| Short Title: | Fast-track Approvals Bill |
| Legislature: | New Zealand Parliament[1] |
| Long Title: | The purpose of this bill is to provide a streamlined decision-making process to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits. |
| Introduced By: | Chris Bishop |
| 1St Reading: | 7 March 2024 |
The Fast-track Approvals Bill is a proposed New Zealand Act of Parliament that seeks to establish a permanent fast track approvals regime for a range of infrastructure, housing and development projects.[2] The Bill is part of the National-led coalition government's efforts to overhaul resource management legislation.[3] The Bill was first introduced into the New Zealand Parliament on 7 March 2024.
The Fast-track Approvals Bill was part of New Zealand First's coalition agreement with the incumbent National Party. The Bill has received support from business interests including BusinessNZ, Energy Resources Aotearoa and Foodstuffs. It has also attracted criticism from the opposition Labour, Green parties and Te Pāti Māori as well as environmentalist groups including Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand and the Environmental Defence Society.[4] [5] The Fast-track legislation also attracted several nationwide protests.[6] [7]
The Fast-track Approvals Bill proposes to establish a permanent fast-track approvals regime for projects of national and regional significance in New Zealand. The regime's process involves several joint ministers including the Minister for Infrastructure, Minister of Transport, Minister for Regional Development, Minister of Conservation, and the Minister Responsible for the Crown Minerals Act.[8]
Under the proposed bill, there are two ways for projects to be approved. First, a list of projects will be automatically fast-tracked once the legislation passes into law.[9] The bill establishes a separate process for approvals subject to various laws including resource consents, notices of requirement, and certificates of compliance under the Resource Management Act 1991, concessions under the Conservation Act 1987, authority to carry out activities prohibited by the Wildlife Act 1953, Reserves Act 1977, aquaculture activity approvals under the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983, archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, marine consents under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, land access under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, Public Works Act 1981 and the Fisheries Act 1996.[10]
Second, others can apply for projects to be considered by an "expert panel," and then the Ministers for Infrastructure, Regional Development and Transport for final approval. These ministers will decide if projects will be referred to an "expert panel" under the criteria that they would have significant national or regional benefits. Ministers must consider Treaty of Waitangi settlements and consult with a range of stakeholders including relevant local authorities, agencies or statutory bodies, portfolio authorities, iwi (tribal) authorities, relevant Treaty of Waitangi settlement entities, and other Māori groups.
The Bill outlines the purpose, functions and composition of "expert panels." Panels have a quorum of four members and must include one person nominated by relevant local authorities and one person nominated by relevant iwi (tribal) authorities.[11] Ministerial approval has been a point of contention for opponents of the fast-track approvals legislation particularly environmental groups who have expressed concern that the legislation allows ministers to overrule the expert panels' recommendations.
The Bill also outlines the criteria for both "eligible" and "ineligible" projects. Eligible projects must have significant national or local benefits including delivering significant economic benefits, supporting industries, the development of natural resources and climate change mitigation, and addressing environmental issues. Ineligible projects are activities that occur on land returned under a Treaty of Waitangi settlement, that has been contested by the land owner, Māori customary land and reservations, a protected customary rights area and aquaculture areas protected by iwi settlements and Section 12 of the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.
Following the 2023 New Zealand general election, the National Party formed a coalition with the libertarian ACT and populist New Zealand First parties.[12] As part of National's coalition agreement with NZ First, the Sixth National Government agreed to establish a new fast-track consenting regime to "improve the speed and process for resource approvals for major infrastructure projects, unlocking opportunities in industries such as aquaculture and mining in our region."
Members of the National-led coalition government have advocated the Fast-track approvals Bill due to their frustration with environmental protections for delaying or obstructing several major infrastructure projects. The Regional Development Minister Shane Jones said "Gone are the days of the multicoloured skink, the kiwi, many other species that have been weaponised to deny regional New Zealand communities their right to a livelihood, their entitlement to live peacefully with their environment but derive an income to meet the costs of raising families in regional New Zealand." In response to concerns that mining in the Ruataniwha plains would affect the endangered Archey's frog, Jones had said "if there is a mining opportunity and it's impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy."
In March 2024, Transport Minister Simeon Brown had announced that the proposed fast-track approvals legislation would help facilitate the Government's stated goal of building 15 "Roads of National Significance." Similarly, Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett stated that "fast-tracking roading projects could save significant up-front costs and give communities benefits sooner."
