The Green Party vote to use 'waka-jumping' legislation to oust Darleen Tana from Parliament and Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar killed. Video / NZ Herald / Getty / AFP
Officially recommended changes to the new Fast-track Approvals Bill include giving one minister the ability to nominate projects, and putting the final say on approving them to a panel of experts.
But environmental groups say crucial changes to protect the environment arestill missing – with one saying this version of the bill is even worse.
Parliament’s environment committee released its report on Friday afternoon after receiving 26,855 submissions and hearing 66 hours of feedback in-person and online.
The bill aims to provide a “streamlined decision-making process” to speed up “infrastructure and development projects that offer significant regional or national benefits”.
It has previously been criticised for deprioritising environmental protections in decision-making and putting too much power in the hands of ministers, opening them up to accusations of bias.
The committee has been considering the bill for some months, and now, it says it has proposed “extensive restructuring of the bill’s provisions to improve its workability”.
‘More appropriate’ for panels to have final say, not ministers
The bill would require an expert panel to prepare a report for ministers, who would then approve or decline the project, but ministers would be allowed to deviate from these recommendations in “certain circumstances”.
The select committee noted “many submitters opposed this proposal, saying that ministers could be susceptible to bias, corruption, or potential lobbying”, and agreed “it would be more appropriate for an expert panel to be the final substantive decision-maker on all approvals”.
“We consider that this amendment would give greater confidence that decision-making is independent, objective, and well-informed.”
Infrastructure Minister should have sole ability to nominate projects
The committee’s report said decisions on referral applications would be made solely by the Minister for Infrastructure, which would be “more consistent with previous fast-track legislation”.
It recommended an amendment to require the Minister for Infrastructure to consult the Minister for the Environment, and other relevant portfolio ministers, on all referral applications.
Infrastructure and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announces the Government’s controversial fast-track projects during a press conference at the Beehive. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Projects on land owned by local councils should need permission in writing
The bill in its original form would allow council reserves to be eligible for the fast-track projects.
The committee noted “some submissions from local government expressed concern about this because decision-makers would be able to grant property rights over council-owned reserves without councils’ consent”.
It recommended changing this, as local authorities “must be able to decide how their reserves are managed, given that they bear the costs and risks associated with a reserve and its use”.
It said land owned by anyone other than the Crown, or managed by anyone other than the Department of Conservation, should not be eligible without agreement in writing.
Some projects should be considered on conservation land
The committee noted some submitters suggested protected conservation land should be made eligible for the fast-track approvals process under certain circumstances.
It said there was some existing nationally significant infrastructure on such land which would become ineligible for reconsenting using the fast-track approvals process.
There “may be merit in applications for some electricity generation and transmission activities on high-value conservation land being eligible” as it could enhance the country’s electricity generation capacity.
The expert panels would provide a list of people who should be consulted for comment on any given project, who would then, in the bill’s current form, be expected to provide that comment within 10 working days.
Submitters said that was too short, and the committee recommended it be doubled to 20 working days.
‘More skills and experience required’ of experts on panels
The committee recommended more skills and experience be required of members on the panel, to ensure robust decision-making.
It said members of a panel should collectively have “knowledge, skills, and expertise relevant to the approvals sought in the substantive application”, as well as expertise in environmental matters.
It also recommended at least one panel member should be suitably qualified in te ao Māori and Māori development.
Environmental groups concerned about bill’s priorities, lack of public consultation
A long-held concern among environmental advocates has been the way projects halted in the courts would be newly eligible for consent.
The committee has made no recommendations to change this, other than suggesting adding a paragraph “to require applicants to include information on whether any activities involved in the project have been considered under other legislation”.
The public would still not have the opportunity to submit feedback on projects, with responses sought only from affected parties listed by the expert panel.
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman said the amendments “do not change the fundamental problems with the bill” and “in some respects they make the bill worse”.
Projects would still be “assessed primarily on economic criteria that completely override environmental criteria and put profit before people and nature”, he said.
The Green Party said the committee had dismissed amendments that would have upheld environmental protections, introduced Te Tiriti considerations, given the public an opportunity to be consulted and protected the rights of current consent holders.
Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor said the criteria remained “heavily weighted against the environment”, and local communities and environmental groups were “cut out of the process by default”.
He said the fast-track law in place already was workable, and the society did not support this new one.
“It has been quite misleading for Minister [Chris] Bishop and the Prime Minister to be saying in the House earlier this week that EDS supports the bill. Taking selective comments out of context like they have done is both annoying and wrong,” Taylor said.
