Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki is a small community organisation that has been working for more than 45 years to keep gold mining out of Hauraki.
Our group started in response to a renewed interest in gold mining in the late 1970’s early 1980’s when the price of gold began to reach significant levels. Several companies came into New Zealand (primarily from Australia) with a view to mining, and due to its history, the Hauraki area, and Te Tara o te Ika a Māui the Coromandel was specifically targeted.
Our communities had real concerns about the impacts of mining on freshwater, on ecology and on our local society – concerns that persist today. Mining, particularly hard rock gold mining, is a massively damaging industry, and has well documented impacts on freshwater and on the ecology of the wider environment. There are also a range of social impacts that stem from a boom and bust’ industry, as well as the division that comes with both a lack of knowledge and ideological differences.
Today, in 2025, we can see that our fears were not unfounded. Waihī, the only area that was successfully developed for mining in the 1980s has not seen great wealth from that activity. In fact, they are now one of the poorest areas in the Waikato (on a grander scale, the West Coast of the South Island, an area mined continuously for more than 100 years is similarly poor, despite a significant amount of mineral wealth being removed). Waihī has lost a significant (sacred to some) landmark Pukewa, and now in its place stands a vast hole – so vast that high school geography classes visit to see a man made topographical change. The River is now topped up regularly with ‘treated’ water – within a specified Ph range, but anecdotal evidence indicates that this has had a major effect on the River.
Having been working in this space for so many years, we have been aware of and following Oceana Gold (OGL) developing interest in the Southern Coromandel with concern; the expansion of the mining at Waihī itself is, as the gold has again reached record prices, inevitable. It has largely become a mining town, dependent on the mine for employment for some. We have and will continue to oppose the expansion there, in part due to the toxic legacy that it will leave future generations by way of the vast dams of toxic waste it is constructing, the climate considerations and the (new) proposals that would see the loss of SNA’s, wetlands and yet more landforms. But we are also deeply shocked and saddened to see a new industrial underground mine proposed for conservation land, as part of that expansion.
The proposal is to mine in nationally significant conservation land at Wharekirauponga via a 6.8km long, 6m high dual carriage way tunnel system. Initially OGL applied for a resource consent for this in 2022, but then in 2025 – before the company had finished providing Councils (WRC and HDC) with the further information they had requested – the company withdrew that application as they were accepted into the Government’s new Fast-track Approvals Act process.
This process denies any right of participation to all but a very limited group as prescribed in the Act – various Government Departments, specific iwi, hapu (identified via Treaty Settlement Processes), Councils and the Applicant themselves. There is no right of participation afforded to community, to groups (that represent the public interest), to experts in the field or to non-mandated tangata whenua. These may be invited to comment by the expert panel, but there is no clarity around if that will happen, until the invitations are issued. And then, the comments must be provided within 20 working days.
Departure from the participatory process will not provide avenues for the robust scrutiny and interrogation of the application that such a project must have in order to reach a robust decision and ensure that the various expertise that such a process facilitates is heard – whether it be matauranga or cultural connection, expert or local knowledge or representations of what a receiving community want – how such a project could impact them.
Tunnelling into an area with a high water table must only be done while exercising the precautionary principle, particularly given the scale, possible ramifications (acid mine drainage, dewatering etc) and risks in these times of uncertain climate. This proposal has a range of unknowns – the reports on water repeatedly state assumptions and predictions, and ifs… it identifies that there is a warm/hot spring in the area – an anomaly – that will be dried up as a result. But there is little consideration fo the ecological implications of that. There is succession of drying up wetlands, and expectations that intrusion won’t happen between the stratifications – but these are unknown quantities. There is, by nature of what is being proposed, a significant gap in knowledge of the geophysical impacts that may come from the changes to the hydrology of the underground systems. There are a range of assumptions made about the impacts on above ground vegetation. And then there is the consideration of taking thousands of litres of water out of one catchment, and putting it into another, every day. From the Wharekirauponga, which leads into the Ōtahu, and eventually Whangamatā harbour, into the Ōhinemuri, which in turn enter the Waihou before heading out into Tikapa Moana o Hauraki.