The Fast-track Approvals Bill was first introduced into the New Zealand Parliament on 7 March 2024. During the first debate National Party MP and Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop, ACT Party MP Simon Court, Minister for Resources Shane Jones and Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka gave speeches arguing that Bill would eliminate red tape and ease the process for building essential infrastructure such as road, housing, public transportation, mines and renewable energy. By contrast, opposition Labour MPs Rachel Brooking, Green co-leader James Shaw and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer criticised the Bill for eliminating environmental protections, increasing the risk of pollution and climate change and undermining Māori land rights and Treaty of Waitangi obligations.
It passed its first reading on the same day by a margin of 68 to 55 along party lines; with the National, ACT and NZ First parties supporting the legislation and the Labour, Green parties and Te Pāti Māori opposing it. It was subsequently referred to the Environment select committee.[13] The deadline for public submissions closed on 19 April 2024.
By 14 May 2024, the Bill had received a total of 27,000 written submissions. 2,900 submitters asked to appear in-person before Parliament's environment select committee. Committee chair and National MP David McLeod said that the committee expected to hear from 1,100 submitters (550 organisations and 550 individuals) over a six-week period. Due to the large volume of submitters, the committee decided to filter the number of oral submissions using a ballot system. Companies and entities will be given ten minutes to make their submissions while individuals will be given five minutes. Since conservation groups such as Forest & Bird and the Environmental Defence Society sent their supporters template messages, the committee opted to prioritise hearing from individuals who made unique submissions. Opposition Green Party MP Lan Pham and Labour MP Rachel Brooking objected to the ballot system, saying it would limit public input on the legislation.[14]
In his submission John Ryan, the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand, expressed concern that the Bill did not require the Joint Ministers to comply with its conflict of interest mechanism, provide reasoning for approving an application or dissenting with the expert panel's recommendations, and called for stronger transparency and accountability safeguards in the legislation.[15] Similarly Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier expressed concern that the fast-track consenting regime would create "enormous executive powers" and opined it needed more "checks and balances."[16]
The New Zealand Infrastructure Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, have both raised concerns about the longevity of the proposed legislation, with both suggesting that commercial projects be excluded from the scope. Both the Infrastructure Commission and Upton suggested that focusing on projects that have benefits for the public (e.g. roading, electricity generation and electricity transmission) would result in a broader public buy-in, increasing the chances that subsequent governments would not overturn the legislation.[17] In addition, Upton expressed concerns that the proposed legislation downgraded both the environment and the role of the Environment Minister, could lead to sup-optimal outcomes through poor decision making, and heightened litigation risk. The Commissioner recommended significant changes to the Bill.[18]
The Ministry for the Environment expressed concern that the current version of the Fast-track Approvals legislation could marginalise local voices, violate Treaty of Waitangi commitments, adversely affect human and environmental health, expose ministers to legal risks, approve prohibited projects and erode the value of Conservation land. While the Ministry supported a standalone fast-track bill, it did not think that "this version was neither the cheapest, nor the fastest."[19]
On 3 April 2024, the New Zealand Government opened the initial fast track application process, which concluded on 3 May 2024. By 12 April, RNZ reported that the Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop had responded to 200 inquiries by organisations seeking information on how to apply for the fast track process. Notable applicants included Trans Tasman Resources (TTR), Stevenson Mining, OceanaGold and Water Holdings. TTR has sought permission from the Environmental Protection Authority to launch offshore mining in Taranaki while Stevenson Mining has sought consent for a coal mine at Mount Te Kuha near Westport. Multinational mining company OceanaGold has expressed interest in mining part of Wharekirauponga Forest Park in the Coromandel Peninsula for gold despite the presence of Archey's frogs. Water Holdings has sought to flood a section of land in the central Hawke's Bay's Ruataniwha plains in order to build a dam. All four projects have attracted opposition from conservation groups including Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand, Forest & Bird, Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki and Wise Water Use Hawke's Bay.
