There is a bill before Parliament right now that has the potential of blowing a rather big hole in our reputation as an open and transparent democracy.
It is the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
Its problems are myriad.
It is clearly rushed.
If enacted it would give Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Shane Jones extraordinary powers to approve projects that may potentially have major adverse effects on the environment.
There are two categories of projects. There are those listed in part A of schedule 2 of the Act which automatically get referred to an expert panel for consideration and those which the Ministers approve to be included for consideration.
There are limited criteria to take into account and limited ability to seek legal redress against a Ministerial decision to include a project for consideration. But for those lucky projects which are in part A of the schedule there will be very little that concerned citizens can do.
These projects do not have to meet the criteria contained in section 17 of the Bill. They do not have to be an identified priority project, or deliver regionally or nationally significant infrastructure, or increase the supply of housing or deliver significant economic benefits or support primary industries or the development of natural resources, or support climate change mitigation or recovery from natural hazards or address significant environmental issues or be consistent with local or regional environmental issues.
By their very inclusion they are deemed to be of national or regional significance.
But dear reader there is a major problem with schedule 2, for it is empty.
The Government has confirmed that the schedule will be completed before the legislation is passed. But the time for public submissions ends this Friday and it appears to be exceedingly unlikely that the projects will be announced any time soon. The Government has asked for applications for projects to be included and the timeframe does not close until May 4.
Chris Bishop is gung ho about the law. He said to Television New Zealand:
Bishop said he made “no apologies” for the changes.
“We are deliberately disrupting the system. The status quo is failing New Zealand.”
He said he has received emails and letters from people lobbying for projects, which would be made public under the Official Information Act if requested.
“People are excited about fast track, there’s people out there who want to use the law.”
But this is what happened when Radio New Zealand followed up on his suggestion that the OIA be used:
With days left for submissions on proposed Fast Track consenting legislation, the public is still in the dark about what projects might be picked.
RNZ’s Official Information Act requests to obtain answers have been rejected on the basis material will be released “proactively”. But the agency leading the process can not guarantee the proactive release will occur before public submissions close. The Ministry for the Environment said it was collating material from multiple agencies and “can’t yet say” when the information would be available to the public.
Already we have an inkling about the sort of project that could be included. Trans Tasman Resources has recently abandoned an application for sand dredging off the Taranaki coast. And Stephenson Mining has not appealed a decision that prevented it from mining a mountain in Westport that is home to numerous threatened species including roroa great spotted kiwi, South Island fernbird, geckos, and 17 plant species.
Apart from requiring Ministers to act in a manner that is consistent with treaty settlements there is no acknowledgement of the Treaty of Waitangi.
And the type and location of activity that can be allowed is jaw dropping. Projects that would otherwise be prohibited under local district plans, like carving up the foothills of the Waitakere Ranges would be possible. And projects in World Heritage areas are possible, with the only extra requirement that the Minister of Conservation be consulted.
The Ministerial powers are extraordinary. They have the ability to effectively rewrite a panel’s recommendation. The matters that they can consider are extremely wide.
And the process will be truncated. Councils will only have 10 working days to respond to projects that may be extremely complex. There will be no public hearing and no ability for the public to have any say.
The bill is attempting to address a perceived problem, that of the slowness in handling resource consent applications, by not only speeding up the process but allowing open slather on the environment.
The bill does allow fast tracking of projects that will support climate change mitigation, including the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions. But it completely undoes the benefits of this by allowing the fast tracking of projects that will will support development of natural resources, including coal and petroleum. And climate change mitigation is not included as a purpose of the Act.
Perhaps most disturbingly the potential for corruption is high. Inclusion in the first part of schedule 2 would be a bonanza for any company and would allow them to sidestep the sort of oversight and review that the environement needs for its protection. The stakes and the potential benefits are high. And there will be limited redress or judicial oversight.
The Environmental Defence Society has been scathing in its response to the bill. From its website:
“Our detailed analysis concludes that there is no need for the Bill and that it should not proceed to enactment,” said EDS Chief Executive, Gary Taylor.
“What is clear from the Bill is that it’s a fake premise, purporting to speed up decision-making when its real purpose is to enable environmental harm with impunity.
“Ministers will have unprecedented powers to approve pet projects. The public will be precluded from having any say. Development is given absolute priority in an astonishingly unbalanced set of decision-making criteria.
“Moreover, the process for giving selected projects a preferential consenting pathway via Schedules to the Bill is arguably unconstitutional, involving a process with no select committee or public scrutiny allowed. Coal, gold and offshore mining interests are very excited.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the legislation lacks legitimacy and is truly an exercise of unbridled power by Ministers.
“Existing fast-track provisions already enable very speedy decision-making on major projects without gutting all environmental protections. That process has seen an average timeframe of just 97 days for referred projects and 88 days for listed projects. There is no need to replace that law.
Submissions close this Friday. Please make your voices heard and not only submit but also ask for the ability to meet with the Select Committee to present your submission. The Parliament link for lodging a submission is here and EDS has this helpful template submission that allows you to generate a submission.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress