Fast-track Approvals Bill: Government backs down on giving ministers final decision-making power

The Government has backed down on giving three ministers sign-off powers under the Fast-track Approvals Bill and will instead leave it to a panel of experts.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop announced the change today, saying it was a “sensible change” in response to concerns about the “troika of ministers” being in charge instead of independent experts having the final say.

He said it also made it simpler and decisions less likely to face legal challenges.

“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. That reflects a lot of the existing architecture in the law right now.”

The bill, which aims to give swift approval to major projects considered to be of national interest, has proved controversial because of the powers it gave to ministers and critics’ claims it did not give enough weight to environmental considerations.

It would have given three ministers – Bishop, Energy Minister Simeon Brown and Resources Minister Shane Jones – the authority to approve or reject projects, even if that was against the advice of an independent panel assessing the projects.

Under the changes, projects will be referred to an expert panel by the Minister for Infrastructure, who will be required to consult the Minister for the Environment and other relevant ministers as part of the referral process.

Final decisions would sit with the expert panel – which Bishop said was the same as the previous Labour Government’s fast-track process.

Expert panels would be appointed by the Government and required to include those with expertise in environmental matters, but would include iwi authorities only when required by Treaty settlements. They would also include Māori development and te ao Māori expertise in place of mātauranga Māori.

However, the changes have been described as “tweaks” and “a shallow re-packaging” by environmental groups, who pointed to the pollution of the Ōhinemuri River to illustrate the need for stronger environmental protection.

Labour’s environment spokeswoman Rachel Brooking said it was “a small win for the campaign” but the bill still overrode laws that protected the environment. She said there was a case for fast-tracking major projects, but Labour’s version of that had greater environmental safeguards which should be kept.

Green Party environment spokeswoman Lan Pham said it was “tinkering and shallow re-packaging” that failed to address the main concern: consideration of the environment.

“There are still absolutely no environmental protections, as legislation such as the Resource Management Act and the Wildlife Act can still be overridden. It is also heartbreaking to see 21 mining projects in the pipeline following the sickening pollution of the Ōhinemuri River over the weekend,” Pham said.

Green Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman said it showed the Government was “feeling the heat” but the changes did not go far enough and would not placate the thousands who marched against the bill because of concerns about the environmental impact. He was also concerned about the number of mining projects.

“The key part of the Fast-track Bill remains in place after these changes – projects will still be assessed on purely economic criteria which totally override environmental criteria,” Norman said.

Bishop said the proposed changes had been agreed by Cabinet and communicated to the select committee considering the bill, which would decide whether to include them in the bill when it reported back.

Cabinet was also now considering 384 projects which had applied for fast-tracking and would decide in coming months which would be selected for inclusion in the schedules to the bill. Those would then be considered by the expert panels to decide on.

The projects already lining up:

Bishop also provided a breakdown of the 384 projects that had applied to be listed in the bill.

That breakdown showed 40% were housing and urban development projects – while 5% were mining. That equates to about 20 mining projects.

Infrastructure projects made up 24%, renewable energy projects 18%, primary industries projects 8%, and quarrying projects 5%.

While the Green Party and Greenpeace voiced concerns about the 20 or so mining projects included, Resources Minister Jones said the low proportion showed that concern around mining and the fast-track law was misplaced.

“It’s important to note the vast majority of projects were not mining, so these hysterical Hobbits who thought to deride me and the bill because it was a fast-track purely for mining have proven to be inaccurate,” Jones said.

Bishop said the high level of interest in applying showed the streamlined process was needed.

“New Zealand has a housing crisis, a massive infrastructure deficit and very ambitious climate change targets. Fast-track [processes] will be a huge step forward toward addressing this trifecta of challenges for Government and the private sector alike.”

The Independent Advisory Group had provided a report to ministers with recommendations on projects to include in the bill and Cabinet would consider those in the coming months. They will then be included in a paper to be put before Parliament once the Fast-track Approvals Bill returns to the House later this year.

Earlier this year, groups ranging from miners and developers to iwi and local government were approached to submit proposals for consideration for inclusion in the bill. Those applications were due by May.

The Independent Advisory Group was charged with deciding on the list of projects to be included in one of the schedules to the bill, after which ministers were to make the final call.

All three ministers have said in recent weeks the powers of ministers was one element of the changes they were looking at.

It was raised as a concern by many submitters, including the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General was also concerned about management and transparency regarding actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Bishop has described the bill as a one-stop consenting regime, aimed at ensuring major projects that are important for New Zealand or one of its regions do not get bogged down in consenting processes and hold-ups. It is also aimed at reducing the $1.3 billion cost of consenting paperwork under the current consenting law.

The bill attracted about 27,000 public submissions and the select committee is due to report back in September.

Bishop has previously said the Government was open to some changes in response to concerns that were reasonable.