How the Fast-track Bill Approvals became law

It drew thousands of submissions in opposition, prompted street protests, and attracted claims of constitutional overreach.

But in a pre-Christmas flurry of law-making, the Fast-track Approvals Bill almost flew under the radar as it passed its third reading and into legislation.

Aiming to speed up consents for regionally and nationally significant development, the fast-track law was plagued with opposition, including calls for more transparency and claims the environment has taken a back seat to development - or even ignored altogether.

Here's how nine months of debate unfolded.

The first reading

"What we are doing is setting up a process that will put nationally and regionally significant projects in the fast lane," said Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop when reading the bill for the first time in March 2024.

Consenting was taking too long, he said. The bill, which formed part of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First, would sit over a plethora of existing acts and regulations allowing applicants to go through one process to get approval for a project, rather than several separate processes.

"It is just too hard to do things-too hard to build houses, too hard to build roads, too hard to build public transport, too hard to build geothermal and wind power stations, too hard to build mines for the future, too hard to get aquaculture projects up and running-and this is part of the government's process of unclogging that," Bishop said.

The first iteration of the bill gave three ministers unprecedented power - Bishop, Regional Development minister Shane Jones and Transport Minister Simeon Brown. The trio would have the power to refer and approve projects, and could send expert panels back to reconsider conditions recommended for projects if the ministers thought they were too onerous.

Bishop acknowledged this anomaly in the first reading. "Now, there's been a bit of debate in the Parliament about: is this a constitutional overreach?"

He thought some might see it as similar to Muldoon-era legislation, but was unapologetic. "We are deliberately making a policy-design decision to give the executive government more power over this process."

The first reading of the bill also proposed that activities prohibited under the Resource Management Act should be able to be considered. It also set the stage for the return of projects that courts had already ruled out to have another crack at getting the go-ahead.

The bill also aimed to limit who could be heard when projects were being considered. Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Society and Forest & Bird would not have a chance to submit, and community voices would also be shut out.

Conspicuously absent from the bill was a schedule of projects. Bishop told TVNZ the projects were not published because he was worried it would "overwhelm" the select committee.

Bishop also highlighted the speed with which the legislation was written. "There were many long nights devising this, and it has been put to me by people who know this sort of stuff around the town that ministers and officials have done about two years' worth of work in about two months," Bishop told Parliament.

First reactions

The reaction to the first draft was mixed. Groups wanting to get going on projects were pleased at the prospect of speedier consents.

"On the West Coast, miners are waiting an average of 382 days to have their permits processed, and this is just one of the many processes they have to go through," mining advocacy group Straterra chief executive Josie Vidal said. "The system is broken and it needs to be fixed, and fast."

Wind Energy Association chief executive Kevin Hart was also keen. "It generally takes anywhere from seven to eight, sometimes 10 years to get a consent, and only about two-and-a-half years to build a wind farm."

Environmental groups were shocked at the apparent exclusion of environmental considerations from the bill. Unlike the Resource Management Act, which tries to balance the environment with development, this bill had no mention of the environment in its purpose statement.

Government watchdogs also expressed their concern. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton wanted environmental considerations added to the bill, along with the ability for people's voices to be heard. "This is a bill that liberates 'the big end of town', who are vastly better resourced to deal with any process," he said.

Upton also called for the provision that gave three ministers decision-making powers to be scrapped.

Auditor-General John Ryan warned that conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, posed a risk. "I encourage the committee to consider whether the transparency and accountability arrangements in the bill are proportionate to the discretion being provided to ministers."

Environmental groups warned of the implications the bill could have on New Zealand's free trade agreement with the UK and EU, which require environmental protections and due process for feedback.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not provide advice before the bill was read in parliament, a move trade expert Charles Finny labelled "highly unusual". The UK's House of Commons confirmed in May that the New Zealand bill was being monitored.

Public backlash

Submissions to the bill opened in March and closed in April. This was the only chance the public had to have a voice in the process, and all did so without knowing what projects would be written into the legislation as the first cabs off the rank.

In the 36 days submissions were open, almost 27,000 people and groups made submissions. Due to the huge volume, only 794 of those were invited to be heard in person by the environment select committee. Most organisations that wished to speak were heard, but it was luck of the draw for individual submitters, who were drawn by ballot.

Outside of the select committee process, people took to the streets, with thousands joining a protest march down Auckland's Queen Street Protestors carried placards that accused the bill of being "constitutionally repugnant", repeating a term used by former Prime Minister and constitutional law expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer in a column about the bill.

The invited applicants

On the other side of the ledger, interested groups were busy submitting applications for their projects to be considered under the proposed law. In some cases, these applications were prompted by a letter sent by Bishop's office to organisations that had expressed interest in the process, inviting them to make a formal application.

One of these was seabed mining company Trans-Tasman Resources, which released a statement declaring it had been "formally invited" to apply.

A similar statement was made by another seabed mining company, Chatham Rock Phosphate, which posted a notice on the NZX. Trading was later halted and the company was told to clarify the invitation wasn't exclusive.

Bishop pointed out that the idea the invitation had singled out certain companies was misleading, as 200 generic letters were sent.

Mystery surrounded the identity of the other 198 invitation recipients. Bishop told RNZ he would not release the list of recipients, as it would undermine the independence of the independent advisory group set up to select the projects to be written into Schedule 2 of the bill.

The tone softens

By August, there was a softening of tone on one aspect of the bill. Ministerial decision-making power was removed, with the final decision on which projects would go ahead placed in the hands of expert panels instead. Bishop said the desire for this change had been a "major" theme of the submissions.

Iwi representation on expert panels was reduced. In the first version of the bill it was required for all panels, but in the updated version, iwi representation was only required when Treaty settlements were affected.

Other aspects of the bill remained untouched, with no addition of environmental protection to the purpose of the bill, and no ability for members of the public to be heard by expert panels when considering projects.

Conflicts of interest

Throughout the year, the potential for conflicts of interest remained high on the radar.

The advisory group, which had the task of selecting projects to be included in Schedule 2 of the legislation, was named in April. The government had planned to draw this six-member group from names put forward by government agencies but official documents revealed that only two people from a list of 14 made the final cut.

The four other members of the group were put forward by ministers and political parties.

Bishop described the process the group followed to pick the projects as "completely insulated from ministers".

"Other than setting the group up and giving them a mandate, we didn't have anything to do with that process."

When the group was first announced, its membership drew criticism from various quarters.

Greenpeace spokesperson Juressa Lee (Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, Rarotonga) described it as loaded with industry interests. "It's a clear case of regulatory capture … and wide open to allegations of corruption."

A Cabinet paper showed conflicts of interest were identified for each group member, but the details were redacted.

The advisory group selected 199 projects to be included in the legislation; whittled down to 149 by Cabinet.

When the list was released in early October, there were further questions for ministers about how they had handled their own conflicts of interest.

Shane Jones identified a conflict of interest for eight projects and transferred consideration to Conservation Minister Tama Potaka. Bishop stood aside from considering Winton's Sunfield development in rural South Auckland, as he had previously advocated for the housing development.

Some of these conflicts were linked to companies that had donated to political parties, or candidates.

In total, $500,000 was given by companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects in 2022 or 2023.

Ongoing battle for transparency

Another government watchdog kept busy by the fast-track legislation was Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier, who fielded complaints about information being withheld.

In June he ruled the Department of Conservation acted unlawfully by refusing an Official Information Act request from Forest & Bird, seeking the release of information about projects included in the bill before public submissions closed.

The information was eventually published on 27 May, more than a month after submissions closed.

A second complaint from Forest & Bird, seeking the names of groups who had received the invitation to apply for fast-tracking, did see some information released hours before submissions closed.

After the Ombudsman investigated under urgency, Bishop released a list of recipients "in the interests of transparency", but said the release was not linked to the complaint.

The Ombudsman also received a complaint from climate action group 350 Aotearoa about a delay in releasing the application documents from applicants to the fast-track process.

The Ministry for the Environment initially said the information would be released in time for MPs to read documents before the bill was debated in Parliament.

But the release was delayed, with a new deadline of 20 December, outside the last sitting day of Parliament.

Refusing to provide MPs that information before they voted was "an unprecedented breach of due process", 350 Aotearoa's Adam Currie said.

The final hurdle

With application documents still under wraps, and a 214-page document of amendments shared just hours before being debated, the bill made it to the Committee of the Whole House stage, where all MPs could debate it.

More drama unfolded as National MP and Assistant Speaker Barbara Kuriger shared advice from the Clerk of the House that the list of 149 projects set to be included in the bill would need to be removed.

The inclusion of the projects appeared to benefit specific people, so should be classified as private legislation, not government legislation, the Clerk told Kuriger.

In a rare move, that advice was overruled by Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, who said there was "virtually no bill passed in this House that doesn't have some private benefit", and that projects in the bill still had to go through an assessment by an expert panel.

The documents relating to the 149 projects were released last Friday, after the bill had been debated and amendments voted on a second time.

The bill passed its third and final reading on 17 December.

But it was interrupted by 350 Aotearoa supporters who dropped banners from the public gallery while chanting. The activists were removed and barred from parliament.

Forest & Bird called the passing of the bill a dark day for New Zealand and pledged to oppose "destructive" projects.

Bishop said the passing of the bill will enable up to 55,000 new homes to be built, and other fast-tracked projects will address the infrastructure deficit.