Last month, the Otago Daily Times reported Santana chairman Peter Cook had written to four local runanga — referred to as Kā Rūnaka — about the firm’s bid to mine for gold at Bendigo.
Mr Cook claimed in the letter that, in a meeting on March 26, Kā Rūnaka had indicated it expected ‘‘a payment from [Santana] ... in the order of $180m, as monetary compensation’’.
The letter warned Kā Rūnaka it would be ‘‘grossly disappointing’’ if a project that offered so many socio-economic and fiscal benefits to so many was ‘‘denied due to oppressive negotiating tactics’’.
The letter became public when Santana included it in a document bundle it sent to the fast-track panel considering the firm’s mine proposal.
Kā Rūnaka, which has opposed Santana’s application, said at the time it was ‘‘shocked and disappointed’’.
The $180m figure was the framing Santana had elevated, not Kā Rūnaka’s, it had said.
However, a new statement to the panel by Santana chief executive Damian Spring backtracks from Mr Cook’s allegation and warning.
Mr Spring said, in his more recent statement dated May 22, there had never been any financial demands from Kā Rūnaka.
Mr Spring did not reference, or apologise for Mr Cook’s earlier remarks, instead claiming the media had twisted the facts.
Mr Spring wrote: ‘‘Submissions made in evidence have been falsely interpreted and misrepresented by the media, to indicate that we considered Kā Rūnaka as overly oppressive, and we reject such speculation.
‘‘There have not been any standover tactics or financial demands from Kā Rūnaka to [Santana].’’
He said Santana wished to continue conversations with Kā Rūnaka ‘‘to achieve outcomes where the mana of both parties is enhanced’’.
Mr Spring was asked if he planned to issue an apology to Kā Rūnaka for the statements made by Mr Cook in his April letter.
Mr Spring did not answer the question.
He replied there was ‘‘no inconsistency between the two passages’’.
‘‘Our evidence sets out what arose during a long and complex engagement.’’
Mr Spring went on to continue to point the finger of blame elsewhere.
‘‘[Santana’s evidence] rejects the labels that were later attached to that engagement by others. Describing what happened and rejecting how others chose to frame it are two different things.
‘‘These matters are before the fast-track approvals panel, and that is where they belong. Santana has engaged in good faith throughout and continues to hold the Kā Rūnaka parties and their mana in the highest respect.’’
In a response to Mr Spring’s statement to the panel this month, Kā Rūnaka said it welcomed Santana ‘‘taking these initial steps to address some of the incorrect narratives and misrepresentations that have played out since mid-April’’.
‘‘Those narratives have been very disappointing to many of our whānau.
‘‘We reiterate that our key concerns are the cultural, environmental and intergenerational effects of what has been proposed,’’ it said.
