The Fast-track Approvals Bill has been introduced to Parliament. Forming part of the coalition Government’s 100-day plan, the Bill seeks to enable a fast-track decision-making process for infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.
There has been much hyperbole around the introduction of the Bill. The approval process set out in the Bill is deliberately ‘development friendly’. In a press release around the introduction of the Bill, RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones say the Bill “will cut red tape and make it easier for New Zealand to build the infrastructure and major projects needed to get the country moving again”.
The Bill closely mirrors the fast-track processes set out by the previous government in response to Covid-19 and in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023.[1] The Bill contains some material changes to those earlier processes, and in particular:
The process vests broad discretion in the relevant Ministers, including both referring eligible projects to an expert panel; and making the ultimate decision on whether to approve a project, after receiving a report with recommendations from the expert panel.
The matters to which an expert panel must give weight in assessing an application, and the hierarchy among them, are quite different to current legislation. They prioritise over all other considerations the purpose of the Bill, which is to: “facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits”, and in doing so appear to provide a pathway through obstacles that might be presented by, for instance, the NZCPS or relevant district/regional plans.
The Bill enables approvals to be granted across a range of statutes, including the RMA, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Environment Effects Act 2012, Crown Minerals Act 1991, and Wildlife Act 1953.
Cultural issues and values appear to have been relegated in terms of the order of priority that will be afforded to them. Based on the current wording of the Bill, they are likely to be less central/determinative. For instance, an applicant is required only to identify persons who may be affected by an activity, and to set out “any response to the views of” any persons consulted, including iwi or hapū.[2]
The process appears to be available to ‘re-consenting’ of existing activities.
Many similarities with the previous fast-track approval processes are retained. For example, narrow appeal rights against the joint Ministers final decision to grant or decline an approval, being only on a question of law to the High Court. Appeal rights are not limited to ‘parties’ to an application but include any person who has an interest in the decision “that is greater than that of the general public”. While a necessary ‘check and balance’, this wide availability of appeals has potential to frustrate the otherwise streamlined process. In our view, other retained aspects could detract from the attractiveness of the process - such as the maximum lapse period remaining at two years. Particularly for large infrastructure projects, this is a very narrow window given the many often-competing considerations to get them underway.
The Bill has been referred to the Environment Select Committee, which is calling for submissions. The submission period closes on 19 April 2024. If you would like more information about the Bill, or assistance in preparing a submission, please contact a member of the ChanceryGreen team.
[1] While the NBEA has been repealed, the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 retains the fast-track process.
[2] Refer cl 13 of Schedule 4.