The Fast-track Approvals Bill is back from select committee and Forest & Bird is alarmed that the purpose for the legislation is to enable coal and gold to be dug up, the seabed to be mined and rivers to be dammed with little or no regard for the environment or for the impact on communities.

The entire purpose of the bill is to facilitate development with one narrow safeguard being that the panel may, but doesn’t actually have to, turn down a project if the adverse effects outweigh the benefits of the development.

The narrow safeguard is an important change that reflects Forest & Bird advocacy and the submissions from tens of thousands of New Zealanders who opposed this bill, but it is a fig leaf given the sweeping nature of the bill.

It is also clear that communities are being shut out of having a say on major developments. Forest & Bird says New Zealanders should demand their Members of Parliament vote it down.

The Environment Committee did not get the chance to consider the list of 149 projects that are intended to go into Schedule 2, many of them environmentally disastrous ‘zombie projects’ that have been previously rejected.

On behalf of all New Zealanders who care about nature and their communities, Forest & Bird asked the committee to seek public submissions on the projects, but the Government hasn’t allowed that to happen. Communities have been completely shut out of having any say on what is going to take place in their backyards.

“The 149 projects are going to be dropped on MPs and they will be required to vote on them without any proper scrutiny. They should simply refuse to include the projects by voting against the expected amendment,” says Forest & Bird’s General Manager, Richard Capie.

“Ministers have made decisions behind closed doors with no public scrutiny of these large and highly controversial projects. They have resisted releasing information about projects for months. This isn't just disastrous for the environment, it's bad process and bad law-making.”

“New Zealanders care deeply about their environment and have a strongly held expectation that governments, regardless of politics, will act to protect our special creatures and places. The National-led coalition government risks ripping-up that long-standing contract with Fast-track.”

“New Zealanders deserve to have a say on a waste-burning plant in their neighbourhood, if public conservation land should essentially be sold off for development, or whether New Zealand commits to digging up kiwi habitat for coal mines into the 2040s,” Mr Capie says.

The main features of the bill as reported back by the select committee are:

• The bill overrides environmental protections in the Resource Management Act, Conservation Act, Wildlife Act and EEZ Act

• There is no attempt at consistency with New Zealand’s climate change obligations
• The public (and most public interest organisations) are shut out of the process, so panels making decisions on projects won’t hear from those representing nature or those most affected

Some improvements were recommended by the select committee, including:

• Ministers have lost the final say on whether projects get consent
• Clarification that mining on highly protected conservation areas (Schedule 4 areas) cannot be fast tracked
• Where projects have previously been declined, any prior consideration of the project and any related court decisions need to be considered as part of a referral decision
• The timeframe for invited parties to provide comments has been extended from 10 to 20 days
• A panel may decline an approval if the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have one or more adverse impacts and those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to outweigh the purpose of this Act

“The almost unprecedented public pressure from tens of thousands of New Zealanders submitting on the bill has forced important changes. Ninety three percent of people who submitted on the Bill opposed it,” says Mr Capie.

“But the bill remains fundamentally flawed. It overrides environmental bottom lines aimed at protecting endangered species, clean freshwater, wild places, public conservation lands and communities. It's like it was drafted for the 19th rather than the 21st century.”

© Scoop Media