A submission by a Ngāi Tahu legal team to the deliberating fast-track panel said Santana’s application was ‘‘inconsistent’’ with obligations under the Ngāi Tahu Treaty Settlement Act.
The inconsistency ‘‘prevents consent being granted’’, the submission said.
Santana had failed to consult competently on its proposal with Kā Rūnaka, a collective of four Ngāi Tahu rūnaka comprising Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Hokonui Rūnanga.
Treaty requirements set out in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 recognised Ngāi Tahu rangatiratanga — authority — and the importance of taoka species.
Consultation with iwi is also mandated in section 7 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.
The submission, made through lawyers at environmental law firm Holm Majurey, said Santana had also failed to undertake adequate technical investigations and its mine proposal had ‘‘adverse landscape, ecological, water quality and cultural effects’’.
Even if the panel decided there was no treaty inconsistency, consent should be declined because of effects that extended ‘‘well beyond the cessation of mining activity’’.
‘‘Consequently, consents cannot be granted for the current application regardless of any claimed short-term national or regional economic benefits.’’
The mine proposal was of a scale not previously in New Zealand and in a ‘‘highly sensitive’’ area which had ‘‘seriously limited capacity to absorb the potential cultural and environmental effects and impacts.’’
The proposal contained a ‘‘myriad of uncertainties’’ and gave ‘‘no clarity’’ regarding mitigation or avoidance of long-term effects.
Proposed bonds would ‘‘not provide the financial means’’ to assure long-term environmental health.
While appropriate consultation and technical investigations might have settled concerns, ‘‘the current application is incapable of securing consent’’.
Kā Rūnaka advisory chairman Brett Ellison said the opposition to Santana was ‘‘not a decision taken lightly’’.
There were concerns about loss of environments that had developed ‘‘over millions of years and support biodiversity and cultural values’’.
They were ‘‘extremely difficult’’ to restore.
‘‘Mana whenua share a collective responsibility as kaitiaki to look beyond short-term outcomes,’’ Mr Ellison said.
There had been ‘‘limited, or in some cases no, access’’ for rūnaka at technical workshops or to information shared between Santana, the Otago Regional Council and the Department of Conservation.
Technical reports had not been made available, despite the environmental imperative.
Kā Rūnaka had a ‘‘duty when exercising our rakatirataka to provide for future generations in a way that does not encumber kā uri [our descendants] with irreversible environmental damage in the name of short-term gain for shareholders’’.
The fast-track panel declining Santana’s plan would mean ‘‘gold would remain in the ground; the landscape, water and habitat, and ecosystems will remain as they are; and any future applications would be on notice to aspire to higher standard of engagement, environmental husbandry and the interest of future generations who will be custodians of the residual effects of any mining activity’’.
Other Ngāi Tahu expert submissions echoed comments in the legal submission and by Mr Ellison.
Landscape expert Dr Alayna Rā said Santana landscape assessments were ‘‘deficient’’ and had not applied ‘‘foundational bicultural methodology or Aotearoa-specific lens, resulting in te ao Māori being treated as peripheral rather than determinative of landscape character, values, and effects’’.
Ecologist Matthew Dale said exclusion of Ngāi Tahu technical advisers from Santana workshops had made it ‘‘exceptionally difficult’’ to advise Kā Rūnaka.
He said available information indicated Santana’s mitigation package ‘‘fails’’ to address ecological impact.
Earlier this year, Santana asserted in a fast-track meeting that it had consulted Ngāi Tahu.
Under the fast-track law, Santana has five working days to respond to comments received.
