The fast and the furious

If you wanted to submit on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, sorry you weren’t fast enough. Public submissions on the highly controversial legislation closed at midnight on Friday. But you can be assured thousands of New Zealanders did submit. Many of them will have done so because they see that the bill concentrates an unusual degree of power in the hands of just three government ministers who can quickly approve projects that may otherwise have stalled because of public opposition and slowmoving consultation.

There is a genuine problem that the bill seeks to address. Few would disagree that infrastructure and development have become too slow and expensive in New Zealand. The bill is intended to speed up the decision-making process for projects believed to have significant regional or national benefits. They could include the likes of dams, mines and roads.

It is no wonder that the mining industry is calling the bill a “disrupter”, which is meant in a positive way. Consents and “irrational” resource management rules have “ground this country to a halt”, according to one mining company’s press release in support of the bill.

While it is hyperbole to say the country has ground to a halt, it does seem to have slowed. The Infrastructure Commission reported that around $1.3 billion is spent every year on consenting and the time taken to get a consent has doubled in five years, arguably turning off potential investors.

West Coast miners say they wait an average of 382 days to have permits processed. The Wind Energy Association says it can take from seven to 10 years to get a consent for a wind farm that takes only two and a half years to build.

Again, there is widespread argument that a problem exists. But the opposition to this bill is based on very real claims that it overcorrects and in doing so takes away environmental protections and weakens democracy.

It doesn’t help that Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, who is one of the trio of ministers who will have the final say on major projects, has belittled the environmental values many New Zealanders hold dear. His rhetoric about “the multicoloured skink”, the kiwi, blind frogs and other rare species that he says have been “weaponised” to deny regional communities a livelihood has become absurd and insulting.

The other two decision-making ministers, National’s Chris Bishop and Simeon Brown, have been less tactless in their responses to real concerns, although Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson did accuse Bishop of “gaslighting” the public about the bill. It is more than a piece of legislation. It is an expression of this coalition’s self-image, which is about aspiring to rapid delivery rather than consultation. Action is preferred to talk and economists matter more than ecologists. The language is corporate and business-focused, rather than feelgood and inclusive. They want to get people on the front line, rather than having bureaucrats sitting in offices.

For many New Zealanders, that is a very appealing narrative. It is exactly what they voted for. More legislation has been passed under urgency by this Government than any other in the MMP era, while the public service that might offer advice or input is being steadily reduced. Such an approach does not just endanger the threatened environments that house the blind frogs and multicoloured skinks Jones enjoys making fun of, but something that is just as fragile and treasured, which is democracy itself.

One submission from a respected New Zealand political scientist warns of the potential for cronyism, “clientelism” and patronage if this bill becomes law. There will be “an incentive for private interests, organisations and investors to develop strong relationships with the government of the day”.

There will be much less transparency and a greater chance of conflicts of interest. Such a system will also favour those who can afford lobbyists and other means of accessing political power.

In short, it will make New Zealand less democratic. It is a use of emergency powers for a time without an emergency.

We saw a similar concentration of executive power during the Covid-19 pandemic, although those responses were temporary and less far-reaching. It will be intriguing to observe whether the critics who so loudly accused the previous government of “authoritarianism” and even tyranny over its Covid policies will see the Fast-track Approvals Bill in the same way.

“It is more than a piece of legislation. It is an expression of this coalition’s self-image, which is about aspiring to rapid delivery rather than consultation. Action is preferred to talk and economists matter more than ecologists.”