One of the most obvious ecological concerns we have is that it is an area known to be a core habitat area for the Kūripeke (Archey’s Frog), one of the 3 unique and evolutionarily distinct herpetofauna species of Aotearoa New Zealand. These species are only found in 3 areas of the country, and this is one of the most significant – this exact spot. The reports in the application on this subject are woefully inadequate. Based on a range of inappropriate extrapolation, and supposition, not even written by a herpetologist, let alone one expert in the species. And the Kūripeke is not the only threatened species in the area; the application notes a variety of freshwater species, a number of flora species and yet more that ‘could’ be present but as yet have not been identified. Given that Aotearoa New Zealand has more than 4000 species in decline, and we are still discovering species as yet not described in science yet, we must ensure that we carefully consider placing them under any more stress – especially where we do not need to.
There are two areas of precedent that we are seriously concerned about in this proposal; 1 – the mining permit and consents in and of themselves. This area is a significant natural area within Hauraki, it is nationally significant conservation land and core habitat. Allowing mining in such an area is inappropriate and unsustainable. 2 – the offset proposed by the company. Offsetting is inherently unsustainable, particularly in cases where it is designed as a mechanism to enable a private company to have significant impacts on public land with high biodiversity values in return for funding *some* biodiversity work elsewhere on public land. The maintenance of public land, the conservation of it, should and must be adequately funded by the Government – not by private businesses as an ‘offset’. To us, this – and the whole ‘no net loss’ narrative, is illogical. The former certainly seems like a bribe: if you let us do this, we’ll do that….that is a slippery slope indeed.
The offset itself is not very significant, poorly thought out and has had little input or consultation to inform it – and, like the economic benefits of the mine, is for a comparatively short time. Not that we think that any economic gain would justify sacrificing such significant ecological values as are found in this area, but frankly, a company that is taking in the vicinity of $350,000,000, offering up $8,000,000 (over 18,000hectares, over 10 years for pest plant and predator control) is pitiful – and makes a mockery of the ‘care and concern’ they claim to be doing it for.
We are concerned about the actual character of the company. OGL has a shocking international reputation for harming the environments, and people, in the jurisdictions it operates. In the uSA where it has the Haile mine, it has been repeatedly fined for breaching environmental limits. In the Philippines, there are clearly recorded instances of both environmental and human rights abuse. In El Salvador, it had its licences revoked as it became apparent that the freshwater sources of communities were being compromised (a situation which saw the company take that Government to the ISDS Courts, suing them for hundreds of millions of dollars before eventually losing and having to pay the El Salvadoran Government $7million.
There is a lot missing from the application – we are still finding the gaps – although being just a lay people we are no experts in the range of topics that this application traverses; a few examples are found in the Water reports, of which there are many, there seems to be an assumptive theme, a lack of precaution, a willingness to give it a go and see.
- The Frog report has some serious deficiencies such as it relies on a survey method that was not designed for the purpose it is being used for, so results should not (cannot reliably) be used for that purpose. The report says that “conclusions drawn from limited surveying are tentative…” Therefore the final statement of inferring minimal impact of vibration footprint on frog distribution is not robust.
- In the tailings reports there is an assertion that Oceana ‘supports’ international standards, but at no point does it indicate that they are seeking any accreditation to them.
- The financial information in the Social Impact reports extrapolates a lot of short term benefit for the local community, and region (and nationally) but makes no comment on the longer term impacts of end of mine plans (OGL were due to wind up this year, but had no plans in place, had done no work with local community or Councils to that end). It contains no consideration for the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the Tailings dams – or of liability for the Company should (when) a dam fails once they leave Aotearoa – they may be here for 10-20 more years, but these dams will persist for hundreds or thousands – unless they collapse first, and the experts (geophysicists who work in the mining/hydrology etc spaces) that we have spoken to have opined that that really is a when, not an if.
And that’s just a few thoughts about this application that we thought we’d share… as the process plays out there are more and more factors that highlight that Fast-tracking a proposal like this is not going to lead to a good outcome, for people of planet, for Aoteearoa’s unique and special species nor our communities – and certainly not for future generations of either!