The EEZ Act governs proposals for seabed mining, from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore and beyond to the continental shelf.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) this week refused Chatham Rock Phosphate a marine consent to mine sea-floor phosphate about 250km west of the Chatham Islands at depths up to 450m.
Mining and resource sector lobby group Straterra is calling for EEZ Act changes, claiming it has ''major flaws'', but one of the main opponents against Chatham Rock, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM), fully backs the EPA decision, citing the ''robustness of the regulatory framework'' of the EEZ Act as it stands.
While there is unanimous pro-mining support for EEZ Act changes, no formal process is under way at present but sources say the Government will take a stance in coming weeks.
Industry sources believe one option for EEZ Act change could possibly come from the wider review of the Resource Management Act by the Government.
One unnamed pro-mining source believes a case can be made for the potential loss of crustaceans off Taranaki and corals on the Chatham Rise, given the need to provide ironsand and phosphate to expanding industries.
Both Chatham Rock and separate company Trans-Tasman Resources have had their seabed marine consent applications rejected by the EPA, but both said this week they intended persevering with new applications.
Mining lobby group Straterra and Business New Zealand highlighted the economic loss associated with the consent denials and the negative signal to would-be investors in New Zealand.
KASM led the charge against Trans-Tasman's Taranaki proposal, providing the bulk of 9000 submissions opposing consent.
KASM next teamed up with the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and Greenpeace to submit against Chatham Rock's proposal, delivering its own 54-page submission, backed up by oceanic specialists Barry Weeber, the University of Otago's Liz Slooten and international environmental lawyer Duncan Currie.
KASM spokesman Phil McCabe said the EPA decision confirmed Chatham's proposal was ''inappropriate'' and renewed calls for the Government to issue a moratorium on seabed mining.
''Just as we saw with the last, failed seabed mining application [of Trans-Tasman], Chatham hadn't done its scientific homework on many aspects of the environmental impacts, and the EPA rightfully saw the problems with this,'' Mr McCabe said.
''The independent scientists we engaged brought a balance to the [EPA] hearings that would not have been there otherwise. This shows the system works.''
However, Straterra chief executive Chris Baker said the EEZ legislation had ''major flaws'' which must be amended in order to see responsible mining projects being developed.
''The decline of Chatham Rock's marine consent application ... sends a strong negative signal to investors seeking to do business in New Zealand.
''The Act's requirements for information and consideration of uncertainty mean that any mining proposal would likely be declined.''
Mr Baker reiterated an earlier Business New Zealand observation that New Zealand's resource development framework had serious problems and needed urgent reform.
Business think tank The New Zealand Initiative (NZI) was similarly perturbed by the EPA decision, describing it as ''a blow to economic growth''.
''The decision was based on a precautionary principle enshrined in the EEZ Act, which mandates that the EPA must favour the environment over development where the environmental impact of the activity is uncertain,'' NZI research fellow Jason Krupp said in a statement.
The precautionary approach was balanced by ''adaptive management principles'' in the Act, which allowed applicants to conduct small-scale tests of their mining proposals to answer those uncertainties, Mr Krupp said.
The decision against Chatham showed that ''adaptive management'' was unlikely to ever be applied, because of the over-cautionary approach the EPA was ''legislatively forced adhere to'', he said.
New Zealand had the fourth-biggest exclusive economic zone in the world, which contained significant mineral wealth that could potentially make a ''substantial and sustained'' contribution to the economy.
However, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition spokesman Barry Weeber warned the Government not to cave in to mining industry pressure and weaken the EEZ legislation to allow seabed mining.
''We agree with then conservation minister Nick Smith when he told Parliament the EPA's decision to turn down the last seabed mining application by Trans-Tasman `confirms the robustness of the regulatory framework','' Mr Weeber said.
He highlighted the proposed Chatham Rise mining zone was home to many whales and in an area closed to trawling and the seabed held deep-sea corals.
There were also species which would be destroyed by phosphate mining, including endemic species and species not found elsewhere, Mr Weeber said.
Law firm Chapman Tripp considered the EPA decision, saying both Trans-Tasman and Chatham were declined because of a lack of certainty around environmental impacts and associated risks.
Aside from failing to provide adequate information, both companies had failed to demonstrate their proposals would provide ''more than modest'' economic benefit to New Zealand, Chapman Tripp said in a statement yesterday.
Other EPA concerns were existing rights of commercial fishers and iwi, and that the potential environmental impact of both proposals would be ''more than minor''.
Future applications might have a ''better shot at success'' if they looked more closely at economic benefits, existing rights and environmental impacts, Chapman Tripp said.
