Committee Secretariat

Environment Committee

Parliament Buildings

Molesworth Street

Wellington 6160

New Zealand

18 April 2024

Fast Track Approvals Bill Submission

E te koro o Taranaki e, Te maunga o TItohea Kua riro atu ra i te ringa raupatu o te Kāwanatanga

Ko tō pūtake, ko tō tihi Ko tō rekereke, ko tō katoa He puna oranga mō te iwi

Ko ō rerenga wai, ko ō awa, He puna oranga mō Papatuanuku

Ka whanga mātou ki tō hokinga mai

Hoki mai e koro, Hoki mai rā e!

Te ringa raupatu o te Kāwanatanga

1. Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust (Te Korowai) is the Post Settlement Governance Entity (PSGE) for Ngāruahine Iwi. Te Korowai has responsibility of managing and growing the Ngāruahine treaty settlement assets – for the benefit of Ngāruahine uri, whānau, hapū and Iwi. Te Korowai also has the responsibility to ensure an enduring settlement and that Te Tiriti rights of Ngāruahine are upheld by government.

2. This submission outlines the general view of Te Korowai as informed by our purpose, strategy and policies – which can be found at can be found on our website www.ngaruahine.iwi.nz

3. Te Korowai does not have any political affiliations and we will work alongside any government to progress the interests of Ngāruahine. Equally, we have the responsibility of challenging any statutory reforms and policies that conflict with the interests of Ngāruahine.

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Act 2016 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0093/latest/DLM6536714.html?src=qs.

4. On 9 April 2024, Ngāruahine, along with the other seven iwi that surround Maunga Taranaki, celebrated the unanimous support from members of Parliament for the first reading of Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill.

5. Now at the final stages of the collective Maunga settlement, we are simultaneously faced with a suite of reform that compromises the rights and interests of Ngāruahine. Te Korowai, as the responsible PSGE for Ngāruahine, is opposed to the Fast Track Approvals Bill in its current form.

Ngāruahine Settlement

6. The Ngāruahine Deed of Settlement (DoS) has a mechanism to participate directly in the decision-making processes of the Council and to contribute directly to a wide range of the Council’s policy, regulatory and advocacy functions2. This provides for Iwi representation on the following two standing committees of the Taranaki Regional Council:

a) The Policy and Planning Committee.

b) The Operations and Regulatory Committee.

7. The purpose of this representation provisions is to enable Ngāruahine to participate in the consenting, policy and plan making processes.

8. The Crown has therefore agreed, with the support of the regional council, to provide redress to Ngāruahine that reflects this strong relationship and provides Ngāruahine with a kaitiaki role. The Crown also acknowledges the role of Ngāruahine as kaitiaki over their area of interest and the adjacent coastal marine area (kaitiaki area).

9. Clause 6 of the Fast Track Approvals Bill only provides for all persons exercising functions, powers, and duties under the (proposed) Act must act in a manner that is consistent with:

a) the obligations arising under existing Treaty settlements; and

b) customary rights recognised under –

i. the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011:

ii. the NHNP Act.

10. However, Treaty rights and interests extend beyond these selective obligations and include the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as determined by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal.

11. In addition to the RMA, many other Acts related to the resource management system contain Treaty clauses to varying degrees such as the Conservation Act 1987, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, and Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Act 2016 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0093/latest/DLM6536714.html?src=qs.

12. Of particular concern is the requirement for Expert Panels to give greater weight to the purpose of the Fast Track Approvals Bill rather than the purpose of the above existing Acts. In effect, this elevates development over both the protection of the environment and iwi rights and interests.

13. Clause 6 will threaten the working relationship that the Crown has committed to through the DoS which, as stated specified in points 31, 32 and 33, identifies Ngāruahine as kaitiaki over their area of interest.

14. By excluding iwi from the decision-making processes through this Bill, there is a contradiction between the Crown’s commitment to upholding treaty settlements and the proposed legislation around resource management.

15. We recommend inserting a new Treaty Clause in Part 1

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

Ko ō rerenga wai, ko ō awa - Fresh water rights and interests

16. The Fast track Approvals Bill was developed against a background of continued Crown failure to address Māori rights and interests in freshwater.

17. The now repealed resource management reforms (Three Waters, Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act) kept Iwi and Hapū at the table and meaningfully engaged in a system where decision making on freshwater resources would be shared, collaborative and mutually beneficial.

Incentives for Iwi and Hapū to stay engaged has now been removed and there is potential for increased destruction and degradation of waterways under this proposed pro development legislation.

18. We recommend potential impacts on water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is included as a significant environmental issue under Clause 17 (3) (i) as per the definition identified in section 1 of this submission.

He puna oranga mō Papatuanuku - Environmental protection Central government spectators

19. The Minister for the Environment has a responsibility to monitor the effect and implementation of the RMA. Other responsibilities include deciding whether to refer matters that are nationally significant to a Board of Inquiry or the Environment Court.

