We wish to appear before the committee to speak to our submission.

Transcription

1 Waihi Gold Company Limited Trading as: Newmont Waihi Gold PO Box 190, Waihi Moresby Avenue, Waihi 3610 New Zealand Telephone Facsimile Submission on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill To: The Local Government and Environment Committee This submission is made from: Waihi Gold Company Ltd, trading as Newmont Waihi Gold (NWG) Our contact details are: The General Manager, Newmont Waihi Gold, 43 Moresby Avenue PO Box 190, Waihi Phone: Facsimile: Kathy.Mason@Newmont.com We wish to appear before the committee to speak to our submission. Thank you for considering this submission. Glen Grindlay General Manager.

2 Page 2 of 8 Submission on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill from Waihi Gold Company Ltd, trading as Newmont Waihi Gold (NWG) 1. Introduction Newmont Waihi Gold This submission is made by Waihi Gold Company Limited trading as Newmont Waihi Gold (NWG). NWG owns and operates the Martha Mine, an open pit mining operation located within the Waihi Township. NWG also owns and operates the Favona Underground Mine, and has recently commenced production from the Trio Underground Mine, both of which are located east of Waihi township. NWG has recently applied for consents for the Martha Exploration Project, which will investigate the potential for an underground mine adjacent to the existing open pit, and for the Correnso project which will involve mining beneath a residential area at Waihi East. Each of these operations relies on an extensive suite of resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). There is the potential for the discovery of high value metallic mineral deposits in other areas of New Zealand, and NWG has active prospecting and exploration programmes both within and outside of Waihi. The current focus is the Hauraki Goldfield which is the most prospective region in New Zealand for the discovery of epithermal gold-silver deposits. NWG has interests on public as well as private land. Relevance of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill to NWG NWG strives to be a responsible manager of the mining heritage on its land and has its own corporate standard relating to the management of heritage sites. We are aware of our legal obligations under the Historic Places Act and have procedures to ensure that we comply with these obligations and with any resource consent conditions relating to heritage, both pre and post European. NWG regularly consults with tangata whenua in the Waihi area and undertakes additional consultation with the relevant tangata whenua and iwi before entering new areas for the purposes of exploration. NWG recognises that this consultation is necessary to ensure that waahi tapu and other sites are recognised in a culturally appropriate manner and protected as appropriate. The Ohinemuri district, which includes Waihi, Waitekauri and Karangahake was officially declared a goldfield in March In addition to Martha Hill, other quartz reefs were found on nearby hills and some diggings were undertaken in the 1870s and then abandoned. Associated mining infrastructure such as kilns, batteries, tramlines, shafts and water races were constructed in the area in the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s. A number of relics from the historic mining remain in the town, some of which are recorded on the archaeological register and listed in the Hauraki District Plan. Some of these relics, and the

3 Page 3 of 8 Union (Waihi) Battery Historic Area are located on land owned by NWG. Other relics, such as the Cornish Pumphouse are located adjacent to the Martha Mine, and some of the relics in the Union Hill area overlay underground mining operations. NWG has proposed and accepted conditions of consent to ensure that the relics are not adversely affected by current mining operations. In terms of NWG s future exploration programmes, we note that some of the more prospective areas are in the vicinity of where mining occurred in the past. NWG has demonstrated its commitment to heritage by putting considerable resources into a number of projects. The Cornish Pumphouse was relocated at a cost of $5 million in 2006, and the Grand Junction Refinery Building was relocated two years ago at a cost of $790,000. Both buildings were previously located within hazard zones that were identified following collapses of land into unfilled stopes caused by historic mining, unrelated to current mining operations. Relocation of these buildings will ensure their long term survival. We attach photos of these relocated relics at the end of our submission. NWG has also funded the preparation of a heritage assessment and conservation plan for Union Hill, at a cost totalling around $100,000. A management plan for Union Hill is being prepared at present, and NWG is providing support to the Waihi Vision Trust to construct walkways and signage at Union Hill, to allow the relics to be accessed, interpreted, appreciated and enjoyed by the public. In summary, NWG recognises heritage management as being a fundamental part of its current and future mining operations; hence its interest in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. 2. NWG Submission 2.1 Support for Archaeological Association Submission NWG has been provided with a copy of the submission prepared by the New Zealand Archaeological Association Inc., P.O. Box 6337, Dunedin We wish to support that submission in its entirety. NWG fully supports the government s intention to simplify and streamline the archaeological authority processes of the Historic Places Act ( HPA ) and bring them into alignment with the processes of the RMA. However, like the Archaeological Association, we have concerns that in some key areas the Bill as it stands does not achieve that objective and, if passed into Law, the effect would be an increased bureaucratic burden on private landowners. Some parts of the Archaeological Association submission have more relevance to NWG s operations than others. In particular, and for the same reasons as those provided in the Archaeological Association submission, NWG fully supports the following: the proposed requirement for Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga ( HNZPT ) to consult on and prepare a general policy statement relating to the administration of the archaeological provisions of the Act, the changes proposed in the Bill requiring that all applications affecting sites of interest to Maori are to be referred to the Maori Heritage Council,

