Dr Smith urged caution in DoC "strongly advocating" its stance, suggesting this could compromise his position.
Isn't that a primary tenet of this department? Somehow the freedom to advocate for the environment is now perceived as prejudicial.
This is a department with a (once) strong voice and a clear mandate to guide and protect. Now it speaks through a muzzle and leaves the teeth-baring duties to small-fry surrogates, like Forest & Bird, or Fish & Game.
"Suppression" (as the Green Party labelled it) and a "neutral" submission (surely an oxymoron) has rendered the department effete.
It's also robbed this region of an objective steer on a project of huge significance.
Given the accusations of prioritising development over environmental stewardship, it's hardly surprising the department's rewrite has conspiracists rattling their sabres.