The select committee considering the Fast-track Approvals Bill has received tens of thousands of submissions, including 13,000 using Forest & Bird’s quick submission template.
There are shades of the Three Waters process of the last few years, although with the participants having reversed roles.
A difference being that significant number of submissions to Three Waters recognised the serious issues around paying for necessary upgrades of infrastructure and were not distracted by the noise around co-governance.
While the totality of submissions has yet to be considered, a quick review of those published to date is enough to cause concern.
The auditor-general has raised concerns around conflict of interest, and there being no requirement for the ministers to give reasons for their decisions.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, while recognising the time it takes to get major projects under way, questions whether the Bill, as drafted, is the best way to deal with this issue.
The submission sees significant environmental risks in the deprioritisation of both the environment and the role of the minister for the environment.
The commissioner predicts sub-optimal outcomes through poor decision making, lack of legislative durability and an increase in litigation risk, recommending significant change to the Bill.
Greenpeace is more forthright, labelling the legislation "anti-democratic, anti-transparency, vulnerable to corruption and lacking any semblance of environmental protection".
The submitter laments the proposal, which gives three ministers the power to approve or deny development projects, avoiding the usual checks and balances already in place.
Dame Anne Salmond, in what she terms an "open submission", delivers a scathing condemnation of the proposal, which she calls out as having utter disregard for democracy and a deliberate war on the environment.
Her submission continues to the effect the proposed legislation lacks any party mandate and is advanced by a party that has just 6% of the vote.
Dame Anne reminds us the majority party in the coalition, with 38% of the vote, pledged itself "passionate about safeguarding New Zealand’s unique national environment, abundant natural diversity, pristine waters and spectacular landscapes for future generations".
It would appear that passion has cooled; its objective sacrificed to achieve political power.
Already the spectre has been raised of serious political backlash.
The commissioner for the environment foresees "lack of legislative durability".
It is of significance the capricious Act of Parliament overriding a Court of Appeal decision to progress the Clyde Dam proved deeply unpopular and no doubt contributed to the then government’s electoral loss in 1984.
Andrew Geddis and Nicola Wheen, in their article published in The Guardian (22.4.24), raised concerns about this proposed legislation, speaking of it being the greatest assault on due process since the 1980s.
The ministers in whom these significant powers are to be vested have been very clear where their sympathies lie, and it is certainly not in alignment with environmental protection nor good governance.
Clearly, the conception of cost-benefit analysis driving this proposal runs counter to shared values which recognise relationships not only between people but also the environment. The measure of value adopted excludes the latter.
Ostensibly, the rationale for this policy is that of economic benefit to New Zealand, specifically in provision of jobs for New Zealanders.
This is rather ironic logic from a government that has ruthlessly cut jobs in the public sector in the interest of economic efficiency.
There is little doubt the projects envisioned by this fast-track legislation will be, by and large, carried out by international corporates, the main objectives of which are to maximise returns to shareholders, precious few of which will be New Zealanders.
Our environment is to be sacrificed on the altar of Mammon.
- Noel O’Malley is a recent graduate of Otago’s School of Peace and Conflict Studies.
