Ann: GENERAL: CRP: CRP gravely concerned about possible bias in staff report

• Release Date: 25/08/14 09:32
• Summary: GENERAL: CRP: CRP gravely concerned about possible bias in staff report
• Price Sensitive: No
• Download Document  4.85KB

					CRP
25/08/2014 09:32
GENERAL

REL: 0932 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

GENERAL: CRP: CRP gravely concerned about possible bias in staff report

Media Release
25 August  2014

CRP gravely concerned at potential for bias in EPA staff report

Chatham Rock Phosphate today announced it would be formally seeking the
withdrawal of the Environmental Protection Authority's staff report issued
last week because of extremely worrying evidence which suggests the potential
for bias.

CRP last week criticised both the content and timing of the EPA staff report
on CRP's Marine Consent application.  Now a new and potentially more serious
basis for concern about the validity of the report and its conclusions has
emerged.

CRP's Managing Director Chris Castle said today CRP considers the report to
be potentially biased and therefore totally unreliable, and it intends to
seek that the EPA staff report be formally withdrawn.  CRP will shortly make
an application to the EPA's decision-making committee for that to occur.

"It has come to CRP's attention that one of the key authors of the EPA staff
report appears to have been a signatory to a Greenpeace petition in 2010
seeking the Government permanently stop all plans to open up New Zealand's
coastal waters to offshore oil drilling and stop any expansion of coal mining
in New Zealand.   If this is the case, it raises very serious questions over
the objectivity of the report and its conclusions.

"While I accept the subject matter of the petition does not refer directly to
offshore mining projects such as ours, there is certainly a strong enough
link between the subject matter of the petition and our project to raise an
alarm. This is further compounded by the fact that Greenpeace is a key
submitter in opposition to CRP's marine consent application.

"Any potential for a relationship with a submitter needs to be disclosed by
EPA staff and, if any connection exists, the staff member simply should not
be involved.

"We have asked the EPA to confirm whether the staff member was a signatory to
the petition.  The EPA's response has been the staff member is not and has
never been a financial member of Greenpeace and, while the individual does
not recall whether or not they signed the petition, the staff member has
conceded it is possible that they may have signed it.

"We understand the staff member did confirm they have, from time to time,
received communications from Greenpeace. We have asked the EPA to investigate
the matter further, but the EPA advised it is satisfied with the individual's
response.

"In the circumstances, that response is simply is not good enough.  A hazy
memory about such important matters is not convincing, and we believe the
only reasonable inference that can be drawn is the staff member was in fact a
signatory to the petition.

"If that is the case, it confirms our suspicions the report was not an
objective or fair evaluation of the merits of CRP's proposal, quite apart
from the other serious problems regarding accuracy, that we have identified
with it.

"It is absolutely vital in a public process like this the people involved in
assessing our proposal are objective and there is no possibility of bias.  We
do not have confidence this is the case and we believe there is a serious
risk our application has not been fairly assessed.

"The only option is for the report to be formally withdrawn," said Mr Castle.

"This is an important issue for all public servants. The public must have
confidence in their independence.

"While we understand it is already in the public domain, in our view there
should be formal recognition the report has no value and will have no legal
relevance to the rest of the marine consent process."

An application to the EPA's decision-making committee responsible for CRP's
application will be made shortly.

"We are confident the decision making committee will share our concerns about
the report and direct that it be withdrawn".

Mr Castle said CRP has identified numerous errors of fact in the report and
the company also has concerns about conclusions drawn which conflict with
expert evidence.

He said there is no reason for a staff report to contain any conclusions or
recommendations as an input into the decision-making process.  "This is
particularly unfair as the views of staff cannot be tested through the Marine
Consent process because they do not give evidence."

Mr Castle said there was no need for a second staff report, nor is there any
need for any delay to the marine consent process as all relevant issues will
be fully aired before the decision making committee..

"The process underway involves several weeks of evidence and discussions
between interested parties.  That is the public process which matters, where
anyone who has submitted on the proposal can be involved."

Contact Chris Castle on +64 21 55 81 85 or [email protected]
End CA:00254314 For:CRP    Type:GENERAL    Time:2014-08-25 09:32:51