Government Bent on Wrecking our Future.
My Submission to Parliament: I strongly oppose this bill because streamlining the application process is qualitatively different from giving a select group of ministers carte blanche to do what they want.
EVIDENCE:
The Introduction to the Legislative Statement makes the following claims:
Para 1: “The Bill aims to enable faster approval of infrastructure and other projects that have significant regional or national benefits”
Para 2: “Consenting…. places insufficient value on the economic and social benefits of development relative to other considerations.”
Key provisions as listed:
5: (ref. schedule 2B): “Ministers will determine whether a project should be fast-tracked.”
7: Fast track referral process “Joint ministers will decide whether to refer a fast-track application to an expert panel.”
9: “Ministers will have broad discretion…. There would be no requirement to refer an application because it is an eligible activity.”
13: Membership of expert panels: there is no requirement for the convenor or any of the panel to have science expertise.
Decision-making:
17: “The purpose… of the Bill will take primacy over other legislation in decision making…. Development projects with significant benefits… are not declined where the benefit of… the project outweighs any issue identified.”
MY SUBMISSION: This bill must not proceed.
REASONING:
The clauses I have highlighted in italics represent an unacceptable abrogation of citizens’ rights by a small group of ministers and a shift towards autocracy.
They also conceal a set of assumptions that are
a. economically unwise.
b. morally repugnant.
Specifically:
1. There is no clear definition of what vague, value-laden terms such as ‘development’ or ‘benefit’ actually mean. The ‘development’ referred to may bring financial benefits to the applicant; but as the trickle-down hypothesis has been shown to be largely a self-serving fiction(1–3), the extent to which such developments benefit New Zealand citizens in general is another matter entirely.
This is especially the case if the application is made on behalf of entities that include or represent overseas owners or shareholders.
2. Multiple analyses (4–8) have demonstrated that a rapid shift away from industries with high greenhouse gas emissions is essential if we want to avoid catastrophic damage to the global economy. There is nothing in this bill that distinguishes between development that is environmentally sustainable and that which is not. Under this bill, these decisions will be made by — in effect — just three ministers.
a. There is no provision or requirement for those three Ministers to be science-literate. If they lack science literacy, they are in no position to make rational decisions about the real costs and benefits of any application.
b. Any decision to consult an expert panel is entirely at the discretion of these three ministers. We, the public, have no way of knowing what corporate lobbying they are subjected to, or how that lobbying may influence their judgement. At a time when we are increasingly conscious of the consequences of flouting planetary boundaries, this is profoundly unwise.
c. Allowing three ministers to have this level of control is paternalistic, dangerously autocratic, and an insult to the entire democratic process.
3. This bill, and the attitude it represents, treat the biosphere as an externality: it’s not. A healthy economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a thriving biosphere. Conventional economic thinking notwithstanding, the economy is not a finance system; it’s an energy system (9–12). Global heating alone is likely to severely damage the economies of our major trading partners in coming decades (13-31).
“Business as usual” is a delusion.
At such an inflection point in human history, the goal of government is not to do the bidding or corporate lobbyists, or pursue the fantasy of endless GDP growth but to maximise the wellbeing of citizens within viable planetary boundaries.
My conclusion: the Bill represents
(a) an antidemocratic mindset and
(b) a dangerously outdated, science-illiterate view of the economy.
References: See below.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/12/supply-side-economics-scam
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
3. https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315
5. https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefits-of-curbing-climate-change-far-outweigh-costs
8. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62892013
9. “The consensus narrative — propounded by decision-makers in government and business, supported by the economic orthodoxy, seldom questioned by the mainstream media and seemingly accepted by a majority of the general public — is that we can rely on an infinite continuity of economic growth.” https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2023/09/18/261-the-post-truth-economy/
10. “Ultimately, the economy is an energy system, not a financial one, because literally nothing that has any economic value whatsoever can be supplied without the use of energy.”
“The contest between these two schools of thought is reaching a climax now, because two factors are undermining the fossil fuels dynamic. One of these is the recognition that continued reliance on oil, gas and coal threatens to inflict irretrievable damage to the environment.
The other is that depletion — the practice of using highest-value energy resources first, and leaving costlier alternatives for a ‘later’ which has now arrived — is eliminating the ability of fossil fuels, not just to drive further growth, but even to maintain the economy at its current scale and complexity.”
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2021/06/23/203-surplus-energy-economics
11. https://phys.org/news/2023-08-critics-degrowth-economics-unworkablebut-ecologist.html
12. https://newptc75.medium.com/politicians-do-you-understand-the-exponential-function-1d22ba40c52c
13. ‘…growth can no longer be humanity’s ultimate goal. For this century, we need a more ambitious and mature aim: to provide enough for each, in a way that can last’.
https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf
14. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/asia-heatwave-india-china-thailand-b2323666.html
15. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/impact-climate-change-global-gdp/
18. https://phys.org/news/2023-03-simultaneous-climate-extremes-global-societies.html
20. ‘Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy if they abandon economic growth as an objective’: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x
21. https://phys.org/news/2022-04-halve-energy-climate-catastrophe.html
22. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/calculating-nzs-renewable-electricity-gap
23. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/cheap-abundant-energy-is-the-problem-not-the-solution
24. https://medium.com/@Surly1/the-coming-climate-catastrophe-ad8b2890101d
25. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55893696
26. https://phys.org/news/2020-02-multiple-eco-crises-trigger-collapse-scientists.html
27. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2017/climate-updates/
28. https://www.overshootday.org/
29. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/mit-1972-prediction-societal-collapse-b1884673.html
31. ‘Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity.’ https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
