Key Takeaways:
- About 95% of feedback on the Fast Track amendment bill is opposed, with concerns raised about environmental safeguards, Māori engagement, and the independence of the Environmental Protection Agency.
- The government plans to pass the legislation by the end of the year, despite opposition from all opposition parties.
- The bill aims to address supermarket competition, but critics argue that this claim is disingenuous.
- The bill has been criticized for its potential to undermine environmental safeguards, limit Māori engagement, and reduce the independence of the Environmental Protection Agency.
- The government has proposed several changes to the bill, including increasing the default maximum time for expert panels to make decisions and clarifying the scope of the Minister’s ability to direct the EPA.
Introduction to the Fast Track Amendment Bill
The Fast Track amendment bill has been met with significant opposition, with about 95% of feedback from the public and interest groups expressing concerns about the proposed legislation. Despite this, the government plans to push the bill through Parliament by the end of the year, with the aim of addressing supermarket competition. However, critics argue that this claim is disingenuous, and that the bill’s true purpose is to undermine environmental safeguards and limit the ability of Māori groups to engage in the decision-making process.
Concerns Raised by Submitters
The concerns raised by submitters are numerous and varied, but some of the key issues include the potential removal of environmental safeguards, limits on the ability of Māori groups to engage in the fast-track process, and the potential for the Environment Minister to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Submitters also raised concerns about the shortened timeframes for expert panels to consider technical information, the reduced ability for people to appeal decisions, and the potential for the Infrastructure Minister to influence the approval process through the issuance of a Government Policy Statement (GPS).
Coalition MPs Respond to Criticisms
The coalition MPs on the committee have pushed back against some of these criticisms, arguing that the current fast-track regime already includes environmental safeguards and that the bill does not change these provisions. They also pointed out that the bill requires anyone performing functions under the Act to act in a way that is consistent with Treaty settlements and customary rights. However, critics argue that these assurances are not sufficient, and that the bill’s provisions will still have a significant impact on the ability of Māori groups to engage in the decision-making process.
Unusual Process for Considering the Bill
The committee’s process for considering the bill has been unusual, with the committee recommending no changes to the bill despite the significant opposition from submitters. Instead, the committee has suggested changes to be considered at the Committee of the Whole House stage, without public consultation. This has been criticized by opposition parties, who argue that this process is undemocratic and undermines the ability of the public to have a say in the decision-making process.
Opposition Parties Criticize the Bill
The opposition parties have been vocal in their criticism of the bill, with Labour arguing that it makes major changes to the fast-track regime despite being described as "rats and mice" by the minister. The Greens have described the bill as "unprecedented and unacceptable overreach on communities’ democratic participation", while Te Pāti Māori has argued that the bill will allow ministers to approve or decline projects without acting in partnership with Māori. The party has also warned that the bill will collapse legal barriers to seabed mining and drilling, and undermine everything Aotearoa claims to value about partnership, accountability, and intergenerational responsibility.
Conclusion and Next Steps
In conclusion, the Fast Track amendment bill has been met with significant opposition from the public and interest groups, with concerns raised about environmental safeguards, Māori engagement, and the independence of the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite this, the government plans to push the bill through Parliament by the end of the year, with the aim of addressing supermarket competition. However, critics argue that this claim is disingenuous, and that the bill’s true purpose is to undermine environmental safeguards and limit the ability of Māori groups to engage in the decision-making process. The next steps for the bill will be closely watched, as the government seeks to pass the legislation despite the significant opposition.