I'm not sure whether your question is specific to the choice about panel review, agency review, or something more general, but the approach I would recommend is that the broad criteria should be set out in the statute. You want to put in the statute the kinds of things that you know you're not going to have to change. Then you want to require regulations to provide the detail, and you want the detail to be adjustable. I would advocate having ministerial regulations provide the detail. That's a general recommendation, but it would apply to the choice of going to the agency or panel review, because, as you point out, it currently says “consider”. These are very broad criteria. They're not inappropriate, but they do not properly direct decision-making.
We have 25 years of experience. We can give better direction to decision-makers than that. We can avoid bad decisions. As I said, I don't think this is the intent, but what happens over time is that there is pressure to approve projects. There is pressure to streamline because of financial constraints. There are all kinds of pressures on decision-makers that make it hard to make good decisions. Having proper direction in regulations is a good safeguard against that. I think the criteria are appropriate, but they're inadequate. That's what I meant when I said “early on”. I think the act generally gives the powers that are needed to make good decisions, but it doesn't give proper direction.