PM should acknowledge f laws in oil-ban process

Jacinda Ardern’s decision to ban new offshore exploration permits was once celebrated with fanfare; now it seems she dare not speak its name. At the start of the year, Ardern was delaying attending state visits in order for her to personally receive petitions calling for an end to oil exploration. On the eve of her first trip to Europe as prime minister, she planned a celebratory announcement of the ban in front of a sympathetic university audience.

By Monday, days before the legislation comes back to Parliament for its final votes, it was almost as if the ban was forgotten. Asked about the lack of public consultation on the law change which enforces the changes, Ardern appeared to believe the Government was rushing through legislation for the benefit of the oil industry, to allow the annual process of offering new exploration permits to be progressed ‘‘this calendar year’’.

Leaving aside the fact that the block offer will not happen until next year, Ardern did not mention the ban once and went so far as to suggest the law change provided ‘‘absolute certainty’’ to the industry.

In reality, the decision on the oil industry appears to have left New Zealand’s boardrooms concerned that sectors of the economy may be subject to intervention from a Government with good and honest intention, but willing to act without taking time or getting good advice.

It is not the first time the Government has claimed it was rushing through the changes for the benefit of the industry. In September Energy Minister Megan Woods’ office acknowledged consultation would be truncated to speed the process of offering new permits. At the time this was drowned out by alarming official advice on the ban, and efforts by the Government to discredit it.

The advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) claimed the move represented a multibillion-dollar hit to the Crown, with no evidence it would lower carbon emissions. Woods compared the advice to crystalball gazing. Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters said anyone who came up with the advice would leave people thinking that ‘‘you just don’t know what you’re talking about’’.

Analysts said the advice used techniques which were common in the private sector and stood up to market scrutiny.

The real reason for the rush – it is just over a month since Woods announced the law changes – appears to be to try to minimise the scope for debate on the legislation.

The environment select committee was tasked with dealing with more than 2000 submissions, on generally complex subject matter, in just over a fortnight. Many of the submissions were predictable, naturally.

The oil industry marked it as a cataclysmic decision which had severely damaged New Zealand’s reputation as a place to invest, that would also undermine the energy security of our remote islands.

Many environmental activists lauded the move, suggesting it should have gone further with an immediate end to fossil fuel extraction, amid an urgent need to take steps to mitigate climate change.

Some of the submissions, however, get to the real heart of the matter. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee – a quasi-official group of technocrats tasked by the attorney-general with helping improve legislation – warned that the rushing of the legislation could hit ‘‘confidence in the legislative process’’. This is the reason Ardern should not be so casual in her dismissal of questions about the lack of consultation.

The Government has every right to make decisions. Whatever the official advice is, New Zealand’s political system allows the democratically elected Government to make decisions as it sees fit.

But this was a political decision, made without proper advice, which would have a lasting impact on a part of the economy which touches every household and business, at least indirectly.

When the Government got the official advice, which appeared to undermine the justification for imposing the ban, ministers attacked its credibility in dismissive terms. Then it rushed the public consultation phase and refused to travel to Taranaki – the heart of the sector – to front up to the region that faces the major impact.

None of that can be changed and too much of the Government’s credibility is tied up in getting the legislation across the line for anyone to back out now. But as the Government marks its first year in office, it would be reassuring for it to acknowledge that this type of process will not be used again, or at least that it appreciates why it has come under scrutiny.

Instead, it claims to be acting in a way that serves the interests of the sector which is on the receiving end, without even acknowledging that the ban is the subject up for debate.

This was a political decision, made without proper advice, which would have a lasting impact on a part of the economy which touches every household and business, at least indirectly.