RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. Photo: RNZ
Ministers will no longer have the final say on green-lighting infrastructure projects, as the government announces changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
The bill is intended to reduce red tape and speed up development, but has been criticised by opponents for not containing adequate environmental protections and giving ministers too much power.
Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones announced a suite of changes to the proposed legislation on Sunday afternoon at Parliament.
"We have listened to the concerns of many submitters, some of whom have identified areas where the bill can be changed to deliver a more robust and inclusive process," Bishop said.
The bill is currently before the Environment Select Committee for consideration, and the committee will decide whether or not to accept the changes.
The proposed changes would mean final decisions on projects would not sit with ministers, but with the expert panel - the same as the previous Labour government's fast-track process.
Projects will be referred to an expert panel by the minister for infrastructure alone, who will be required to consult the minister for the environment and other relevant portfolio ministers as part of the process.
Expert panels will now include:
- expertise in environmental matters
- an iwi authority representative only when required by Treaty settlements;
- Māori development and te ao Māori expertise in place of mātauranga Māori.
Applicants will be required to include information on previous decisions by approving authorities, including court decisions, in their applications.
Timeframes for comment at the referral and panel stages will be extended in order to give parties, including those impacted by a proposed project, more time to comment.
Overview of projects set to be fast-tracked released
The ministers have also released an overview of the 384 projects that applied to be listed in the bill.
"We're delighted by the massive interest in our fast-track process," Bishop said.
"New Zealand has a housing crisis, a massive infrastructure deficit, and very ambitious climate change targets. Fast-track will be a huge step forward toward addressing this trifecta of challenges for government and the private sector alike."
The applications received by the Independent Advisory Group are made up of:
- housing and urban development projects: 40 percent
- infrastructure projects: 24 percent
- renewable energy projects:18 percent
- primary industries projects: 8 percent
- quarrying projects: 5 percent
- mining projects: 5 percent.
The project applications were considered by the Independent Advisory Group, which then provided a report to ministers with recommendations on projects to include.
Other projects would be able to get consent through the process through a different channel, but this initial list would be automatically referred to a panel for consideration, if the bill was made law.
Environmental groups say changes do not go far enough
The Environmental Defence Society's chief executive Gary Taylor said forcing applicants to declare previous court rulings did not go far enough.
Allowing projects previously turned down by the courts to apply was a waste of time and resource, and would allow potentially harmful projects to go ahead.
"What should be happening is that projects that have been turned down by the courts shouldn't be allowed to go through a second process, because obviously they were turned down for good reasons," he said.
He said the decision-making criteria was unchanged, and "still very heavily biased in favour of development over environment".
"It's actually hard to see any project being turned down."
350 Aotearoa campaigner Adam Currie agreed: "Limited economic benefit trumps environmental considerations", he said, meaning the expert panels' hands were tied.
"If you say to me, I'm going to let you make the final decision but you have to make the decision based on certain criteria, you're not really giving me the power to make the decision at all."
Both hoped the government would release the list of projects that had applied for fast-track approval, rather than just the overview, to allow the select committee access to all the information as it made a decision.
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman said the changes showed the government was feeling the heat of public pressure, but he echoed concerns that the changes did not go far enough.
"Projects will still be assessed on purely economic criteria which totally override environmental criteria."
He said responsible industries, such as off-shore wind farm constructors, had stepped back from the fast-track process because they saw the need for "community buy-in" in support of their work.
"If you use the fast-track process you are burning your social capital, your legitimacy.
"If your projects cause environmental harm there's very likely to be significant community opposition to it and that will slow your project right down. Because you'll get completely bogged down, whether it's in protests, whether it's in the courts, so I would strongly advise any company that values their reputation to stay well clear of the fast-track process."
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman, centre, at an earlier protest against the bill. Photo: RNZ / Farah Hancock
Cindy Baxter of Kiwis Against Seabed Mining said the government had only "tinkered around the edges" with the changes to the bill.
She said the public was still being shut out of the approvals process and the bill should be dropped.
"If, like with seabed mining - it has already been turned down by the highest court in the land - we don't think the fast-track process should override that. These companies are trying to find a sneaky way through for projects that should not be approved," Baxter said.
But Patrick Phelps of Minerals West Coast said the government was within its rights to use the fast-track process to approve previously denied projects.
"If this government has decided that it wants to enable things that weren't possible or were very difficult under previous legislation it should be able to do so.
"I think there is a strong case for more mining in New Zealand. Anything that will shift the needle in places like the West Coast, Taranaki, Coromandel, Otago or any other places around New Zealand that might have economic deposits of minerals, I think, is worth doing both at a regional level and also at a national level.
"If that means looking at projects that have previously been rejected because this Government decided the settings of the law were wrong then I think this Government is well within its democratic right to do that," Phelps said.
He said simplifying and speeding up consent approval remained at the heart of the legislation.
"There are many different layers of legislation that have to be navigated to develop a mine. The appeal of the Fast Track Approvals Bill is that it consolidates all of those into one process and it means that you're only having to go through that process once not four or five times over."
He said there was concern in the industry that the deferring the decision-making process through expert panels would draw out approvals and contradict the intention of the bill.