The Bill underscores the Government’s commitment to promoting growth and development. It’s welcome, but it requires some refinement.
Currently, RMA processes are slow and expensive, with infrastructure projects taking ages to work through processes and costing $1.3 billion annually in consent expenses. This does not include costs and delays from other conservation laws or for projects such as housing, mining and aquaculture, all of which could benefit from fast-tracking.
Around 100 projects could qualify for automatic fast-tracking, with additional projects subject to ministerial referral. Expert panels will review the projects, offering recommendations to Ministers, who will then make the final decisions.
There has been criticism of the Bill. Criteria for eligibility are strong on economic benefits, but it is unclear how competing projects will be ranked. Some argue that when decisions rest solely with Ministers, it increases uncertainty and fosters perceptions of political influence. Consequently, they think expert panels should have the final say.
The Bill emphasises economic benefits, a focus that has sparked opposition from environmental groups. Critics complain that the Minister for the Environment is not involved in the decision-making process, that appeal rights are restricted and that environmental groups will not be consulted.
In response, the Government insists that environmental impacts will be managed. Important conservation land will not be available for projects and consideration will be given to threatened species. Additionally, expert panels will have the authority to recommend conditions for consent.
So, how can the Bill be improved?
Economic efficiency should be a criterion for ranking and assessing projects. Economic expertise should also be added to expert panels.
Either expert panels should be made the decision makers or there should be strong disclosure requirements on Ministers. The Minister for the Environment should be added as a decision-maker.
There should be a sunset clause to make fast-tracking temporary until the current RMA is replaced.
The end goal should be a better RMA and conservation laws that enable economic development while respecting property rights and protecting the natural environment.
Ultimately, projects should be able to proceed efficiently without the need for fast-tracking.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
Around 100 projects could qualify for automatic fast-tracking, with additional projects subject to ministerial referral. Expert panels will review the projects, offering recommendations to Ministers, who will then make the final decisions.
There has been criticism of the Bill. Criteria for eligibility are strong on economic benefits, but it is unclear how competing projects will be ranked. Some argue that when decisions rest solely with Ministers, it increases uncertainty and fosters perceptions of political influence. Consequently, they think expert panels should have the final say.
The Bill emphasises economic benefits, a focus that has sparked opposition from environmental groups. Critics complain that the Minister for the Environment is not involved in the decision-making process, that appeal rights are restricted and that environmental groups will not be consulted.
In response, the Government insists that environmental impacts will be managed. Important conservation land will not be available for projects and consideration will be given to threatened species. Additionally, expert panels will have the authority to recommend conditions for consent.
So, how can the Bill be improved?
Economic efficiency should be a criterion for ranking and assessing projects. Economic expertise should also be added to expert panels.
Either expert panels should be made the decision makers or there should be strong disclosure requirements on Ministers. The Minister for the Environment should be added as a decision-maker.
There should be a sunset clause to make fast-tracking temporary until the current RMA is replaced.
The end goal should be a better RMA and conservation laws that enable economic development while respecting property rights and protecting the natural environment.
Ultimately, projects should be able to proceed efficiently without the need for fast-tracking.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment