The NRC’s April submission loosely coincided with the timing of independent commissioners in July turning down Resource Management Act consent for a multimillion-dollar Whangārei port expansion by port company Northport, in which the council is a shareholder.
Northport applied for the NRC and Whangārei District Council (WDC) for the RMA project consents in late 2022. It also applied for fast-track consenting in May.
The port expansion application is for a high-density container facility, included reclamation of the equivalent of almost 17 rugby fields into Whangārei Harbour’s entrance.
Northport has today indicated it is appealing the independent commissioners’ decision in the Environment Court.
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop would not comment specifically on any of NRC’s submission concerns – including its issues with the bill’s balance, tangata whenua participation and prohibited projects.
He said it was inappropriate for him to comment while the Environment Select Committee was still considering the bill.
But he told Local Democracy Reporting Northland the new legislation showed the world New Zealand was open for business.
“We’re open for business and building a pipeline of significant projects around the country – because it’s only through a strong economy that we can afford the public services New Zealanders, including Northlanders, need,” Bishop said.
The new fast-tracking legislation will give Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones the power to green-light projects.
Northland has a raft of regionally and nationally important projects that could be fast-tracked.
NRC’s submission said it was strongly supportive of fast-tracking for major infrastructure and other developments – as long as economic benefits were balanced alongside environmental, cultural and social outcomes.
“Decisions made through the bill risk being made in favour of economic outcomes without sufficient regard for the potential adverse effects,” the submission said.
“By omitting any link to environmental, social, cultural and economic within the [bill’s] purpose, projects that have significant adverse impacts will ostensibly be approved provided there are also significant benefits.”
NRC’s submission said the bill’s purpose needed attention.
“The wording provides no balance and is ambiguous to the point where almost any project with a large enough scale could pass the test of meeting the purpose [of the bill].”
This could potentially include projects that have been previously declined for approval due to significant adverse effects, the submission said.
NRC was also strongly against the bill’s “proposed restriction on public participation” during fast-tracked project assessment.
Meanwhile, NRC said the bill created a major gap when it came to consultation with Māori in Te Tai Tokerau.
It ran the significant risk of severely constraining iwi and hapū in decision-making and failed to provide adequate provision for Māori rights, cutting across Treaty of Waitangi principles, the submission said.
NRC criticised that consultation under the bill would only be with post-settlement governance entities/iwi authorities, Marine and Coastal Area Act applicants and/or rights holders, and hapū with Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements.
“Limiting consultation to these entities creates a major gap in Northland where we have around 200 hapū.
“The process not being fully open to non-settled iwi/hapū will exclude a significant proportion of potentially affected tangata whenua from participating in the decision-making process,” the submission said.
“As it stands, the requirement in the bill to consult/engage with hapū appears entirely at the discretion of ministers and or the expert panel.”
That would harm relationships between the Government and iwi/hapū, similarly with local government, the submission said.
Omitting the Resource Management Act (RMA)’s requirement to uphold Treaty of Waitangi principles was also of “significant concern”.
Meanwhile, NRC called for wiping the bill provision allowing for projects with an activity prohibited under the RMA to be eligible for fast-tracking.
NRC said prohibited activities were currently subject to particularly high levels of scrutiny under regional and district planning.
“It is appropriate for councils to have the ability to prevent a consent pathway for prohibited activities where potentially permanent and significant impacts would arise from the activity being undertaken.”
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
