��һ�ǿ�����

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.