment you make in fact in the last sentence,

you refer to Chatham Rise as the most productive and distinctive 25

marine ecosystem within New Zealand’s EEZ. Can you just explain

the evidence you have for that?

MS HANCOCK: That is taken from the Benthic Expert Joint Witness

Statement. 30

DR CRAUFORD: Okay.

MS HANCOCK: Yeah.

35

DR CRAUFORD: Thank you.

MR JOHNS: Thank you Chair. Hello Ms Hancock.

MS HANCOCK: Hello. 40

MR JOHNS: I am interested in your statement on page 7 and I will just read it

because it just caught my attention, just if you would like to offer any

sort of detail around it. Cultural benefits of phosphate recycling would

include reparation to Māori etcetera, so what do you actually mean by 45

that?

Page 1740


MS HANCOCK: My understanding is that water is taonga to Māori and it is

an area that is pretty new to me because I have been really focussed on

being a very databased scientist for a really long time, and now I am

starting to enjoy working more in science communication with Māori 5

in the wider community. So it is still new to me but I am getting the

sense that keeping the water clean isn’t just about ecology and science

for Māori – correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding – it

is also quite a culturally important treasure to keep water clean.

10

Yeah my understanding is still pretty rudimentary but that is what I was

trying to get across there.

MR JOHNS: Okay, thanks very much.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions from the floor? If not, thank you very much

Ms Hancock, much appreciated.

MS HANCOCK: Thank you.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Next on the list is Tui Allen, is possibly here in spirit but

not – you are, okay, oh yes.

MS ALLEN: Excuse me, I am a bit flabbergasted, I expecting to be the first

one after morning tea, but I will cope. 25

CHAIRPERSON: Just take your time and we will be listening.

MS ALLEN: Okay, I am Tui Allen and I am speaking on behalf of the

ultimate indigenous people of our planet, the cetaceans. My friend 30

Geoff Phillips invented that term, ultimate indigenous people, for his

marine themed film that he made. In this talk I am hoping to convince

you to begin to think of cetaceans as just that, the ultimate indigenous

people of planet ocean. I will mention some other special marine

beings also. 35

[9.35 am]

I am coming at this from a very different angle from your previous

speaker because I am a fiction author, here is my dolphin book Ripple.

It sells all over the world and has been translated for sale in Europe 40

quite recently. It is very relevant to this whole consent application. I

am here to ask you to consider not just all the facts about dolphins that

you would already have heard from scientists like Liz Slooten and so

on, but also to think way beyond them. I want you to think about all

the many, many facts that we don’t yet know about these beings and 45

Page 1741


their environment. It is those facts, the ones we do not yet know about

that are my business as a fiction author.

I promise you there is far more to know than what we already do. We

discover new facts every day and there are no signs of that process 5

slowing down. We did not know about the effects possums would have

on our forests when we introduced them but we stupid humans

introduced them anyway. It was only ignorance – only – think of the

damage that one piece of ignorance caused. And our human ignorance

of the oceans is huge – why? – because we are land animals, the ocean 10

is not our patch.

Consider this, an old family has lived in harmony during centuries of

residence, sharing the produce of their orchards and gardens fairly

among many neighbours. A new family moves into the street and sets 15

up camp in the orchard belonging to the old family. The new family

has no idea of the importance of this produce to the old family and its

surrounding community so they steal all the fruit and sell it without

permission from the owners. They then decide the old family may

have treasure buried in their backyard so they start digging up the vege 20

garden, destroying its delicate balances in the process, and poisoning

everything growing there. The old family and all its neighbours must

starve because of the ignorance and blind greed of the new arrivals.

This is exactly what any kind of seabed mining may do in our oceans. 25

We humans are the new neighbours on ocean street and we do not give

a damn about the ones who were there before us and who own the

whole place. It makes me ashamed to be human.

Digging up the sea floor makes a lot of noise. Dolphins and other 30

cetaceans depend on hearing for their very lives. They have ten times

the human brain capacity for processing sound. They literally see with

their hearing. For a dolphin to be forced to listen to loud unnatural

noises is the exact equivalent of forcing a human to stare open-eyed

into the sun. But they cannot close their hearing the way we can close 35

our eyes. Noise is a strongly suspected cause of many cetaceans

strandings.

As a fiction author I put myself into the mind of a cetacean victim of

unnatural undersea noise and describe it this way – there came a great 40

noise like a clap of thunder, but not from the sky, it struck us from

under water so there was no escape. We scattered at the first terrific

blast, shocked into disarray and isolated in the void created in the

aftermath, our equilibrium shattered, hearing gone, navigation lost. It

was a kind of death. To lose sound was to lose the sea itself, to drift 45

Page 1742


loose among stars. There was no time to recover before the second hit

and then too many more. We lost all reason in that hour.

[9.40 am]

5

We fiction authors often concern ourselves with the what-ifs of the

world. I have concerned myself for years with what if the dolphins are

smarter than we are, so here are the facts that we do know – three, three

facts – cetaceans have brains the size of ours or bigger. Cetaceans

evolved 50 million years before humans stopped squabbling over 10

bananas in the treetops. Thirdly, those cetacean brains have whole

zones inside them that scientists admit to being mystified by. Fifty

million years before we evolved – what has been going on in those

great brains all this time? We do not have a clue. Ought we not to give

these beings the benefit of the doubt? 15

Humans dream of one day finding company in the universe. We

wonder if out there in the stars somewhere there is someone else

perhaps even smarter than we are. We look through great telescopes,

we include messages to aliens in our spaceships, we read stories, watch 20

TV programmes and movies about what it will be like when we finally

discover intelligence out there. Meanwhile we may be missing

something right here on planet earth as we call it – earth! – why ever

did we give it such a name? Doesn’t earth mean soil or dirt? Is that

how we treat it? But perhaps we humans can forgive ourselves this 25

naming error. This is a marine planet and we are only land animals.

