Late amendments to Fast-track bill would make decisions harder to challenge

Tuesday, 10 December 2024

The Government has unveiled a raft of amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Bill that would further liberalise the controversial planning regime ahead of a parliamentary vote on the legislation.

To make objections harder, the range of people who could appeal against a fast-track consent would be reduced and some projects would be allowed to start before appeal rights had been exhausted.

Tight time limits would be placed on judicial reviews.

Expert panels that will rule on fast-track decisions could be convened by “senior lawyers” with resource management experience, without the originally-envisaged requirement they had served as a judge.

The changes would also potentially allow developments in some coastal fisheries and estuaries that would have been off-limits under earlier versions of the bill, as well as electricity infrastructure on national reserve land.

The Government would be able to designate individual applications a priority.

In a change that might make it more likely fast-track projects would be approved, the expert panels considering them would need to issue “a draft decision“ before declining any applications and give applicants the opportunity to make amendments.

Resources Minister Shane Jones said during second reading of the bill last month that he hoped the fast-track approvals regime could be the “most permissive” in Australasia and the 38-state OECD club of developed nations.

The bill would remove the “obstructiveness that has impeded the development of our economy”, he said then.

Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking said it was very frustrating to have “so many amendments dropped on the afternoon that Parliament is discussing the bill”.

It was “disappointing” appeal rights to fast-track decisions were being further restricted, she said.

“These projects would normally go before a judge in the Environment Court.

“Under fast-track the decision-makers can be planners and the process will not be robust, making appeal rights especially important,” she said.