Significant changes to the draft law on accelerated approval procedures transfer some powers to expert panels, but decision-making power remains with a minister.

On Sunday, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones announced a series of changes to the Fast Track Act. The main announcement was a Cabinet proposal to leave the final decision on development projects to a panel of experts rather than three ministers.

The removal of ministerial override is a response to one criticism of the bill, but concerns about the government’s broader approach to environmental issues go beyond the fast-track process.

On the first day of oral submissions on the fast-track procedure, Nikola Toki, Managing Director of Forest and Bird, warned against a bait and switch: “Abolishing ministerial agreement is pointless if environmental protection and public participation in existing laws are not maintained. I want to make this very clear: this cannot be the only thing.”

Other submitters highlighted legal weaknesses, contractual obligations and a lack of environmental provisions as their main concerns. Most submitters addressed the consequences of ministerial over-ruling. No one, including Federated Farmers, supported the bill in its current form.

Since April, Bishop has repeatedly hinted at “sensible changes” to the bill. Toki’s comments hung in the air and finally became reality on Sunday when ministers set out exactly what changes Cabinet would recommend.

Bishop said: “One of the key points that emerged from the submissions was that the submitters wanted the panel to have the final say. So we agreed to those submissions.”

In addition, applicants would now also have to attach previous court rulings to their applications, consultation periods would be extended and the panel would reserve seats for environmentalists and iwi votes.

Each change had its own limitations. An expert panel would now have the final say, but the composition of those panels would ultimately be decided by the government and a panel chair. An iwi representative would have to be present, but only if required by a contractual arrangement. The panel could reject a project, but that project could still reapply. And the purpose of the Act was not changed to mention the environment.

The committee will also be able to examine the list of projects provided for in the law that have not yet been made public. Bishop clarified on Sunday that a total of 384 applications had been received, most of which were housing and urban development projects.

Jones rebuked the “historical hobbits” who thought the bill was “purely focused on mining”, saying only five per cent of applications were for mining and the same for quarrying. That equates to 19 applications per category, but does not take into account the relative impact of a mining operation compared to a residential development, for example.

Bishop said more details of those projects would be announced later. In the meantime, a committee has been tasked with evaluating the project applications for inclusion in the bill. Their ranking will be presented to Cabinet, where officials must weigh them against the government’s policy priorities.

The pursuit of a fast pace has driven the growth of the fast-track concept. It is naturally focused on accelerating decision-making, but the decisions about how to actually achieve this goal have themselves been accelerated.

Official consultation and feedback on the bill itself has been limited in scope by tight timelines – a complaint raised by iwi, councils, businesses and members of the public in their submissions. The tight timeframes have made it difficult for anyone to fully consider the scope of the proposed legislation.

Jones acknowledged that “there is an ongoing dispute between politicians and some government agencies who feel that the speed of such radical change means they are unable to exercise thorough control.”

However, he said the focus of the bill had shifted over time. Recently, the “fastest” part of the fast-track process had been the speed with which the bill was drafted, deliberated and acted upon. The real core of the legislation had shifted away from speed and towards greater certainty.

As the bill developed, the “one-stop shop” aspect was rarely criticized. The need to consolidate approvals for major projects was widely recognized by submitters, even by opponents of the bill. Jones said the focus of the bill had shifted accordingly: away from the “fast track” process and toward the “one-stop shop.”

In the process, Jones lost two layers of power. All three ministers involved, including Transport Minister Simeon Brown, lost the power to make a final decision. Brown and Jones have now also been excluded from the first stage of the process, and the Infrastructure Minister is now solely responsible for reviewing incoming applications and recommending them to the panel. Jones said he was taking a “Shakespearean” approach to the adjustment: “All’s well that ends well.”

Bishop could be given responsibility for overseeing the process, but the proposed changes would retain an obligation to consult other relevant ministers, including the Environment Minister, on this matter.

By giving a panel the final say, the fast-track architects sacrificed some of their potential influence for a more secure future. Ministerial decisions can be challenged, while panel decisions are protected from judicial review, providing greater certainty of the permanence of the outcome under this approach. This proposal, along with the others, will be submitted to the Select Committee for consideration.

Although one of the biggest concerns about the fast-track process has been addressed, environmentalists cannot celebrate the victory. The bill still does not take environmental considerations into account, and fast-tracking aside, Bishop’s work on the Resource Management Act pursues many of the same goals that critics feared the fast-track process would achieve.

Although Bishop’s two projects share the same priorities, Jones insisted on making one difference clear: The Fast Track Bill “is not a resource management bill. It is most certainly an infrastructure development bill.” While it could potentially override the RMA, Jones stressed that its primary purpose is to provide a one-stop shop for projects of national importance – not to redefine national environmental policy. That is Bishop’s job.

Bishop’s amended RMA would revisit longstanding environmental protections against freshwater pollution. Other targeted changes to the RMA would ease the permitting process for coal mines in wetlands and loosen rules on intensive winter grazing.

Ministerial override may have disappeared from the fast-track procedure, but that does not mean that the government has opened a new chapter.