The final sign-off for new projects will no longer lie with ministers, but, as Stewart Sowman-Lund writes in this extract from The Bulletin, critics say the new changes don’t go far enough.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Ministerial powers removed
What was arguably the most controversial aspect of a still highly contentious piece of proposed legislation has been scrapped by the government. As the Herald’s Claire Trevett reported, the Fast-track Approvals Bill will no longer give three ministers sign-off powers, with that important responsibility to be delegated to a panel of independent experts. As Shanti Mathias explained in a piece looking at the controversy around the bill, it is targeted at speeding up the consent process for large infrastructure projects with the rationale being that the existing process is too slow and unwieldy to make a difference.
It’s similar to the “shovel ready projects” law introduced by Labour during the Covid pandemic, though there are some differences. Under the changes announced yesterday, the coalition’s proposed law would be closer in scope to Labour’s, with projects referred to an independent panel by a sole minister, Chris Bishop, who will also be required to consult with the environment minister and other relevant ministers.
Slim details of fast-track projects
The government signalled it was always open to making changes to what it had initially put forward, though the prospect of ministerial control of the decision-making had strong defenders within government – including one of the three ministers now stripped of that power, Shane Jones. For critics of the fast-track bill, that makes this latest change significant. Some, like former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, had raised concerns the bill in its original form could pose a threat to constitutional government. As we looked at in a recent Bulletin, there were also worries the three ministers with sign off powers could have been subject to intense lobbying (and indeed, Shane Jones was relentlessly questioned over an undisclosed dinner with a mining boss).
The government has now revealed further details of the projects in line for fast track approval, reported The Post’s Thomas Manch. There have been 384 applications received so far, of which 152 were urban development projects, 92 were infrastructure, 71 were renewable energy, 29 primary industry, 21 mining, and 19 quarrying and other extraction. “It’s important to note that the vast majority of these projects were not mining, so these hysterical hobbits who thought to deride me, and denigrate the bill as if it was a fast-track proven for mining, have proven inaccurate,” Jones said yesterday.
Environmental concerns remain
As the Herald’s Claire Trevett wrote this morning, the backdown over ministerial control doesn’t address the well-canvassed environmental concerns with the bill. It was those concerns that prompted widespread protest earlier in the year. When Bishop claimed in March that the government had extensively engaged with groups in the sector, The Spinoff’s Hayden Donnell tried (and failed) to find a single group that said it was consulted.
Labour’s Rachel Brooking was one calling for further changes to the fast-track bill, as 1News reported. “The fact remains, the bill still overrides the laws that protect our environment and poses a great risk to our natural taonga, like our pristine waterways and forest land,” she said. Environmental groups remain dissatisfied with the proposed bill despite the latest changes, reported RNZ’s Kate Green, with 350 Aotearoa campaigner Adam Currie claiming that the independent panel will have its hands tied given the criteria for pushing a project onto the fast track hasn’t changed. “If you say to me, I’m going to let you make the final decision but you have to make the decision based on certain criteria, you’re not really giving me the power to make the decision at all,” he said. Forest & Bird’s Nicola Toki agreed, saying that the bill still prioritised development over the environment. One of the strongest critics of the bill, Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira chief executive Helmut Modlik, has praised the government for listening to concerns, reports RNZ’s Anneke Smith.
A warning from the Greens
The politics hasn’t entirely been taken out of the bill, noted Newsroom Pro’s Fox Meyer. The independent panel will be chosen by the government, and will only include an iwi representative when required by a Treaty settlement. It’s worth remembering that the changes proposed yesterday still need to be adopted by the environment select committee before the bill gets officially updated. As Brent Edwards at the NBR wrote (paywalled), it would be extraordinary if the the committee didn’t send the bill back to parliament with the suggested amendments given the heightened level of public criticism.
In recent weeks, the prime minister has called for a bipartisan approach to infrastructure given our short election cycle can lead to major projects being switched on and off. In responding to the fast-track changes, the Greens’ environment spokesperson Lan Pham issued a stark reminder of what could happen if the political winds shift. “Any companies thinking of taking advantage of [the] fast-track process… should be well aware that a change of government could result in a loss of consent, possibly without compensation,” she said in a statement. Some of the political noise has been taken out of the debate by these latest changes, but things aren’t over yet.