On 9 April, Bishop clarified that the generic email sent to 200 organisations was not a "formal invite" to participate in the fast-track consent process after TTR released a statement on 8 April stating that it had been invited to apply for the fast-track consenting process under the proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill, which was in its Select Committee stage at the time.[20] On 19 April, the Government released a list of about 200 organisations that it had provided information on how to apply for fast-track consents. These organisations included district councils, iwi (tribal) groups, mining companies, housing developers, power companies, and fisheries.[21]
In late May 2024, The Post newspaper reported that an expert advisory group advising ministers on what should be included in the fast-track approval process would consist of six members: Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust chair person and lawyer David Tapsell, Hamilton city planning manager Mark Davey, former Treasury manager and ACC board deputy chairperson David Hunt, civil engineer Rosie Mercer, former Carter Holt Harvey environmental manager Murray Parrish and seafood industry veteran Vaughan Wilkinson. According to The Post, most of these individuals came from business backgrounds with none having a background in the hard sciences or mining industry. Tapsell, who is of Ngāti Whakaue/Waikato Tainui descent, provided a Māori perspective on the advisory group.[22]
In late March 2024 Sanders Unsworth consultancy partner Charles Finny, who served as the lead negotiator for the New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement disagreed with conservation group Forest & Bird's position that the fast-track approval bill would clash with the environmental provisions of New Zealand's free trade agreements with the UK and EU. He said that the expert panels would help safeguard environmental considerations within the legislation's framework.[23]
In May 2024, BusinessNZ economist John Pask suggested some tweaks to the bill in his parliamentary submission. He advocated a "balancing exercise" between economic development and environmental protection. Energy Resources Aotearoa policy director Craig Barry argued that the fast-track approvals legislation was needed since "it has become difficult for projects to gain approval within reasonable time-frames [under the current resource consent process], even for those projects with demonstrable benefits." Foodstuffs New Zealand government relations head Melissa Hodd supported the proposed legislation, saying "it believed it could help it develop additional supermarkets faster."
On 14 March 2024, Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand objected to the proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill, saying that the fast-track consenting "would enable just three Government Ministers to approve development projects more quickly, by bypassing planning legislation and the checks and balances that are in place." The advocacy group advocated its commitment to fighting to protect people and nature regardless of the Government's actions.[24] Greenpeace's parliamentary submission denounced the proposed legislation as "anti-democratic, anti-transparency, vulnerable to corruption and lacking any semblance of environmental protection". It criticised the fast-track process for giving three ministers the power to approve or deny development projects.
On 8 May 2024, the Māori iwi (tribe) Ngāti Toa Rangatira organised a protest march against the Fast-track Approvals Bill outside the New Zealand Parliament grounds. The iwi'schief executive Helmut Modlik said that the proposed bill would "allow big corporations to do anything they want in Aotearoa, without any say from the public, iwi, hapū, environmental experts and communities." Iwi members presented trees and a petition to Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop.
On 12 May, Environmental Defence Society spokesperson and lawyer Raewyn Peart expressed concern that the proposed legislation could allow projects to be built with fewer environment checks and said that it harked back to Think Big projects of the Third National Government.
The historian Dame Anne Salmond's submission condemned the proposed Bill's alleged "utter disregard for democracy" and described it as hostile to the environment. She claimed that the proposed legislation lacked any party mandate since it was promoted by a minority party NZ First, which only gained 6% of the popular vote during the 2023 New Zealand general election. She also urged the governing National Party to honour its election promises to safeguarding New Zealand's natural environment, diversity, waters and landscapes for future generations.
On 8 June, protests against the proposed legislation were held in Auckland, Whakatāne, Christchurch, Nelson, and Tākaka.[25]
In an unusual move, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) did not provide advice on the Fast-track Approvals Bill before its first parliamentary reading on 7 March 2024. An MFAT spokesperson confirmed that it had prepared advice regarding the bill after 11 March but would not share it due to "legal professional privilege." In addition, the Ministry for the Environment provided advice around the Bill's international obligations in the form of a Regulatory Impact Statement, which was not publicly available.
Conservation group Forest & Bird expressed concern that the Fast-track bill could breach clauses in New Zealand's free trade agreements with both the United Kingdom and European Union requiring environmental protections and due process for feedback. The NZ-EU trade agreement requires that the public and advocacy groups be given a sufficient timeframe for providing feedback on the environment impact of mining projects. Forest & Bird spokesperson Geoff Keey said "it was really a bill to override environmental laws. It's not really fast tracking." Similar concerns were raised by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) New Zealand chief executive Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb.[26]
In early May 2024, the United Kingdom Government confirmed that it was monitoring the passage of the Fast-track Approvals Bill after Liberal Democrats Member of Parliament Wera Hobhouse raised concerns abouts its impact on the New Zealand–United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement in the House of Commons.[27] In response, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Trade Minister Todd McClay downplayed concerns that the Bill would affect the NZ-UK free trade agreement, which they argued allowed governments to set their own environmental standards. Bishop claimed that the fast-track approvals process would accelerate the construction of pro-environment and de-carbonisation initiatives like wind farms and solar farms.