14 March 2004
Dear Mr Carter
Approval of access for Pike River Coal Company to conservation land
I understand that you have approved the application of Pike River Coal Company for access for mining within Paparoa National Park and other conservation areas.(1)
I have to admit to being completely dumbfounded as to how approving mining in national parks and conservation areas can possibly further the purpose of conservation, preservation and protection. How could you possibly have approved mining in a national park? Why did you not simply decline the application?
Can I please register my utmost disapproval of this decision. If a Minister of Conservation from a Labour-led government cannot keep mining out of national parks then who will?
I request under the Official Information Act 1982 a copy of the record of your decision under the Crown Minerals Act that gives the reasons for this disappointing approval.
Yours sincerely
Simon Johnson
1. "Greenlight for new Coast coalmine", 13 March 2004, The Press.
Dear Mr Johnson
Thank you for your correspondence, regarding the Pike River Coal Company's application for access to operate a coalmine in the Pike Stream catchment in the eastern Paparoa Ranges.
I have approved in principle Pike River Coal Company's application for an access arrangement to mine the coal deposits in the headwaters of Pike Stream on the West Coast.
My approval, however, is subject to the company and my department reaching a satisfactory agreement on the terms and conditions of the company's access arrangements to the area, including financial assurances such as bonds and insurances.
This approval is conditional on my being satisfied that the terms of the access agreement achieve the higest possible environmental safeguards so that the conservation values of the area are protected as fully as possible.
I am aware that this mine does represent a significant intrusion into an area of high conservation values and a decision on whether to allow it to go ahead has been a very difficult one to make. I have considered the fact that the mine is mostly underground and its visual footprint and its visual footprint above ground is small (10 hectares) compared with the large area of protected landscape surrounding it (88,000 hectares). The lesser environmental impacts of underground mining have been recognised by environmental groups. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, while critical of the Pike decision, has noted that, compared to opencast mining, underground mining reduces the impacts on the landscape, wildlife habitat, vegetation and public access. I agree.
I appreciate and can understand your concerns for the protection of public conservation lands. I agree that the Paparoa Range is an important area for nature conservation, recreation, tourism and for landscape protection. The significance of the Paparoa Range has been recognised over the years by successive Labour governments. This has included the formation of the Paparoa National Park, gazettal of a number of ecological areas and the Paparoa Wilderness Area, and ending all logging of publicly owned indigenous forests along the range and protecting these areas as public conservation land. These decisions were often made in the face of strong local opposition.
Direct human impacts on the heritage values of the public lands of the Paparoa Range, and of the West Coast generally, are at the lowest they have been in more than a century. I believe my conditional approval of this underground mine needs to be seen in this wider context.
Yours sincerely
Hon Chris Carter MP
Minister of Conservation
Dear Mr Johnson
Thank you for your letter of 14 March 2004, requesting a copy of the record of my decision under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, to conditionally approve Pike River Coal Company's access arrangement application at Pike Stream on the West Coast.
Please find attached a copy of the relevant paper, excluding the financial amounts related to the proposed financial assurances, and excluding the compensation amounts that were not referred to in my media release of 12 March 2004. These financial amounts have been deleted under section 9(2)(k) of the Official Information Act 1982, to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper advantage.
With regard to the information I have withheld, I do not see that my reason for withholding the information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make that information available.
You are entitled to seek an investigation and review of my decision by writing to an Ombudsman as provided by section 28(3) of the Official Information Act.
I have also enclosed a copy of the media release statement that went with my decision.
In your letter you refer to mining within a national park. Please note that this conditional mine approval does not provide for mining in the national park apart from the provision of four emergency exits.
Yours sincerely
Hon Chris Carter MP
Minister of Conservation
12 May 2004
Dear Mr Carter
Access for Pike River Coal Company to conservation land
Thank you for your letter of 29 March 2004 and for your letter of 8 April 2004 which enclosed the document "Pike River Access Arrangement" being the record of your decision under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to conditionally approve Pike River Coal Company's access arrangement application at Pike Stream on the West Coast.
I note that page 15 of this report states "The key issue for you to decide is whether the proposed partial safeguards and the compensation package offered, are sufficient to outweigh our concerns about the matters covered by section 61(2)(a), (b) and (c),"
Obviously you decided that the s 61(2)(d) matters outweighed the s 61(2)(a), (b) and (c) matters as you chose the option on page 16 to approve access.
I request under the Official Information Act 1982 your reasons for your weighting of the s 61(2) matters and for deciding on the option of approving conditional access.
Yours sincerely
Simon Johnson
Dear Mr Johnson
In reply to your letter of 12 May 2004, I can advise that I decided that the section 61(2)(d) and (e) matters of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 outweighed the section 61(2)(a), (b) and (c) matters.
My decision was based on the information set out in the departmental submission and froma site visit. No arithmetical weighting was given to the matters to be considered under section 61(2); rather my decision was based on the totality of the evidence before me. The details of the proposed partial safeguards and the compensation package are set out in the departmental submission.
Yours sincerely
Hon Chris Carter MP
Minister of Conservation