Punahau, an area of designated significance in Horowhenua, at sunset.
Punahau, an area of designated significance in Horowhenua, at sunset.
The Horowhenua District Council wants the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill tweaked to allow for more engagement with iwi and hapū, while fearing ratepayers could carry the burden of any adverse effects from rushed developments further down the track.
While supporting the Government’s intent to reduce time and costs involved with major infrastructure projects, the council signed off a suite of proposed tweaks on Wednesday that will be presented in a written submission to Parliament on Friday.
“Current drafting does not sufficiently acknowledge or allow for the voice[s] of hapū or hapū collectives. While applicants are required to consult with hapū and record any response to feedback, neither ministers nor expert consenting panels are required to invite hapū to comment on proposals,” the submission says.
“In some contexts, engagement with hapū will be more appropriate, so scope for this should be provided for within the bill.”
The council’s submission also contains concern about its major iwi partners who have yet to reach a settlement under the Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Horowhenua District Council will send its submission on the Fast Track Approvals Bill to the environment committee at Parliament.
“The focus of the bill is on upholding Treaty settlement legislation and arrangements, rather than upholding the principles of Te Tiriti. This has the potential to lead to suboptimal outcomes, particularly for presettlement iwi . . . as such they do not have Treaty settlement entities or any specific iwi participation legislation,” the submission says.
“HDC values its relationship with its iwi partners and values the knowledge, expertise and perspectives they bring to resource management processes. It is important the bill ensures that the environments and values of iwi/hapū who do not yet have Treaty settlements are sufficiently protected.”
The submission was also concerned not enough weight was given to possible adverse effects on the environment under the fast-track process, saying “. . . degraded water quality, insufficient water availability and biodiversity loss could result in economic impacts for businesses and resource users who depend on access to a quality, stable environment and lead to the need to carry out time-consuming and expensive rehabilitation projects”.
“HDC are also of the view that consideration of risks from natural hazards and climate change are insufficiently provided for in the bill as currently drafted, potentially leading to situations such as large-scale housing developments being approved in high-risk locations.”
The submission also asks that the proposed 10-day timeframe for council submissions to fast-track projects be extended to 20 days, for either the referral or substantive decision stages at least.
Projects consented under the new bill could contradict HDC’s Long Term Plan and an extended timeframe has been suggested to allow local authorities more time for community consultation.
Meanwhile, the time it took for infrastructure projects in New Zealand to gain consent had doubled in the past five years, leading to increased consenting costs for infrastructure projects, now estimated at $1.29 billion every year.
Progress on the new Tara Ika subdivision east of Levin.
The previous Government had introduced Covid-19 recovery legislation, recognising time and cost associated with consenting large-scale projects, in an effort to stimulate an ailing economy.
The current Government introduced the Fast Track Bill, under urgency in early March, with the intent to streamline project approval requiring multiple pieces of legislation into a single process, to help stimulate an ailing economy.
The purpose was to provide a more efficient and less costly process to consenting housing and infrastructure development that would be of regional or national benefit, while eventually existing pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) would be replaced.
The HDC submission asked for provision for an apolitical expert consenting panel at some juncture.
“As currently drafted, the process . . . begins and ends with a ministerial decision - that is, both the referral decision and the substantive decision rests with ministers . . . Ministers will apply very similar tests [determining significant regional or national benefits].
“Environment Courts and expert consulting panels are apolitical and make decisions based on evidence. With ministers having different drivers for decision-making and with no or minimal court oversight, there is considerable risk in having a very small number of ministers making decisions without testing technical advice.
“There is risk that decision-making under this legislation will vary significantly depending on who the ministers are and which parties are in Government. This could lead to more, rather than less, certainty for applicants and developers.
“It will be important to ensure that criteria can be applied consistently, fairly and there is transparency throughout the process, whichever parties form the Government of the day.”
While all remits put forward were passed under majority, not all elected members agreed with the submission at Wednesday’s meeting, some fearing it undermined what the Government was trying to achieve.
Horowhenua district councillor Paul Olsen.
Councillor Paul Olsen said he couldn’t support most of HDC’s submission as representative of the wider community, believing in the intent of the bill as it stood.
“I totally support the environment and our community voice, but this is about recognising the true intent of the bill and what it is trying to achieve,” he said.
“Much of this submission is just slowing that process down.”