Ocean is surely a more appropriate name. Perhaps here in the waters of

planet ocean there is intelligent life more fascinating than anything we

might never find out there. For 50 million years the great whales ruled 30

our pristine prehistoric oceans and since oceans cover most of our

planet you could argue that they rule the world. Down all those

millennia their huge brains have been working, thinking, creating,

perhaps even calculating and rationalising, but always evolving in

directions unguessed by humanity. 35

Have you ever considered how much we expend our human intellect on

matters material? Cetaceans evolve their intellects without this vast

distraction because they have no hands. No hands, no handicap. So

whatever they are thinking of other than food must be beyond the 40

material. No need either to waste brain power on fine motor control of

complicated limbs like legs, arms, fingers and toes. All that brain

power freed up for the consideration of matters perhaps social, abstract,

romantic, mathematical or even spiritual. No written language, thus

memory must be vital. Yet we were all so surprised to discover 45

Page 1743


recently that dolphins recognise old friends and relations even after 20

years of separation.

Goodness even we newly evolved humans have been known to

recognise people after longer spans than that. Why should we be 5

surprised? We could try to be like them. Prepare ourselves beforehand

for days, hours, weeks, by thinking non-materially, watch film of them,

study their different breeds and incarnations until we have soaked up

all human knowledge of these beings. Then travelling in imagination

only – I can help you with that because I am a fiction author – go into 10

the silence of the ocean and feel their world until we start to live it –

and this is how I write. Feel their water on our skin, dream our minds

and bodies into theirs, feel their presences and return the love and

respect they give to us, drift, relax and allow the ocean to support and

caress us as it does them. 15

[9.45 am]

When we have done all this often in mind we may be ready to meet

them in person, go out on the real ocean to a place they inhabit. In time 20

there may be a great flowering of understanding and they may teach us

to escape our human rigidity to let our intellect float into the universe,

exploring beyond all our previous abilities.

Visit their world at night. I have crossed oceans under sail, in the little 25

wooden boat that was my first marital home. This is what gives me my

link to the ocean. On the night sea the near silence is beautiful and the

stars can feel close enough to touch. Do cetaceans have intellectual

links to those stars perhaps beyond our understanding?

30

Thinking we can understand cetaceans might be like some newly

evolved small rodent thinking it can understand human thought

processes. Perhaps one day we could learn from the cetaceans how to

transcend the limits of our materialistic lives and discover spiritual

wonders that send all our technologies to the trash can. Or, we could be 35

like the new family in neighbourhood ocean and just barge out there

into their home and rip it all up with our big noisy machines and just let

the old family starve.

One other thing, I have been told about the tiny octopus that is at risk 40

from this particular mining operation. There is a scene in my book

where a tiny rare octopus found somewhere in the oceans near New

Zealand saves a life because chemicals in its ink have healing

properties. We do not know enough about what we are about to

destroy to just barge ahead and destroy it just for money. If it means 45

the world must have less fertiliser that might mean we must eat less

Page 1744


meat and dairy and that will only help human health and save

thousands of innocent land animal lives. Not only that, octopuses are

another highly intelligent species about whom too little is known, and

there may be a million other marine species we know even less about.

We risk it all for bad fertiliser and money. 5

Please, in respect for the ultimate indigenous people of this marine

planet, I beg you to decline this consent application. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Ms Allen, it is a most interesting and 10

thought provoking and refreshing approach to the matters under

consideration. We have heard from a wide range of scientists,

economists, lawyers, many of them with quite polarised different

views, they cannot all be right, but you are the first person to have

confessed to being an author of fiction, congratulations on that. And I 15

will check whether the committee has any fictional questions to address

to you.

MR HILL: Yes, thank you Ms Allen, a very evocative submission, thank you

very much. 20

MS ALLEN: Thank you.

DR RYDER: No, no questions but I agree about the intelligence of octopus.

25

MS ALLEN: Oh good, thank you.

DR CRAUFORD: Thank you Ms Allen I have no questions but I like the idea

of calling the earth ocean, I think that is good.

30

MS ALLEN: Thank you.

MR JOHNS: Thank you very much, I enjoyed that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks very much Ms Allen. Next on my list, Linda 35

Sylvester. Just to clarify, Linda is - - -

MS PENN: I am not Linda.

CHAIRPERSON: No, so you are presenting for her? 40

MS PENN: Yes, she asked me, she emailed Gen and said could I please just

read for her.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, see how much of this you can pack into the allocated 45

time. Go for it.

Page 1745


MS PENN: Mine and Linda’s you mean?

CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, do you want to do the two in sequence and then be

open to questions? 5

MS PENN: Yes, good as gold.

CHAIRPERSON: That is fine, okay.

10

[9.50 am]

MS PENN: Okay, so my name is June Penn, I am reading on behalf of Linda

Silvester.

15

Linda says, “I oppose the application for the following reasons. Since

my original submission which spoke of concerns around the

uncertainty of effects of the proposed activity on the receiving

environment nothing much as has changed. If anything the

uncertainties have been further highlighted during the expert evidence. 20

My view is supported by the recent EPA Staff Report.

“These concerns are in the areas of trace metal concentration and

sediment in the water column; potential toxicity of mine tailings and

benthic fauna; the levels of uranium and other radionuclides in the 25

water column; radiological risk associated with the release of uranium

and radionuclides; current state of the area with respect to oxygen

concentrations; the effects of noise generation from the mining vessel

and equipment on marine mammals; impacts on seabirds from vessel

lighting and mining equipment; information about microbial groups 30

and the biogeochemical cycles they regulate; validity of the sediment

plume model, particularly with respects to inputs into the model; rate

and recovery of benthic habitats, economic impacts on fisheries; effects

on Māori and Moriori existing interests and effects on human health.

35

“Too many of the effects cannot be adequately if at all mitigated. The

negative effects this open cast seabed mining operation will have on the

Chatham Rise is expected to leave an irreparable dead zone in the total

area mined with further destructive consequences to the adjacent areas.

Even the stage 1 part of the operation of 820 square kilometres of our 40

seabed would be too much to put at risk. Consenting this application

would be at cost to our healthy marine ecosystems to the point where it

would, among other implications, have disastrous impact on our

valuable renewable fishing resource, potentially drive endangered bird

species to extinction, cause the loss of rare corals and perhaps move 45

marine mammals out of their migratory patterns permanently.

Page 1746


“This has consequences to obligations under the Treaty and our

responsibility to protect the marine environment in accordance with the

EEZ and CS Act 2012. The applicant has not provided guarantee or

proof that their proposal is safe for the marine environment and poses 5

no threat to future viability. I ask the DMC to decline the application in

its entirety”. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

10

MS PENN: So my name is June Penn, I have a bachelor of science but in

organisational psychology not in marine science. I have a 30 year

career coming from business from a corporate environment. Until

December of last year I was the general manager of human resources

on an executive team in a significant New Zealand company which was 15

close to the mining sector. So, from that background, in February 2014

I moved from Christchurch to Raglan and have been on a steep learning

curve ever since.

