Comments
I strongly oppose this Bill, which makes the already-harmful Fast-Track Approvals Act even worse by weakening the role of the Environmental Protection Authority, restricting participation in expert panels and making their composition even less fair, and setting artificial and unrealistic deadlines for the approval of complex projects. This Bill ought to be withdrawn, consistent with the tens of thousands of people who expressed their thoughts on the original Bill.
In passing, I note the underhanded and undemocratic way this Bill was presented to the House, with the top-line marketing about supermarket competition. This Bill is not really about that, and I disapprove of the Government’s tactics in this vein. I also disapprove of the extremely short timeframe for public comment. It’s as if the Government doesn’t actually want to hear any feedback.
Specifically, giving the Government the ability to give direction to the Environmental Protection Authority is wrong. The New Zealand in-flight biosecurity video says “This fragile place is all we’ve got… as if our way of life depends on it… because it does”. In practice, the EPA plays a key role in providing expert technical advice about humans’ impact on the environment, and we need to strengthen its role, not override it for partisan political considerations. It is telling that the EPA Chief Executive resigned within 24 hours of this Bill’s introduction.
There are two problems with expert panels as proposed in this Bill: the ability for applicants to influence panel composition delegitimizes them, and the requirement for panels to consult being watered down to a requirement to inform means that the Government will fail in its duty to consult with key constituencies.
Finally, setting arbitrary deadlines for making complex decisions does the opposite of encouraging good decision-making (as opposed to politically expedient decision-making, to the detriment of us all).
Recommendations
The correct amendment to the Fast-Track Approvals process is to scrap the existing process altogether and replace it with one that properly balances Treaty and environmental considerations with purported economic benefits. Failing that, this Bill should be withdrawn.