DMC Chair
EPA of New Zealand Wellington, New Zealand
Dear Sir,
by e-mail 7 September 2014
PRESENTATION BY SWAKOPMUND MATTERS (Namibia)
to the DECISION MAKING COMMITTEE regarding CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE's Memorandum requesting that the DMC order the EPA's staff report to be withdrawn and that the DMC record that
it will have no regard to the EPA staff report in its deliberations as documented in Minute 12 1. For CRP to scream blue murder about the staff report and even goes to the extreme in requesting its withdrawal and expecting the DMC to pay no regard to it is beyond comprehension. In our opinion it is most disingenuous.
2. In our view the Report was compiled with integrity and without fear or favour.
3. Its release was bona fide.
4. The EPA has every right to have a working document prepared by its staff and place it at the disposal of the DMC. Surely this is not the first time it has been done.
5. Had the report been kept secret the applicant would have made a bigger song and dance about that and concocted some sinister plot. Then he could have called for the disbanding of the DMC as such.
6. CRP does not place too much faith in its own case if It Is worried about observations in the staff report.
CRP has the fullest right and the means at its disposal to counter whatever it finds Incorrect in the staff report - either in documentation to the DMC or in evidence.
7. Curious that the applicant in his statement of evidence before the DMC on 29 August 2014 did not refer to the staff report which was released a full ten days earlier.
1
1
8. The release of a staff report based on Austrian explorer and producer OMV's application for an exploration drilling programme has not caused any outcry! Why only in the case of CRP.
9. The remarks, objections and request by CRP must be rejected in our opinion. If not a regrettable preeedent will be established for future staff reports, applicants' behaviour and the undermining of the authority of the EPA and that of future DMC's.
Thank you,
Swakopmund Matters
(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)
2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Minute 12 as per below. My responses are:
1. CRP request that EPA staff report be withdrawn
I agree with the DMC response to this request from CRP. Further, I find it an unreasonable and aggressive tactic from the applicant.
The EPA staff report was completed in good faith based on the evidence available, and it is totally irrelevant if a staff member has once signed a petition on a different environmental matter.
The applicant strategy to pressure the EPA in this manner speaks volumes about both the company character and ethics, and I urge the DMC to remain firm in the face of this underhand tactic.
2. Closing Representations
Please can you allow for legal closing argument by submitters. I make this request in the interests of a fair and transparent process that will assist to provide the best available information for the DMC.
It is not OK to hear closing argument just from the applicant- a balanced fair process must also include the closing argument from the main submitters.
Again-my sincere thanks for enabling submitters to comment.
Kind Regards, June Penn
SUBMISSION Number 109771
From: CRP Application [mailto:CRPApplication@epa.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 5 September 2014 5:07p.m.
To: June Penn
Subject: Further Information and Minute 12 REF:0409167 Dear Submitter
Further Information
On 2 September CRP provided further information request item 36 in response to the EPA's letter dated 9 June 2014. CRP has now responded to all of the requests for further information.
The further information can be viewed on the EPA website at-
http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham rock phosphate/the application/Pages/Further-information-from- CRP.aspx.
Minute 12
On 5 September 2014, the Decision Making Committee (DMC) issued Minute 12 in response to a
memorandum of counsel from CRP requesting that the DMC order the EPA's staff report to be withdrawn and that the DMC record that it will have no regard to the EPA staff report in its deliberations.
1
2
The DMC has formed a preliminary view on these matters, which is set out in paragraphs [3] to [10] in this Minute.
All
parties are invited to comment on the request made by CRP and the DMC's preliminary views before the DMC makes a final decision. Comments must be in writing and received by Spm on Tuesday 9 September 2014.The memorandum from CRP, a copy of a letter written by the EPA in relation to the issues raised by CRP and Minute 12 can be found on the EPA website at-
http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham rock phosphate/lodgement notification/DMC-Minutes- Directions/Pages/default.aspx
Minute 12 also states that the hearing procedures provide for closing representations by the applicant only.
However, the DMC will consider requests from parties wishing to make supplementary representations to respond to any new information presented at the hearing.
Yours sincerely
On behalf of Economic Exclusive Zone CRP Application Environmental Protection Authority
• Level 10 • 215 Lambton Quay • Private Bag 63002 • Wellington 6140 • New Zealand
• Tel: 0800 777728 From overseas : +64 27 466 4592 • Fax +64 4 914 0433
• www.epa.govt.nz
2
DMC Chair
Environmental Protection Authority Wellington, New Zealand
SUBMISSION 109876
RESPONSE TO DMC MINUTE 12
Clean Earth supports the rationale that the DMC has made in regards to CRP memo to strike out the staff report and agree that both the DMC and submitters would be disadvantaged if no regard could be had to the staff report.
The report identified serious shortcomings in the information provided by CRP up to that date. CRP has now provided 36 items of further information gaps that should have been part of the actual application when it was lodged.
We agree that a further supplementary report be provided by the EPA staff and consider it appropriate to allow submitters an opportunity to make further written comment rather than just ask questions. In that manner it would provide for a fair and transparent hearing process.
Moreover it is equally important for submitters to make further written comment if the staff report makes further changes to the draft conditions.
We consider that the staff report be given due weighting and that the appearance of the main author at the hearing is sufficient to answer any questions from the DMC.
We request that submitters be given the opportunity to provide supplementary Closing representations to respond to any new information presented at the hearing and more particularly those submitters that have provided opening submission by legal Counsel.
Naku noa, na Malibu Hamilton