4 Page 4 of 8 combining the two main types of archaeological authority for land-use purposes (previously separate under sections 11 and 12 of the HPA) to simplify the authority processes, reducing the statutory timeframes for processing authority applications, bringing them into line with RMA provisions, the proposal that an applicant who has previously provided information about archaeological sites for the purposes of an application under the RMA, may provide the same information to HNZPT as part of the information requirements for an authority application. In contrast, and for the same reasons as those provided in the Archaeological Association submission, NWG opposes the following key elements of the bill: the amendment of the definition of an archaeological site in cl. 6 to include any building or structure (or part of a building or structure) that was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 and is or may be able, through investigation by archaeological methods, to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand, the introduction of a new type of archaeological investigation defined as exploratory investigation, the definition of Authority under clause 6 as an authority granted by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga under section 46 to undertake an activity that will or may harm an archaeological site in particular the use of the work harm as opposed to modify. Harm is a negative term that does not reflect the range of circumstances for which authorities may be required, which includes appropriate archaeological investigation. On this point we note that relocation of the Cornish Pumphouse and the Grand Junction Refinery Building was undertaken to prevent harm to these relics due to the risk of collapse. NWG also submits that the term activity be clarified throughout the bill so that land-use activities (e.g., earthworks) are distinguished from archaeological investigation. At present the Bill requires that the HNZPT must approve persons carrying out land-use activities, and that land-use activities must conform to accepted archaeological practice. This is particularly the case for cl. 45 which should relate to approval of an archaeologist to undertake work, but instead has the effect of requiring HNZPT approval for all activity affecting a site, whether archaeological or related to land-use. A clear distinction needs to be made between the land-use activity that modifies an archaeological site, and the archaeological work that is carried out as a condition of an authority or for archaeological investigation purposes. In a similar manner, NWG submits that cl 49 needs amending as it mixes together conditions applicable to authorities to modify sites for land-use purposes, and authorities to carry out archaeological investigations, and applies them to both. NWG supports both of the possible wording changes that the Archaeological Association suggests on page 19 of their submission to resolve this issue.

5 Page 5 of Streamlining of Archaeological Processes In addition to our support for the Archaeological Association submission, NWG wishes to make further submissions relating to the streamlining of the archaeological processes of the Historic Places Act ( HPA ) to bring them into alignment with RMA processes. NWG supports the streamlined information requirements and timeframes within the Bill, but believes that more could be done in terms of landowner consent and affected party approval as described below. Landowner Consent The Act and the Historic Places Act and the Bill (clause 43 (2) (b) both require proof of landowner consent with an application for an authority. NWG proposes the removal of this requirement, on the basis that RMA cases have confirmed that the RMA consent process is not concerned with issues of land tenure, and, if someone gets a consent, but not does not have the landowner s approval to enter the land, that is the consent holder s problem. NWG endorses the RMA approach as a further means of streamlining the operation of the Bill. Recommendation: Agree to strike out clause 43 (2) (b) on the requirement for landowner consent when applications for an authority are made, as unnecessary, and for consistency with the RMA; Agree to amend clause 49 on imposition of conditions on authorities to include a new (1) (aa): "if the applicant is not the owner of the land work must not start until the applicant has provided Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga with proof of the owner's consent to the proposed activity"; Agree to amend clause 52 on the commencement and duration of authorities by inserting a new sub-clause (3) (c) to say: 2 years from the date the authority commences, if landowner consent has not been obtained; Agree to add to clause 53 on "Effect of grant of authority " a new subclause (3): An authority does not alter requirements for access arrangements between the authority holder and land owner" Affected Party Approval NWG is also of the view that HNZPT should be able to provide to the RMA process affectedparty approval prior to a related decision by HNZPT on an application for an authority. That could be done is such a way as to not limit HNZPT s discretion when considering an authority application. Recommendation: Agree to amend clause 12 to specifically provide for RMA affected party approval prior to a decision on a related authority, along the lines of inserting: (aa) Give affected party approval under the Resource Management Act 1991 for activities that require or have been granted an authority ;

6 Page 6 of 8 3. Conclusion To conclude, NWG supports the intentions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill to simplify and streamline the archaeological authority processes of the HPA and bring them into alignment with the processes of the RMA. However, we have concerns that in some key areas the Bill does not achieve these objectives and, if passed into Law, the effect would be an increased bureaucratic burden on private landowners, with provisions that are potentially confusing. While we support the submission of the Archaeological Association in its entirety, the issues that are of most relevance to NWG are as described above. We support the proposed changes sought by the Archaeological Association in that regard, and rather than reproduce that wording in this submission, refer readers directly to the submission of the Archaeological Association. We also believe that the Bill could go further in terms of streamlining and have suggested some changes regarding landowner consent and affected party approval, as referred to above. Thank you for considering this submission.

7 Relocation of the Grand Junction Refinery Building Page 7 of 8

8 Page 8 of 8 Relocated Cornish Pumphouse Showing Landscaping and Planting, 2 July 2009