Following the huge response (25,000) from a broad range of organisations and individuals on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Environment Select Committee appears to be listening to concerns about the overriding of democratic, judicial processes and public participation processes that were explicit in the first draft.
We now await the Select Committee report and the revised draft. TINZ submitted on the Bill and spoke briefly to the Select Committee.
Changes that have been stated at this point by key Ministers are that:
- Final decisions on projects will sit with the expert panel and not Ministers
- Only one minister (Minister for Infrastructure, currently Chris Bishop) will refer projects to the expert panel, and that Minister will have to consult relevant Ministers including the Minister for the Environment.
- Expert panels will include people with environmental expertise, iwi representation (in specific instances), and other Māori expertise.
- Applications will have to include information on previous court and consent decisions regarding their application
- Timeframes will be extended to allow for comment at both referral and panel stages. This may give affected parties more time to comment.
While fast tracking the 384 projects in the application process has potential to enable faster infrastructure development, it also shuts out many affected parties that would form part of a normal consenting process. Concerns expressed in many of the submissions were along the lines of this selection of excerpts:
This process limits the right to natural justice, and the right of access to the courts, by reducing the scope of appeal to questions of law, and restricting the rights of affected parties to have the facts and merits of a decision examined in the High Court… (Law Society)
Our public infrastructure providers are building assets for decades to come, and want social licence to operate for the life of their assets. They need a consenting framework that is stable and enduring. (Infrastructure Commission)
.. democracy only survives when there is credible and respectful constitutional restraint. When constitutional restraint and respect for balancing of power is sacrificed for efficiency, as determined by the executive, a state is on the path to authoritarianism (Colin Keating)
We recommend the Bill be amended to strengthen the ability of the Expert Panel and joint Ministers to take into account natural hazard risks and climate change risks. Further, when considering whether an infrastructure or development project will result in significant regional or national benefits, the long-term adverse economic and social impacts of developing in areas vulnerable to natural hazards are taken into account… (Insurance Council of NZ)
The Commission submits that both substantive environmental outcomes and, equally, decision-making processes under the proposed reforms must align with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights obligations in line with our domestic and international obligations. (Human Rights Commission)
We wait to see the final draft of the Bill. The concerns we expressed in our submission about due process are vitally important. These concerns repeated by democratic experts and public bodies remain.
