Save Animals From Exploitation, known as Safe, had twice attempted to make comments on the Hananui Aquaculture Project.
The project, proposed by Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources, is to construct a salmon farm, including four separate marine farms each consisting of two blocks of 10 circular net pens in Foveaux Strait.
Safe was turned down both times by the hearing panel. Panel chairman Bal Matheson KC declined the application the first time without giving a reason.
Safe then sought transparency about the panel’s decision to decline its request.
Safe said the information was directly relevant to assessing the potential establishment of a large-scale fish farming operation.
The panel had invited comments from several commercial marine farming organisations and a major industry body (Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Co/Seafood NZ) that stood to benefit from the project, while refusing to consider critical information addressing animal welfare, despite no fish welfare or fish behaviour experts being included among the invited parties, Safe said in its request to the panel.
‘‘This decision, in our view, warrants a clear explanation,’’ Safe said.
The panel acknowledged the role of Safe and its important advocacy for animal welfare. It reviewed the material provided by Safe, and confirmed its previous decision not to accept the group’s prior request.
The panel was not obliged to give reasons as to why comments were or were not sought from any particular party, but it said its decision would fully comply with the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and the matters raised by Safe would be front of mind.
Safe head of campaigns Jess Chambers said it believed it had been treated unfairly.
‘‘Safe sought to be involved in this consultation process to fill a critical gap — providing a voice for the countless animals who would be directly impacted if this factory farm is approved,’’ she said.
‘‘From our perspective, animal advocacy organisations like Safe bring essential considerations and expertise, and should be included, if not prioritised, in discussions where the lives of animals are directly at stake.’’
She said Safe wanted to know why it was declined.
‘‘Excluding voices like ours raises serious questions about the balance and integrity of the consultation process.’’
Safe would continue to speak out against fast-track projects that involved the use and harm of animals — regardless of whether its input was welcomed.
It had objected to the fast-track Bill and said ‘‘blocking advocacy organisations from participating in consultation processes on issues they are directly engaged with sets a deeply concerning precedent’’.
Forest & Bird also wrote to the fast-track panel, wanting to contribute evidence sourced from Environment Southland.
The panel said it was unclear how Forest & Bird proposed the panel formally receive this unsolicited information and decided to make it a late comment.
If Environment Southland was aware of the information and felt it was relevant, it would have made use of it and it was too late for it to be used, the panel said.
