Government moves to relieve pressure over fast-track regime

Monday, 26 August 2024

Russel Norman, executive director of Greenpeace NZ, told the Auckland crowd the bill was an attack “on nature, on our democracy and on Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

ANALYSIS: The pressure became too much in the end. Faced with marching in the streets, thousands of submissions flooding Parliament and critics crying constitutional carnage, the Government has neutered its fast-track regime.

The writing had been on the wall for some time. Regional Development Minister Shane Jones ‒ suitably sour-faced at the decision being made public on Sunday ‒ had in recent days been amplifying a soft signal being sent by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop for months; “sensible changes” were coming.

But this is not to say the debate has been settled, the policy abandoned. The fast-track regime remains and the Government remains eager to get projects under way before the next election, with the legislation set to pass into law by the end of the year.

Controversial mining projects can still be pushed through and other projects previously weighed down by community resistance could be included; Jones pointing to the Ruataniwha dam project in Hawke’s Bay, as he continues to rile his critics ‒ who also won’t resile.

Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop, right, and Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones talk to media about the Fast-Track Approval Bill on Sunday.

“This is democracy in action. A lot of our critics have seen a more sensitive side of our countenance,” Jones said.

“I’m adopting the Shakespearean approach. All’s well that ends well.”

What ended on Sunday was a battle at the Cabinet table between Jones and his party, NZ First, and the National ministers ‒ though none will talk of discussions that occur in that circular, wood-panelled room. ACT has steered mostly clear of the fast-track policy, but has express support in the House.

Out of the National-NZ First coalition agreement came a promise to erect a “one-stop shop” for consenting projects of regional and national significance. But the first brush of the policy, announced in March, sparked major controversy for concentrating power with the Cabinet.

Three ministers ‒ Bishop, Jones, and Transport Minister Simeon Brown ‒ were to be given authority to override myriad planning and environment laws and green-light projects, after a panel of government-appointed experts set any conditions deemed necessary.

The ministers could also disagree with the panel’s safeguards and give the project the go-ahead.

Actor Robin Malcolm and Greenpeace head Russell Norman a protest against the Fast-Track Approvals Bill in Auckland earlier this year.

Alarmed particularly by Jones’ pro-mining rhetoric and jousting with “hysterical hobbits”, the proposed regime united critics who were concerned about environmental damage to be wrought, and those outraged by the Muldoon-like powers to be wielded by Cabinet ministers.

Both New Zealand’s clean, green image and its transparent democracy were deemed at stake. Jones’ proud proximity to the industries that could benefit from the regime did not help appearances.

The changes announced on Sunday seek to head off at least one vector of outrage.

Instead of a “troika” of ministers having final sign-off, the only minister to refer projects to the expert panel will be Bishop, and he will be required to consult the environment minister and any others who are relevant to the project.

The government-appointed expert panel will sign off the projects ‒ as occurred in a prior fast-track scheme run by the Labour Government, making the proposition a lot less radical. And, Bishop acknowledged, reducing legal complexity and potential for ministerial decisions to be taken to the courts for judicial review.

A large group of Ngati Toa gathered at Parliament to protest the Government's Fast-Track Approvals Bill earlier this year.

The Government is not truly handing over power to these expert panels, however. They will have to make decisions based on the conditions set out in the bill, which is sure to direct as per the Government’s intent.

The changes have not pleased environmentalists. The Green Party said the “shallow re-packaging” did not reduce the threat to nature. Greenpeace decried new mining projects “without environmental conditions” in the works. Climate advocates 350 Aotearoa said as long as “limited economic benefit trumps environmental considerations, any expert panel … will be forced to approve destructive projects”.

Of the 384 applications made public, 152 are urban development projects, 92 are infrastructure, 71 are renewable energy, 29 primary industry, 21 mining and 19 quarrying and other extraction.

Canterbury has the most, with 61, then Waikato, 55, and Auckland, 53. Northland has 33, Otago, 28, and Tauranga, 25.