Submission on the “Fast track approvals” Bill

This is a submission on behalf of Dr Janine and Dr Quentin Paynter. We are experienced scientists with a long-term interest, for our children’s sake, in the well-being of New Zealanders and because this is tightly dependent on a healthy natural environment we are concerned about the environment. Dr Janine Paynter has a PhD in agriculture and natural resources. Dr Quentin Paynter has a PhD in medical entomology.

There are several aspects of the ‘Fast-track Approvals Bill’ that are cause for significant concern.

Firstly, only three Ministers, with a narrow political perspective and contribution, because they are required to be consistent with their restricted party lines and ideology; having all the power to decide. This makes the process highly vulnerable to corruption and political ideology. The current Ministers are likely to see themselves as highly competent, incorruptible and are likely to be overestimating their own capacity to make a wise decision in the face of complex issues and interests. They certainly have no idea about the competency or control of any new incoming Minister from a different party. Elected Ministers are also likely to vary in competency over time and with government change and in the face of one or two disastrous proposed projects, presided over by three incompetent or compromised Ministers, has the potential to do irreversible damage and may only benefit a small, select, already privileged number of New Zealanders.

Secondly, the advisory panel of 3 people (based on quorum recommended in the legislation). I am sure the proposed current members are highly competent in their respective fields of expertise. However, I am concerned that the only in-depth analysis or study of the environmental impacts of the development are from the applicants. This is a clear conflict of interest that is unacceptable. The impact assessments require a wide variety of expertise including zoologists, ecologists, different types of engineers, hydrologists etc that are well beyond the likely capacity of the small team of advisors. They will not be able to peer review the in-depth impact statements unless they call on other consultants, but this is optional in the legislation. This should not be optional. There should be independent peer review with matching expertise to review any applicant provided impact assessment. This goes for assessment of the likely benefits of the proposal as well.

Thirdly, the accountability and liability pathway for any errors made in this process on the part of the Ministers and advisory panel is not clear enough either. The only mention of this in the legislation is that the advisors won’t be liable. So, who is? Where will the money come from in the face of devastating outcomes for communities and the ecosystem? What if the project doesn’t bring the speculated economic benefits but irreversibly damages the environment because it was only a lawyer, a town planner and a noise quality expert that presided over a process that involved removing the vegetation for heavy vehicle access to an open cast mine and making the whole ground unstable and vulnerable to flooding in a way we haven’t seen before because of climate change. Where are the provisions in this bill that specify the people with the right expertise are required to critically review the application on its claims of economic merit and lack of risk or adequate risk mitigation?

Climate change is a clear and verified threat to our well-being and economy. Undermining the integrity of our ecosystems and our landscape is likely to put us at higher risk of adverse outcomes and less resilience to climate change. Not enough provision and acknowledgement of this is provided in this Bill.

A lot of knowledge, expertise and experience has gone into determining our current areas of natural significance and conservation. Why the sudden dismissal of this accumulated expertise and effort to identify and protect these areas?

The government has not provided adequate evidence that there are problems with the current Acts and that projects previously rejected in these processes do have sufficient benefit-cost ratio. There are already fast-track mechanisms for good projects. Why is something new needed that circumvents an already established democratic process?

This is a disappointing Bill. As scientists with a good grasp of global economic and environmental issues this Bill seems devastatingly backward and dangerous to New Zealand’s sustainability and well-being.