I first became aware, being a city dweller I had absolutely no 20

awareness of seabed mining, none at all. Since coming to Raglan I

have been exposed to this industry basically because it’s the heartland

of KASM and I have volunteered recently with the KASM crew with

Phil McCabe and his team. So I just wanted to point that out because it

is very pertinent here in terms of the major part of the population, 25

myself included, being entirely ignorant of this and the more I become

aware of this new industry that’s coming the more genuinely concerned

I become.

So moving to my verbal submission. First of all I want to thank you 30

very much genuinely, gentlemen and madam, for taking the time to

come to Hamilton. This wouldn’t have been possible for us to address

you in Wellington or the Chathams so we really appreciate that.

I wish to expand on some points I made in my submission, in light of 35

the evidence that has been presented subsequent to the initial public

consultation process, and raise some genuine concerns I have. Since

this application was first notified there has been a high volume of EPA

notifications, questions and a large amount of documentation

generated. As I regularly reflect on the data and opinions and, 40

notwithstanding that we are in a legal process here, common sense

keeps bringing me back to a couple of underlying questions. Why are

we in New Zealand even considering this application? How has this

proposal been allowed to get this far?

45

Page 1747


The reasons for my concerns will become clear by a consideration of

the following topics and I will be as brief as I can, gentlemen. The

BPA, the Wildlife Act, respect for New Zealand values, incomplete

economics, consideration of conditions, lessons from Pike River,

uncertainties, common sense conclusions and accountability and 5

decision making.

[9.55 am]

We have heard a lot about the BPA, I won’t go too far into it, 10

everybody knows, it is well understood. The experts, the EPA, the

DMC and pretty much everybody knows that the mining area in

question is smack bang in the middle of a BPA. This in my mind

means it is equivalent to – I know it doesn’t have the same legal

standing – but it is equivalent to a marine conservation area under the 15

sea, that’s my common sense understanding of this area.

Albeit introduced for protection from a different threat of bottom

trawling the intention is clearly to protect the seafloor and marine life

from dredging. As you know the DMC is required to take into account 20

that 90 percent of this proposed mining activity is in a BPA. It is

certain that mining will irreversibly destroy all life in the marined (ph

0.57) areas and under sections 11 and 59 of the EEZ the DMC has a

definite responsibility to protect this area.

25

This area is also recognised as a marine protected area, an MPA, in the

international arena. The EPA itself recommends against mining here.

We should not be allowing a company backed by international

corporates to bullishly override the protective mechanisms currently in

place. Despite the overt acknowledgement from all parties that this is a 30

protected sensitive marine environment we are still entertaining this

proposal.

I put it to the Committee that if this situation were to be replicated on

land where people could see it, where the public were aware of both the 35

definite and potential destruction, the unquestionably high risk

associated with the project, the public outcry would be formidable and

we would have not got this far in this process. This area is supposed to

be protected so let’s protect it.

40

I want to just comment on the question before about the movement of

the BPA because I understand that that is part of what CRP have

alluded to as part of their solution. If we move the area of that BPA it

still doesn’t make sense to me because this area in particular is where

the thickets of G. dumosa are most predominant on The Rise, which 45

means that’s the primary habitat for the life that is supported there

Page 1748


including some (INDISTINCT 2.26) species. It’s a rich part of the

productive total area on The Rise. The corals that live there support all

of that higher life in ways that we don’t understand on the broader

ecosystem. It is also, regardless of where the BPA is on The Rise,

remember it is 5,000 square kilometres. That’s an area the size of 5

Northland and all of the life and the higher food chain that that

supports. If that is permanently turned into a wasteland it doesn’t

matter where the BPA is, even if it is moved you still remove that

thicket of life and you are still creating a wasteland the size of

Northland. Do we want to do that? So it’s protected. 10

Protected species under the Wildlife Act it is similarly well understood

that the cold water coral Goniocorella dumosa or G. dumosa is listed as

a protected coral in the Wildlife Act 1953 schedule 7A. This is

particularly important as it is also acknowledged that G. dumosa is 15

abundant in the area due to the presence of phosphorite nodules. Not as

abundant anywhere else on The Rise nor in New Zealand waters,

probably responsible for some of the unique and endemic biodiversity

on The Rise as it creates an important habitat for the rest of the benthic

life. It takes hundreds of years to grow to full size - not decades, 20

hundreds and would be absolutely destroyed in all areas mined and

perhaps in areas close to the mine site from the sediment plume.

Further, this destruction will be irreversible, there is no known

mitigation available for recolonisation. I see CRP have made an 25

application to DOC for an authorisation to kill these corals. DOC point

out that “It is an offence to kill wildlife that is protected under the Act

without an authorisation from the Director-General of Conservation”.

That it can grant or decline the application, that it will seek scientific

advice and that there is no statutory timeframe to make this decision as 30

per section 44 of your documentation from the Department of

Conservation.

The process to date has shown that with respect to the protected corals

the scientific advice is certain, this dredging will kill these coral 35

thickets, have a morbid impact on all species that rely on the habitat

they provide and that this morbidity will be permanent and irreversible.

Further, that these corals are most prevalent in the mining areas in

question.

40

[10.00 am]

Despite this overt acknowledgement from all parties, still we are

entertaining this proposal. I put it to the Committee, that if this situation

were to be replicated on land, with any more visible protected species 45

Page 1749


and the life that was dependent on the habitat provided by that species,

we would not have got this far in the process.

This coral is supposed to be protected, so let us protect it. The Wildlife

Act is internationally recognised and the DMC must take into account 5

both the EEZ legislation and the internationally recognised Wildlife

Act, which is a high hurdle.

Respect for New Zealand values. As I have been watching events

unfold on the EPA website and in the media I have developed an 10

unshakeable sense that the applicant has a disregard for accepted

practice in this country that is disrespectful to New Zealand cultural

norms. Right from the start, with the submission of the application so

close on the heels on the Trans-Tasman Resources case, CRP chose to

lodge their application even though it was lacking in information and 15

robust data.

There has since been over a hundred information requests to CRP for

further information and data. Leading in to and throughout the hearing

process CRP’s witnesses and representatives who were supposed to be 20

at the hearing and meet deadlines sometimes failed to meet these

deadlines, meaning that inadequate time was practically available for

others. This has made it extremely difficult for submitters to read,

digest, comment on, and prepare for this hearing.