20. Apart from being consulted when joint Ministers are considering referring a project that requires a marine consent under the EEZ Act, the Minister for the Environment will play almost no role in the decision-making process which delivers infrastructure and development projects within New Zealand under the proposed Bill. Worryingly, we will then have a Minister for the Environment who is a passive observer in matters which could have significant adverse impacts on the environment.

We recommend the inclusion of the Minister for the Environment as a joint Minister under this Bill.

Sustainable management and integrated development



21. One issue of concern is climate change mitigation and adaptation. This requires co-ordination and integration across multiple Acts within the resource management system.

22. We support the recommendation made by the Ministry for the Environment to include reference to sustainable management in the Bill, not just development.

23. We therefore recommend that Clause 3 – Purpose is amended to:

The purpose of this Act is to provide a fast-track decision-making process that facilitates the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional and national benefits while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Clause 17 (3) – Consideration of significant regional or national benefits

24. There is no heirarchy of the ten matters contained in subclause (3) which lists conflicting potential projects such as:

• Clause 17 (3) (f) will support development of natural resources, including minerals and petroleum.

• Clause 17 (3) (g) will support climate change mitigation, including the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions.

25. We recommend the removal of Clause 17 (3) (f) and the weighting of the remaining sub Clauses of 17 (3).

Expert panels and the concentration of power

26. We are concerned by the large amount of Ministerial discretion and decision-making power that will be granted to the joint Ministers by the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

27. This concentration of decision-making power:

• Lacks transparency and accountability.

• Replaces professional decision-making experts with elected politicians.

• Opens up development, and those who are in positions of power, to corruption and exploitation.

28. We recommend the removal of Clause 1(2) (a) of Schedule 3

The lack of a project list – SCHEDULE 2

29. Currently there are no projects listed in the Bill. Ministers will make the final decision on what projects are listed potentially via a supplementary order paper – and potentially after the Select Committee process takes place. This again provides no transparency or opportunity for public scrutiny.

30. We recommend that all projects to be listed in Schedule 2 Part A and Schedule 2 Part B be made public before progressing this Bill further. This allows some measure of public scrutiny and Government transparency on how projects become listed and who lists them.

31. Our concerns around listed projects also centres on the lack of spatial planning at both the national and regional level. We recommend that a national spatial strategy and spatial plans for each region are resourced by Central Government prior to the implementation of any Fast Track Approval legislation in order to ensure development is well thought out, sustainable and futureproofed.

Fast-tracking the Fast-track Bill - The lack of evidence based law making

32. In the normal course of introducing legislation,

a. a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is prepared and published at the time the relevant Bill is introduced to Parliament or a regulation is gazetted.

33. This is to ensure that the regulatory process is open and transparent and includes:

• a high-level summary of the problem being addressed;

• any options and their associated costs and benefits;

• the consultation undertaken; and

• the proposed arrangements for implementation and review.

34. On the 29th November 2023, Cabinet agreed to ‘streamline’ the process for 100-Day Plan initiatives requiring Regulatory Impact Statements by:

• exempting them from the normal quality assurance process;

• requiring agencies, where the Government is implementing new policy, to complete post-implementation assessments for regulatory proposals.

Treasury and the Ministry for the Environment agreed that an impact analysis would be prepared under these above guidelines.

Ministry for the Environment (MfE)

35. On 1 March 2024, MfE published a deparmental disclosure statement on the Bill to support and enhance Parliamentary and public scrutiny of the Bill3. The disclosure statement noted in regard to the Bill:

• no analysis was available on the size of the potential costs and benefits.

• the Bill amends the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal).

• the Bill contains provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property.

• the Bill provides that members of Expert Panels are not liable for anything they do, or omit to do, in good faith in performing or exercising the functions, duties, or powers of the EP.

• environmental considerations will have less weight in the final decision than the purpose of the Bill.

https://disclosure.legislation.govt.nz/assets/disclosures/bill_government_2024_31.pdf

36. On March 7 MfE published its Supplementary Analysis Report on the Treaty Impact Analysis on the Fast Track Approvals Bill 4. The report is a broad analysis of the Treaty impacts of the policy decisions reflected in the Bill due to policy decisions being made separately by delegated Ministers. The report identifies the following broad concerns:

1) the shift in decision making assessment criteria for RMA approvals, placing the new purpose of the Act above Part 2 RMA in terms of the assessment hierarchy;

2) the decision to include no Treaty clause; and no reference to Treaty clauses in existing legislation (for instance RMA, the EEZ Act, the Conservation ACT); and

3) the fact that the Act focuses more on provisions to protect and recognise Treaty settlement and Takutai Moana interests, rather than broader Māori rights and interests.

