Council debate on coal heats up

Coal became the subject of debate at Auckland Council’s Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on June 13.

Up for discussion was council’s submission on the government’s Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Part of council’s submission opposed any consents for the establishment of new coal mines in natural inland wetlands and significant natural areas, and the removal of sunset clauses on existing mines in those areas.

Cr Andy Baker asked why the submission had included a stance against coal mining when there were no coal mines in Auckland.

“It doesn’t actually impact us, yet we are taking opposition to it,” Baker said.

Natural Environment Strategy analyst Brendan Judd said the submission aligned with council’s current policies.

“The pathways for coal mining will impact carbon emissions, so even though we don’t extract coal, we do use coal,” Judd said. “We have de-carbonisation pathways we are committed to.”

Cr Ken Turner said he could not support a submission opposing coal when Auckland was clearly still reliant on it.

“Auckland uses 20 per cent of the country’s power. Huntly produces 17 per cent of it and we have got some of the best quality coal in the world,” Turner said.

Cr Angela Dalton asked for councillors to get back to the facts on energy.

“Instead of throwing up the whole coal argument, the rainbows and the unicorns, let’s get some facts around the place,” Dalton said.

She said 80 per cent of Auckland’s energy use was renewable.

Cr Daniel Newman said the submission felt “very political” and it appeared people were unhappy with the “flavour” of the government.

“Set the politics to one side,” he said. “This bill will pass. We might not have coal mines here, but this region is a very significant user of coal and that will not change.”

Cr Julie Fairey said it was a healthy process to debate an issue and vote.

Chair Richard Hills said the submission was based around council’s current policies and if councillors wanted to change those policies, they would have to be brought back to committee.

“If there are members of this council who want to remove the climate plan, the water strategy or other things, then they have to put up a notice of motion and get the votes to remove that,” Hills said.

Votes for the submission were divided, with eight votes in favour, eight votes against and two abstentions. Chair Hills had the casting vote, so endorsement for council’s approach was passed.

Cr Greg Sayers, Cr Andy Baker, Cr Sharon Stewart and Cr Maurice Williamson voted against.