25

This is a democracy and we are accustomed in New Zealand, in our

young history, to being able to debate matters of such import. This way

that this is playing out is a breach of our natural justice and our ability

to participate and to present a solid response. The partnering with a

global corporate giant, Boskalis, enabled CRP to bring this foreign 30

company in as a major shareholder in their business, thus securing both

their evidential and financial support.

The continual capital raising has enabled the applicant to buy as much

opinion as possible to tip the scales in their favour. Boskalis has no 35

direct experience of the way we do things in New Zealand: the

importance we place on the Treaty of Waitangi; the concept of tangata

whenua, who regard water as treasure; the interconnectedness and

stewardship New Zealanders feel for our land, our water, and the

animals that live there, amongst many other cultural concerns. 40

Boskalis may not be expected to understand this, as they are foreigners,

but the New Zealand based CRP people should. This lack of respect is

evident in the scant regard the applicant has shown for the care of our

environment. The apparent efforts at mitigating the serious 45

environmental impact seem to me to be shallow, like trialling the

Page 1750


dumping of some other, unidentified hard substrate onto the seafloor as

a feeble experiment to recolonise the mined areas.

CRP compares the dredging and removal of the entire seafloor to,

quote, “a large vacuum cleaner on the end of a hose”, unquote, and 5

publically state that, quote, “impacts on the seabed would be far less

than those fishing trawlers regularly inflict”, unquote. This is deflecting

from the fact that CRP proposes to use a giant machine to dig up the

entire seabed and spit out the plume. It is belittling the impact of the

mining process and dodges their environmental responsibilities. This 10

without any proper consideration of the cumulative effects of mining

on top of existing fishing practices.

Committee, this is not care for our environment. This is a blatant and

arrogant lack of respect for the values that we hold in this country. The 15

applicant’s aggressive request to withdraw the initial EPA Staff Report,

including a personal attack on a staff member, qualifies as bullying

behaviour.

Further, the EPA has forced via the DMC, at CRP’s bullish request, to 20

not include a conclusion or recommendation in the supplementary EPA

Staff Report released last week. I defined bullying in a corporate

environment, Committee, and that, that behaviour definitely fits in the

definition.

25

I am shocked to see this undermining of accepted practice in New

Zealand. This type of behaviour empowers our government agencies

from, disempowers our government agencies from doing their job.

Large corporates might get away with this elsewhere in the world but if

you are coming to do business in New Zealand please bring respect for 30

our small but proud nation with you.

[10.05 am]

This is, quite frankly, unacceptable practice here. With very little 35

investment in environmental impacts, this applicant is only focused on

their profit. These disrespectful tactics show no regard for New

Zealand values and deflect attention away from the serious

environmental risks.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Penn, can I just for a second, it gives you a break

anyway, but just to make a comment for the record: CRP did make a

request that the supplementary Staff Report not include

recommendations or conclusions. Our Committee looked at the issue

and we decided, of our own volition and for our own reasons, that it 45

was not appropriate for the supplementary report to contain conclusions

Page 1751


or overall recommendations. I did see a media release which

misrepresented our position on that but I do want to assure you that we

were not pressured or forced in anyway. Just for the record.

MS PENN: Thank you. Thank you chairmen, I appreciate that that 5

clarification. The way it looks, without understanding your internal

processes, is that that recommendation came from the company, not

from the esteemed Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the recommendation or request did come from the 10

company but the decision was certainly the Committee’s own decision,

and not taken under duress.

MS PENN: Good, thank you. That is a relief. Incomplete economics. The

economics in this case are incomplete, highly questionable, skewed, 15

and account for only part of the total economic picture. If the stated

input via royalties and taxes will really, and I think optimistically, be

24 million dollars a year; note first that this amount is miniscule in

terms of the total New Zealand budget of 72.5 billion, there is an

attachment that you have with that amount in it. The input to our total 20

New Zealand revenue would be, only, 0.33 percent.

Potential jobs insinuated but not named nor quantified are not a

panacea to local economies compared to the widespread destruction,

therefore they are not a reality. There is no definition of that anywhere. 25

The stated royalties and taxes, even if they pan out in an economic

environment of apparent decreasing global prices, will not make any

noticeable difference to us living here in New Zealand.

Missing from the discussion on economics however, is: the impact of 30

this mining on the billion dollar natural capital value of the Chatham

Rise environment; the impact on existing New Zealand industries,

primarily commercial fishing and ocean-based tourism; and the impact

of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. There were some

questions about that yesterday, I am not sure how familiar, there is a 35

handout if you want to understand what I am referring to in that regard.

What this does, this is pending this new contract, that this does is opens

up the potential for a global corporate, such as a silent US investor,

such as I understand is here in this case, to sue the New Zealand 40

government for loss of value in an investment dispute in a situation

where the EPA or the New Zealand government try to stop this mining,

or impose new conditions that impact company profit. This is very real

and imminent and there are examples currently alive in overseas

environments where this happening. To Germany, and to Canada, and 45

to Brazil, those governments are being sued.

Page 1752


These are serious economic oversights and if included in the economic

modelling it would be abundantly clear that the economic benefit to

New Zealand, in fact, opens up the New Zealand taxpayer to a gaping

vulnerability. This project has the potential to cost us millions. 5

Consideration of conditions. In the reading of documents, especially

latterly the joint witness statements, EPA Staff Reports and DMC

requests for consideration of parameters for mitigating conditions,

around triggers and smart performance measures. It strikes me that all 10

these attempts to define conditions for which adaptive management

may be entertained is nonsense. These attempts are so impractical in

this case.

[10.10 am] 15

It is hard enough attempting to define these parameters for a land based

mine but this one is hundreds of kilometres out to sea. More

importantly, the repeated acknowledgement that there are significant

gaps in baseline data makes this entire discussion flawed. If there are 20

major gaps in the baseline data and a lack of understanding about the

potential effects how are we supposed to measure the impact?

I put it to the Committee for consideration that setting adequate smart

monitoring data is not possible in this circumstance. The scientists 25

don’t have enough information about the communities in the areas

surrounding the mine sites to be able to predict the impact on these

communities, nor the broader ecosystems on the Chatham Rise.

