Fast-track bill still skewed in favour of economy - environmentalist

Projects that harm the environment will still get the green light despite the government's latest changes to its fast-track bill, a critic says.

The government says it has listened to public feedback and Cabinet ministers will no longer have the final say on green-lighting infrastructure projects.

RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop said in the fast-track approvals bill final decisions on projects would now sit with an expert panel - the same as the previous Labour government's fast-track process.

Applicants will also be required to include information on previous decisions by approving authorities, including court decisions, in their applications.

Environmental Defence Society's chair Gary Taylor said the change regarding the ministers was welcome and took a lot of heat out of the issue.

However, the criteria considered by the expert panels hadn't changed which meant economic development, including regional and national projects, took precedence over environmental considerations.

It meant works with negative impact on the environment could go ahead "and that's not good".

"They need to have a rethink of that element of the construction of the bill."

The current fast track legisalation had allowed more than 100 projects go through with only about five or six rejected.

Josie Vidal from Straterra which represents the mining industry said she also favoured the use of the expert panels.

The mining companies would still be doing their homework on the environmental impact of any project.

"There's no skipping around trying to do something you couldn't do before."

Measures could be taken to alleviate environmental concerns and these needed to be listened to.

"That's where the problem has been is it's been environment at all cost with no other considerations."

Taylor accused Vidal of "misdirection and obfuscation", saying the bill was "totally biased" in favour of economic development and most New Zealanders would be unhappy with its lack of balance.

Vidal retaliated, saying without mining or quarrying there would be no housing, infrastructure or renewable energy.

The advantage of the bill was that jobs would be created and vital infrastructure would be completed more quickly.

It was also a one-stop shop which meant turning up with the appropriate paperwork and getting the green light for a project.

"We're in a pretty sad state at the moment and people are losing jobs and we need the economy to get going. The only way to do that is a bit of a disruptor."

She said there was a huge amount of scrutiny on the mining industry.

"Mining companies use a lot of science and technology to work on their environmental impact."

Bishop said it was true the purpose of the bill was to get projects built in an era of "infrastructure deficit" - Taylor saw it as a criticism but the minister considered it a benefit.

"The purpose of the legislation is to get things consented and built because it takes too long and costs too much money to get consent for major projects in New Zealand."

He was confident the expert panels would set environmental conditions that would apply and might even turn down a project on environmental grounds.

Too many projects were being turned down under the current Resource Management Act, Bishop said.

"More projects will get over the line ... I don't see it as lowering the environmental bar. I see it as changing the criteria upon which projects are assessed and considered."

Bishop does not believe that projects done for the public good, such as a housing subdivision, should be regarded differently to those done for private profit.

He pointed out that many projects built by private companies - in the quarrying, mining, and energy sectors, for example - had a benefit for the public.