95 percent of fast-track amendment bill submitters opposed to changes

Source: Radio New Zealand

About 95 percent of feedback on the fast-track amendment bill is opposed, with the coalition-majority select committee reporting back after less than a month.

The government intends to pass the legislation, which it says aims to address supermarket competition, by the end of the year.

All opposition parties oppose the bill, saying the claim it boosts supermarket competition is disingenous.

Despite submissions being open for just 10 days, some 2518 individuals and groups provided written feedback, and 85 appeared in hearings over 15 hours.

They raised concerns about:

• Potential removal of environmental safeguards
• Limits on the ability for iwi, hapū, Treaty settlement entities and other Māori groups to meaningfully engage in the fast-track process, with potential Tiriti o Waitangi implications
• The Environment Minister’s new ability to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), potentially affecting the independence or perceived independence of the panel convenors
• Shorter timeframes for those expert panels to consider technical information before deciding whether to grant consent to a project, with a default maximum of 60 working days, along with shortening a range of other timeframes. The panel convener raised concerns that the shortened processes would not be workable
• That people lodging applications under fast track would now need only ‘notify’ rather than ‘consult’ certain affected groups before applying, with those notified given 20 working days to respond
• The panels would have less discretion to seek comment from anyone they consider appropriate, because of a new requirement to first find out if local or consenting authorities plan to comment on the matter
• New limits on the ability to appeal a panel’s final decision to proceed with a fast-track project, potentially leading people to instead seek judicial review
• The ability for the Infrastructure Minister to issue a Government Policy Statement (GPS) by designating projects as nationally or regionally significant, potentially influencing the panels which use national and regional significance as a core metric for approval

The coalition MPs on the committee pushed back on some of these criticisms.

They said the current fast-track regime “includes some environmental safeguards” including that applicants must provide detailed information to the expert panels, and these provisions were not changing.

There was a requirement, they wrote, that anyone performing functions under the Act would still be required to act in a way that was consistent with Treaty settlements and some customary rights.

Policy statements were also only one thing the panels must consider, and the panels could still deline approval “if the adverse effects of a project were found to be significantly out of proportion to its regional or national significance”.

The bill also allows some time frames to be extended in certain circumstances or with agreement from the applicants.

Coalition to push changes through without public consultation

Unusually, the committee recommended no changes because of the short timeframe, and because the government plans to introduce other changes in the Committee of the Whole House stage, without public consultation.

“Advisers have brought several issues to our attention following public submissions. We understand the government has identified several changes that it plans to make to the bill,” the report said.

“We agree that these identified issues warrant further consideration by the House.”

Instead, the committee “suggested changes” to be considered at the Committee of the Whole House stage. Committee recommendations are usually debated and voted on earlier, at the Second Reading.

The suggested changes include:

• The Infrastructure Minister should be able to consult anyone they want during development of a GPS
• Clarify that projects cannot be submitted for approval before the window for notified parties to give feedback ends
• Require the EPA to provide substantive applications to the panel convener within five working days of receiving it
• Remove the proposed timeframe for appointing expert panels
• Retain the power of the panel convener to request certain reports, rather than enabling expert panels to do so
• Clarify the provision that would enable applicants to modify substantive applications
• Increase the default maximum time for an expert panel to make its decision to 90 working days
• Increase the maximum time that an applicant may suspend processing of their application to 100 working days
• Clarify that conditions can only be placed on the approval holder
• Improve assurances and clarify the scope of the Minister’s ability to direct the EPA
• Clarify the scope of the proposed regulation-making powers related to cost recovery
• Clarify that proposed new section 117A(3) would not allow new projects to be added to Schedule 2 of the Act
• Amend the description or described location of certain projects listed in Schedule 2 of the Act
• Enable certain other parties to raise issues regarding prospective panel members
• Require an expert panel to begin work within five working days of being appointed
• Clarify that the panel convener would not be required to appoint members with sectoral expertise if not practicable
• Include the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in the definition of administering agency in section 103 of the Act
• Include commencement and transitional provisions

RNZ sought comment from RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop, but he was unavailable.

Opposition parties cry foul

On top of the criticisms raised by submitters, Labour claimed the bill was making “major changes” despite the minister describing it as “rats and mice”, while the Greens said it was “disingenuously framed”.

Labour complained about the short consultation period, the lack of a Regulatory Impact Statement, and the unusual process – saying it was a “terrible way to make law”.

The new ability for developers to complain about a person being appointed to the expert panels was “outrageous”, Labour said, and opposed the proposed retrospective and Henry VIII provisions.

The Greens called the bill “unprecedented and unacceptable overreach on communities’ democratic participation” which would “only make this harmful legislation worse”.

The party – which last month pledged to revoke certain fast-track consents – pointed out many of the controversial changes were only supported by those with fast-track applications, and said it would reinstate a mechanism “far too open to potential corruption”.

Te Pāti Māori said the bill would allow ministers to approve or decline projects without acting in partnership with Māori, with tapu sites able to be authorised for destruction or modification, and leaving groups that had not yet reached a Treaty settlement unable to be involved in decisions affecting them.

The party warned the bill would collapse legal barriers to seabed mining and drilling, and “undermines everything Aotearoa claims to value about partnership, accountability, and intergenerational responsibility”.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand