This week in Auckland, a group of young people took over the microphone at a ministerial press conference, to explain why they oppose the Fast-Track Approvals Bill.
One young woman said, ‘We’re here because we love Aotearoa New Zealand. We want to raise our children in an environment that’s thriving, and in a democracy we can be proud of. We’re just holding our leaders accountable for creating a future we all want to live in.”
By speaking from the heart, she nailed what’s wrong with this bill. Its an all-out assault on what makes this country so special, a place to love and care for – our beautiful islands, the source of prosperity and well-being for so many Kiwis, and our democratic freedoms as New Zealanders.
The issues raised by the fast-track bill go far beyond party politics. They show an utter disregard for democracy – ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’ The bill also declares war on the natural world – which is one we can’t win.
No MP who believes in democracy can support this bill, and stay true to their values. It lacks any democratic mandate. It emerged from backroom deals among politicians, advanced by a party that won just 6 percent of the vote in the recent election.
The majority party, with 38 percent of the vote, told voters that it was “passionate about safeguarding New Zealand’s unique natural environment, abundant native biodiversity, pristine waters and spectacular landscapes for future generations.” Did it lie to the electorate? This bill is the antithesis of National’s manifesto.
The fast-track bill also excludes citizens from having any say about what happens in their own communities, in favour of ministerial fiat. In its provisions, three ministers get to decide on projects that go on the ‘fast track’ for decision-making, and which projects are finally approved.
In addition, these ministers get to choose the members of the advisory group and the convenor of the expert panels, who must consult them about appointees to the panels. Their powers are almost untrammelled, while the members of affected communities are excluded.
None of the projects proposed for the fast-track will be made public before the deadline for submissions to the select committee has expired, although they will be listed in the law, if it is passed, denying citizens the right to comment on these proposals. There are no rigorous controls over conflicts of interest, a pivotal protection against abuses of power.
Even before the deadline for submissions to the select committee has expired, the ministers have appointed an advisory group, and invited projects to be submitted to the fast-track process. They are behaving as if the select committee process has already been decided, and public concerns about this draft legislation have been dismissed in advance. That is an insult to tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are writing submissions opposing this bill, and to the select committee process as well.
Nor have they waited until the select committee has made its recommendations to Parliament, and Parliament has voted upon this legislation. In our democracy, Parliament has the final say about legislation, not the executive – let alone a trio of ministers.
Until it is passed into law, this bill has no legal standing. By behaving as though it has already been passed, the ministers are treating the democratic process with contempt.
As for the advisory group, its membership is dominated by representatives of industries with interests in the outcome of fast-track decisions. Ministers are being wined and dined by industry lobbyists. Rather than being scrupulously avoided, conflicts of interest lie at the heart of the fast-track process.
This bill is not just a radical attack on democracy in New Zealand. Its impacts on the natural world are likely to be devastating. In its provisions, most environmental laws passed by Parliament are suspended, with decisions left to ministerial whim.
Even the Minister for the Environment is not involved in the decision-making process, and even the most severe environmental impacts, including those prohibited under the RMA, will not exclude a project from being approved.
The ministers involved in this bill have limited expertise in the complex interactions of planetary systems, from biodiversity losses and ecosystem collapse to warming oceans, sea level rise and climate change; and the legal and planning intricacies of particular proposals.
Despite this, they seem eager to make final decisions on these projects, many of which will have fundamental impacts on local communities. At the same time, they are willing to deny the right of their fellow citizens to have any say about these proposals.
To conclude, the fast-track bill gives individual ministers virtually unrestrained powers, with inadequate checks and balances or controls over conflicts of interest. The risks of corruption and ‘pork barrel’ politics are obvious.
These ministers have overstepped the mark, even before the bill has been considered by the select committee, let alone passed by Parliament. For this reason, they will not be trusted by New Zealanders in making these decisions.
This bill comes at a tipping point in our history as a nation. According to a recent Ipsos poll, 65 percent of New Zealanders believe that the economy is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, while 60 percent think our society is broken. The select committee must be deeply concerned by these findings.
If this bill is passed, and New Zealanders find that MPs – their elected representatives -are willing – even eager – to deny their right to have a say about what happens in their own communities, in favour of companies and corporations, those fears will be realised.
They will conclude that like the economy, Parliament is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, and our democracy is broken. Around the world, we can see what happens when this kind of cynicism and anger is ignited. It’s a frightening prospect.
For all of these reasons, I ask the select committee to reject the Fast-Track Approvals Bill. I request the right to speak to this submission.
Thank you Anne.
It’s moments like this that we could so use an Upper House of some form. …A long term higher authority who could say, “Stop right there, boys. No can do.”
The Governor General has some power….
True. In extraordinary circumstances, eg if democracy itself were considered to be under threat from a particular bill, then theoretically at least, the GG has the power to refuse assent to that bill.
“invited projects to be submitted to the fast-track process.”
A list of these invited projects is here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/514743/government-releases-list-of-organisations-shoulder-tapped-for-fast-track-consents
Strictly speaking they are the organisations not the projects albeit some of them have been set up for a particular project.
