Fast-track Approvals Bill passes final reading in Parliament

The contentious Fast-track Approvals Bill has passed its final reading in Parliament.

It’s one of the final items left on the Government’s fourth-quarter action plan and one of the core components of the coalition’s plan to speed up infrastructure development in New Zealand. However, it’s received significant criticism from environmental activists who believe it rides roughshod over protections.

The legislation enables particular projects believed to be of regional or national significance to be eligible for a streamlined approvals process. A list of 149 projects were selected by the ministers for inclusion in the legislation after being recommended by an expert advisory group.

They included 58 housing or land developments, 22 renewable energy projects, 11 mining projects and other roading, quarrying and farming projects. Among the recognisable projects on the list is a redevelopment of Eden Park, the Mill Rd development south of Auckland, and the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project.

The project developers will be able to apply through the Environmental Protection Agency from February 7 to have expert panels assess their projects and decline approval or apply any relevant conditions.

There’s been a number of controversial elements to the policy. Initially, three ministers had sign-off powers on the projects, but the Government U-turned on that in August to leave decisions with the expert panel.

Advocacy groups have raised concerns that the legislation doesn’t give enough consideration to environmental considerations. Cabinet did recommend the Minister of Infrastructure consult with the Minister for the Environment before referring any projects to the expert panel.

Questions were also raised about how ministers’ real or perceived conflicts of interest were dealt with during the process of selecting projects to include in the legislation.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has emphasised that all 149 were chosen on the recommendation of the independent group and ministers a “really thorough and robust process” informed by the Cabinet Office. This included ministers transferring responsibility to another if they had a potential conflict.

National's Erica Stanford (from left), Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Chris Bishop and at a Long Bay housing development. Photo / Sylvie Whinray

For example, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones identified conflicts with eight projects and as a result, Tama Potaka considered their inclusion. Bishop said there was one project where he identified a potential conflict of interest so transferred decisions to Simeon Brown.

The Auditor-General in October launched an inquiry into how conflicts of interest were identified and managed during the selection process to “provide assurances” about how well systems were used.

Last week, when the Government was trying to introduce the list of 149 projects into the legislation, deputy Speaker Barbara Kuriger, on the advice of the Clerk, ruled it was out of order as it had the nature of private legislation.

This was overturned by Speaker Gerry Brownlee who, while acknowledging it was “undesirable” for Parliament to legislate for the benefit of private people, said he didn’t believe the amendment met a test to be considered private legislation.

He said he had spent a lengthy period considering it and looking through a book on parliamentary practice. Labour disagreed with his ruling and said it had lost confidence in him.

On Tuesday, as the legislation went through its third reading, activists from 350 Aotearoa dropped banners into the chamber from the public gallery.

“We have followed the official process to a tee – filing submissions, waiting patiently to be heard and so on,” said spokesman Adam Currie.

“But it hasn’t worked, and democratic norms have been breached. We may have broken Parliament rules to make a point today, but Christopher Luxon’s Government is not following the rules either.”

In a statement after the legislation passed, Bishop said it would “cut through the thicket of red and green tape holdings New Zealand back”.

“New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit, a housing crisis, and an energy shortage. Fast-track will be a huge step forward toward addressing this trifecta of challenges for government and the private sector alike.

“For too long New Zealanders have had to put up with overly restrictive planning rules that stifle much-needed economic growth. The coalition Government is cutting through the jumble of consenting processes so we can deliver new infrastructure up and down the country, grow our economy, and provide much-needed new jobs for the regions.”

Act’s Cameron Luxton said the legislation would make it easier to consent.

“Growing productivity in this country is an important part of what this Government is trying to achieve so that we can get our country in a state of affairs economically where we can afford to pay for the ‘nice-to-haves’.

“We also want to be able to build stuff, and after the nincompoops on the other side created an obstruction economy, it’s getting ever harder to do that.”

Lan Pham from the Greens has been critical of the legislation.

Labour’s environment spokeswoman Rachel Brooking called it “bad news for New Zealand’s environment” as it “paves the way for significant harm not only to our water, air and climate, but for our communities”.

“This is deeply flawed legislation that prioritises short-term profit over the long-term sustainable management of New Zealand’s environment, and locks communities out of decision-making.

“Labour’s fast-track process showed that consenting could be done quickly and responsibly. It consented housing, renewable energy, and infrastructure projects without sacrificing environmental protections.”

The Green Party said it would review and “potentially revoke” any project in the legislation “that does harm to our environment and the critters who call it home”.

“The environment provides the basis for life itself,” said environment spokeswoman Lan Pham.

“We must be responsible stewards of the natural world which sustains us, and ditch the regressive exploitative and extractive approach that benefits an already wealthy few at the expense of all of us.”

Te Pāti Māori said it had sent a clear message to fast-track applicants with interests in mining that it would “hold them accountable through retrospective liability and [...] immediately revoke Fast-Track consents if elected to Government”.

“Our message to these corporations is clear: exploit the whenua, face the consequences. Aotearoa is not interested in corporate exploitation driven by the greedy,” said co-leader Rawiri Waititi.

Jones was critical of Te Pāti Māori.

“Now we have the Venezuelan example here in New Zealand that if you gave a legal, statutory consent, then you’re going to be stripped of it in the event that the Māori Party forms part of an alternative Government. I can assure you that they have nothing to worry about, because the Māori Party won’t be here at the next election.”

He said the legislation would help “enrich our nation through the minerals sector”.

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.