My submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill

There are some really hard-hitting submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill coming to light now that the select committee call for submissions has closed.

One of the best submission is from Environmental Defence Society and see their media release.

For what it's worth, here is my submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

1. It is wrong immoral and unethical to cause adverse effects on the environment (damage pollution or destruction of habitats plants aninmals and ecosystems).
2. It is more unethical to damage the environment in order to make money.
3. It is even more unethical to damage the environment for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
4. It is even a further step more unethical to damage the environment that has been legally recognised as deserving of conservation status for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
5. It is worse again than this to also illegally downgrade and expunge the conservation status of a conservation park so a land swap could be arranged to provide for the footprint of an irrigation dam. That was the finding of the Supreme Court over the legality of the Ruataniwha project's conservation land swap proposal.
6. It is worse again to do this with no public hearing.
7. It is worse again to do this with no fact-based right of appeal.
8. It is worse again to do this when the resource exploitation is for coal - when the IEA and the IPCC say that coal reserves must be left in the ground to avoid 1.5 degrees of global warming.
9. It is worse again to destroy the habitat of endangered and threatened endemic species such as the Mt Augusta snail which was only found on the summit of Mt Augusta within the unique coal measures habitat of Buller that was destroyed by the Stockton Mine.
10. It is an order of magnitude more unethical to enact unconstitutional legislation that gives biased politicians with known funding from resource extraction industry a bundle of "Henry VIII powers" decision-making powers that allow them to bypass resource and conservation laws to approve failed resource exploitation projects that have adverse environmental effects in conservation areas.
11. This bill does not have a constitutionally valid justification. There is factually no valid "business case" for this bill.
12. It is a knee-jerk politicised reaction to the inevitable failure of highly speculative ill-advised resource exploitation that were all found to be invalid under a range of relevant statutes.
13. Going back to the John Key premiership, there were similar ridiculous projects. The tunnel to Milford under the Routeburn track, the monorail to Milford in the Snowden conservation area and the gondola to Milford via the Greenstone valley. We have a history of ridiculous resource exploitation projects.
14. Fortunately sanity and due process prevailed as the Hon Nick Smith declined approval of the first two projects.
15. The projects such as the Ruataniwha Dam, Te Kuha/Escarpment coal mine, Trans Tasman Resources marine consent, the Waitaha Morgan Gorge hydro project, all validly failed on their merits againts current statutes and policies after hearings and examination by independent decisions-makers or courts.
16. This was, as a matter of fact, not "obstruction" or "red green tape". It was not failure. It was actually proof that the suite of Aotearoa's resource laws were working as intended. To prevent adverse environmental effects on Aotearoa's special and unique environments.
17. Is it too much to ask the three Ministers that the rule of law is followed? That the relevant independent court and hearings decisions are respected?
18. Isn't the rule of law the most important attribute of a funcioning democracy?
19. Like the Trans Tasman Resources marine consent proposal for "suction mining" of the ocean floor, the bill will "suck up" the offending resource legislation blamed by the three Ministers.
20. The the relevant protective statutory considerations (which are set out in schedules to the bill) will be reduced to so much mud-like fine silt - that will then be just ignored by the three decision-making Ministers in their intemperate urgency to personally approve illegitimate and destructive projects.
21. It is just wrong and ill-liberal for the bill to give the three decision-making Ministers such direct decision-making powers in place of independent decision makers who have appropriate training and vocations.
22. The only connection the three Ministers have with resource conservation and environmental law are their links to extractive industries. That should disqualify them from being decision-makers.
23. The bill seems to have been written expressly to circumvent several resource and conservation statutes as well as the independent decision-makers.
24. It is not so much a bill, as a grab-bag of "Henry VIII powers" that allow the three Ministers to bulldoze over Aotearoa's natural resource and conservation statutes.
25. That is repugnant, abominable, egregious and morally reprehensible.
26. I request that the fast track approvals bill not be enacted.