Experts don’t have information on the trace metals and sediments

outside the mining permit area. The ambient oxygen levels in the area 30

are not certain. Nor they know what impact of depositing organic

carbon on the sea floor will be on oxygen availability. And importantly

the addition of nutrients from the organic matter will alter the marine

environment and transfer of energy through the food web with actually

unknown results. 35

The extent of the biodiversity on The Rise is unknown. We don’t know

how many unidentified species there are. We don’t know the trophic

impact on the more poorly known fish and benthic groups. We don’t

know if a key species spawns in or close to the mining area. So 40

impacts on biodiversity and actual impacts on fisheries catch in the

short, medium and longterm cannot be properly predicted nor

monitored.

There is clearly a lack of knowledge regarding how many mammals 45

feed on the Chatham Rise and how frequently, and what the trophic

Page 1753


impact will be on these mammals. There seems to be a lack of expert

agreement regarding the makeup, extent and impact of the sediment

plume. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding what

levels of toxicity are acceptable and what quantities of uranium will

result in the marine and land based food supply, and it can’t be assessed 5

how this will impact on New Zealand’s ability to sustain its industry.

It is not even certain that Boskalis will be doing the mining. It could be

a subcontractor. It’s definitely not known how much pollution will

result from the mining activity cumulative over time. The issues of 10

mining, of missing baseline data are significant for trying to establish

condition triggers and smart data. Without reliable baseline data it does

not make sense to try to articulate consent conditions in many critical

areas.

15

Lessons from Pike River. I understand that several of you sit on

directorships and have probably read and probably are familiar with the

Commissioner’s report from Pike River. You probably as part of the

Institute directors have read that and are familiar with it. I’d like to

refer to it. 20

Pike River mine had serious but unknown and unquantified risks. The

failings in that tragic case have led to a total overhaul of our health and

safety legislation. The health and safety reform bill will become

effective in April 2015 with some important changes in it. Some of the 25

lessons from Pike River and what is emerging in this case need to be

considered here.

The Pike River CEO was focussed on meeting productivity targets and

it’s all over the references in the Royal Commission’s report. There’s a 30

reference here to a matter of direction, quote “the Royal Commission

made particular reference to a culture of production at Pike River

where financial objectives were given pre-eminence over health and

safety considerations”. The analogy here is very clearly that financial –

a culture of productivity and profits and the very real need for CRP to 35

show its shareholders a return on their investment will drive a culture in

CRP and Boskalis operations.

That is akin to a culture of production and money over other issues.

And this profit production focussed and despite an onsite observer who 40

was their safety manager who was onsite at Pike River the

government’s team, that board, did not know that methane levels and

safety systems were in such a high-risk state. They had good quality

safety documentation on paper, Committee. It looked okay.

45

Page 1754


Management allowed operations to continue whilst awaiting

information from technical experts despite the reports that were there

that were highlighting it. After the disaster happened the chairman of

the board was questioned. His defence in short was that he was not

aware of the true risks at the mine ie he didn’t know was his legal 5

defence.

[10.15 am]

The information that was critical that showed those reports from the 10

couple of reports that had been in previous 12 months that information

did not get to that chairman. That analogy here is alive. The result of

this mining disaster in New Zealand is the pending health and safety

law change. No longer will it be acceptable for a person or persons in a

senior oversight role to avoid health and safety accountability simply 15

because they did not know.

The penalties will be severe, up to and including manslaughter charges.

The families of the 29 miners that were lost are adamant that we should

take these lessons into our current business practices. I personally 20

listened to the QC report after that was done. I personally listened to

Bernie Monk plead that we take as a business community the lessons

from those 29 miners lost into our business practices.

Note that this applicant, CRP Boskalis, whoever is accountable here for 25

the environmental note that these applicants assurance of good safety

and environmental processes, I heard them say that in the transcripts.

In particular note the response of Boskalis senior management, Dr

Steenbrink, when questioned during this hearing process on the

company’s recent environmental performance ie failure, “I am not 30

aware of that”. It just struck red flags for me.

If this executive is not aware of the Boskalis environmental failures at

the moment I ask the DMC to consider how well are they placed, that

management team, to provide assurances of environmental safety in a 35

project that has never been conducted at these depths before?

In the CRP case the people who may be held accountable for

monitoring any consent conditions can’t see the operation because it’s

so far out to sea. The levels of uranium and other radio nuclides in the 40

water column are uncertain. The potential for workers, and I’m talking

at sea on the ship and at land – if this comes into LPC this rock and it’s

got some kind of radioactivity potential. What about the workers at our

ports?

45

Page 1755


The potential there for them to be exposed to some radiation is present.

The effects on human health are uncertain. That raises red flags for

me. I’ve managed health and safety across a workforce. I would not

let that happen. This introduces a potentially high risk. I have a

question because I understand from the documents that Maritime 5

New Zealand are taking accountability for the health and safety matters

around this particular project.

And I ask you if Maritime New Zealand are responsible for the health

and safety of the workers both at sea and in the ports how will that 10

work? How will they know? And it’s not – the new legislation the

health and safety reform bill that’s coming clearly redefines workers to

include contractors. So regardless of whether or not those people on

the boat are New Zealand employees or contractors or subcontractors

somebody at the top of that chain with the primary duty of care takes 15

accountability for their health. Who is that person?

Uncertainty. There is so much we don’t know in relation to this marine

environment and the impact of the mining operation proposed. I know

the DMC is well aware of the stated uncertainties including the fact that 20

this type of mining hasn’t been done at these depths before. So in the

interests of time please see the summary of joint witnesses’

uncertainties appendix 1. That was me trying to get my head around

the uncertainties. That is 11 and a half pages of uncertainty.

Summarised in a nice easy to read format for you. 25

What is critical is that the experts agree that there is considerable

uncertainty surrounding the environmental safety of this project,

especially in relation to the benthic ecology, trace metal concentrations

in sediment in the water column, the levels of uranium in the water 30

column and radiological risk, oxygen concentrations, effective noise

and trophic impacts to marine mammals, validity of the settlement

plume model, whether the Chatham petrel will survive, the impact on

commercial fisheries, ecosystem and food source impacts across the

entire Chatham Rise, the unlikely ability of mining and commercial 35

fisheries to coexist, the unworkably of attempts to monitor the damage,

the effects on human health.

