Laws the bill bypasses
grandees”. It was a disappointment to both the iwi and the regional council, Environment Southland.
Instead, this Government’s fast-track bill will empower Bishop, Brown and Jones to decide such a project will go ahead first, without prior approval.
The project will then be referred to a panel of experts to determine what conditions should be placed on it to preserve the environment or mitigate harm. If the minister agrees, full approval is granted.
A remaining safeguard is the ability for a minister’s decision to be taken to the High Court for a judicial review.
Jones echoes the argument heard in the House decades ago, arguing it was right for Cabinet ministers to adjudicate on these national-scale projects as “a one-stop shop” for consenting.
“A lot of these projects are floundering on the basis of a hierarchy of values. Who’s best suited to make those value judgments? Politicians or judges? I say politicians. And if you don’t like what we’ve decided, then fine, we will face the ultimate sanction, which is the election 2026.
“I actually see it as the blossoming of democracy.”
What projects will enter the fast track is not yet known, though the Government will be pushing its road-building programme through it and there is no shortage of industries lining up in anticipation. The first projects to go ahead will be determined by a panel and entered into the law itself, but only after the select committee process where the public is able to contribute.
There will be “white water” about contentious projects, Jones expects, particularly mining projects. But the Government is intentionally limiting the opportunity for the public to contribute to the expert panels.
“Those rights are going to be confined to people that are genuinely impacted by the effects of that project. Not some generic centrist environmental organisation that’s able to rustle up a few wounded souls and try and hobble a project.”
Yet he concedes certain projects could be cast aside, if the “to-and-fro” between project owners and panels can’t find a “sweet spot”.
“Ministers at that time may very well say, ‘This project is just too controversial, the conditions can’t be agreed to at this point in New Zealand’s history, and can’t go ahead’. Who knows, that might happen? I don’t know.”
Again, this would have precedent. Political commentator David Farrar, a
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Resource consents, notices of requirement, certificates of compliance under the Resource Management Act 1991.
The need for Department of Conservation concessions under the Conservation Act 1987, and concessions and permissions under the Reserves Act 1977. Anything otherwise prohibited under the Wildlife Act 1953.
The archaeological provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.
Marine consents under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Land access under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Approval for aquaculture activity under the Fisheries Act 1996.
National Party member and pollster who does work for the party, said the principle of having ministers decide such projects “causes disquiet”.
“But we have such an infrastructure deficit and an entire consenting system that just makes it almost impossible for major projects… it could be a necessary evil.”
Farrar raises concerns about transparency. While he trusted these ministers to wield the power properly, what about future governments?
He thinks there should be a requirement in the law that companies putting forward projects must make public all their dealings with the deciding minister, as far back as they were a mere MP.
He also expects people who oppose the policy will pick one or two projects to fight the battle on, and such controversy to pose a political risk for the Government.
“The Key government did consultation on opening up more land for mining, and they, I think somewhat stupidly, decided to include an iconic area of Great Barrier Island on there, and the backlash to that was so ferocious that basically it killed off the whole thing.
“And actually, there were other areas where actually there probably was a good case.”
Already the campaign against the fasttrack bill may be crystallising around a protracted bid to mine the seabed off the Taranaki coast.
Trans-Tasman Resources is in front of the Environmental Protection Agency this week, and both Greenpeace and Te Pāti Māori have been making noise – Greenpeace believes the mining firm is waiting for the fast-track law to come online.
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said coal mining on the conservation estate and destruction of the seabed would be the focus of their opposition to the law and the “damaging project” it pushes through.
“It’s one of the most anti-democratic assaults on the environment undertaken by any government in decades... where is the environmental expertise in that ministerial group? Where is the understanding of the longer-term social and environmental impacts of some massive, massive decisions and that level of power?”
She said there was no imbalance between environmental protections and economic development. “That is such fossil thinking and we'll be fighting [Jones] and this every step of the way.”
Here we are again, almost 50 years after Muldoon sought to centralise power for Think Big projects. We’re just lacking a catchy phrase for it this time around.