Council wants slower Fast Track
Consultation and environment key for community
Horowhenua District Council wants the Government’s Fast Track Approvals Bill tweaked to allow for more engagement with iwi and hapu¯ , while fearing ratepayers could carry the burden of any adverse effects from rushed developments further down the track.
While supporting the Government’s intent to reduce time and costs involved with major infrastructure projects, the council signed off a suite of proposed tweaks last Wednesday which was presented in a written submission to Parliament last Friday.
“Current drafting does not sufficiently acknowledge or allow for the voice[s] of hapu¯ or hapu¯ collectives. While applicants are required to consult with hapu¯ and record any response to feedback, neither ministers nor expert consenting panels are required to invite hapu¯ to comment on proposals,” the submission says.
“In some contexts, engagement with hapu¯ will be more appropriate, so scope for this should be provided for within the bill.”
The council’s submission also contains concern about its major iwi partners who have yet to reach a settlement under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
“The focus of the bill is on upholding Treaty settlement legislation and arrangements, rather than upholding the principles of Te Tiriti. This has the potential to lead to
suboptimal outcomes, particularly for presettlement iwi . . . as such they do not have Treaty settlement entities or any specific iwi participation legislation,” the submission says.
“HDC values its relationship with its iwi partners and values the knowledge, expertise and perspectives they bring to resource management processes. It is important the bill ensures that the environments and values of iwi/hapu¯ who do not yet have Treaty settlements are sufficiently protected.”
The submission was also concerned not enough weight was given to possible adverse effects on the
environment under the fast-track process, saying “. . . degraded water quality, insufficient water availability and biodiversity loss could result in economic impacts for businesses and resource users who depend on access to a quality, stable environment and lead to the need to carry out time-consuming and expensive rehabilitation projects”.
“HDC are also of the view that consideration of risks from natural hazards and climate change are insufficiently provided for in the bill as currently drafted, potentially leading to situations such as large-scale housing developments being approved
in high-risk locations.”
The submission also asks that the proposed 10-day timeframe for council submissions to fast-track projects be extended to 20 days.
Projects consented under the new bill could contradict HDC’s LongTerm Plan and an extended timeframe has been suggested to allow local authorities more time for community consultation.
Meanwhile, the time it took for infrastructure projects in New Zealand to gain consent had doubled in the past five years, leading to increased consenting costs, now estimated at $1.29 billion a year.
The previous Government had introduced Covid-19 recovery legislation, recognising time and cost associated with consenting largescale projects, in an effort to stimulate an ailing economy.
The current Government introduced the Fast Track Bill, under urgency in early March, with the intent to streamline project approval requiring multiple pieces of legislation into a single process, to help stimulate an ailing economy.
The purpose was to provide a more efficient and less costly process to consenting housing and infrastructure development that would be of regional or national benefit, while eventually existing pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) would be replaced.
The HDC submission asked for provision for an apolitical expert consenting panel at some juncture.
“As currently drafted, the process . . . begins and ends with a ministerial decision — that is, both the referral decision and the substantive decision rests with ministers . . . Ministers will apply very similar tests [determining significant regional or national benefits].
“There is risk that decision-making under this legislation will vary significantly depending on who the ministers are and which parties are in Government.”
Councillor Paul Olsen said he couldn’t support most of HDC’s submission as representative of the wider community, believing in the intent of the bill as it stood.
“I totally support the environment and our community voice, but this is about recognising the true intent of the bill and what it is trying to achieve. Much of this submission is just slowing that process down.”