The Government’s Fast-track Approvals Act and its recent amendment will result in declining democracy and inevitable environmental damage says Andi Cockroft, chairman of the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ).
“Fast-tracking, as currently designed, is a power-shift — one that alters who gets to decide what happens on the public’s land, in public waterways and across the public’s conservation estate,” he said.
The Fast Track Approvals process has been sold to the public as a long-overdue tool to “cut through red and green tape,” turbo-charge employment, attract investment, and unlock stalled regional projects. For many New Zealanders weary of drawn-out consenting battles and bureaucratic delays, the idea has an immediate appeal. The promise is simple: faster decisions, clearer pathways, and economic stimulus in communities that need it.
“However beneath the political messaging lies a very different reality,” said Andi Cockroft. “For outdoors people, hunters, anglers, trampers, rural residents, and conservationminded New Zealanders, the question is not whether development should occur — most accept that responsible development is necessary. The question is whether the process we use to approve such development is balanced, transparent, and protective of the natural heritage that defines this country.”
No Transparency
The new law’s framework now in place tilts heavily toward expediency over scrutiny, and ministerial discretion over independent judgment. The consequences of that shift will determine the fate of landscapes and ecosystems that cannot easily be restored once damaged
No one disputes that the old Resource Management Act (RMA) was slow, unevenly applied, and often needlessly adversarial. The Government’s desire to streamline decisionmaking is understandable. But the Fasttrack law does far more than shorten timeframes.
“It centralises decisionmaking in a small group of ministers and appointed panels, while simultaneously removing or weakening the checks that traditionally guarded against harmful outcomes.”
Very Flawed
Key flaws include reduced public input, limited independent oversight, ability to override other environmental laws and oneway speed favouring approval.
“There is severely reduced public accountability with select committees dumped and public submissions sharply curtailed, reducing the ability of the public to be heard,” said Andi Cockroft.
“Responsible development follows transparent processes and minimises irreversible harm. Fasttrack, as structured, elevates speed over responsibility.”
Andi Cockroft said changes were needed. He listed national parks, wetlands, rare ecosystems, rivers, and key recreational corridors should be excluded from override, an independent environmental safeguarding body, a strong independent check to review assessments and decline risky projects, guaranteed public input by reinstating select committees, the right of communities to comment on proposals affecting public land, water, or access among other needs.
“Development should not encroach on public rights to rivers, tracks, forests, and hunting areas,” he said.
An excellent move well overdue.