John MacDonald: Taking away the Environment Court is a bad idea

I don’t like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of people who own land that the government or your local council might want for big infrastructure projects.  

But I'm more concerned about denying people who object access to the Environment Court. Instead of the court, if someone isn’t happy about compulsory sale of their land, they’ll have to complain to the Land Information Minister or their local council – depending on who it is that wants their land.  

And we know who’s going to win that argument every time, don’t we?   

“Dear Minister, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”  

“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”  

Or "Dear council, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”  

“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”  

The changes are being promoted as a cost-saving exercise and a way of getting big infrastructure projects happening sooner. The Government wants these changes so that big projects don’t get bogged down.   

And the way it’s going to do that is by paying people more money to get their land if it’s needed for a big infrastructure project.   

That’s if they agree up front. Because, if a landowner agrees upfront and doesn’t challenge it then there will, of course, be less expense involved.   

The Government wants these changes to get cracking on its roads of national significance and its other fast-track projects.   

It's all to do with the Public Works Act. Which is the legislation that means if your house is sitting somewhere where the Government or your local council wants to build something like a new motorway, they can knock on your door and tell you that they’re buying your house.  

It’s a compulsory acquisition of a property that isn't on the market but is needed for public works.  

At the moment, if people don’t want to sell, they can go to the Environment Court. But the Government wants to do-away with that and I don’t agree with that at all. 

I suspect that if you’re not affected, this sounds like a great idea. But if it’s your land that the Government or your local council wants to get its hands on, you might feel a bit differently.  

I don't even need to be in the position of owning land the Government wants to take off me to know that taking away the right to go to the Environment Court is a bad idea.  

Tell that to Land Information Minister Chris Penk, though. He says: "Public infrastructure projects up and down the country are often held up for years by overly complex, drawn-out processes for purchasing the land needed."  

He goes on to say: “This has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.”  

Pretty much every time you talk to someone who is anti-the environment court, they start going on about snails on the West Coast.  

You’ll remember this one: about 20 years ago, Solid Energy wanted to build a mine where there were these giant snails and Forest & Bird went to the Environment Court trying to stop it.   

What seems to have got lost over time is that the Environment Court agreed with Forest & Bird but didn’t have authority to intervene. It was then that Forest & Bird went to the High Court. Which led to Solid Energy paying for 6,000 of these snails to be relocated from the Stockton Plateau, so it could access $400 million worth of coal.  

People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on progress often refer to that case, and see it as good reason for getting the Environment Court out of the picture.  

But I don’t see it that way. The Environment Court is a backstop. A backstop people should not be denied access to if they don't want to sell their land to the government or their local council.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
I've got to say, I've got to say I don't
like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of
people who own land that the government or your local
council might want for big infrastructure projects. Gets worse though.
I definitely don't like this idea of denying people who

(00:35):
object access to the Environmental Court instead of the Court.
If someone isn't happy about land being taken, they're going
to have to complain to the Land Information Minister or
their local council, depending on who it is that wants
their land. And we know who's going to win that
argument every time, don't we Hands down, Dear Minister, I

(00:56):
want to hold onto my land, yours so and so,
dear son, so tough, or dear counsel, I want to
hold on to my land, yours so and so, they're
so and so tough. So these changes that the government
wants to make, they've got and look, how do I

(01:19):
describe it? There's only one way to describe it. These
changes have got ripped, shit and bust written all over them.
And I particularly don't like the fact that the government
wants to stop people being able to go to the
Environment Court if they don't want to sell the changes
they're being promoted as a cost cutting exercise is pretty
much everything is and a way of getting big infrastructure

(01:43):
projects happening sooner. The government wants to changes so that
these big projects don't get bogged down, and so the
way it's going to do that is by paying people
more money to get their land in the first place,
if it's needed for a big infrastructure project, and if
they agree upfront, because you know, if a landowner agrees

(02:04):
upfront and doesn't challenge it, then there will of course
be less expense involved. And the government wants these changes
to get cracking on its Roads of National Significance and
its other fast track projects. That's what I meant by
riphit and bust. So this is all to do with
something which sounds rather dune, the Public Works Act, which
is the legislation that means if your house is sitting

(02:25):
somewhere where the government or your local council wants to
build something like a new motorway, they can knock on
the door and tell you that we're buying your house.
It's a compulsory acquisition. And it's all to do with
the government or a council forcing the sale of land
that isn't actually on the market but is needed. And

(02:45):
so the owners are told that it's compulsory they sell
and at the moment, if they don't want to sell,
they can go to the Environment Court. But the government
wants to do away with that. And I don't agree
with that one bit. You know. I suspect that if
you're not affected, or you haven't been affected in this
way before, I suspect it sounds a great idea. But

(03:07):
if it's your land that the government or your local
council wants to get its hands on, I think you
might feel a bit differently. I mean, I don't even
need to be in the position of owning land the
government wants to take off me. And I know right
now that taking away the right to go to the
Environment Court is a terrible idea. Tell that to Land
Information Minister Chris Pink Though he says, quote public infrastructure

(03:28):
projects up and down the country are often held up
for years by overly complex drawn up processes for purchasing
the land needed. He goes on to say, quote, this
has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for
communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.
End of quote. So that's the Cell job. Pretty much.

(03:49):
Every time you talk to someone who was anti the
Environment Court, they start banging on about snails on the
West coast, don't they. Oh, you remember this one Solid
Energy you wanted to build a mine where there were
these giants snails and there weren't giants. It was about
twenty years ago and Forest and Bird went to the
Environment Court trying to stop it. And what seems to

(04:09):
have got lost over time is that the Environment Court
agreed with Forest and Bird, but it didn't have the
authority to stop the mining. And it was then that
Forest and Bird met to the High Court. After that,
Solid Energy paid for six thousand of these things to
be relocated from the Stockton Plateau so it could access
four hundred million dollars worth of coal. So why mentioning
that is that people tend to think that's what the

(04:29):
Environment Court is all about. Well it's not, As I say,
People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on
progress often refer to that case and they say it
as good reason for getting rid of the Environment Court altogether,
but I didn't see it that way. The Environment of Court,
particularly when it comes to compulsory acquisition of land, the

(04:53):
Environment Court is a backstop, and it's a backstop we
would be nuts to deny people access.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
To for more from Category Mornings with John McDonald. Listen
live to news talks It'd be christ Church from nine
am weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.