[10.20 am]

40

The joint expert statement on trophic dynamics concludes that the

direct and indirect effects of mining on groups through habitat

modification might affect the overall Chatham Rise food web, and

therefore the impact to the entire Chatham Rise productivity is

unknown. These are big problems. 45

Page 1756


The broad range and number of uncertainties in knowledge gaps make

this application effectively a live and irreversible experiment in New

Zealand waters. It will result in a definite but unquantifiable scale of

pollution.

5

As a layperson my common sense conclusions. It does not make sense

to undertake this project. The relatively small economic gain to the

New Zealand economy per year is a drop in the bucket of the national

budget. It is not a silver bullet to our economic challenges. It will not

get New Zealand out of debt. It exposes us to considerable future 10

economic costs. It will put at serious risk a significant chunk of our

most valuable and productive fishing grounds, a critical national food

resource, an existing important economic earner, and our reputation as

a clean provider of food to the world.

15

It puts at risk rare and endemic, and as yet undiscovered unique life

found nowhere else on the planet. It threatens our country’s

biodiversity that we are supposed to be protecting.

It risks the very livelihoods of Chatham Islanders, and ocean-based 20

tourism industries like Kaikoura Whale Watch. It will decimate a

plethora of marine life, just the first victims here.

This application presents an unacceptable risk to the wellbeing of

future generations of New Zealanders. The risk assessment in the EPA 25

staff report, page 119, shows six extreme and 27 uncertain risks, most

of which still to date have not been adequately explained. This makes

the consequences on that analysis catastrophic.

As you know, the management of risk with a risk assessment like this 30

produced if you were running a company, what risk management plan

would you put in place to make sure that these risks were addressed?

Personally I would not press go on that project with that kind of data.

The risks clearly far outweigh the benefits. Common sense dictates 35

that on balance approval of this application would be a mistake.

Accountability and decision making. If the DMC grants this consent,

making the EPA responsible for monitoring the project, the public

don’t get to see how it’s going, so New Zealanders will not know that it 40

is going wrong until it’s much too late. Respectfully, I ask the DMC

who will be held accountable for the impact of this mining mistake in

years to come? Who are we going to take to Court for the loss of the

Chatham Rise fishing grounds?

45

Page 1757


Like Pike River, like Christchurch in the earthquake aftermath, if it

goes wrong the hunt for the person or persons actually accountable will

begin. Will Boskalis senior management or the CRP managing director

be able to be held fully accountable under the law? Is that even

possible? Already Boskalis is ducking that question. 5

In making the decision, it is clear that CRP have failed to provide

adequate baseline information. If it’s too expensive to get this

information then we are not in a position to commence deep sea

mining. Starting and then monitoring the impacts is an extremely 10

flawed methodology, it is an experiment. Boskalis would love that

experiment here because they can sell it worldwide.

The consequences are unknown, it is much too uncertain. I submit that

common sense and on balance expert sense align here to agree, the 15

short term financial gain is not worth the considerable immediate

devastation and the extreme ongoing risk to our environment. The

companies who profit will walk away and we have this trashed marine

environment, is that what we want?

20

[10.25 am]

Whoever is held accountable in the future, today, here in this room, we

are all responsible. What story do you want to tell your grandchildren

about this decision? About why there are dead zones and why there is 25

so much pollution in our ocean, about why we didn’t stop it?

We do have an opportunity to stop it. The DMC has the power to. You,

and only you. A handful of learned citizens charged with an enormous

responsibility to balance the evidence and the good of our future. 30

As an ordinary citizen without any power I urge you, I implore you to

recognise this application for what it is, it’s incomplete, it’s extremely

risky, it’s uncertain, it’s flawed, it’s selfish. It’s not in our nation’s

long-term interests. 35

I have no other motive here other than a heartfelt desire to do the right

thing for my country, for this land and this water that I love, for the

generations of New Zealander’s still to come. Look into the future,

recognise the gravity of this decision. Understand our collective role in 40

the protection of our country, protect our unique asset, our precious

environment that sustains us all. Please do the right thing, decline this

application in full.

Thank you for listening. 45

Page 1758


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Penn, for a very comprehensive,

very clear and very powerfully expressed submission. I don’t have any

particular question myself, Lennie do you?

DR CRAUFORD: I don’t have any questions but I do want to assure you that 5

we will be considering all of the submissions and we will be exercising

our independent minds to this.

MS PENN: Thank you.

10

DR RYDER: I have got one question under your point nine on accountability,

and in your first paragraph, I’m not quite sure I understand the

emphasis I should be taking out of that, but you’ve got there if the

DMC grants this consent, making the EPA responsible for monitoring

the project, the public don’t get to see how it’s going. 15

MS PENN: How it’s going, yes.

DR RYDER: Okay, I’m just wondering if you can elaborate on that?

20

MS PENN: Yes, I struggled really hard – because I understand, coming from

business, accountability really matters and I’ve asked lots of questions

from people “who’s accountable here, where does the buck stop”, and

my understanding, I might be wrong, my understanding that the EPA

would be responsible for monitoring any consent conditions and that 25

once that happens then that data goes offline, so it’s not available on an

EPA website, the public wouldn’t be able to see how many breaches of

conditions, for example, there were with that data. I haven’t even talked

about the behavioural side of the safety stuff that I know about when a

company is driven by a culture of production. Good managers and 30

workers will hide data because of the consequences personally to them,

so this issue of the information getting to where it needs to go, I know

from experience, is a very real one.

So what I mean by that, is that the public will be totally divorced from 35

any knowledge of that, but what worries me more is that the EPA or

whoever is monitoring it, might be divorced from that information.

Does that answer the question?

DR RYDER: The EPA are monitoring it but might be divorced from it, I 40

don’t quite understand what you just said.

MS PENN: What I mean is Pike River teaches us that good managers and

good workers will not report data, so think about this case and what

could happen here, it’s the middle of the night, a bird flies into a 45

greenlight, “right, nobodies watching, toss it over the side”, “oh, that

Page 1759


bump”, if there’s an observer on board, “oh, that was a bump, no, that’s

just the nature of the waves out here, no, don’t worry about it”,

something got killed, got hit, “oh, yes, never mind, we’ll just”, “oh, that

report, nah, that might be a bit damaging, will that affect my job, right,

I’m just going to not report that”. 5

[10.30 am]

It’s a very real possibility, I know it happens because I’ve worked with

men in industry for a lot of years and how they’re driven is in this kind 10

of culture, where profit and finance mean everything, unless you do

something that makes it okay for them to report, then they won’t.