Yes. This from Bryce Edwards:
“The Case of the missing schedule”
“One of the most contentious parts of the new legislation is the Government’s intention to include about 100 existing projects, automatically greenlighting them, just as Muldoon did with the Clyde Dam. However, the Government is refusing to add the list of projects to the legislation until after the select committee process, suggesting that the projects will be added via an amendment to the bill. This goes against constitutional norms to include such vital detail from the start of the legislative process. It means that the public will not be able to scrutinise the inclusions.” https://democracyproject.nz/2024/04/21/bryce-edwards-the-governments-new-fast-track-invitation-to-corruption/
Dame Anne, we applaud you !
Thank you Anne. I have read many submissions on the bill from a very wide range of organisations. Lots of hard work has gone into producing these submissions with carefully set out arguments. None support the bill.
Thank you for your work over a lifetime. This government shocks me daily.
Thank you! Great submission about this attack on everything…
Time for some new banners…a couple of suggestions:
STOP 3 Ministers
STOP Co. Governance
Dame Anne, thank you for publishing your submission. It should be mandatory reading for every Kiwi of voting age.
The fact that Parliament is devoid of members with intelligence, deep knowledge, wisdom and gravitas is but one indicator of how dysfunctional our democracy has become.
Your voice is important. You are heard and appreciated.
According to the Parliamentary website, “The fundamental obligation of a member of Parliament is “the duty to serve” the community.”
The ministers involved in this Bill seem to think it’s the other way round – that it’s the duty of the community to stay silent and subservient while they make all the decisions.
New Zealand is a democracy, not a dictatorship, however.
Most Kiwis hate being patronised, especially by their elected representatives. When the last government decided to ‘lay down the law’ in Three Waters, and to instruct the wider community rather than listen to their concerns, they made the same fundamental mistake.
If the government barges ahead with the ‘Fast-track’ bill, they’re likely to suffer the same fate – a collapse in trust and electoral support. Like ‘Three Waters’ for the last government, ‘Fast-track’ looks like a lemming’s leap over the cliff.
Beautifully and concisely put. ‘ For this reason, they will not be trusted by New Zealanders in making these decisions.’
But this is the Post Truth Era where denial has reached the mainstream. Many may decide that it is their duty to sacrifice their own interests and those of future consumerist generations in order to feed the multi-billionaires, because the history of civilisation has been marked by exploitation, exploitation of our ecospheres, and they are afraid at what might be lost of this exploitation which has produced our consumer-ist society.
Thank you for a clear strong submission, Dame Anne. We appreciate this very much. This bill must not pass.
We can be grateful that as respected a person as Dame Anne Salmond has submitted on this Bill. The fact that after thee years of a Labour government, ‘65% believe the economy is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, while 60% think our society is broken’, speaks louder than words. We have only to reflect on that government’s imposition of Mandates without regard to the public, and it’s rejection of medical advice from the very advisory body it appointed, not to mention the imposition of widespread name changes and educational novelty, both without voter approval, to know why the population voted them out last October.
There are caveats and protections in the Fast Track Bill which Anne has not mentioned. Nevertheless if this government follows the authoritarian course of the last, they will no doubt suffer the same fate at the polls in 2026.
“There are caveats and protections in the Fast Track Bill which Anne has not mentioned.”
If such exist, please cite and reference them.
The Environment Comissioner himself seems to think they are missing: https://pce.parliament.nz/our-work/news/fast-track-approvals-bill-poses-significant-risks-to-the-environment/
Your depiction of the previous government’s responses to a worldwide pandemic is disingenuous. This editorial from The Press gives a clearer picture:
“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. 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.
“In short, it will make New Zealand less democratic. It is a use of emergency powers for a time without an emergency.” https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350251555/fast-and-furious
Thanks Anne, once again, for your very valuable input. Yes, the bill does come at a tipping point in our history. What we are witnessing now as I see it is the cementing-in of the neoliberal order over a three-year race to secure its tenure as a permanent political fixture. Kathleen and Felicity in their comments above raise the issue as to whether there should be a case for intervention by the Governor General over the threat to democracy. I agree with this. Maybe there is another way to view the tipping point; one where the Jones/Seymour brigade in their enthusiasm to destroy what’s left of the nation’s social cohesion and environmental health will tip the rest of us into action to stand up for our democracy and values as citizens.
Thanks, Dame Anne, for your excellent submission. This bill is a threat to our democracy and future. How come that parties with only 15% of the vote at last election can seize such power? This is a dangerous tipping point.
It is time for all New Zealanders who love their country to come together and protest loudly.
Here is an extract from my submission on the Bill:
Around 1980, there was international recognition that it was essential that the historical opposition between conservation and development needed be put to one side, and the concept of sustainable development emerged.
In 1981, I was a member of the team that produced the document “Integrating Conservation and Development – a Proposal for a New Zealand Conservation Strategy”.
The foreword was provided by Venn Young, the then Minister of Lands in the National government. In this, he said:
“At a time when further investment and diversification is being encouraged in the economic sector against a background of environmental concern, a strategy adopting a comprehensive approach and seeking to integrate conservation and development is appropriate.”
I find it ironic and disturbing that 43 years later, a National-led government is promoting legislation that is so contrary to this more enlightened view. Rather than integrating consideration of environmental concerns, the procedures proposed under the Bill appear to be deliberately designed to divorce, marginalise and minimise consideration of possible environmental and social consequences of major projects.
Apart from the issue of democratic legitimacy or otherwise, consents are no more than permissions to carry out non-compliant activities albeit with a token element of environmental oversight. The failure of the consenting process is that consents are issued on an application to application basis with little or no regard to the collective consequences of the consents. This is a prime reason why the RMA was failing.