Tuesday 28 March 2017 02:18 PM
EPA rejects claims its charges to Chatham Rock Phosphate were unreasonable
By Rebecca Howard
March 28 (BusinessDesk) - The Environmental Protection Authority rejected claims by Chatham Rock Phosphate that costs
incurred during a marine consent hearing in 2015 were unreasonable and should have been partly met by funds available to
the Crown entity.
In 2015, an EPA-appointed decision-making committee turned down CRP’s application to mine phosphate nodules - a source
of an essential ingredient of manufactured fertiliser - on a remote section of the Chatham Rise in New Zealand’s
Exclusive Economic Zone, the vast offshore area that has been subject to an environmental consenting regime only since
2012. Over the course of the process it invoiced Chatham Rock Phosphate for $2.7 million for costs incurred.
The EPA issued monthly invoices, which were paid until December 2014. On Monday, John Shackleton, representing CRP, told
the High Court in Wellington any charges must be lawful and the costs must be "actual and reasonable." He said CRP
stopped paying after it questioned the size of some of the invoices and alleged there was a lack of detail. Of the total
amount, about $800,000 has not yet been paid.
Andrew Beck, representing the EPA, today told the court that the EPA had already reviewed the costs at the request of
CRP and had issued a credit note for several items that had not been appropriately charged. Among other things, he made
reference to an erroneous $10,000 goods and services tax charge.
Regarding other specific charges that CRP has objected to such as around $92,000 spent on a half-day hearing in the
Chatham Islands, Beck said it is important to bear in mind that the judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of
the charges rather than the merits of the decision that led to those charges being incurred.
"The onus rests on CRP to establish they were unlawful," he said and disputed the claim that the costs incurred in that
hearing or in other areas such as rental vehicles, furniture rental or staff billing were unlawful.
In terms of CRP's view that some of the costs should have been met by a parliamentary appropriation, specifically
earmarked for marine consent processes in the 2014/15 year, Beck said the argument is "fundamentally flawed" as any
appropriation is for activities that are of "public benefit" and "there is never any intention to seek an appropriation
for a private benefit." He also noted that while there may have been $10 million in funds available, the funds are for a
range of EPA functions, not just for marine consents.
The judge-alone hearing before Justice Karen Clark is expected to be wrapped up late Tuesday.
(BusinessDesk)