SUMMARY

The proposal

• McCallum Bros Ltd (MBL) has applied under the Fast-track Act to dredge 8.45 million m³ of sand from a 17 km² area of Bream Bay, about 3,000 rugby fields.

• It would run in two phases: 150,000 m³ over the first three years, then about 250,000 m³ a year for the following 32 years, using a trailing suction hopper dredge.

• The mining area sits about 7 km offshore, in 20–30 m of water, running out to the shipping anchorage.

• Northland Regional Council would monitor any consent. The Guardians argue a three-year review is far too short, because serious effects take decades to show.

Where the process is at

• The application was lodged on 26 January. DOC and Northland Regional Council found it complete.

• The expert panel, chaired by a retired High Court judge, invited the Guardians, 24 other Bream Bay community groups, iwi and hapū, and national groups such as Forest & Bird to comment.

• The process has been slowed twice. MBL took 10 weeks instead of 10 days to respond to submissions, then sought a Wildlife Act exemption for stony corals, which paused everything until DOC reported back.

• Key dates: expert conferencing on 3–4 November, draft decision due 10 December, final decision by 16 February 2027.

The Guardians’ case

The Guardians have filed 27 expert reports, most of them from nationally or internationally recognised experts.

• Auckland doesn’t need the sand. It has about four times the sand the concrete industry can use, land-based and manufactured sand supply is growing, and Bream Bay sand is nothing special.

• Economic benefit to Northland is questionable.‍ ‍

• There’s too little evidence. Limited studies have been done of how sand moves within the bay, and every opposing expert says the panel doesn’t have enough information to decide.

• The seabed isn’t bare. Divers and cameras found reefs MBL said didn’t exist. They also filmed repeat sightings of crayfish, including females carrying eggs, and a strongly regenerating scallop population, in places at commercial density.

• The mining is too close to the beach. Coastal experts agree this will eventually cause beach loss that can’t be reversed once it starts.

The peat issue

• McCallum’s seabed cores first recorded peat, then MBL called it a “typo”.

• Peat or other organic material would create sediment plumes that last days or weeks, block sunlight, kill seagrass and harm shellfish. It also weakens concrete.

• A report from Professor Mark Dickson (University of Auckland) was admitted by the panel despite opposition from MBL’s lawyer. Samples are now being lab-tested.

Scallops and the Fisheries Act

• The protections for scallops in MBL’s proposed conditions are minimal. There’s no sampling for juvenile scallops, and the sampling method looks unworkable.

• The Fisheries Act sits outside the Fast-track Act. However, the Fisheries Minister could lift the scallop ban, or remove protection in specific areas.

Lessons from Pākiri

• MBL has mined at Pākiri for 80 years. A survey there found trenches 2.7 m deep and 15 m wide.

• The Environment Court declined the renewal, mainly because of effects on local hapū and iwi. MBL appealed and later withdrew.

The legal test

• The panel can decline the application if its adverse effects, even with conditions, are out of proportion to the regional or national benefit. That benefit must be a public one.

• The case therefore rests on evidence, not legal argument.

What the Guardians are asking of the community

• Fund the fight. About $250,000 has been raised and almost all of it is spent. MBL has a history of appealing declined consents, so more money will be needed.

• Vote with sand mining in mind. Party positions range from “let the process finish” to an outright ban. Candidates’ written policy statements were available at the meeting.

Malcolm Morrison’s presentation

Video credit: Dr Gary Payinda / Whangarei Labour