DR RYDER: Okay. I understand what you’re getting at now, thanks.

15

MR HILL: The questions you are raising are questions that we are obviously

raising as well, we may come to different conclusion, we might come

to the same conclusions, but you can certainly be assured, as Nicki said

earlier, that we’re taking these issues seriously.

20

MS PENN: Good, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Johns?

MR JOHNS: Yes, thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for your 25

presentation.

I am just referring to your appendix 1, the list of expert witness

uncertainties. I don’t suppose this is a – this is not a copy of the recent

expert joint statement? 30

MS PENN: Yes.

MR JOHNS: You haven’t added anything to it?

35

MS PENN: I promise I haven’t doctored it at all.

MR JOHNS: Okay.

MS PENN: What I did was I cut and pasted it to try and get my own head 40

around it, it’s verbatim from the joint witness statements.

MR JOHNS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for making it digestible to us. Okay, thanks very 45

much, Ms Penn.

Page 1760


MS PENN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that we

have one further submitter speeding towards Hamilton at the moment 5

from the Far North. My suggestion is that we take a break for coffee

early in the hope that she might be here by then. So let’s adjourn for

15 minutes and we’ll keep in touch as to how things are going at that

point. Thank you.

10

ADJOURNED [10.32 am]

RESUMED [11.42 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Ms Rose, I think will have the honour of being our 15

last presenter here, and I now give her the floor.

MS ROSE: Thank you very much, kia ora tatou.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak to my submission opposing the 20

Chatham Rock Phosphate application. Sorry to have kept you waiting

and for any delay or loose ends that you had while you were waiting for

me to arrive.

I am Christine Rose, as you know, I’m a dolphin campaigner for over 25

15 years. I have a BA with first class Honours in political studies and

philosophy and environmental management qualifications. I also have

15 years’ experience in local and regional government. I’ve been a

qualified resource consent commissioner, deputy mayor of Rodney

District Council, deputy chair of the Auckland Regional Council, and I 30

have had 15 years’ experience in resource and coastal management.

I am not a scientist, but I am academically trained. I keep abreast of

science and take a science based approach to marine mammal

conservation. 35

These days one of my roles is as a marine mammal advocate, I run

workshops and forum regarding marine conservation and support

community conservation efforts, write submissions and keep up with

science, including abundance and threats to marine mammals that share 40

our waters.

I also support various online avenues for dissemination of information

relating to marine mammal conservation, including Facebook pages

and websites. As such, I know that there is significant interest and 45

concern about our resident and migratory marine mammals, that’s

Page 1761


reflected in my submission and in general opposition to activities that

may impact upon cetaceans, such as the Chatham Rock Phosphate

application.

My opposition is based on cultural and environmental grounds. 5

Cultural because of the importance of the marine environment and

cetaceans to the public, and environmental on the grounds which I will

move onto now.

Environmental concerns relate to both direct and indirect mining 10

effects. These impacts can be both behavioural and physiological and

direct impacts include noise and shock from seismic testing.

[11.45 am]

15

We know that seismic testing has been implicated in the premature and

painful deaths of cetaceans around the world. Even where seismic

testing doesn’t cause direct mortality, it can lead to reduced individual

and species health, including adverse effects from altered behaviours

affecting not just foraging, but also pod behaviour and cohesion, 20

negative effects on pod communication, reproductive impacts and

changes to spatial distribution and habitat use.

Other impacts can include avoidance of important traditional foraging

areas for whales and dolphins, habitat and prey species displacement, 25

and benthic impacts such as increased turbidity and sediment, both

within the water column and upon sediment settlement.

Concerns also include pollution from disturbance of a seabed during

mineral extraction, which runs the risk of distributing potentially 30

harmful elements such as polonium back into the environment. There is

a significant concern that these effects are multiplicative to an extent

that our whales and dolphins can’t sustain. So the threats are overlaid

and affect the viability of these populations.

35

The proposed observer regime provides no security against threats to

cetaceans. Relying on observers doesn’t provide the certainty required

to avoid or mitigate risks of seismic testing and other mineral activities

on whales and dolphins.

40

Whales and dolphins, especially cryptic species, can spend a significant

part of their time below the surface beyond the gaze of observers. The

ability of observers to spot and respond to marine mammal presence is

limited and no way corresponds with the extent of impacts.

45

Page 1762


Seismic blasts, in particular, travel further than the human eye can see

even in ideal conditions, meaning the tests for risks to marine mammals

based on their perceived presence doesn’t go far enough.

In order to protect resident and migratory whales and dolphins and the 5

habitat they live in, we seek that the application be declined.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you’ve travelled a long way for a 10

very succinct statement, but it is much appreciated, particularly with

your experience of resource management and local government.

MS ROSE: Thank you.

15

CHAIRPERSON: David, do you have questions?

MR HILL: Ms Rose, nice to see you again.

MS ROSE: Nice to see you. 20

MR HILL: The issue of seismic blasts, why are you bringing that to our

attention? What do you see that, in terms of the application, how do

you see seismic blasts being related to that?

25

MS ROSE: In terms of mapping the seafloor, testing geomorphology

densities, so I understand that seismic testing is precursor to many of

these activities, but as such, it is quite significant and the cumulative

effects of seismic testing on top of more active mining processes – I

think it is important that you look at it as a whole picture, and so we 30

probably know a bit more about seismic testing than we do, although

there’s plenty of modelling about sediment and impacts of habitat

displacement and those sort of things, but I think when you’re looking

at an application – because these effects are multiplicative and they

overlay each other, it’s important to look at the whole range of 35

activities that can impact on these little creatures.

MR HILL: So if seismic surveying was required, if it was part of the

requirement, is there anything you can advise us as to sort of – I guess

precursor or precautionary measures to be taken to, if you like, to alert 40

species in the danger zone about that?

MS ROSE: I think looking at the voluntary code of conduct for seismic

testing and reports that have been commissioned, not specifically for

the cetaceans that are in this habitat, but I’m thinking about some work 45

that the University of Auckland did for DOC into the impacts of

Page 1763


seismic testing on Maui dolphins, which are obviously not in this area,

but those impacts are similar across cetacean species and so with the

Maui dolphin case, for example, the research advised that the threats

were significant and untenable, and there have been a lot of questions

raised in the science about the ability of observers, even the best 5

intentioned observers to identify the presence of whales and dolphins

given that they’re a marine dolphin and that we’re mainly looking at

the surface, so that there are clear limits to that, and given – I mean I’ve

spent a lot of my time watching whales and dolphins with considerable

success both here and overseas, and, in fact, you need ideal conditions 10

to see whales and dolphins.

