Editorial: Fast track for Contact sets bad precedent

'Local people should have a fair say in developments which affect their neighbourhood'. Photo / Christine Cornege

Opinion

Understandably, energy companies are seeking to take advantage of the fast-track rules in the 2009 Resource Management (Streamlining and Simplifying) Amendment Act. Some have been annoyed at the way community opposition has thwarted or delayed their plans, notably for wind farms. Contact Energy has been one of these. Now, however, it has little cause for complaint given the new rules have enabled it to gain approval for a $1 billion geothermal power station near Taupo in just eight months. Instead, there is good reason for public concern.

When the act was changed, one of the main thrusts was the need for quick and binding approval of major infrastructure developments. A one-step decision-making process was established, with a board of inquiry required to make a decision on consents within nine months. The clear understanding, however, was that these were to be projects of national significance. It is difficult to see how Contact's Tauhara 2 development meets this criterion.

The Environment Minister, Nick Smith, may laud the decision, saying "long delays in getting consents for such renewable energy projects over the past decade came at a high economic and environmental cost". And, in time, the project will doubtless prove its worth. Its 250MW output will be sufficient to power more than 200,000 homes - the equivalent of Hamilton and Tauranga. But this is not a project of critical importance to the economy. Indeed, Contact has virtually conceded as much.

The company refuses to state when it will start building Tauhara 2. Construction, which will take almost three years, will start "when market conditions allow", it says.

That suggests not a vital and urgently needed piece of the national energy jigsaw as much as an add-on that Contact will bring to bear when it has the chance of maximum profit. If it is a step towards achieving the Government target of 90 per cent renewable energy by 2025, that, too, is hardly a justification for this treatment.

There are obvious concerns if the broadest of fast-track brushes is applied to such projects. The trade-off for reducing the average approval time from two years to nine months is a reduced right for community interests and environmental protection groups to be heard in the decision-making process. Undoubtedly such participation sometimes led to unreasonable objections before the act was changed. But local people should have a fair say in developments which affect their neighbourhood. That should be removed only if a project is, indeed, of national significance. Now, a precedent has been set and other energy companies will be only too eager to follow Contact's lead.

Dr Smith should be wary of this development rather than revelling in it. Regrettably, however, this is not the first time he has been guilty of such errant enthusiasm. Last month, he told the Auckland Council he would probably invoke the fast-track rules for the building of a South Auckland prison. Not only is this, again, not a project of national significance but, like some energy developments, it is virtually guaranteed to be opposed by most local residents. Certainly the Manurewa Local Board chairman wants the normal objections and appeals to apply.

There is a place for the fast-track process. The completion of Auckland's motorway network is a matter of national significance and the Waterview link justifies this approach. But the rights of the local community should not be restricted unless there is very good reason. Approval for the Tauhara 2 geothermal project confirms that an unhealthy urge to bypass any opposition is becoming too prevalent.