36 mining projects got initial tick for fast-tracking in single, 3-hour meeting

Wednesday, 20 November 2024

An advisory group responsible for recommending what projects should be eligible for fast-track consents gave preliminary approval to 36 mining and quarrying schemes in one meeting in June that lasted just three hours.

Minutes of meetings of the Fast-track Projects Advisory Group, released to The Post under the Official Information Act, also show the government-appointed group made preliminary decisions on another 161 fast-track applications at two meetings in July lasting a total of only 10 hours.

That was despite chairperson David Tapsell arriving two hours late to the first of those meetings, due to a plane delay.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) – which provided the secretariat for the advisory group – said it met a total of 13 times to make recommendations on 391 applications it received.

“It is correct that on June 14 the advisory group met for three hours and assessed most of the mining project applications, after having officials speak to them about priorities in this area,” they said.

Those assessments included that of the proposed Chatham’s Rock Phosphate extraction scheme which has been debated for more than a decade and several gold and coal mines, all of which the group preliminarily approved for fast-track consideration.

All projects were later reviewed “at least once” before decisions were finalised, the official said, but the final two meetings of the group were not documented, they admitted.

The group ultimately recommended 342 projects be considered for fast-tracking by the expert panels that will have the final say on whether they are consented, though the Government whittled that down to 149 in the interests of manageability.

The word “environment” only features three times in the 67-pages of minutes of the advisory group’s meetings, and not once in reference to any commentary members made on the applications' credentials or impacts.

The minutes do not record any substantial discussions by the group on the merits of each application.

They indicate two of the most common questions asked at meetings were who was actually making the fast-track application and whether iwi had been consulted.

MBIE’s official said scrutiny would have occurred outside of the minuted meetings.

“Members of the group independently read, rated and reviewed each of the 391 applications.

“These assessments were undertaken in sector-specific batches where possible in the days prior to a group meeting,” they said.

The group elected to use those meetings to discuss their individual assessments, agree on a preliminary decision and raise any questions for applicants, and the minutes did not reflect “the full substance of the group’s discussion”, the official said.

The group didn’t assess the environmental impacts and credentials of projects as that was “outside their remit”, the official said.

“All environmental considerations for progressing projects will be examined thoroughly at the expert panel stage.”

Richard Capie, policy manager of Forest and Bird, which has been one of the most ardent opponents of the fast-track regime, said the minutes showed what level of scrutiny had been possible given “the sheer scale of projects the group was asked to look at”.

“By their very nature these are large and complex nationally and regionally significant projects.

“It’s hard to believe in this day and age that their environmental impacts and credentials were not able to be assessed by the group because this was not part of their remit.”

The Crown had liabilities, linked to its emissions targets, under global accounting rules, decommissioning risks associated with mining, and there were considerable fiscal costs from climate adaptation, Capie said.

“As the recommended projects are now highly likely to be approved given the structure of fast-track, these are significant risks that should have been hard-wired into consideration across all stages of this process.”

Trans-Tasman Resources’ proposed Taranaki iron sands seabed mining scheme was one of 99 projects that got the preliminary nod for fast-track consideration during a seven-hour meeting on July 11.

The minuted-comments that the Fast-track Projects Advisory Group made on that project were among its more extensive, running to a total of 18 words.

“Will it preclude offshore wind from happening? Highly controversial but great economic benefits. Great argument for FT [fast track] system,” the minutes record the group asking and stating.

Resources Minister Shane Jones appeared to indicate during the second reading of the Fast-track Approvals Bill in Parliament last week that the approval of the seabed mining scheme was a foregone conclusion.

“Listed projects are those identifiable initiatives, such as the boon coming to Taranaki in the form of iron sands,” Jones said, noting the potential for that scheme to also yield the mineral vanadium.

“Now, I know, for many of my critics in Taranaki, they've had to consult the dictionary to learn how to spell that word.

“But rest assured, that economic boon is on its way and it occupies a position with a host of other mining projects that are on the listed projects,” he told Parliament.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop – when asked whether he also thought approval for the seabed mining scheme was a foregone conclusion – noted that under the processes set out in the bill it would be up to an expert panel to give the “yay or nay decision”.

“The Government has indicated it is interested in fast-tracking the Taranaki iron sands project.

“Clearly, we're interested in it, but the process, once the bill passes, is really clear,” he said.