37. New Zealand Treasury produced a guide in 2017 entitled “Government Expectations for Good Regulatory Practice”5. It sets out the governments expectations that a regulatory system should be an asset for New Zealanders, not a liability. This guide also states that durable outcomes of real value to New Zealanders are more likely when a regulatory system conforms to established legal and constitutional principles and supports compliance with New Zealand’s international and Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

38. Due to the significant impact Fast Track legislation will have, it is recommended to the Environment Select Committee that this Bill to undergo the following standard requirements of quality assurance:

a. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment, including;

i. Identifying and quanitifying the likely costs and benefits of the proposed Bill.

ii. The range of alternative options available for a proposed Fast Track Approvals Bill and their impacts and consequences.

b. A full Treaty Impact Analaysis, inlcuding;

i. A report detailing extensive consultation undertaken with Iwi, Hapū, and Māori organsations, and

ii. The outcomes they are seeking from a Fast Track Approvals Bill and the environmental issues of significance to them.

TIA-for-FTC-Most-Recent.doc_Redacted.pdf (environment.govt.nz)

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2015-09/good-reg-practice.pdf

Lack of consultation

With such a large Bill that impacts resource management processes, we would expect that Government consultation includes ample time for engagement. Positive outcomes for Iwi and hapū can be best attained by early engagement, allowing for adequate review, internal consultation and robust feedback opportunity. This ensures that the concerns, perspectives, and aspirations of Iwi and hapū are not only heard but also integrated into the decision-making process. Moreover, transparency and inclusivity will lead to trust and collaboration between Treaty Partners, paving the way for effective resource management strategies that honour Treaty principles and promote sustainable development.

39. Given the significance of Bill, there was a failure by Government to consult reasonably and in utmost good faith with PSGE’s regarding the development of this Bill. Te Korowai experience of the consultation process included:

a. A letter dated 30 January 2024 outlining a 12 February 2024 deadline for consultation on the Fast-track consenting Bill

b. A request to meet with a Ministry for the Environment lead on 18 January 2024 regarding the Fast-track consenting Bill. We met on 12 February – the consultation cutoff

c. A bulk email invitation to iwi dated 5 February for 12 February – the consultation cut-off date

d. A bulk email invitation to iwi dated 5 February for 12 February – the consultation cut-off date

e. A letter dated 12 February 2024 that included initial feedback regarding the proposed Bill

f. A generic reply to our letter was received on 12 April 2024

g. An Official Information Act request for the list of project entities and the extent of engagement to date

40. We have significant concerns that our poor Government engagement to date is indicative of the consultation under the Bill’s

b. clause 22 (1) (c) Decision to accept application for referral

c. clauses 16 and 14 (3) (i)

41. The requirement to consult with relevant Iwi, Hapū and Treaty settlement entities and customary marine title applicants under clause 16 has no expected outcomes other than to record the engagement and state how it has informed the project.

42. We recommend that Clause 16 – Consultation requirements for applicants for approvals add subclause (3)

(a) An applicant’s engagement must be genuine, meaningful and allow adequate time for response; and

(b) provides each of the groups identified in (1) with the opportunity to define their preferred environmental outcomes.

He puna oranga mo te iwi

43. Te Korowai has an ambitious Impact investment strategy. This strategy outlines the priority sectors for investment over the next five years, including:

a. Tourism and hospitality

i. A boutique lodge on Maunga Taranaki due to open Q3 2024

b. Housing

i. A business case for 76 mixed-housing development, six papakāinga feasibility studies, and support for a Hapū based trades training programme.

c. Hapū partnerships and whenua utilisation

i. Six Hapū special purpose vehicles (SPV) to hold and develop deferred selection properties (DSP)

ii. A circulating fund to support the acquisition of further assets and their development by the Hapū SPV

d. Infrastructure

i. An Iwi owned and developed civic development in partnership with Local council

e. Energy sovereignty

i. Initial market research and development for an energy sovereignty strategy

44. We are supportive of regional development generally. However, we are sceptical regarding the economic benefits that are proclaimed by industry, how this is measured and how this is assessed. Our Iwi was promised a lot from the dairy and oil and gas industries – with marginal economic benefits retained within our Ngāruahine rohe. Instead, we have irreparable damage to our taiao and further alienation of our whenua.

45. Te Korowai, like many PSGE, is now able to target impact investments into our rohe. There needs to be consideration surrounding the opportunity cost of large projects and how they may restrict productive or diversified developments in the area – particularly iwi or hapū led developments.

46. If true regional economic growth is to be achieved, a clear criterion with qualifiers under Clause 17 (3) d is required. We also recommend mechanisms to ensure economic benefits remain in the regional economy in which a project is located and operates in. This could include the requirement of local shareholding interests in the project.

He kōrero whakakapi

47. We are concerned that the Bill will expedite infrastructure and development projects,at the cost of sustainable resource management, environmental protection, and iwi-hapū rights and interests.

48. The content and recommendations of this submission should not be taken as anexpression of consent to anything contained in the Fast Track Approvals Bill.

49. We can all agree improvements are needed in the consent process; however, thisshould be addressed through system improvements and addressing inefficiencies –not through minimising due diligence and quality consultation.

50.Te Korowai, as the responsible PSGE for Ngāruahine, is opposed to the FastTrack Approvals Bill.

Pai mārire,

Emma Gardiner

Pouwhakarae

Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust