Good News

Fast Track Approvals Bill: No one from first day of hearings supports bill in current form

Editor Written by Editor · 2 min read >


Greenpeace spokeswoman Amanda Larsson was among those making submissions on the Fast Track Approvals Bill. Photo / RNZ / Jonathan Mitchell

By Kate Green of RNZ

Complaints against the Government’s new Fast Track Approvals Bill have ranged from environmental risk to private property rights, as groups give their feedback to politicians.

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

None supported the bill in its current form.

Federated Farmers board member Mark Hooper said his group supported the aim of legislation but was concerned about its potential to impinge on the rights of property owners.

The bill would give sweeping powers to lawmakers to clear the way for infrastructure projects, without the current requirements for public feedback or assent.

Hooper told the committee that where feedback was to be sought the proposed timeframes were too short.

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

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

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

Federated Farmers board member Mark Hooper. Photo / RNZ / Robin Martin
Federated Farmers board member Mark Hooper. Photo / RNZ / Robin Martin

The Law Society said the new bill should require ministers to explain themselves if they went 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 objective of fast-tracking projects.

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

“That would of course also reduce the likelihood of judicial review.”

The New Zealand Planning Institute, which represents more than 3000 professional planners nationwide, was concerned about this too.

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, heightened the risk a judge would be asked to review decisions made under the new legislation.

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

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

The Law Society’s Vicki Morrison-Shaw said this was especially necessary, given the Ministry for the Environment’s own analysis of the bill had found it “likely to have negative Treaty impacts for broader Māori rights and interests, that will likely outweigh the positives”.

She was also concerned the bill failed to account for unsettled iwi.

Forest and Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said the public expected nature to be protected by the Crown and this was not being demonstrated by the bill.
Forest and Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said the public expected nature to be protected by the Crown and this was not being demonstrated by the bill.

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

Spokeswoman Amanda Larsson was critical of how the bill removed protection for the environment, as well as the public’s right to be involved in decision-making.

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

“But if passed into law, the Fast-Track Approvals Bill would completely undermine these processes and it would open the door to development not in the name of the public good, but in the name of whoever lobbies hardest.”

She said nearly 15,000 people gave feedback via the Greenpeace website on the proposed legislation.

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

Chief executive Nicola Toki said the public expected nature to be protected by the Crown – and this was not being demonstrated by the bill.

“Obviously the ministerial override must go,” she said, but that would be “meaningless unless environmental protections and public participation in existing legislation is retained”.

Anything less, and the Government would face public protests, she said.

Chris Bishop, the minister responsible for Resource Management Act reform, who is one of the three decision-making ministers specified in the bill, said he would not be commenting on individual submissions, “as that is for the committee”.

“We’re 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, fix our housing crisis, and reduce our emissions.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com