[11.50 am]

And so if, you know, the evidence shows that if you are carrying out 15

seismic testing, you know, relying on observers on top of a boat has

real limits and that gets to the heart of our concerns about those

impacts, that we know seismic impacts go much further than the ability

of the human eye to be able to detect the presence of whales and

dolphins. And even if they don’t see them, it doesn’t mean that they are 20

not there. And given the very low numbers of many of our whales and

dolphins inhabiting, even on a seasonal basis, our marine environment,

those risks are too great to bear.

MR HILL: Okay, thank you. 25

DR CRAUFORD: Did you get an opportunity to look at the evidence from

the experts on this? Because we heard from a large number of experts

on marine mammals, seven of them I think, very eminent people. Did

you get a chance to look at that? 30

MS ROSE: I did, yes.

DR CRAUFORD: And their joint witness statement?

35

MS ROSE: Yes.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, so are you pretty much in agreement with what they

said?

40

MS ROSE: I noted that there were concerns expressed by some of the

scientists and I have had followup conversations with Dr Liz Slooten,

for example, and I have read, you know, not being a marine mammal

scientist myself but more a political scientist, you know, I have been

able to digest the information and I do keep abreast with it. And so I 45

did read that information and noted that there were some residual

Page 1764


concerns and, while there was some agreement about the minimal risk

of threats from things such as boat strike that there was not consensus

on other elements of the threats to the whales and dolphins in the area.

DR CRAUFORD: But you would agree with them, the biggest issue is 5

potentially noise?

MS ROSE: Yes, and so that is a significant risk and does have impacts on,

again, all those things about habitat, occupation, reproductive success,

foraging, prey species, so I certainly wouldn’t argue with the scientists 10

but I do acknowledge that there isn’t always agreement on the scale of

those effects.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, thank you very much.

15

MS V VAN DER VOORDEN: I am sorry if I spill my ignorance over but we

are talking about seismic testing and sonar effects but one of the things

I haven’t really understood in the process and I would like to ask the

question of you, is that this machine that is going to blast the seabed to

suck up the nodules is actually going to have the effect of blasting and 20

sending ripple and wave, and have a wave effect on the, you know,

ocean. And so, would you expect that blasting effect to also have a

sonic ripple effect on, you know, you can’t really call it noise, but it has

got a wave effect of a blasting, you know like soldiers in a war get hit

by the blast, so it does have a ripple effect into and through the wave, 25

the water. So my question to you is, in a long way round, would that be

expected to also have effect on the acoustics and receptors of the

marine mammal species? Thank you.

MS ROSE: Thanks for allowing me to answer that question. I think the 30

concern that we have about seismic testing, and this is widespread

across the public community, and it may well be a perception but it is

certainly present in the science as well, that those impacts, so the

seismic testing blast, the physical impact of that but also any sort of

loud marine acoustic pulses or blasts, they certainly have been 35

implicated in cetacean deaths and behavioral impacts elsewhere

overseas.

[11.55 am]

40

So, I think, you know, when I talk about seismic testing, you know, we

have talked about noise, they are a package so a range of activities that

do release significant impulses in the marine environment that do affect

– we know how the cetacean brains operate and orientation based on

pretty sensitive parts of the brain and so those concerns are all wrapped 45

up in a package and implicated, and have been proven to be implicated,

Page 1765


in strandings and random deaths at sea even in New Zealand and

elsewhere. So they are a package of impacts that we’re concerned

about.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks. And I’ll just add as a footnote as Nicki 5

suggested, there’s a wealth of information. One thing this application

has done has been to flush out expertise around the world on marine

mammals and the effects of sound particles and noise. Thank you.

Can I just check? There is no other of the possibilities has appeared so 10

– yes, perhaps make this one last question. It’s slightly departing from

the good book.

MR ……….: I respect the fact that there has been a great deal of evidence

provided about noise and its impact on cetaceans. I note that CRP’s 15

chief expert, Dr Ketten, is also an adviser to the US Military and I’m

wondering if that compromises her scientific insights because they’re

not famous for their sensitivity to collateral damage.

CHAIRPERSON: I would take that as a rhetorical question and perhaps we’ll 20

leave it to hang there. Okay so that brings us to the conclusion of the

Hamilton session of the hearing. It’s been both an interesting and a

very useful session for our Committee.

We’ve been reminded of the challenges faced by individuals and by 25

voluntary organisations in participating in this kind of exercise and

we’ll certainly be registering that point back in Wellington.

As I said in my opening statement public participation is a very key

element in environmental decision-making and we want to encourage 30

that. We’ve also listened carefully to the views and the concerns

expressed by submitters here and we’ll stay mindful of them as we

proceed with the rest of our hearing and move into decision-making

mode.

35

On behalf of the Committee I want to express our sincere thanks, first

to our support team both local and imported for keeping things running

so smoothly despite the variabilities and people’s availability and so

on. Second to CRP for coming here, for providing that overview of the

project and for listening with great patience and courtesy as they heard 40

a number of representations, not all of which would have been music to

your ears, but it’s great that you were here for this session. And third

to all of you who have made submissions and representations. It does

take time and it takes effort and I know it’s not easy for you, but

certainly it’s valuable for the Committee and it has added value to the 45

Page 1766


information that we’ve been able to get in Wellington from around

New Zealand and also around the world.

So we now have a further week of hearing in Wellington followed by a

session in the Chatham Islands and then a final week and a half in 5

Wellington, and on current scheduling our decision will be issued in or

around the third week of December.

So with a reiteration of our appreciation to all of you I would ask

Lennie Johns to bring the proceedings to a formal close. Lennie. 10

MR JOHNS: We began with a prayer so I guess it’s appropriate to conclude

with a prayer. But I phoned the local kaumatua that were here

yesterday and reminded them that my grandchildren are Ngāti

Mahanga so I’ve got a right to stand up and conclude their prayers for 15

them. So if you’d like to stand please.

Te inoi tātou, let us pray. [Māori Content].

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 12.01 PM UNTIL 20

MONDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2014

Documents

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ......TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY HEARING Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited Marine Consent Application HEARING