Fast-track regime would lead to protests, likes of which ‘not seen for many years’, MPs told

Thursday, 2 May 2024

The Government’s proposed fast-track consenting regime quickly ran into heavy flak when the Environment select committee began hearing evidence from submitters on Thursday.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill would give three ministers the ultimate power to approve major infrastructure projects such as roads and mines, with the ability to override both existing environmental laws and an expert panel that would be set up to advise them.

Forest & Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said market research showed New Zealanders’ concept of national identity was heavily tied to their connection to land and nature.

“Other countries say things like ‘freedom of speech and democracy’; we consider connection to nature to be our number-one defining characteristic.”

The proposed law change was “bad for the environment and bad for nature” and, if passed, would lead to “protests and litigation across this country the likes of which we haven't seen for many, many years”, she told MPs.

That meant it would also not be good for businesses, she said.

The time provided for consultation on the bill was “embarrassing”, she said.

Greenpeace campaigns head Amanda Larsson described the fast-track proposals as a “one-stop-shop for undermining democracy, removing public participation and declaring war on nature”.

“It's anti-democratic, anti-transparency and creates vulnerability to corruption.”

Greenpeace had been contacted by concerned people from across the political spectrum, she said.

“We've had people reaching out to us saying ‘normally I'm a National Party voter’ or ‘normally I don't participate’.”

Larsson rejected the view that the Government had an electoral mandate for the fast-track regime.

New Zealanders may have voted for a change of government, but they did “not vote to have the forests and oceans turned into open-cast mines, to have their rivers and lakes turned into sewers, or to condemn precious wildlife to extinction”, she said.

“They certainly did not vote to rescind their right to have a say on industrial developments in their neighbourhoods, which is a very worrying consequence of this bill,” she said.

The convenor of the Law Society’s committee on law reform, Nick Whittington, said that “at the very least” there should be a requirement for the three ministers who would approve projects, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Shane Jones, to explain their decisions.

“The ministers’ role has the potential to put those ministers in difficult ‘conflict of interest situations’, which risks undermining confidence in the fast-track system and the particular consents that may be granted,” he said.

Megan Couture, deputy chairperson of the NZ Planning Institute, which represents more than 3000 professional planners working within the resource management system, forecast the regime would lengthen rather than reduce the time to start projects.

That was because of the ministers’ proposed roles, she said.

The institute supported the concept of fast-track legislation, but the bill was “problematic” and did not offer the best solution to the problems that the Government wished to address, she said.

“The most effective role for ministers is to set clear national priorities and a clear framework for decision-making.”

Federated Farmers was the first organisation invited to address the committee on Thursday and was more supportive, but called for more protections for private land-owners who might be impacted by developments.

Board member Mark Hopper noted the proposed fast-track regime had “come under considerable scrutiny and push back”.

Federated Farmers was “a strong advocate for the fact that our current resource management system is broken”, he said.

“Consent has become too expensive, too time-consuming and too unpredictable, creating a specific need for a fast-track bill at this time.

“That said, the solution to this problem is enduring resource-management reform that finds a better balance between enabling productivity and environmental management,” he said.

“With this view in mind, we recommend that a sunset clause is inserted in the bill.”