to work for the physical and spiritual wellbeing of the lands, waters and communities of the Thames Coast
|
|
|
|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
High Court rejects Watchdog appealThe High Court has rejected the appeal by Coromandel Watchdog and the Thames Coromandel District Council. The Judgment was delivered on the 2nd September 2005. Some responses have been published in the NZ Herald since. Coromandel Watchdog and the Thames Coromandel District Council joined forces to appeal an Environment Court decision on mining. The High Court in Auckland under Judge Simon France heard the appeal on 30th June. Watchdog was represented at the hearing by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. For Watchdog the appeal was a "landmark case of critical importance for the protection of areas of unique natural beauty and quality in Coromandel Peninsula, and throughout New Zealand" The appeal centred on the definition of the phrase "prohibited activity" in the Resource Management Act. The Council had declared in its District Plan that all mining is a prohibited activity throughout the Conservation and Coastal zones of the Thames Coromandel District, and Watchdog supported that stance. The Environment Court decision of July 2004 ruled that the prohibited activity status could not be applied unless it can be said that in no circumstances should mining ever be allowed. Watchdog and the Council contended that this interpretation was unduly narrow, restrictive, and wrong as a matter of law. If it were held to be correct it would make it near impossible to include prohibited activities in Plans for areas of special environmental quality. Such was never the intention of the Resource Management Act. Watchdog, which has fought for over 25 years to protect the Coromandel Peninsula from mining, was instrumental in achieving changes to mining laws that ban mining on conservation land north of the Kopu-Hikuai Road. Watchdog does not believe it can allow these hard fought controls to be sabotaged by the Environment Court decision or the high Court. Watchdog believes "The District Plan accurately reflects overwhelming public sentiment, by declaring mining a prohibited activity in the coastal and conservation zones." COROMANDEL MINING - letters Letter published NZ Herald 8-9-05
The High Court decision to reopen the Coromandel for mining in the Coastal and Conservation Zones has consequences far beyond the area. 52% of Coromandel ratepayers are absentee, by far the majority being Aucklanders. Over 750,000 New Zealanders holiday in the area annually. Most of the areas identified for mineral interests are in the steep forested catchments upstream from the coastal settlements. Flooding devastation is more severe in areas where the upstream forest cover has been degraded. Allowing mining will compromise these catchments. The scenario will get far worse under the National Party’s review of the Resource Management Act. Key reforms in National's RMA election policy include; scrapping legal aid for objectors, limiting objectors to people directly (not potentially) affected, enabling the Environment Court to require security for costs from an objector ($100 000s in the case of a mine). Once publicly notified, if a mining company bought
the acquiescence of the neighbours, a mine would go ahead with
no opportunity for affordable public input. All those who value the
natural beauty of the Coromandel should understand that this new
High Court ruling combined with National Party policy would mean
open slather for mining in the Coromandel Peninsula. Letter published NZ Herald 12-9-05 Excellent informative response from Greg Seymour (NZH 8-9-05) which dealt with changes to the RMA aimed at disempowering communities in the exploitation of gold and other natural resources. Taking the mining issue further the question is, what use is gold in our daily lives? Its uses are so minimal, and when weighed against the adverse impacts arising from the magnitutude of the operations on the Earth's integrity, its extraction is simply not justifiable. Corporate giants operate on a profit optimisation logic. In pursuit of the $30b trophy, commercial ethics will predominate their operations. In this scenario, ecological integrity would warrant no significance whatsoever. This is evident in the thrust to amend the RMA, part of which is aimed at not only curtailing objectors' rights to legal aid, but also at muzzling those who may be potentially affected by a mining operation. If there
is any goodwill on the part of the Crown and the mining companies, and
if mining is going to benefit the region and the people, then the
basic right of all the people to say how should, not only be
maintained, but also encouraged |
Notice-board
Headlines
The difference between Quarrying & Mining Environment Court decision pdf(526kb)
Mark & Nedilka roast Coffee as well as Miners -- from the Thames Organic Co-op shop or below 
|
|
||
|
About us / Site info / Thames Coast Protection Society /webmaster@pohutukawa.org.nz /* mast head photo:Merryl Watson/Project Crimson |
||
 |
||
