The Progressive Loss of the Right to Speak Up

Right now the Ministry for the Environment is consulting on proposed intentions to allow the assessment of exploratory drilling in the Deep Sea Ocean, as a ‘Non-Notified Discretionary’ activity. So far it’s the first activity, where the potential impacts of development have been identified as so potentially significant as to warrant a Discretionary activity status (i.e. the ability of the EPA as decision maker to take into account any relevant consideration), whilst removing the right for any member of the public to be notified or comment on such a dangerous activity. This is combined with the inability of any objectors to lodge an appeal or objectors to protest at sea. The RMA Planning Reforms for 2013 announced last month, make clear that more activities will be identified as undeserving of public notification and comment.

The stated reason given for a blanket prohibition of notification, is that the “costs to the applicants of the current discretionary classification are disproportionate when considered against the scale of the activity and impacts on the environment and existing interests”.

The same argument could be used time and time again, whenever public submissions might get into the way of encouraging activities identified as desirable/profitable. The reason has nothing to do with improving the quality of decision making. Nor is the reason linked to the inability of the applicant to obtain a reasonable return from their investment. There is no consideration as to whether knowledge held by the public or groups such as Greenpeace, NIWA, marine biologists or scientific researchers, may able to contribute to the understanding of efforts from drilling or the sensitivity of specific locations.

Such an action is arrogant in the extreme and completely inappropriate for an activity that had a $37 US Billion dollar clean-up bill in the Gulf of Mexico alone, as outlined in the Greenpeace Report: ‘Out of Our Depth: Deep-sea oil exploration in New Zealand’ May 2012.

Greenpeace points out that drilling in deep water carries with it new risks, which are not yet fully understood or addressed. Furthermore, the cost of addressing blowouts in New Zealand waters could be significantly greater than that experienced in other parts of the world, due to its more pristine state, cold and rough seas and isolation from established petroleum infrastructure.

It should be taken into account that even a 0.1% probability of a serious oil spill, in reality translates to 1 anticipated serious oil spill around the world every year per 1000 operations.

The fact that operators of such drilling only need to take into account NZ Conservation Acts, as opposed to comply with them, does not provide confidence that effects on marine diversity will be appropriately considered. Nor does the assessment criteria of “provide for protection of the environment in the EEZ while enabling economic activity of benefit to operators and the New Zealand economy”. Such criteria is ominously silent on what happens when environment protection is incompatible with economic activity.

Public notification of applications for development is already rare (6% of all resource consents assessed in 2010/2011). It should not be removed as a political tool to eliminate an inconvenience, contrary to the original intentions behind the Resource Management Act 1991 of participatory democracy.

ENDS

© Scoop Media