Expedited approvals bill: No one since the first day of hearings supports the bill in its current form

Complaints against the government’s new fast-track approvals bill range from environmental risks to private property rights, as groups give their input to politicians.

Parliament’s Environment Committee heard from seven groups on Thursday afternoon; Federated Farmers, Law Society, New Zealand Planning Institute, Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, Environment Canterbury and the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee.

None supported the bill in its current form.

Mark Hooper, a Federated Farmers board member, said his group supported the goal of the legislation but was concerned about its potential to infringe on landowners’ rights.

The bill would give lawmakers broad powers to greenlight infrastructure projects, without current requirements for public feedback or consent.

Hooper told the committee that it should seek feedback and that the proposed timelines were too short.

“We consider it important that anyone seeking rights to private land through the Public Works Act should first attempt to secure them through fair and equitable negotiations and compensation,” he said, “rather than relying on ministerial powers.

The problems with the accelerated approvals bill

In its current form, the bill would give ministers the ability to refer projects to a panel of experts and then make the final decision, regardless of what the panel advises.

In its submission, Federated Farmers warned that a lack of consultation could lead to the loss of social license for a project.

The Law Society said the new bill should require ministers to explain themselves if they go against the expert panel’s advice.

Alternatively, spokesman Nick Whittington said giving the final say to the independent panel would still allow the bill to meet its overall goal of speeding up projects.

At a minimum, there should be a requirement for joint ministers to explain their position whenever they depart from the panel’s recommendation, he told the committee.

“This would, of course, also reduce the likelihood of a judicial review.”

This is also of concern to the Planning Institute of New Zealand, which represents more than 3,000 professional planners across the country.

Spokeswoman Megan Couture said the lack of transparency, combined with a perceived risk of conflicts of interest and overreach of power by the three decision-making ministers, increased the risk that a judge would be asked to review the decisions. taken under the new legislation.

“The most effective role of ministers is to set clear national priorities and a clear framework for decision-making,” he said.

Another concern was the lack of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause.

Vicki Morrison-Shaw, of the Law Society, said this was especially necessary given that the Ministry of the Environment’s own analysis of the bill had found that it was “likely to have negative impacts of the Treaty on more Maori rights and interests.” that will probably outweigh the positive ones.

He was also concerned that the bill did not take account of unstable iwi.

Greenpeace criticized the legislation in its entirety, saying New Zealanders voted for a new government, not for their natural biodiversity to be replaced by mines and sewers.

Spokeswoman Amanda Larsson criticized how the bill eliminated environmental protections as well as the public’s right to participate in decision-making.

“Expert evidence, public participation, scrutiny by courts: these are the processes by which our society decides what development is appropriate and what is not.

“But if passed, the expedited approvals bill would completely undermine these processes and open the door to development not in the name of the public good, but in the name of whoever exerts the most pressure.”

He said nearly 15,000 people gave feedback through Greenpeace’s website on the proposed legislation.

Forest and Bird received a similar response, with around 14,000 submissions made through its website.

Chief executive Nicola Toki said the public expected the Crown to protect nature, and the bill did not demonstrate this.

“Obviously ministerial override needs to go,” he said, but that “would be pointless unless environmental protections and public participation are maintained in existing legislation.”

Anything less, and the government would face public protests, he said.

RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop, one of three decision-making ministers specified in the bill, said he would not comment on individual submissions, “as that falls to the committee”.

“We are interested in constructive suggestions to improve and refine the bill,” he said.

“Fast track is very important to make it easier to get things done in New Zealand and address our infrastructure deficit, solve our housing crisis and reduce our emissions.”