Mr Bridges said our "world best practice" legislation had led to a decision that "shows that we have a strong process with very high environmental hurdles that have to be met". But he also warned: "Not everyone can jump that high." This was the case with both seabed mining applications.
Globally, the industry called "seabed mining" is still very much in development, an untested technology with no comparable projects anywhere else on Earth. The New Zealand Government opened our waters to this novel industry and the high levels of uncertainty have shone through with these negative decisions, at the expense of investors.
About $100 million was spent over seven years on the two failed proposals, during which time they reeled in willing investors. But did the companies over-promise their ability to get marine licences for this untested industry?
In the light of two failed applications under a regulatory framework designed to enable them, there are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn.
First, the companies could not prove their proposals were environmentally and economically acceptable.
Second, the Government underestimated the complexities involved in introducing into the marine environment what has been a wholly terrestrial commercial activity. It might be that large-scale mining in the marine environment is inappropriate for New Zealand altogether.
The EPA's Chatham Rise decision states that the environmental effects on a rare and vulnerable ecosystem were a "major concern" and that economic benefits to New Zealand were "modest at best".
In both applications, the EPA found the economic benefits wanting. The royalties payable would have been minimal for a resource 100 per cent owned by New Zealand.
What of the future investor in all of this and of the cries of New Zealand being "closed for business"? Such scaremongering by industry groups is disingenuous and self-serving.
Yes, these two decisions send a signal - but not that New Zealand is "closed for business". That's insulting to the many sustainable businesses operating successfully in New Zealand.
They send the right signal: that New Zealand will not accept high-risk developments that damage the environment and ecosystems while providing relatively little economic benefit.
New Zealand is, and should be, open to smart, sustainable, value-adding investments that provide jobs and livelihoods well into the future without compromising our values, environment, and our way of life.
The regulators and the legislation have done their job and delivered the best long-term outcome for New Zealand in fending off two unacceptably inappropriate and risky ventures.
Given Mr Smith has confirmed he is considering amending the legislation, we trust he will consult with all stakeholders across the community, from iwi to fishing interests and coastal communities.
• Phil McCabe is the chairman of Kiwis Against Seabed Mining
