PEOPLE MUST HAVE SAY OVER WIND FARM
3 September 2008
Michael CUMMINGS
Mighty River Power's request to Environment Minister Trevor Mallard to "call in" the resource consent application to build a wind farm in the Turitea Reserve seems to have most people scratching their heads. Many people don't know what to think simply because they're not sure what such a move would mean.
The ministry calling in a consent application is indeed unusual, but is not unheard of. Just last week Mr Mallard announced his decision to call in Contact Energy's consent application to build a 180-turbine, $1-billion wind farm along the isolated Te Akau coast, near Port Waikato.
If a resource consent application is deemed to be of national significance, the minister can order it to be heard by a ministry-appointed board or the Environment Court, instead of local authorities.
In the case of the Te Akau wind firm, Mr Mallard directed the application be heard by a board of inquiry. If the same were to happen to Mighty River's Turitea application, it would, as some have already claimed, undermine the democratic process. If it were referred to the Environment Court instead, the same claim is far more difficult to make.
Both scenarios would still afford people from Palmerston North the right to make submissions on the proposal. But a ministry-appointed board is open to reasonable accusations of bias and political interference; the Environment Court is not. Of course, the Palmerston North City Council is not above accusations of bias either, but they are officials elected by and answerable to the people of this city. In that sense, the democratic integrity of the process would be more robust if the decision stayed in Palmerston North.
However, the interests of democracy are by no means the only factor swirling around in Mr Mallard's head at the moment. As he told the Standard yesterday, the Government is committed to a target of generating 90 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Calling in one wind farm application could be considered an aberration, calling in two in as many weeks could be considered a precedent. In light of the Government's renewable energy target, it may well argue all wind farm applications are now of national significance.
Wind farm opponents will suggest Mighty River's motives for asking Mr Mallard to take the decision away from the PNCC are a sinister ploy to subvert the democratic process. However, the company is more likely motivated by pragmatism. If the decision is left with the PNCC and the wind farm is approved, it will almost certainly be appealed to the Environment Court anyway. Mighty River would no doubt prefer to cut to the chase.
The decision-making process shouldn't be unnecessarily convoluted, but the people of Palmerston North must be given the chance to have their say and, more importantly, they must be listened to.
©2008 Fairfax New Zealand Limited.
Manawatu Standard
Go to top
Print Page
Smaller
