Port of Tauranga has been called on to pay up to $100 million towards harbour restoration projects and initiatives for one of several local iwi challenging the port’s Environment Court bid to extend its operations.
The figures emerged during the final day of the court hearing about the port’s long-planned wharf construction extension and dredging application.
An expert witness, a planning consultant representing the Whareroa Marae and other Ngāi Te Rangi parties, was asked about the “wide gap” between the $3.75m mitigation for potential adverse effects proposed by the port and the thinking of his client.
Consultant Greg Carlyon suggested “the broad-scale costs of mitigation ... add up to somewhere between $75m and $100m over 35 years of the consent”.
That’s something in the order of $3m per annum, he said.
Eleven iwi and hapū groups associated with the greater Tauranga harbour have raised unresolved concerns about the port and its plans, citing significant adverse effects on the coastal environment, marine species and diversity, and cultural values.
The court began hearing evidence on the port’s application in Tauranga late last month.
The NZX-listed port, whose major shareholder is the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, wants to dredge up to 1.5 million cubic metres from the Stella Passage, 50 per cent or 850,000cu m of which is already consented.
It also wants to construct up to 385m of berth at Sulphur Point with a 1.8ha land reclamation, and to build berths at Mount Maunganui, stretching 530m north and 388m south of the existing tanker berth, with a 2.9ha reclamation.
The work is to enable New Zealand’s biggest port and main export gateway to expand its container terminal operations. It expects to run out of container terminal capacity in two years without the green light for the long-proposed project, estimated to cost $88m.
The port in the 2022 financial year posted revenue of $375.3m and net profit after tax of $111.3m
The port proposed several mitigations and conditions representing a commitment of $3.75m at the hearing. It said it was reviewing all conditions and will make a final submission to the court by April 6.
Planning consultant Carlyon told the hearing the port’s proposal as it was framed was “quite unhealthy”.
He said: “I would also say [with] the offer as it stands, I haven’t been able to make the link between that offer and addressing the significant adverse effects mana whenua have raised in their evidence.”
Carlyon’s client submitted tables showing a range of proposed projects and policies requiring mitigation funding or co-funding due to “adverse effects associated with the port development and impact” on Ngāi Te Rangi and various sub-groups.
Carlyon told the court “it is not about the money but when we were putting this project together it is just the way we codify responses sought by iwi”.
Carlyon later told the Herald the $75m-$100m figures should not surprise the port company.
“Those numbers were put to the port in the middle of last year, eight or nine months ago, so they’re no surprise to the port. They were really just to flag an indicative cost on the back of experiences hapū themselves and their adviser had to similar projects.”
“The city council, regional council, any number of other parties have a role to play in that restoration [of the harbour] so the sums requested of the port imply a contribution to the overall costs of that project.”
But Port of Tauranga chief executive Leonard Sampson said the first time the port heard the figures was on March 17, during the last day of the court hearing, when Carlyon made the statement.
Sampson said it was not clear from the submitted tables which items made up the $75m-$100m.
The Herald has seen the tables. They show no financial figures. Contents are listed under projects, co-funding potential rated “yes”, “no” or “non-applicable”, project challenges and timeframes and “cross interests”.
Sampson said the port’s proposed mitigation package of $3.75m was based on: areas of tabled mitigation from iwi “where we felt we could contribute”; the port’s 2011 dredging consent when $2m mitigation was offered; and other recent port-related consents for dredging and reclamation work, most recently at Ports of Auckland.
The port is majority owned by Quayside Holdings, the investment arm of the local regional council.
Council chief executive Fiona McTavish said in a statement the matter was before the court and it was not appropriate for Quayside or the council to comment on the figures.
The council recognised Tauranga Harbour as “a regional treasure” and a lot of work was already happening to restore its values, McTavish said.
“Our expectation is that the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Deed of Settlement once passed into law, will require a Tauranga Moana Strategy and responsible governance group to be established.
“To prepare for this an advisory group has been established which consists of iwi collective members as well as councillors from Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council ...”
Carlyon told the Herald some of the suggested mitigation proposed by iwi could go towards building a health centre at Whareroa Marae, which could cost around $18m.
“It’s very low-lying. Never in my career have I seen a site more impacted by development on its margins. They’re [looking for] a practical way for them to utilise that space, and sadly part of that is going inside to get away from the effects [such as odours].”
Carlyon believed restoring the harbour would cost “hundreds of millions of dollars over a long period of time”.
“It needs a considerable period to do the planning and get the frameworks in place for iwi and hapū to lead the restoration process, which is the right way to do that.”
Carlyon said “the notion” that the several iwi and hapū interests involved in Tauranga harbour could not work together to find common ground was disproved during the hearing.
“Yes, other iwi may have their own view ... but I think there is much more common ground than the port and other parties might assume to be the case.
“That’s not to say it’s easy. It’s complex. But it’s been coming at everyone for generations now.”
ANALYSIS: How New Zealand companies are faring.