by Metiria Turei
The media kerfuffle over Meridian’s secret ‘hush-money’ paid to DOC to supposedly silence its concerns with the Project Hayes wind farm is a little off the mark. While “following the money” is often a good maxim, in this case the elephant in the room is actually Government policy.
Back in 2004, when the Labour Government began ‘Whole-of-Government’ (WOG) approaches to selective resource consents – the idea that the all Government agencies submit a single and coherent view – the Greens sought an assurance that this would not result in the Department of Conservation being prevented from submitting evidence and advocating for conservation and recreation. The unequivocal answer from Environment Minister Marian Hobbs was that it would not.
DOC has a statutory function under the Conservation Act (6b) “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally”. You see, DOC is the the owner-in-trust of our flora and fauna on behalf of all New Zealanders, and on both public and private land or sea. It is also a massive land owner/manager itself, again on our behalf. As Metiria stated yesterday, the law requires them to able to stick up for it.
But the WOG approach has sometimes meant that DOC is prevented from submitting (and appealing) proposals that have obvious conservation impacts – examples include Meridian’ s North Bank hydro and Central Wind projects, as well as Project Hayes. In the case of the Mokihinui hydro dam, DOC was thankfully allowed to submit (strongly opposed).
The Prime Minister said at yesterday’s post-cabinet press conference that while he supported a WOG approach where the Government has a clear policy, he also does not wish to see agencies with particular objections prevented from submitting them. For that to happen he needs to issue an instruction that DOC is to sit outside WOGs. He also has to be careful: the whole idea of the RMA is that decision-making is not vested in the Government, but in Councils and Courts, so the Government needs to participate but not interfere.
John Key also said he is “hopeful that the changes to the RMA will improve this”, yet it is National’s policy to explicitly REMOVE DOC’s advocacy function. How on earth can removing advocacy powers improve them!
The RMA Amendment Bill to be tabled this week will take the first step in doing this - a Cabinet paper leaked yesterday states the Bill will “remove the Minister of Conservation’s powers in respect to decision making on restricted coastal activities”. The Greens insist that the Minister of Conservation must have the power to protect our coastal flora and fauna.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Metiria Turei on Tue, February 17th, 2009
Tags: conservation, Department of Conservation, DOC, environment, Metiria Turei, Resource Management Act, rma
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I find less fault with DoC’s dealings with Meridian than others although I have some problems with their process.
We need to distinguish between regular blackmail, greenmail and brownmail by potential objectors and sensible and cost effective negotiations over methods of mitigation.
If I approach you and say “unless you give me $50,000 NOW I shall be the one neighour who does not sign off and cost you heaps in hearings and delays”, that is regular black mail. Greenmail or brown mail is when the same threat is disguised as a green or Treaty issue.
However, if I approach you and say “your proposal has the following adverse effects on my property but if you agree to do this (or pay me to do the same works) then I will be satisfied and may even support your project. Naturally, you only need to stump up for these works if you get consent.”
IF this is properly documented and has no other coercion then then it is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate means of mitigating effects. Compensation is a standard form of mitigation.
So the real issues are the ones Metiria mentions not whether such deals can be done. On the other hand there are good reasons to limit DoC’s “advocacy” role because it is unique in that it is the only Government dept with a budget to interfere in the effect of Plans on private land and to intervene on private land consents even when the proposals have NO impact on DoC or its land at all. DoC actually employs “planning officers” who make extensive submissions on proposed plans. This generates massive resentment from landowers and from other government departments who have to sit by and watch actions with they disagree with but which they have neither the mandate nor the budget to respond to.
When this “advocacy role” went through the house most MPs presumed it was about advocacy in schools and had not idea it was going to develop into the massive interventions which are now the norm. There are many who say DoC should spend more time on the ground and less time in the Courts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have respect for Owen’s view above on “greenmail” – a term I hadn’t heard before, but explains exactly what I had in mind on that issue.
But there is a larger, more insidious issue, and this also goes straight to the Green Party position, and just what is the environment.
As the Frog knows(!), it is my view that NZ needs all the renewable energy it can find. If a debate ever comes down to terms such as “views” versus renewable energy, I’m going to side with renewables every time.
Thus its entirely possibe that DOC might think that looking after flora and fauna is all very well, but that the biggest threat comes from more CO2 up the chimneys from thermal plant, which is what happens for every KWH of renewable enrgy we fail to generate. Thus building more renewables, even fairly horrible renewables is always better than more thermal, which is the only other available option on the table.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right on dbuckley. I have great respect for Brian Turner & Anton Oliver, but in the case of their opposition to wind farms they are no different to any other NIMBYs.
We need to use every reasonable alternative energy solution available to us.
There are issues to be dealt with – the danger to native falcons for instance – but the wind farms are vital. As are more hydro plants. Not too many protesters are inclined to abandon their power connections. Our population’s growing. The financial crunch and increasingly obvious climate deterioration (particularly in Australia) could well lead to hundreds of thousands of expat Kiwis returning home quite soon.
We’re on the verge of requiring even more power per capita to cope with exponentially increasing numbers electric vehicles.
Where’s the power going to come from?
When alternative energy technologies are available decades down the track the windmills can be removed.
The reporting of DOC’s realistic stance is just another instance of our incompetent media getting on a high horse without checking the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)