By Farah Hancock of RNZ
Most members of the fast-track independent advisory group were put forward by ministers and political parties, not government agencies.
The advisory group selected infrastructure and development projects to be included in fast-track legislation. These projects include 19 mining or quarrying projects, seven aquaculture projects, 58 housing projects, 43 infrastructure projects and 22 renewable energy projects. The bill would allow some of these projects to go ahead more quickly, without community consultation.
Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop had described the process the group followed to pick the projects as “completely insulated from ministers”.
“Other than setting the group up and giving them a mandate, we didn’t have anything to do with that process.”
While the process may have been independent of ministers, it appears the selection of the independent advisory group members was heavily influenced by ministers and parties, despite the impression many had that nominations would be sought from government agencies.
In March, Bishop’s response to a written parliamentary question submitted by Green Party environment spokeswoman Lan Pham said: “Nominations for membership of the Advisory Group were invited from relevant government agencies, with nominees expected to have knowledge and experience in/of local government, environment, infrastructure, economic development, conservation, or Treaty of Waitangi.”
Government agencies put forward a list of 14 names for consideration. Twelve of the 14 nominees were rejected.
Only David Tapsell and David Hunt were nominated by agencies.
“The other advisory group members were nominated by ministers and political parties,” Bishop said.
Repeated questions were put to Bishop’s office asking who nominated which group member. His office said he had nothing further to add.
Adam Currie, from the climate justice group Aotearoa 350, said official documents showed the majority of people suggested for the group by agencies were rejected by ministers.
“This Government has a track record of hand-picking people on to generally independent bodies to try and give them legitimacy for these things that they know haven’t earned legitimacy.”
Currie pointed to the recent revelation that appointees to the Human Rights Commission came from ministers, and were not recommended by the hiring panel.
But Bishop told RNZ the fast track group was selected through the standard Cabinet appointments process.
“It’s important to note that this is the standard process for appointments. Ministers often seek suggestions for appointees from a range of sources including political parties, MPs and government departments.”
For Currie, the discovery that almost all government agency nominees were passed over came as a surprise.
“This advisory group was less than a bare minimum to give legitimacy to the Government handpicking their own projects. We thought at least there’ll be some independent advisory people because the public doesn’t get a say.”
Part of the proposed fast-track legislation is that members of the public don’t get an opportunity to make submissions on projects. This also applies to environmental NGOs and community groups.
The Government had given the impression the group would be made up of people agencies suggested and ministers approved, Currie said.
“That was just not the case. So of course it’s bad that ministers are directly appointing officials to a so-called independent group.”
There was no mention of how the group had been selected in the press release from Bishop and NZ First’s Shane Jones announcing members.
“People are concerned about a lobbyist in the back room being there, and people are concerned about the fact their voices are being overruled again and again and again,” Currie said.
Pham said that based on Bishop’s responses to her written parliamentary questions, she too had expected the members would be chosen from people nominated by agencies.
“In government you expect to be able to take responses from ministers at their word in good faith,” she said. “I think what we’re seeing with fast track is each question actually cannot be taken at face value, and there’s many layers and more questions which arise.”
Because ministers went “rogue” and rejected most of the nominations from officials, it was likely the final make-up of the group had knowledge holes, she said.
“None of the members appear to have worked for organisations or agencies whose main focus is the environment or conservation.”
No members had a background in hard sciences, which would make an assessment of the environmental impacts of mining or quarrying projects provided by applicants difficult, she said.
Bishop should share which ministers and parties nominated which members, Pham said.
“This level of democratic and environmental override is unprecedented. It’s really bonkers, and it would be comical if implications weren’t so incredibly serious. So the lack of transparency at every single point in this process has been extremely concerning, and there needs to be many more answers and a much higher level of transparency coming from this government and ministers.”
The group’s chair, David Tapsell, was put forward by the Ministry for the Environment and Te Arawhiti. Documents released under the Official Information Act show he was also suggested by National’s Tama Potaka.
David Hunt was nominated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
The remaining members of the group were nominated by ministers and political parties.
Rosie Mercer was a previous member of the Provincial Growth Fund Independent Advisory Panel. The fund was part of a coalition agreement between NZ First and the Labour Party.
Vaughan Wilkinson has a history in the fishing industry, having worked at Sanford and Simunovich fisheries.
Murray Parrish previously worked at Carter Holt Harvey and Oji Fibre Solutions. Documents suggest he asked to be included in the group, and this was supported by Jones.
Urban planner Mark Davey was the fourth member of the group suggested by ministers or parties.
When the group was first announced, its membership drew criticism from various quarters.
Greenpeace spokeswoman Juressa Lee (Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, Rarotonga) described it as loaded with industry interests.
“It’s a clear case of regulatory capture. An advisory panel made entirely of industry representatives means that the whole process appears to be riddled with conflict of interest and wide open to allegations of corruption.”
A Cabinet paper showed conflicts of interest were identified for each group member, but the details were redacted.
The group recommended 342 projects be included in the Fast-track Approvals Bill. Bishop said these were whittled down to 149 by Cabinet “to better reflect the capacity from expert panels to assess and consent these projects”.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The woman was shaken by the incident.