[Missing Credit][object Object] Santana Minerals has hit back at criticism by the fast-track panel over the quality of its application. The Australian mining company was previously criticised for introducing new information that was argued should have been included in its Central Otago goldmine application from the start. Last week, panel chairman Matthew Muir KC issued a minute on the issue. “The panel has the firm view that the information should in fact have been provided at the time of the initial application.” Santana was responsible for a situation where the panel would have less time than intended to make a draft decision, he said. In response, Santana requested its application be paused for 10 working days, delaying a final decision into next year, but hit back against criticism of its original application. A memorandum of counsel on behalf of Matakanui Gold Limited (MGL), Santana’s wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary, said it refuted “assertions regarding the completeness of the substantive application”. “The application was accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority as complete for the purposes of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 (FTA). “Since that time, responses to requests for information … have been provided entirely in accordance with the FTA statutory framework. “Matakanui Gold has committed to ensuring the panel is provided a robust and thorough technical response to all matters raised through that statutory process.” While the volume of new information could be deemed significant, it provided greater certainty about existing conclusions, rather than introducing new assessments or materially altering those conclusions, MGL said. ©Allied MediaDrilling rigs take exploratory samples at the site of Santana Mineral’s Bendigo Ophir Gold Project. Photo: Stephen Jaquiery It also refuted natural justice assertions by Sustainable Tarras and the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) “on the basis they have not had opportunities to comment on conditions”. MGL had offered to meet the costs for Sustainable Tarras’ planning expert to participate in workshopping — an offer it said was not accepted, and the expert elected not to participate in workshopping. It also extended an invitation to all parties without expert planning witnesses to provide written feedback on the conditions in advance of the workshops. No written feedback was received from the EDS. The workshopping exercise undertaken by MGL ensured full participation was available to all expert planners. It also noted that, should the panel be minded to grant approvals, it was required to give all parties the chance to comment on any draft conditions before they were finalised. MGL recognised the importance of ensuring the panel was comfortable it had sufficient time to assess all relevant information, undertake deliberations and prepare decisions. “Matakanui Gold has answered the information requests, enabled participation and narrowed the disputed conditions. “The requested suspension is not sought to repair the application. “It is sought to conclude the additional process … close the evidential record and move the application to determination.” Mr Muir acknowledged the 10 working day suspension, which would go from 11.59pm on August 28 to September 14. He also provided a timetable through to the final decision date, which he encouraged all parties to adhere to “as the principal purpose of the suspension will otherwise be compromised”. A final decision would be issued on January 20. tim.scott@odt.co.nz
