A new Fast-track Approvals Bill being moved through Parliament under urgency is "anti-democratic" and could have disastrous consequences for the Wakatipu Basin, according to one environmental engineer.
GHC Consulting’s Dave Hanan, who has a particular interest in Queenstown, believed if it went through, years of costly planning and work — including Environment Court appeals — that aimed to balance development with landscape protection could be lost.
That, he believed, would be "a travesty", with far-reaching consequences.
The government’s proposed new Bill, which passed its first reading in the House, intends to provide for a new fast-track consenting pathway, which will be a one-stop-shop for consenting and permitting processes for projects with "significant regional or national benefits".
While what that meant had not yet been defined, Todd & Walker Law senior associate Rosie Hill said criteria which might be relevant to Queenstown included increasing the supply of housing, addressing housing needs, contributing to a well-functioning urban environment, or delivering significant economic benefits.
Under the proposed Bill, to qualify, proposals either have to be listed in the legislation as a candidate for fast-tracked approval, or be referred by a minister on application.
Once in, an expert consenting panel will make recommendations to a minister — and the minister will have the final say.
Those proposals will not be publicly notified, and decisions can not be appealed.
Critically for the Wakatipu, more weight will be given to the purpose of the Bill than the landscape.
Ms Hill said for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting under the Bill, which would involve outstanding natural landscapes (ONLs) and outstanding natural features (ONFs), the prime decision-making criterion was to facilitate delivery of infrastructure and development projects with regional or national benefits.
"And only after that is there consideration of the purpose of the RMA, and then after that is consideration of ... ONLs and ONFs.
"It’s significantly different."
Mr Hanan said the existing process under the RMA ensured values of the Wakatipu Basin were protected.
He was recently involved in an Environment Court appeal against encroaching development on the outskirts of Arrowtown.
"Whether you like it or not [it] is a pretty special process that we have in New Zealand, because it actually makes people think about what they’re doing.
"You can’t just say, ‘right, we’re going to stick housing here for the sake of it’, and then have somebody in Wellington decide, ‘yes, that’s a good idea’ and allow it to proceed without appeal.
"That is fundamentally wrong.
"The district is the loser, because some politician in Wellington has all the power.
"It smells bad."
Ms Hill said there was "a lot of commentary" on both sides about the executive bestowing powers upon itself, something which had not been seen in the RMA for 30 years.
"On the other hand, [there’s] a lot of commentary saying the RMA has served well as an effective regime to protect the environment, but doesn’t actually work that well in terms of planning for infrastructure and urban growth."
But Mr Hanan was "totally" concerned the environment would come third fiddle in the decision-making process, and noted ONLs, ONFs and sensitive natural landscapes had "been put there for a reason".
He said there were taonga and "it’s almost tapu to go and disturb them".
While he was cognisant of the rental housing and affordable housing crises in the resort, "housing at all costs [was] not the way to go".
He also could not understand why the Bill was being passed under urgency.
"They’re perverting the normal democratic process where the public can have input into Bills by chucking it through this urgent process.
"It’s just not right ... it’s autocratic ... and it’s just flying in the face of democracy, really."
Ms Hill, noting the Bill had not been accompanied by a regulatory impact statement, said submissions were open until April 9.
Submissions will be considered by the select committee, and then the Bill would go back for a second and third reading, meaning it "could be passed within a few months".
While it was envisaged the process of expert panel consideration and recommendations was supposed to take less than six months, Ms Hill queried whether or not that would be achievable.
"This legislation will create a whole other realm of people needing to sit on these [panels], and I just don’t know if there are that many people in New Zealand.
"I think the proof will be in the pudding there ... can they actually resource this?"
