Trying to halt the fast-track?
Submissions closed and here's mine. What did we learn?
Folks expressed interest in my submission on the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, given my position that compromise seemed the best answer. Some people were interested in my case for holding to the centre of politics, but I saw no evidence that there was a common ground emerge.
I therefore focussed my submission on the wide acceptance that the case for environmental harm was a given, and making the case that the legislation is also bad for business and investment. Business may have influence on this now, or in the long-run.
My earlier concerns that we are re-enacting Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine echoed through my thoughts as I tried to find time for the submission while speaking to media about the massive cuts to public science and the capacity for evidence to inform policy. Those thoughts are more poignant since I was also spending time on the things that happen in life – in this case some medical adventures.
I couldn’t help but rant on a Monday podcast interview that reigniting a lust for mining coal could brand us as a banana republic. Or as the late Rod Oram feared almost 20 years ago at the peak of his rise in prominence shifting from business to environmental journalism, we could become the model of an undeveloping nation.
This is a short post (except for the submission), and I’ll be listening and looking through the weekend to see what we’ve learned.
Summary of my submission on the Fast-Track Approvals Bill
As proposed, the Bill would enact a return to primacy of resource exploitation over the principles of environmental management expected during recent decades in New Zealand, our peer nations, and those which serve as markets for our exports and sources of overseas investment. The likely impacts on the environment are deeply concerning and have been widely summarised by NGOs, journalism and academics.
Shortly after the Bill’s First Reading, I made comments to media and put out an article which was republished and served as a useful point of discussion. In it I emphasised that fast-tracking has the potential to be a serious mistake for relatively simple reasons.
Whereas modern environmental legislation, including the now repealed Natural and Built Environments Act (NBEA), achieves certainty and speed by recognising environmental limits around tipping points and sets targets, fast-tracking with less process actually increases the risk and unpredictability that becomes a barrier to investment, productivity, wealth and well being. Setting clear limits and targets around the environment allows for national, regional and sectoral strategies to provide certainty and thereby achieve investment.
In contrast, enacting the proposed fast-track processes will very likely amplify risk, because the Bill is unlikely to be durable over time. It is dubious constitutionally and outside the Overton window discussed in the election, and likely to be repealed in future elections.
In my written piece and in a second which expanded on the topic, I gave the Bill the benefit of the doubt that the role of ministers and the expert panel could have been intended and could still be clarified to represent a good process consistent with improvements to the RMA. The resulting discussion appears to have served to test whether there is a practicable compromise where the Fast-Track Approvals process can become stable legislation with broad support across Parliament. Further analysis by NGOs such as the Environmental Defense Society (EDS) as well as the Minister’s 22 March speech on RMA Reform suggest there is no common ground – compromise is unlikely. I therefore encourage compromise toward good process only in a few detailed comments and instead focus on the serious consequences of the proposed legislation.
It is my view that if the Bill proceeds is enacted in its present from it will have the following serious and deleterious consequences:
Serious and irreversible harm to our environment, natural heritage and ecosystems (see for example Prof Margaret Stanley’s summary in The Conversation).
Apparent violation of New Zealand Free Trade Agreements (see appendix to EDS submission)
Expansion of non-tariff trade barriers based on corporate and consumer sentiment: disfavour in supply chains and severing of value chains involving New Zealand’s exports.
Loss in foreign investment from corporates and investors repelled by the reversal of environmental and social progress.
Most environmental opposition has centred on the first point above. However, development and natural resource exploitation of the type likely to be fast-tracked and targeted in letters announcing the legislation often has limited local benefits favours international companies, the deleterious consequences of the latter three points above are likely to outweigh any economic gains.
I strongly oppose the Bill in its present form. If it is to be passed, I recommend substantive changes to improve the quality, transparency and equity of the decision-making process and access to fast-tracking.
Excellent, Troy, with some great points I hadn’t considered. Thank you!