A call for the first reading of a member’s bill banning seabed mining altogether was voted down at Parliament today, with Labour, National and ACT turning in 106 votes against the Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill.

The Green Party, Te Pāti Māori and independent MPs Elizabeth Kerekere and Meka Whaitiri made up the 13 votes in favour.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said her member’s bill was born in response to an application to mine 66 kmsq of seafloor near Patea, over 35 years, and frustrations iwi had experienced in dealing with existing seabed legislation.

• READ MORE: Other seabed mining reports

The application by Trans-Tasman Resources involved taking: “Millions of tonnes of iron, titanium, vanadium from the seabed… by dredging up millions of tonnes of the sea floor, extracting the mineral, and dumping the unwanted sludge back into the sea, smothering the surrounding area with a sediment film — which would spread all the way down from Taranaki to Wellington, affecting marine life, biodiversity, and Māori,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

But TTR chair Alan Eggers previously said if the company’s application for seabed mining near Patea was granted it would create “a major new $1 billion export industry employing best practice sustainable environmental approach to mineral recovery, with minimal impact on the environment”.

Ngarewa-Packer’s bill asked for a nationwide ban on seabed mining consents within Aotearoa’s exclusive economic zone and the coastal waters governed under the Resource Management Act (RMA), as well as the withdrawal of all existing seabed mining consents and a ban on any rights to exploration being granted under the Crown Minerals Act.

Inquiry announced
Earlier this month Labour’s Environment Minister David Parker announced a select committee inquiry to investigate seabed mining rules in New Zealand waters, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of seabed mining.

But Ngarewa-Packer said public opinion did not support that approach.

“The opposition to seabed mining has been strong . . .  we already know an enormous amount about seabed mining. The government does not need an inquiry to understand that this industry would trash our moana; it’s abundantly clear,” she said.

“Iwi don’t want it. Our community don’t want it. The public doesn’t want it. Nor does the technology sector.”

There had been 13,000 submissions against seabed mining presented to the government, she said: “With only a handful in favour. We have also delivered 40,000-signature petitions to the government”.

“Ocean advocates from across Aotearoa have called on this government to urgently ban seabed mining. More than 30 hapū and iwi, environmental NGOs, KASM (Kiwis Against Seabed Mining) and Greenpeace Aotearoa have called on the prime minister to support my bill.”

Ngāti Ruanui and Ngā Rauru had led a long fight against seabed mining in Taranaki, Ngarewa-Packer said.

There had been strong participation from fishers, divers, farmers and community leaders, and the opposition group included many with in-depth technical expertise in the sector.

‘Battle taken to every court’
“This battle has taken them to every court in this nation, resulting in successfully winning in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

“From our iwi’s perspective, seabed mining is a violation of our kaitiakitanga and as defenders of the ecosystems, we are gravely concerned it will affect everything. This is a part of who we are, where we are, and it must be protected.

“The government has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop this dangerous industry before it starts.”

Parker said while the government did have concerns about the environmental impacts of seabed mining, this bill was not the right tool to tackle the issue. Particularly because it would cancel existing consents and exploration rights – including for gas, he said.

“It has been clear from the start of this bill that the effect of this legislation would have been to, amongst other things, close down the Maui platform, and it would have done that retrospectively, it would have done it without compensation, and it would have done it without any transition period.”

That would have “threatened the security of supply of electricity in the short to medium term”, and would cause the government to reneg on previous agreements to the oil and gas sector, Parker said.

Instead, he said that if the select committee inquiry found there were genuine concerns about seabed mining, those could be addressed at the wider Pacific regional level.

‘Genuine concern’
“If there is a genuine concern, as I do think there is about mining at sea, then, if we can coalesce with the Pacific around a solution to protect the Pacific from deep-sea mining, then, effectively, we will be protecting a big part of the world’s oceans.”

National Party spokesman for energy and resources Stuart Smith said blanket bans were unhelpful: “We have more than adequate processes to deal with environmental challenges and issues when we exploit resources — and exploit resources we do.

“Our very standard of living is totally dependent on the resources industry”.

Offshore seabed mining for aggregates was common overseas, he said: “Those sorts of things are happening all the time”.

New Zealand did not yet have the energy infrastructure to move away from using gas, and if less gas was available it would make the country more dependent on using coal to generate electricity, which was worse for the environment, he said.

The broad reach of the bill and its retrospective component would also dissuade trade and investment, Smith said.

“This bill would send a massive shock wave through the international community, particularly the sovereign risk that New Zealand has always been seen as very low, until the oil and gas exploration ban, which did send a massive shock wave through the international community.

Sovereign risk ‘too high’
“So much so that, in fact, I’ve been told from companies trying to raise funds for other projects — nothing to do with the oil and gas sector — that they weren’t going to be supported by independent financiers because they see the sovereign risk in New Zealand now, as a result of that ban, as too high for them; they would rather invest their funds elsewhere.”

The issue had been a hot topic globally as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) planned to begin taking applications for industrial-scale deep-sea mining in Pacific waters in July.

However, critics were worried about potential environmental damage and the effects mining could have on coastal communities, with some saying better regulations were needed.

And there has been an increasing international call for an end to seabed mining, with France, Canada, Tuvalu, Fiji and Nauru among those who have called for a moratorium.

Ngarewa-Packer said the government’s stance was confusing, considering their support of a conditional moratorium against seabed mining in international waters.

