Clerk of House throws spanner at fast-track bill, but it bounces off
Wednesday, 11 December 2024
OPINION: There was half-an-hour of drama in Parliament on Tuesday evening when the Clerk of the House threw a spanner at the controversial Fast-track Approvals Bill ahead of a debate on the law change.
The clerk, David Wilson, is responsible for heading the office that runs many of the operations that go on behind the scenes at Parliament and provides advice to the Speaker on procedure and parliamentary law.
Last night, it emerged that he had advised that the Government’s decision to select 149 applicants that could have developments fast-tracked contravened those rules.
The snag in his view was that created a “private benefit” to some of the parties involved, which a government bill is not supposed to do.
Deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger upheld that advice, ruling the amendment identifying the fast-track projects was “out of order”, while a concerned-looking Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop sat by with furrowed brow, shuffling through papers and twiddling his pen.
Predictably, it turned out to be a false alarm for the Government.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee was recalled to the house and overruled the clerk and his deputy after a series of earnest pleas from both sides of the house.
Elements of his argument were that few bills didn’t provide any private individual or business with some kind of win, which is obviously true.
More questionably, perhaps, he argued it was relevant the named fast-tracked projects wouldn’t be automatically approved and would still have a process to go through.
But he said his ruling was “finely balanced” and offered a consolation prize to the Opposition in allowing extra time in Parliament for the debate on the bill.
That won’t change anything, of course.
If the fast-track bill has demonstrated anything, it is that in the era of party-hopping rules and compliant select committees, the public-facing processes in Parliament have been reduced to a rubber stamp.
The important action – including any serious policy debate within parties – now goes on behind closed doors.
When the Clerk of the House is providing potentially the most consequential check and balance on key legislation, it may be time for a bit of introspection.
Ministers continued to taunt the Opposition with the silly claim that consenting delays are a major reason why power generators haven’t invested in renewable energy sufficiently fast, so a vote against the bill is a vote against renewable energy.
The truth is that generators haven’t invested fast enough in new renewable primarily because it is not in their commercial interests to do, while frequently sitting on approved resource consents for years.
But, for the most part, there was relative quiet and a sombre feeling in Parliament as last night’s events played out – grim as coal-dust at times.
Resources Minister Shane Jones was unusually circumspect.
None of the usual hyperbole or bragging of evicted frogs as he told the Speaker he disagreed with the Clerk of the House but respected his role.
Bishop told Labour environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking that, no, he wouldn’t add a reference to “sustainable management” to the purpose of the bill.
But there was “a variety of mechanisms scattered throughout the bill in order to give effect to environmental considerations to make sure the conditions upon which we are talking about will be done in an environmentally-friendly way,” he offered up.
Could the clerk’s failed intervention have jolted MPs on the government benches to pause for thought and affected the mood?
Might some now be feeling the Fast-track bill might have gone too far, now that it’s sinking in?
Who knows.
The unintended consequence of the constitutional hiccup is that it may have provided a distraction from 29 government amendments to the bill that have been put forward at a stage so late they won’t now undergo what passes for select committee scrutiny.
It is hard to assess what the most significant will prove to be, as many if not most are far more than tweaks.
Arguably, it may be most of note that the expert panels that will ultimately approve consents could be convened by a senior lawyer with resource management experience, rather than only former judges who might be expected to hold approval processes to a higher standard.
To make objections harder and/or pointless, 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.
Environmental lobby group 350 Aotearoa is particularly concerned about that, and tight time limits being placed on judicial reviews.
Campaigner Adam Currie describes changes that would 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, as a “red flag”.
The expert panels considering fact-track applications would need to issue “a draft decision” before declining any applications, effectively giving applicants the opportunity to make amendments and have a second-chance at getting them over the line.
350 Aotearoa says it will be aiming to work closely with local councils to challenge fast-track consents in the courts, as councils shouldn’t be barred by the bill from being heard.
But the Government’s tactics mean civil disobedience is more likely, he says.
“We've taken to the streets and we've taken direct action before and we'll do that again if it comes down to it.”
Ultimately, it comes down to a battle for hearts and minds.
The Government will be hoping the economic and employment prospects created by fast-track projects will make younger people feel they have more of a future this side of the Tasman.
There will be others who may feel less certain what the country stands for or where its values lie.
It will cut both ways, and not always along party lines. Scrutiny will continue outside of the parliamentary precinct.