There is no evidence the Environmental Protection Authority lacked information when it approved mining off the south Taranaki coast, the High Court has been told.
Taranaki coast Photo: 123RF
Trans Tasman Resources began its submission today in the appeal against its 35-year consent.
Groups opposed to the consent say the EPA did not gather the best available information, and could have asked for more before it made a decision.
The company's lawyer Justin Smith QC said this was not the case.
"There is no real basis for a contention that the information already wasn't enough. It's not a question of whether you can run off and get more - you can always get more."
In a split decision by the EPA in August last year, the company was given approval to mine a 66 square kilometre area off the South Taranaki coast for iron ore.
It would dig up to 50 million tonnes of ironsand from the ocean floor each year, extract five million tonnes of iron ore, and dump the sediment residue back on the bottom of the sea.
Eleven groups are opposed to the plan, and an appeal on the decision is being heard this week.
The groups said the sediment could harm the environment and species - such as Maui's dolphin.
But Mr Smith said the sediment dumped would be minimal and no more than what was stirred up in the area during periods of heavy rain.
He said there was little evidence to show marine mammals frequented the area.
"The nearest sighting of mammals, including blue whales is... 14 kilometres south-west of the mining site."
Greenpeace and KASM
This morning Greenpeace and Kiwi's Against Seabed Mining (KASM) said the deciding vote should have erred on the side of caution, and by not doing so was inconsistent with the law.
Approval was given after its committee of four was split and a second deciding vote was cast by the chair.
The two committee members who voted against consent had concerns around a lack of information.
Lawyer, Davey Salmon, said section 61 of the Environmental Effects Act, under which the EPA was working to, says if information in uncertain or inadequate, caution and environmental protection must be favoured.
"The chairperson is not exercising a power to double his or her vote, the chair is exercising an independent voting right," he said.
"Once there was a two-all vote and because the issues causing the divide were ones of information availability and environmental protection, the chairperson was required, as a matter of law, to vote against the proposal."
Mr Salmon said the significance of the appeal was obvious.
"Indeed it's quite extraordinary to have both fishing interests and Greenpeace on the same side of the court for the first time that I'm aware of - it reflects the real significance of these issues to a huge suite of parties."
Previously, the court was told the decision to approve consent was a world-first.
