Fast-Track Approvals Bill: A Contentious Debate on Democracy and Environmental Concerns

In a parliamentary session held on Tuesday, 10 December 2024 (continued on Thursday, 12 December 2024), members engaged in an intense debate over the controversial Fast-track Approvals Bill. The bill aims to expedite project approvals but has faced significant opposition due to concerns about its impact on environmental protections, democratic processes, and transparency.

A Clash of Ideologies

Glen Bennett from Labour initiated the discussion by expressing serious concerns about the bill's potential implications. He argued that it could compromise New Zealand’s commitments to its environment, climate obligations, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Bennett criticized the rapid introduction of an Amendment Paper on the same day as entering committee stage, claiming this undermined democratic principles and stifled public engagement.

The Title Debate

Central to today's debate was the bill’s title. Arena Williams proposed renaming it to "Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill 2024," suggesting that it better reflects its focus on private interests over public good. Bennett supported this amendment, referencing titles from public submissions like "Cloak, Choke, and Destroy Bill" to illustrate widespread opposition.

A point of order raised by Tim van de Molen questioned the relevance of some comments in the debate, emphasizing the need for serious or objective amendments. Chairperson Barbara Kuriger acknowledged this concern but allowed the discussion to continue, noting that creative titles often emerge during such debates.

Procedural Concerns and Amendments

Bennett also proposed an amendment regarding the bill's commencement date, advocating for a more deliberate approach than immediate enactment post-Royal assent. Despite these efforts, multiple amendments to the title were deemed out of order or not agreed upon due to their lack of objective description.

Arena Williams' proposal to rename the bill was rejected by members of New Zealand National (49 votes), ACT New Zealand (11 votes), and New Zealand First (8 votes). Similarly, Bennett's amendment concerning the commencement date did not secure majority support.

Vote Outcomes

The session concluded with significant votes on various aspects of the bill:

  • A motion to close debate on clauses 1 and 2 passed with ayes from New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), and New Zealand First (8), totaling 68. The noes, comprising New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (15), and Te Pāti Māori (6), totaled 55.
  • Arena Williams' amendment was rejected by the same majorities: ayes from New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party (15), and Te Pāti Māori (6) totaling 55, against noes from New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), and New Zealand First (8) totaling 68.
  • Both Clause 1 and Clause 2 were agreed upon with support primarily from the government side of Parliament: ayes from New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), and New Zealand First (8), totaling 68. The noes, comprising New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party (15), and Te Pāti Māori (6), totaled 55.
  • Bennett's proposed insertion of a new clause concerning the commencement date was also defeated with ayes from New Zealand Labour (34), Green Party (15), and Te Pāti Māori (6) totaling 55, against noes from New Zealand National (49), ACT New Zealand (11), and New Zealand First (8) totaling 68.

Looking Ahead

As the bill progresses, it remains a focal point for debates on balancing economic development with environmental stewardship and democratic accountability. The opposition from Labour and Green Party members highlights ongoing disputes over its implications for public interest and governance processes.