Editorial: A fair hearing

OPINION: There was an air of inevitability about Environment Minister Nick Smith's decision to call in the consent applications to build three large cubicle dairy farms in the Upper Waitaki basin. The only surprising thing is that it took so long.

The applications by three large businesses to put up to 17,000 cows in the area have attracted a large amount of opposition because of two key issues.

First and foremost was the plan to put the animals in free-standing cubicle sheds for eight months of the year in what – rightly or wrongly – the general public regards as a step too far in the direction of factory farming.

Prime Minister John Key and Fonterra, the country's biggest dairy processor, also raised concerns.

The second issue was the impact the intensification would have on the environment in the Upper Waitaki which is regarded – again, rightly or wrongly – as a pristine environment.

In a way Dr Smith's political intervention has the effect of taking the politics out of the decision. By calling in the consents he has taken the process out of the hands of Environment Canterbury (Ecan) and elevated it to reflect that the fate of the area is a question of national importance.

The applicants could rightly be aggrieved that Mr Key spoke out so early in opposition, and could argue that Dr Smith had to call it in because of that interference. They are also left in the unusual position of continuing the process to get water rights through Ecan, while their effluent discharge applications have become a national issue.

The board of inquiry is headed by an Environment Court judge and has three independent engineering and science specialists and a Ngai Tahu representative on it.

Complaints about political influence or undue public sway are now irrelevant. The inquiry will hear submissions and must be trusted to come up with a decision that balances the science and the people's views with the rights of the applicants as property owners. Contending that the board would be swayed by the politics of the issue insults its integrity.

While the minister's intervention is likely to slow down the process and add to costs, it could be argued that the publicity and public debate generated so far had actually done the applicants a favour. The public is now much better informed about how the farms will work and the animal health issues involved. On the flipside, the backers of the proposals can be in no doubt about how strongly people feel about the potential impact on the region. They would have been naive to think that plans to build such massive enterprises in a much-loved landscape would have slipped through the consent process without a fight.

Both sides can now prepare for the fight ahead content in the knowledge they will get a good hearing. And, if the board of inquiry decides the farms do stack up, it would be a brave environment minister who would ignore the recommendation to score points with voters.

- © Fairfax NZ News