Ministers will no longer have the final say over fast-track consent process

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.