“We cannot fathom for the life of us how Labour today is able to face themselves,” she said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Housing and climate change caused the most heated exchanges at TVNZ’s young voters debate in New Zealand last night, an event far more colourful than last week’s debate between Labour leader and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and National leader Judith Collins.

Kiri Allan from Labour, Simeon Brown from National, Chlöe Swarbrick from the Greens, Robert Griffith from NZ First and Brooke van Velden from ACT squared up against each other in a lively evening hosted by Jack Tame.

At times, it seemed like an Allen, Brown and Swarbrick show, with van Velden and Griffith hardly getting a word in.

Tame’s first “curly question” asked what the respective parties would do to relieve the financial burden on younger generations.

Allan said Labour’s plan was to make sure “every dollar we’re investing is in things like sustainable futures”.

Brown’s line repeated what’s been heard from other politicians in National this campaign: A focus on stimulating the economy with a short-term tax cut and growing jobs.

The Greens had six policies to help youths but what Swarbrick focused on was a guaranteed minimum income: NZ$325 per week.

Crack at covid-19 recovery plan
Van Velden had a crack at Labour’s covid-19 recovery plan and its debt levels, likening the impact its borrowing would have on future generations to “fiscal child abuse”.

That earned her a sharp, angry rebuke from Swarbrick, who called the remark “disgusting”, before launching into the subject of child – and family – poverty.

Swarbrick’s lack of enthusiasm for van Velden’s response appeared to be reflected by the crowd, whose responses to the ACT candidate were lukewarm throughout the evening.

Griffith claimed his party’s plan was the only one where “someone doesn’t lose”.

Next issue up was housing.

Brown’s take was that the cost of housing was an issue, but he focused on the Resource Management Act (RMA): “We’re not just going to reform it, we’re going to burn it and replace it.”

He got into an argument with Allan, starting when he accused Labour of stopping “more houses being built at Ihumātao than they’ve actually built through KiwiBuild”.

Only one speaker played ball
Tame asked the candidates a yes or no answer question: Should house prices go down?

Swarbrick was the only one who played ball with a direct answer – yes, she said, they should.

The rest couldn’t give a straight answer.

Brown’s response amounted to a no. Allan wanted them to be “more affordable” and van Velden said they should “stay where they are”. Griffith said “either the average wage goes up or house prices come down”.

Allan said Labour’s approach to dealing with housing issues involved increasing the supply of homes and affordability, profiling her party’s progressive home ownership scheme.

Tame moved the housing discussion onto renting – “how would you make sure renters have warm dry homes?”, he asked van Velden, whose party opposed healthy homes for rental homes.

“There’s not just enough homes. If we had more supply in the market, we’d be having better quality homes because people would be wanting you to come and rent,” van Velden said.

Real issue on renting
She went on to say she thought the real issue was that people were spending more than 50 percent of their income on renting.

She pitched for getting rid of the RMA – that’d allow for more building – more houses – and lowered rents.

Swarbrick had reforming the RMA pitched to her by Tame and seized the moment for a jab at Brown’s remarks about Ihumātao, saying “apparently, we need to build all the homes on stolen land”.

That got a good reaction from the crowd, who were responsive to her all night.

Griffith got a short chance to outline NZ First’s position on housing before the subject swung to climate change and the spotlight was back on Swarbrick.

Tame challenged her on the Greens’ effectiveness in government, to which she replied: “We have got more action on climate change in the last three years than the last 30 years combined”.

Brown weighed in only to be challenged about the amount of roads his party planned to build. He took a few shots at Labour’s climate record, including leader Jacinda Ardern’s “nuclear free moment” comment.

Climate record defended
Allan defended her party by bringing up National leader Judith Collins’ plans to slash climate legislation, before she and Brown got into another argument.

Van Velden opened her response on climate change with “I’m an environmentalist”, prompting laughter from the crowd. But she called for a “no nonsense climate change plan”, and said her party would include agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme with a price on carbon.

Griffith got a few words in on climate, and said NZ First would be inclusive of all in its approach. It wouldn’t make the worst greenhouse gas emitters pay more, but subsidise them to transition to more climate friendly practices.

He also snuck in a remark about the NZ Defence Force – while under Ron Mark – being the first defence force in the world to recognise climate change as a problem – allowing it to invest in solutions.

The last big subject for the evening was student debt, something most of the crowd gathered had weighing over them.

Much of the focus was on Labour’s fees free scheme – and its plan to axe parts of that.

Griffith promoted NZ First’s “dollar for dollar repayment scheme on your debt. The problem isn’t free education, it is debt-free [education] because that’s what gives people uncertainty”.

Quickfire questions wrap-up
If someone worked in New Zealand for the same length of time as their degree took to complete, NZ First would then write off the debt, he said.

Tame wrapped up with a series of quickfire questions: “I know it’s really annoying when people in my position wrap complex issues up into binary questions – but that’s what we’re doing”.

The crowd appreciated that one and Tame launched into his questions.

The most memorable reaction was Swarbrick’s response to “should we remove statues of historical figures who are deemed to have been racist?”.

“Put them in a racist garden.”

Shortly after, it was all over, as Tame pointed out that just 68 percent of people under 30 voted in the last election.

With just 19 days to go until the election, 72 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds have so far enrolled to vote.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.