Ideology unbalances economy and environment

Opinion: When the Resource Management Act was developed by the Labour government in the late 1980s there was a strong focus on sustainable development. A common saying in vogue at the time was that good economic decisions should also be good environmental decisions.
Much of this was a reaction to the Muldoon government’s infamous National Development Act which had run roughshod over previous environmental and planning safeguards to facilitate the “Think Big” energy projects. These, in turn, had been devised in the wake of the 1970s oil shocks to attempt to secure New Zealand’s energy self-sufficiency in the event of another global energy crisis. However, by the time the projects came on stream in the 1980s, the immediate energy crisis had passed, leaving the projects uneconomic, with massive debts to be paid by the New Zealand taxpayer.
The Resource Management Act was intended to prevent a repetition of the Think Big experience and instead set some clear standards for balanced, sustainable future development. This would be achieved by a series of national policy statements in critical areas to guide the act’s implementation. But, as is too often the New Zealand way, insufficient groundwork was done to lay the act’s foundations, no national policy statements were completed by the time the act was implemented, and the courts and local authorities were left to interpret its provisions and intents in a vacuum.
The upshot was a very conservative approach by local government officials and the courts to the act’s provisions. By the early 2000s, there was mounting frustration that the Resource Management Act was not facilitating sustainable development and indeed was hindering any form of development. Calls for its repeal began, overlooking that to do so would, in the short term at least, have meant a return to the previous dysfunctional regime of 54 pieces of planning legislation.
Between 2008 and 2017 the Key and English governments tried to streamline the processes of the Resource Management Act but were substantially thwarted from doing so by support partners unconvinced their real intent was not to render the act completely toothless, and thus easier to repeal. Ironically, it was the Ardern Labour government that eventually repealed the Resource Management Act, only to have its replacement, the Natural and Built Environments Act, dumped by the Luxon government and the Resource Management Act temporarily reinstated while new legislation was developed.
The National-led coalition’s initial offering, the back-to-the-future Fast-track Approvals Bill – which concentrated final-decision making power into the hands of just three ministers, rather than Parliament, Cabinet or the Courts – was even more constitutionally repugnant than Muldoon’s National Development Act. After much opposition, the Government has finally abandoned that provision. Though that has quelled some of the opposition to the Government’s plans, the fundamental question about the balance between economic and environmental factors in sustainable development remains unanswered.
The previous, Labour-led government wanted to move to a lower-carbon energy environment, so stopped all oil and gas exploration in and around New Zealand, in favour of a greater emphasis on a fully renewable energy supply by 2030. This would be supplemented, only where necessary, by imported refined fuels and cheap overseas coal. But Labour’s superficially attractive approach was hurried. It overlooked short-term needs and led to the current shortages in critical areas, causing some business closures this winter.
The coalition Government’s response announced this week has been more short-to-medium term than long term. The ban on oil and gas exploration will be removed, and liquefied natural gas will be imported to meet current energy shortfalls. However, these changes will take time to implement, and have immediately raised the ire of Labour and climate change activists. In the short term at least the Government’s jawboning of energy suppliers over pricing – led by the associate energy minister, Shane Jones – seems likely to continue. Though that may be good politics, there is little evidence it is having any constructive impact.
Although the Government says it remains committed to a lower-carbon energy future, the specific details of how that will be achieved remain unclear. Labour has offered to work with the Government on future energy policy, which is potentially a positive step, but its offer contains so many conditions as to make it difficult to see it as anything more than a political gimmick.
All of which leads back to the central issue – essentially unresolved since the advent of Think Big ideas in the late 1970s – of striking the right balance between economic development and environmental sustainability. There is no real balance, only soft and shallow ideological position statements.
Labour’s commitment to a fully renewable energy supply by 2030 sounded good but, as the party now ruefully admits, lacked the detailed work. It ended up being no more than a bumper sticker statement. Although National’s approach looks pragmatic, it still leaves the uncomfortable feeling that if renewed oil and gas exploration leads to significant new discoveries, the Government’s interest in a lower-carbon future over the longer term would diminish accordingly. While this lack of clarity and certainty on both sides of politics remains, long-term energy policy and planning looks as uncertain and disjointed as ever.
Given the competing interests of the energy industry, climate change policy experts and associated groups, the only lasting solution to meeting our future energy requirements in a balanced and sustainable way is through a broad political consensus.
The political parties should come together, without pre-conditions or vested interest groups, to devise a long-term energy strategy they can all can agree on, and pledge to follow whenever they are in government. Such an accord would provide the certainty required for the short and medium term, and for the transition to a lower-carbon future.
For almost 40 years, discussion about sustainable environmental and economic development has suffered from too much political squabbling and blustering. But it may be too forlorn a hope that that will stop and a durable approach to meeting future energy requirements developed instead.