The Coalition Government has agreed to remove a controversial component of the Fast-track Approvals Bill in response to public submissions made to the Environment Select Committee.
Ministers will no longer have the final say on whether projects are approved, and only the Infrastructure Minister will be able to refer projects into the fast-track.
A previous iteration of the Bill allowed the Regional Development and Transport ministers to also refer projects and for the trio to make final approval decisions together.
This approach was criticised for concentrating too much power in the executive government and encouraging lobbying or potential corruption.
On Sunday afternoon, ministers Chris Bishop and Shane Jones announced Cabinet had agreed to make the expert panels the final decision-makers, a change reflecting one of the major themes in the thousands of submissions made to the Environment Committee, which has yet to report its findings and recommendations.
“We have agreed with those submissions, and we'll be recommending that to the committee,” he said.
Cabinet has also recommended putting environment and te ao Māori experts on the panels and requiring projects to include information about any existing court or consent decisions.
These changes more-or-less exclude NZ First MP Shane Jones, who is the Minister for Regional Development, from the fast-track process. He would only be consulted on proposed projects that were somehow connected to his portfolios.
When asked about this change, Jones said there was a difference between a politician on the campaign trail and around the Cabinet table.
“Collective responsibility means that I’m adopting the Shakespearean approach: all’s well that ends well,” he said, possibly implying he opposed the changes.
The fast-track legislation was a key component in the National–NZ First coalition agreement. It required a “one-stop-shop” for consenting projects of regional and national significance, with “Ministers” able to refer projects.
Sweet spot
Bishop said it was less legally complicated to have the expert panel make the final sign-off on projects, as ministerial decisions could be subject to judicial review. Similarly, having just one minister able to refer projects was simpler than having three.
The legislation was aiming to hit a “sweet spot” between clear direction from ministers that more projects should be approved faster, while allowing the expert panel to have the final say.
Ministers will be able to instruct a panel to reconsider an application if they disagreed with the decision, although the exact process for doing so has not yet been determined.
Jones said it was better than the existing fast-track process, set up by the Labour Government during covid, because it was a one-stop-shop that covered various laws and authorities.
Bishop said having a single place to approve important projects would make it easier to build houses, develop mines, and construct all kinds of much needed infrastructure.
The 382 projects that applied to be included in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which would automatically refer them to the expert panel, demonstrated public and commercial enthusiasm for faster consents, he said.
A Government-assembled Independent Advisory Group has reviewed these applications and made a recommendation to ministers for which projects should be included.
Cabinet will consider those recommendations and add a list of projects to Schedule 2 before the bill gets a second reading in Parliament. Bishop hopes to pass the bill by Christmas.
Of the 382 applications, 40% were for housing or urban development, 24% for traditional infrastructure, 18% for renewable energy projects, 8% for primary industries, and only 10% for quarrying and mining.
Opposition remains
Lan Pham, the Green Party spokesperson for the environment, said the Bill still posed a severe threat to the natural world.
“Even with today’s changes which essentially move the deck chairs, the fact remains that this fast-track bill is dangerous to both people and planet,” she said.
“It is outrageous that prohibited activities, projects that have been strongly opposed by communities or even declined by the courts could be given a lifeline through the fast track legislation”.
Any companies hoping to use the fast-track process should be aware that a change in government could “result in a loss of consent, possibly without compensation,” she said.
30 Comments
It probably is, they get paid less so arguably more susceptible to corruption (whether they know it or not) and there’s way more of them. They also care more about trivial issues like whether speed bumps are useful and flood the system so it’s a big mess however you look at it
It all depends on who appoints the panel , there is a quarry along from me in Pebblebrock rd that has NZ First donations fingerprints all over it, kings quarry, its 100% worth looking at more closely then a Shane Jones stamp of approval
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/quarry-connected-to-5…
One of the firms approached about the Government’s new Fast-Track consenting bill has a part-owner and director whose other company has donated $55,000 to the NZ First Party and MP Shane Jones.
AJR Finance donated $50,000 to NZ First and $5000 to Shane Jones at the last election. AJR Finance’s sole director is Andrew Ritchie, who owns the company along with Mark and Elizabeth Markovina.
Ritchie is a director of Kings Quarry and, along with the Markovinas, owns 50 per cent of the company. The other 50 per cent is owned by Alexander and Stan Semenoff. Stan Semenoff donated to Jones’ campaign in 2008 and is a distant relative of Jones.
I doubt whether anyone has looked at the actual quarry application. Done in May23 under the fast tracking consent FTCA. If that application was done under fast tracking I hate to see what a non fast track consent looks like. Some heavy duty stumbling blocks under the so called fast track legislation.
Unfortunately I can't copy and paste from the app as its an image. Some items. Relevant iwi authorities, Treaty settlements that relate to the project area, relevant treaty settlement entities, relevant principles and provisions of the treaty settlements, groups with a negotiation mandate recognised by the crown which are yet to commence Treaty settlement negotiations. Current treaty settlement negotiations, (relevant tribes). Additional checking on Customary rights regarding sea bed and foreshore (not applicable in this case). About 70% of the application is related to Maori.
Commentators here talk about the possibility of corruption within the three ministers but are happy to accept the high probability of koha and no doubt on going at that.
Congrats to everyone who called it out for what it was - more egg on their faces.
They do know how to waste everyone's time on these flip flops - and they already have expert panels via the existing fast-track EPA mechanism... so thumbs down to them now creating a 'new' and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy just for the sake of a stupid idea by NZ First in the coalition agreement.
Same can be said about the silly Treaty Principles Bill to no where in the coalition agreement with Act. And it will be so interesting to see whether the most recently revealed 'slight-of-hand' works for them on amending JK/TPM's Takutai Moana legislation.
They really do not have a clue about how to govern - just not enough experience in the ranks.
.
Regrettably that is the rub. As much as this government is endeavouring to provide an image of going ahead it is accompanied by the inevitable faltering. This applied too, and actually worse to the previous government. The obvious explanation is a lack of calibre, acumen and “worldly” experience in many of our politicians exacerbated by elements of intransigence and self interest in the bureaucracy that they are not equipped to surmount. Too many are arriving in parliament without bringing any proven and worthy CV of actual work as opposed to just some academic experience. At the other end of that, the same argument is supported rather well, by the considerable failures in candidate selection by all the political parties that has resulted in miscreants and reprobates being regularly exposed and then ousted.
at last, how could anyone thinking giving SJ that kind of power was a good idea, we already ended up with one government minister do jail time for corruption and he kept his corruption quiet until found out
as for SB the guy is not bright to be kind and i shudder to think what he would have approved, watched him argue with jack tame this morning about power generation and he couldn't understand the agreement being put forward so could only respond with talking points to refute it not solid facts, lucky our power companies don't listen to him
It isn't a 'good compromise'.
And I suspect they anticipated this move, all along.
And the comment upthread is the correct one; who they appoint, will be crucial.
I'm guessing Rowarth might be put forward - she has a 'suitable' track record in choosing cherry-picked items, at the expense of others.....
If I was a big National Party donor who wanted a lot out of this legislation I wouldn’t be a happy chappy.
There is heaps of legal uncertainty with it. While the purpose of the RMA becomes secondary to the purpose of this legislation (economic development), the RMA remains a key consideration.
It becomes a real ‘punt’, and a very expensive one at that. At least with the Ministerial powers a decline decision by the panel could have been overturned.
It will be preferable to a normal RMA process, but only just. Remembering that appeal of a decline decision is possible under the RMA, but not under this proposed legislation…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.