The power for ministers to sign off on the projects was one of the more problematic parts of the proposed law, which will allow major projects to be approved without the usual consents processes.
It had been criticised not only by the Government’s rivals but by more eminent people such as the Auditor-General.
The change will mean Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, Resources Minister Shane Jones and Transport Minister Simeon Brown no longer have the power to choose which projects are approved under the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
Instead, the final decisions will be made by expert panels. While those will be appointed by the Government, they are required to include environmental experts.
The reasons Bishop gave for the change included concerns raised by submitters about the ministers’ powers and the handling of conflicts of interest.
He also noted decisions made by ministers would be more likely to face legal challenge and judicial review proceedings than decisions made by expert panels.
The risk of things getting held up in court would have defeated the purpose of the “fast-track” element of the bill.
The more political reason was to get rid of potential political headaches and quash some of the criticism of the measure – in short, it was an acknowledgement that people didn’t necessarily trust the ministers.
The changes do make the ministers less powerful – but it also makes it politically cleaner and less problematic. It will go some way to allaying concerns about the law.
Even before the law is passed, the ministers were being endlessly questioned around potential conflicts of interest, secret meetings and ulterior motives.
Nor does the change take politics completely out of the picture.
Ministers still get the say over which projects would be put forward to be considered by the expert panels. They also get the say over which criteria those expert panels have to assess them on.
Bishop will no longer have final sign-off, but he will still be involved as the gatekeeper who decide which projects get referred to expert panels to consider.
In short, if Bishop doesn’t like it, it doesn’t go anywhere.
That will now be done only by the Infrastructure Minister, rather than all three ministers – something Bishop said was simpler than involving all of them.
However, Bishop will still have to consult with other relevant ministers on individual projects.
If Jones, standing next to Bishop during the announcement, was bothered about the defenestration of his powers, he managed to disguise it fairly admirably.
Asked about it, he responded: “There’s a difference between a campaign politician and a member of Cabinet. And collective responsibility means I’m adopting a Shakespearean approach: all’s well that ends well.”
He did not answer when asked if he thought all had ended well.
However, the backdown was a nod rather than a cave-in to the bill’s critics.
Environmental groups and political rivals were quick to describe it as a token effort, noting the criteria on which expert panels make their decisions still put economic benefit well ahead of environmental impacts.
It was the latter that had people marching in the streets against the bill earlier this year.
Bishop defended that, saying the aim was to get projects that were sorely needed under way in New Zealand – but to get the “sweet spot” in doing so.
“”What we are trying to do is get the sweet spot right between clear direction from ministers and from the Government that we want development, we want mining, we want renewables, we want housing, we want infrastructure – but allowing the final say on that to be done by the expert panel.”
Cabinet will decide in coming months which of 384 initial applications will be included in the bill for the expert panels to weigh up.
Over that too, there is criticism, especially when it comes to transparency around the projects that are set to be included. They have not yet been selected, and nor has a longer list of the possible projects been released.
Bishop released overall figures of the applications that had come in, showing 40% were housing and urban development projects, infrastructure projects made up 24%, renewable energy projects 18%, primary industries projects 8%, and quarrying projects 5%. Mining – around which a fair lot of the noise has centred – was also at 5%.
Jones made much of the low proportion of mining applications, saying it put paid to the “hysterical Hobbits” crying foul about fast-tracking mining ventures, but Greenpeace and the Greens pointed out that was still about 20 mines.
It did not help the Government’s cause that the announcement coincided with coverage of the Ōhinemuri River turning bright orange – blamed on pollution from old mine workings.
The noise around the Fast-track Approvals Bill has a fair way to run yet.
