An amendment to the controversial fast-track law is expected to be passed before the end of the year. Shanti Mathias explains what’s happening – and where some of the most controversial projects are at.
Remind me, what’s the fast-track law?
The Fast-Track Approvals Act was passed in December 2024 as a legislative response to a common complaint from big companies in New Zealand: it takes too long to get permission to build things. Part of the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement, the bill makes it easier for “regionally and nationally significant” projects to be approved. Instead of having to apply for permission under separate laws for resource management, wildlife, heritage, minerals and so on, the process is a “one-stop shop” to get approval for everything at once.
While the law is focused on infrastructure, critics have been mainly worried about the cost to the environment if major projects can circumvent laws designed to protect nature. Initially, the final approvals were at the whim of three ministers; after public outcry, including tens of thousands of people marching down Queen Street and 27,000 submissions largely opposing the bill, an expert panel now has the final say.
Attendees of the ‘March for Nature’ protesting the fast-track bill in June 2024 (Photo: Shanti Mathias)
So now they’re changing it?
A bill to amend the Fast-track Act was introduced earlier this month, purportedly to make it easier for new supermarkets to be built. “This will simplify what can be a years-long process into one that could be wrapped up in a few short months,” said Nicola Willis, in a press release.
Included in the amendments are updates that Chris Bishop, minister of infrastructure, characterised as “technical”. This includes changes to, well, fast-track fast-track projects if a minister decides it is a priority, forgoing assessment by a panel. It also gives ministers the power to tell the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) how to do its job assessing applications, and reduces the number of people the panel has to consult with if local authorities hold relevant information.
This follows Shane Jones, minister for resource development, suggesting that “the EPA may very well have people who are better suited to an ideological nunnery, rather than delivering on the government’s manifesto and stated outcome to rapidly grow the economy”, in comments to the New Zealand Herald in September.
Simon Upton, the parliamentary commissioner for the environment, responded to these comments in a letter to Jones and Bishop, saying “if the EPA says no to things – or asks for more information – it generally does so on the basis of demands that legislation makes of it”. The fast-track law, which Upton described as “one of the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation I have ever seen”, gave the EPA very short amounts of time to “pas[s] the legislative labyrinth”. Providing detailed feedback, as required by the legislation in such a short amount of time, Upton suggested, was a tall order. The revisions to the law, Upton said in a submission, “would significantly change the decision-making environment confronting panels and expose panels to examining proposals that have effectively been declared winners in advance”.
Chris Bishop (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Others were also unhappy. “The changes will introduce ridiculously short timeframes for such important decisions and, to make matters worse, will lock out the very organisations that have helped make this flawed law work better,” said Richard Capie, an adviser at Forest and Bird. Adam Currie, a spokesperson for 350 Aotearoa, said the changes were “straight out of the medieval playbook” and “ceremonially yeeted the EPA from the castle walls”.
“How can legislation introduced just nine months ago require such extensive amendments?” asked Megan Dimozantos, president of the Federated Mountain Clubs. “By reducing the panel’s ability to gather that information from community groups, NGOs and others, the government is increasing the risk of litigation. That’s a costly error for those businesses who are using the process, and a costly error for the taxpayer.”
What does the fast track look like? How fast is it?
There is a dedicated website for the fast-track regime that shows the progress of different projects and applications. Some projects are “listed”; 149 were named in the act as suitable for the fast-track regime because they had regional or national benefit. Projects not covered in the initial list have to apply for referral to use the fast track. A proposed project must have a reason it should use the fast-track regime instead of normal consenting processes.
If the Ministry for the Environment approves this referral (as of early November, 17 had been), the project can then make a “substantive application” with more detail, which will be assessed by a fast-track panel. The cost to make a full application is just shy of $500,000. At this stage, a company or organisation can now apply to the minister to be a “priority” project. The panel will assess the application and may ask for input from other people before approving or declining a project.
Many of the concerns about the fast-track law relate to the potential for public debate being shut out. Major infrastructure projects, like those using the fast-track, would previously have had a greater degree of public consultation. But under the fast-track regime, the panel can choose which individuals or groups have their say. To date, the panel has largely invited a wide range of people to submit; for instance, Forest and Bird has provided detailed input on five different projects (including several that have been approved).
A canal which is part of the hydro scheme in Tekapo and Ōhau (Image: Supplied)
Which projects have been approved?
After the first version of the law passed in December last year, applications opened on April 3 this year. Since then, five projects listed on the website have been approved.
A further 25 projects are listed as “in progress”.
What is happening with the most controversial projects?
The 20 mining and quarrying projects on the fast-track list are the focus of much of the concern, because of the long-term effects these developments could have on the environment. The Green Party has said it would remove consents for seven projects (none of which have been approved yet) if it was in government. Here’s where several of the high-profile projects are at.
Canterbury waste-to-energy incinerator
According to its website, this massive incinerator in Canterbury will “safely convert 365,000 tonnes of waste into renewable electricity”. However, naming the incinerator after the kea bird has been called “greenwashing” as the environmental benefits of the project have been questioned. New Zealand company Renew energy, a co-owner of the project, has a history of abandoned proposals for waste-to-energy facilities in the South Island, and the company’s founder was sentenced to home detention for trying to make a profit from the Canterbury earthquake rebuild. Environment Canterbury and Waimate District Council rejected the applications in 2022 but it was listed on the Fast-track Act anyway. So far, the company has not made a full application.
Buller Plateaux coal mine
While billed as a “continuation” of the existing Stockton Coal Mine, this project would significantly extend the open-cast mine onto the Denniston Plateau to access a seam of coal underneath. Climate Liberation Aotearoa and other groups have been peacefully targeting the mine, including occupying the cableway used to transport the coal and highlighting the biodiversity of the region. The initial application to be listed can be read here; according to the fast-track website the full application has not been made.
A view over the Denniston Plateau, looking towards the Escarpment Mine which is part of the Buller Plateaux open-cast coal mine application. (Image: Shanti Mathias)
Te Kuha coal mine
The Te Kuha coal mine, also near Westport, had been rejected by the Environment Court in 2020 and the Supreme Court in 2023 when company Stevenson’s Mining reapplied under the fast track. This project on the West Coast was returned by the fast-track panel as it did not meet seven of the application criteria.
Taranaki seabed mine
The National-New Zealand First coalition agreement mentions “investigating the strategic opportunities” of vanadium, a mineral used in batteries and sourced from the sea floor. An application from Trans-Tasman Resources proposes to extract vanadium from the seafloor around Taranaki using seabed mining. This project is currently under consideration by a fast-track panel, which has heard that the mine could cause “sediment flows” which would damage infrastructure like wind turbines and cause damage which would last for thousands of years.
Otago gold mine
The Bendigo-Ophir gold mine is a proposed open-pit mine near Cromwell in Central Otago. The project is owned by Australian mining company Santana Minerals. It has applied for a fast-track consent but has not yet been considered by the panel. The Environmental Defence Society has said the key part of the decision for the panel will be weighing up the benefits of the mine against the environmental damage it will cause. Locals have said the fast-track process is being used “to bypass the community and ride roughshod over the environment”.
Coromandel gold mine
This proposal would extend the existing Waihi gold mine in the Coromandel, creating new open-pit and underground mines on stewardship and conservation land. The mine is in the area where the Archey’s frog is found, the species of which Shane Jones once said “if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it’s impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddie”. Local environmental groups and Forest and Bird have been involved in action against the proposed mine. OceanaGold, the project’s owner, has lodged a full application which is currently under consideration.
This piece has been updated to correct information about public debate during consenting under previous resource management processes.