A Queenstown resident yesterday compared the "minor" effects of the proposed Dart Passage Tunnel construction to terminal cancer and told Department of Conservation hearings chairman Paul Green and assistant Chris Visser "I'll see you at the funeral".
Kevin Jennings said saying the construction effects of the $150 million, 11.3km tunnel through two national parks, proposed by Milford Dart Ltd, were "minor because they last only two and a-half years, is like saying terminal cancer is minor".
Speaking in a personal capacity Mr Jennings, also Film Queenstown manager, said applicants for concessions into national parks which were "truly temporary, lasting less than one day" could be refused because they did not demonstrate the activity could take place outside the park.
"Access to Milford Sound does exist outside national parks.
"When I see things like this, it makes my blood boil.
"We will be told 'no' for a one-day activity and yet, for a 15-year concession, they'll be told 'yes'."
The repercussions would be "far-reaching and complex" for the department once the precedent had been set, he said.
"To believe these effects can be mitigated is unimaginable and I would fail to see how public confidence in the department will ever be restored - mine will not."
Mr Jennings said should the concession be granted, New Zealand would witness the birth of "Doc 2.0. Doc 2.0 will be great for big business, though not so good for conservation."
Katherine Cahill, of Glenorchy, cried as she addressed the panel yesterday afternoon and said the issue "touches my very soul".
"I feel sick to my stomach every time I think about it; it constantly keeps me awake at night with worry."
Mrs Cahill and her husband moved to Glenorchy four years ago to live the "good life" near the Rees Valley.
She said both the Mt Aspiring and Fiordland National Parks were within the Te Waipounamu World Heritage Site, which placed a moral obligation on New Zealand to "take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary" to protect, conserve, preserve and rehabilitate the heritage.
Viv Shaw, of Te Anau, a member of the Southland Conservation Board, was "very disappointed" the board had taken a neutral stance on the proposal, but it had pointed out inconsistencies with the Fiordland National Park Management Plan and the Conservation Act.
"That doesn't constitute a neutral stance.
"What concerns me is that the department appears to have ignored the board's advice."
Dr Chris Shaw, an engineer, of Te Anau, said the officer's report was flawed and, even though the department's decisions were meant to be based on a "sound view", there was not enough information included in the report to help inform the decision-maker.
"If the decision was [in favour of MDL], there would be a case for a strong legal challenge and I would support that ..."
The hearing continues.
