A tunnel too far

Conservation Minister Nick Smith has displayed the skills and judgement which have made him a successful politician.

In rejecting the Milford Dart Ltd bus tunnel proposal he made all the right comments.

He praised the special nature of the breathtakingly beautiful area, he noted the importance of the integrity of national parks, he considered potential environmental impacts and he weighed up the dangers of the development failing economically and therefore being unable to fulfil the developer's promises.

All this gives the impression not of a progress ideologue or a greenie purist but of thoughtfulness and balance.

He went on to explain it was important not to say ''no'' to developments without first giving them careful consideration because this country needs jobs and needs income.

That is exactly the correct approach, the one this newspaper maintained should be followed.

Hear the company's views, examine its mitigation claims, listen to the community and the objections, and then apply prudent, conscientious and impartial consideration.

Just imagine if every idea had been shunned in the past.

Access to our national parks would be very different if the Milford road, the Homer Tunnel and the Haast Pass route did not exist.

While the Milford Dart proposal is a tunnel too far and, for that matter, the Jackson Bay Hollyford Rd would detrimentally carve up the value of our wilderness, we as a nation cannot remain static.

We have, at least in what the Department of Conservation calls ''front country'', to be prepared for greater use and sympathetic change. As well as our remote and relatively untouched zones, it is worth appreciating, too, areas like the Waitaki Lakes where massive landscape modification has created beauty and facilities widely enjoyed.

Dr Smith has been careful not to pre-judge the second Milford Dart proposal - even longer than the previous 11km single-lane bus tunnel - which would have shifted at least one of the portals.

Although this might have addressed some objections, most of the fundamental issues would have remained.

This included what to do with the mountain of drilling spoil and Dr Smith's worry the estimated $180 million cost was too low. The project, of course, has now been shelved by Milford Dart Ltd.

The $175 million plan, meanwhile, for a monorail and associated transport moves to centre stage. Because it largely avoids national parks - although it runs through significant conservation land - one suspects its chances of gaining ministerial approval will actually be higher.

A sceptic might suggest the tunnel was rejected not necessarily for the stated environmental reasons but primarily because it could threaten a premier and already hugely popular national park attraction, the Routeburn Track. Dr Smith did mention the unsuitability of a bus terminal near the start of the prized Great Walk, and how that would conflict with visitor perceptions of a wilderness experience.

One wonders, in fact, whether it might have received approval if the northern portal had been planned for a remote spot with few visitors and no competing commercial interests. On that basis, the monorail has better odds.

It is also possible to interpret Dr Smith's apparently judicial considerations as a smokescreen for naked political calculation.

Many of the strongest objectors are Greens or Labour supporters who would never switch affiliation to National and could therefore be ignored. However, the alarm was spreading, and large numbers of voters with actual or potential National Party sympathies believe in the preservation of national parks and have environmental affinities.

It is to them National wants to be seen as fair and balanced, as concerned and empathetic.

The threat of widespread disapproval among centralist voters drives the policies of pragmatists like Prime Minister John Key and Dr Smith.

It was, after all, for that reason National in 2010 abandoned plans to allow prospecting and potential mining in 7000ha of protected conservation land.

Whatever Dr Smith's motivation - and it could well be a mix of political calculation and genuine environmental concerns - the reasons he outlined were convincing.

The tunnel proposal, as it stood, threw up more risks and drawbacks than advantages.

 

Add a Comment