Legislative basis for the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s submission

The New Zealand Conservation Authority / Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa (Authority, NZCA) is established under the Conservation Act 1987 (Act), with members appointed by the Minister of Conservation. It is an independent statutory body

The Authority’s role includes investigating and advising the Minister or Director-General on nature conservation and other conservation matters of national importance, in either approving or advising on statements of general policy under national parks, conservation, and wildlife legislation, and in approving conservation management strategies and plans. The Authority has the power to “advocate the interests of the Authority at any public forum or in any statutory planning process.”

The Authority submits on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill (the Bill, FTAA) in accordance with the above powers and functions.

The Authority’s submission

The NZCA thanks the Environment Select Committee for the opportunity to make a submission on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill 2025.

The NZCA has a statutory role in the Fast-track approvals process. The Authority, along with relevant Conservation Boards, are persons who must be invited to provide written comments in relation to fast-track approval applications, where those approvals involve concessions or mining access arrangements on public conservation lands, conservation covenant revocation or amendment, public conservation land exchanges, or approvals to disturb or kill protected wildlife.

Framing of the Bill

The Bill is being framed primarily as a measure to improve competition in the grocery sector (by providing for this to be taken into account when a referral decision is being made). Grocery competition is a very minor component of the Bill. We consider that it is inaccurate to frame the purpose of the Bill in this way.

Reduced timeframes will further erode the quality of decisions

Timeframes are further constrained under this proposed amendment. Under clause 9, the time in which comments on a referral application must be provided would be reduced from 20 working days to 15 working days. This provides very little time for meaningful comment from the limited range of bodies from which comment must be sought, who are already under enormous pressure.

Under clause 44, the timeframe for panels to reach a final decision on an application would have a maximum of 60 working days, as opposed to “a time frame that the panel convener considers is appropriate, having regard to the scale, nature, and complexity of the approvals sought in, and any other matters raised by, the substantive application”.

This decision timeframe is arbitrary and too short for complex and large projects having potentially extensive environmental impacts. A number of the listed projects in Schedule 2 of the Act are highly complex, and will require multiple approvals affecting public conservation lands, resources and protected wildlife of national significance.  It is essential that statutory timeframes are sufficient to enable robust, informed decision making.

The amended timeframes in the Bill are shorter than what some applicants have requested so far under the FTAA, and what panel convenors have decided is appropriate.

The condensed timeframes will affect the quality of information, decisions and conditions, and may increase the risk of judicial review.

Removal of consultation requirements

Clause 6 of the Bill amends s11 of the Act, by changing the requirements for consultation. Applicants will only need to consult with customary marine title applicants and Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou (as applicable), and will no longer need to consult with iwi authorities, hapū or Treaty settlement entities or local authorities, administering agencies, and relevant land holders where a land exchange is proposed, before lodging a referral application (non-listed projects) or as part of pre-lodgement requirements (listed projects). The requirement to consult is replaced with a requirement to give written notice of the referral application to the administering agency.  NZCA considers the effectiveness of panels and the quality of their decision making requires that they have access to the most complete, available information on which to base their findings.  Constraining consultation in the manner proposed in this amendment Bill will not strengthen the outcomes and will further weaken environmental protections and due process by reducing tangata whenua, community and environmental group legitimate involvement.

In relation to applications for approvals on public conservation lands, or involving public conservation resources, and protected wildlife, the NZCA considers that consultation with the administering agency (the Department of Conservation) is important and should be retained. Early engagement through consultation can avoid impacts on conservation values, and can enable the subsequent approval process to run more smoothly and efficiently.

Reduced ability for interested groups to participate in the process

Under s53 of the FTAA, a panel can invite comment from anyone it considers ‘appropriate’. This can include NGOs or community groups. Clause 33(2) of the Bill proposes to constrain this discretion by only allowing a panel to invite such comments where a local authority or relevant administering agency does not ‘intend’ to cover a particular matter, or if their intended comments would not ‘sufficiently’ address the matter.

In effect, this approach will further shut iwi, communities and NGOs out of the fast-track process. Their involvement is already significantly curtailed under the FTAA, which does not provide for public notification of projects, and provides for their involvement only at the discretion of panels when considered ‘appropriate’. The Bill’s proposed amendment doubles down on this very limited involvement, rendering their participation to residual comment at the very best.

The effect of relegating (except for limited exceptions) the relevant iwi authorities, hapū and Treaty settlement entities from requiring ‘consultation’ to receiving ‘notification in writing’ will add significantly to the limitations the FFTA already places on tangata whenua representing their rights, interests and values.

The Minister may no longer invite comments on a referral application from Māori groups or owners of Māori land in the project area. Instead under clause 9, it is intended that the Minister must invite comment from the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti and the Minister for Māori Development, which seems to be a backward step in respect of recognising the interests of Māori and their right to speak for themselves in such circumstances.

The approach brings significant risk that important information will not be put before decision-making panels and that applications will escape robust challenge. It puts councils in the position of being the ‘mouthpiece’ for communities and the wider public interest.

Appeal rights are further limited under the Bill, being limited to those who are invited to provide comments under the specified sections of the FTAA. The Bill will also remove the ability for ‘other persons’ who are invited to comment to appeal the panel’s decision, thus cutting off statutory avenues for environmental advocacy groups, and iwi, to challenge projects.

An additional amendment is needed to address limits regarding cost-recovery

The Bill makes amendments to cost recovery provisions in sections 104 – 108 of the Act. The Bill should go further and also make much needed changes to the ability of statutory bodies to recover their costs in relation to the fast-track process.

Statutory bodies, like the NZCA and Conservation Boards, currently are not entitled to recover their costs, despite the Act requiring that they be invited to provide written comment on certain applications affecting public conservation lands, resources, and protected wildlife. This deters vital input to panels from experts in conservation, sustainable management, Te Tiriti of Waitangi and local issues, and shifts the financial burden of Fast-track projects from developers to organisations that are already fiscally constrained.

The Bill should clarify that statutory conservation bodies are able to recover their costs in the same way as councils.  Presently Conservation Boards, and the NZCA, receive no additional or focused resourcing to support engagement in fast-track approval processes.  The nature of the applications, their complexity, and the nationally significant conservation values affected by some projects require that appropriate resourcing is available to enable Conservation Boards, and the Authority, to undertake their statutory role in the fast-track approval process.

Conclusion

The NZCA strongly opposes these amendments that will reduce consultation, compress statutory timeframes, and limit participation and appeal rights. These changes will undermine environmental protections, Treaty obligations, and public confidence in decision-making.

In addition, the Bill should go further to address the inability for agencies to recover costs in relation to the fast-track process.