UPDATE ON TIMELINE AND PROGRESS
Bream Bay Guardians invited the public to a presentation on 24th October to update everyone on the current status of McCallum Bros Ltd sand-mining application, and provide details of what’s been happening over the last few months.
Over 80 people came to hear what’s happening - including representatives of all political parties and local government. Malcolm Morrison spoke for 15 minutes, followed by Q&A. The videos of this session, along with the slides from the presentation and a summary of key points, are provided below.
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
Question 4 : Can an incoming Govt cancel the project?
Question 1 : Tim Mullins
Question 5 : Is historical data and evidence from Northport included?
Question 2 : Presence of peat in samples
PATUHARAKEKE TE IWI TRUST BOARD POSITION ON SAND MINING
Note: Ngatiwai also hold this position collectively
Position Statement:
From a Patuharakeke perspective, the sand extraction proposal is inconsistent with Treaty settlements, breaches Te Tiriti and tikanga, causes significant and enduring harm to Te Ākau Bream Bay and its people, and delivers negligible and uncertain benefits elsewhere. We are therefore asking the Fast‑track Expert Consenting Panel to decline all approvals sought.
We have a special relationship with Te Ākau Bream Bay.
Te Ākau Bream Bay lies within our rohe. Our tūpuna have relied on te moana o Te Ākau mai rā anō for kaimoana, cultural and spiritual practices. Through whakapapa, ahi kā and ongoing kaitiaki mahi, we hold tino rangatiratanga and active guardianship over the Bay and its taonga. Looking after Te Ākau is something we do ia ra ia ra (every day).
2. Tikanga must sit at the forefront of the decision-making (Te Tiriti o Waitangi and MACA).
We consider that tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa and is part of New Zealand’s common law. For this application, tikanga (including whakapapa, ahi kā, tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga) must sit at the forefront of the Panel’s decision.
Granting the consents would:
Undermine the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga of Patuharakeke and Ngātiwai over their ancestral waters.
Significantly harm the mauri of Te Ākau Bream Bay and its taonga species (dolphins, whales, fish, scallops), and therefore the mauri and mana moana of the iwi and hapū.
Te Tiriti principles still apply to the FTAA even though it contains no general Treaty clause. The submissions argue that:
Besides environmental concerns, Te Tiriti and tikanga breaches are themselves “very significant” adverse impacts, sufficient on their own to outweigh any claimed benefits.
3. There are inconsistencies with the Fisheries Settlement
We consider the proposal is inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 (s 7 and s 85(1)(b) FTAA require decision‑makers to avoid inconsistency with Treaty settlements) because it:
Risks customary and commercial fisheries
Threatens fish stocks, settlement quota and Moana New Zealand (the Māori fisheries company) by degrading habitat within key fishing grounds.
Undermines the Te Ākau scallop closure
Cuts across gazetted rohe moana and customary fishing rights
4. There is uncertainty around a finite resource and claimed benefits (Benefits are Minimal and Uncertain).
Experts agree Auckland does not presently need sand from Te Ākau Bream Bay. Any “benefit” now is just additional consumer choice.
Emissions are a cost, not a benefit: With no real need, any extra transport and extraction emissions are additional climate costs.
Future demand and supply are likely overstated
Kaipara is an established, renewable, currently successful source; there is no clear evidence it will become unavailable. Other sources also exist.
The applicant has not provided robust evidence that the stated volume of sand exists and can be taken for 35 years. This uncertainty reduces the weight that can be given to any benefits.
5. There are Significant Adverse Impacts
Cultural:
Serious harm to rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga and our enduring cultural relationships with Te Akau, including long‑standing customary fisheries and practices.
Ecological (supported by technical evidence):
Damage to benthic habitats (including tipa/scallops, horse mussels, corals).
Risks to threatened taonga marine mammals (bottlenose dolphin, Bryde’s whale).
Potentially significant, uncertain effects on coastal processes and natural character in an already eroding bay and in the face of climate change.
Planning and legal:
The proposal is contrary to multiple legal instruments that still require consideration under the FTAA eg. NZ Coastal Policy Statement, Northland Regional Plan and Part 2 of the RMA.
All the adverse effects fall on Te Tai Tokerau, particularly Te Ākau Bream Bay; all the claimed benefits go to Tāmaki Makaurau. Te Tai Tokerau “gains nothing” from the project; this inequity is identified as a significant adverse impact in itself.