NZPI representatives spoke to the Environment Committee on the Institute’s submission to the Fast Track Approvals Bill today. Deputy Chair Megan Couture, CEO David Curtis, and Principal Policy Advisor Emily Grace described broad themes contained in the NZPI submission to the Bill.
NZPI supports an expedient process for the consenting of significant projects, however these must occur in the right legislative settings. Key points raised in the Select Committee appearance today were:
Megan Couture told the Committee that a clear outcome for what is to be achieved by projects approved under the fast-track process is needed and should be integrated into the purpose of the Bill.
“Alongside many other submitters, we consider the sustainable management of the environment should be included in the purpose. This has not been a hinderance to approving projects under the current fast-track provisions.”
Megan told the Committee that “Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ The Treaty of Waitangi is fundamental to our unique Aotearoa-specific dual planning paradigm”.
NZPI’s submission says that the Bill needs a forward-looking Treaty clause, as a minimum, so the principles of partnership, participation and protection are implemented through the legislation.
Much has been said in the media this week about the Ministerial Decision-making process in the Bill. Megan told the Committee that NZPI share the concerns of many other submitters about Ministerial decision-making, particularly the potential for conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and overreach of power, and increased risk of judicial review. This threatens the legitimacy of the process.
Drawing on feedback from the profession Megan said that “the most effective role for Ministers is to set clear national priorities and a clear framework for decision-making. This would solve the problems caused by lack of national direction for managing competing interests and accounting for opportunity costs and enable the fast-track system to move fast.
We believe evidence-based decision-making should be the basis of the fast-track system. Ministers can make referral decisions, but expert panels should make substantive decisions, based on the priorities and framework set by the Ministers”.
NZPI consider that the Bill is very loose on which types of projects can get access to the fast-track process. Megan told the Committee that “this is likely to overload the system and cause delays and uncertainty, the opposite of what the legislation intends. We propose a more workable alternative, based on the contribution a project makes to achieving the overall outcome.”
Committee members asked questions about NZPI’s recommendation to amend the purpose of the Bill and were asked why NZPI wanted to see the inclusion of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Māori Development in the referral and decision-making process. The exclusion of the Minister for the Environment is “an obvious omission” Emily Grace told the Committee because the fast-track process will need to “interact with the RMA to a great deal” which is the responsibility of the Environment Minister. Similarly involving the Māori Development portfolio will “help a lot in the consideration of Māori interests” in the fast-track process.
Simon Court, Parliamentary Undersecretary for RMA Reform, asked why sustainable management should be included in the purpose of the Bill and “why not environmental limits”. Megan responded by saying that sustainable management provides an intergenerational lens, allowing ministers to consider the intergenerational costs and benefits of a project.
When asked why NZPI’s submission suggests that the Bill could potentially hold up the consenting process further, Emily explained that having Ministerial approval of the consent will be an additional step to the existing process. Drawing on earlier comments from the Federated Farmer’s presentation to the committee, Emily said that “hold ups on major consents are complex and difficult to fix”. She explained that one issue is the resourcing in the system where people are needed to be part of panels considering the applications. If we “get the whole system right we can fix the delays” and that this should be included in future reform of the resource management system.
Other presenters including Federated Farmers, the New Zealand Law Society and the Legislation, Design and Advisory Committee addressed similar issues around process and implementation of the Bill.
