Part Three of a CORANZ Election Series:
Recent commentary has highlighted concern about the pace and structure of legislative change affecting environmental management. Attention has focused on how decisions are made, particularly where legislation is progressed quickly and with reduced layers of review. The immediate discussion often centres on political direction, but the underlying issue is structural.
What changes in these situations is not only the content of decisions, but how they are tested. Legislative processes that move quickly can reduce the time available for scrutiny, consultation, and refinement. Decision-making authority may become more concentrated, and fewer stages exist for challenge or adjustment. Taken together, this alters the way outcomes are formed.
This does not necessarily determine the quality of any individual decision. Faster processes may be justified where delay carries significant cost. However, the balance between speed and scrutiny becomes more critical as complexity increases, particularly where environmental systems are involved. These systems often operate over long timeframes and are not easily reversed once changed.
Similar patterns can be observed across a range of recent policy areas. Structural reforms, institutional changes, and new frameworks for resource use all reflect a shift toward more centralised and accelerated decision-making. Individually, these changes may appear contained. Collectively, they influence how visible and contestable decisions become.
Environmental management depends on both timely action and durable outcomes. Public resources such as rivers, coastlines, and conservation land require decisions that can withstand scrutiny over time, not only at the point they are made. That requires processes that remain transparent and accountable, regardless of speed.
This is not about any single policy or political position. It is about how decisions are made, and whether the systems supporting them provide sufficient visibility, balance, and durability over the long term.
I understand CORANZ has to remain apolitical and cannot or will not issue advice on which party to vote for, but anyone can read between the lines to see all this legislation is adversely affecting the environment, access and our fundamental quality of life.
The current coalition has an interesting modus operandi, I believe its called bullying in other circles. As Lange once suggested to his era of breakneck politicians, surely its time to sit down and have a cup of tea (a cream scone would go well also)
Haste makes for bad law. Lawyers have often made that point.
Perhaps it is time to reinstate an Upper House or better still install the Swiss style of government?
Read “100 Days” by NZ author Amy Brooke to learn about the Swiss way where people have a sound voice.
Here, politicians are increasingly using “urgency” without select committees to ram law through under the tag of “urgency.”