Lack of trade advice on fast-track bill ‘shows reckless disregard’

Foreign affairs officials seemingly provided no advice on how a controversial fast-track consenting bill could affect New Zealand’s trade agreements and treaties before it was introduced to Parliament, sparking concern from environmental groups.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill, which had its first reading under urgency earlier this month, would give VIP status to an array of projects and speed up their movement through the resource consent process.

While the Government says the change is necessary to cut through red tape and deliver economic benefits to communities, the Bill’s critics argue it will place too much power in the hands of ministers and put the country’s biodiversity at risk.

Now, Forest & Bird has raised concerns about whether the Bill falls foul of New Zealand’s international commitments – and whether ministers have failed to heed those concerns in moving ahead with their plans.

The environmental NGO’s conservation advocacy group manager Richard Capie told Newsroom the fast-track plans appeared to conflict with some clauses in New Zealand’s trade deals with the United Kingdom and the European Union, as well as broader international treaties.

For instance, the EU deal’s energy chapter required an environmental impact assessment to take place for “activities related to production of energy goods and raw materials”, along with an associated public consultation process. The UK deal also included a clause noting that “it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protection afforded in their respective environmental laws”.

“The Government wants to have an export growth agenda, it wants to enable more economic activity to take place: this legislation would enable more economic activity to take place at the expense of the environment, and that’s in breach of our international trade agreements,” Capie said.

Using the Official Information Act, Forest & Bird asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on March 11 – after the Bill’s introduction to Parliament – for copies of any advice it had provided to ministers or other government agencies on the Bill’s implications for New Zealand’s compliance with international treaties. However, in its response, the ministry declined the OIA request on the grounds it had not provided any such advice.

“This Government is making changes which are … putting businesses and their exports at risk, and they just haven’t sought the advice – they’ve blundered into this,” Capie said.

Forest & Bird had raised their concerns with their NGO counterparts in the UK and EU to make sure they were aware of the Government’s actions.

Capie said the Bill needed to be abandoned before it “enabled economic development to run roughshod over our environmental protections both domestically, but also our international obligations”.

Labour environment spokeswoman Rachel Brooking told Newsroom it was surprising the Government did not appear to have sought foreign affairs advice on the Bill, given the potentially significant implications for trade deals.

“You would think that with all the noise that’s been made about the ratification of the EU trade agreement … that somebody would have sought some advice, but then the Government generally doesn’t seem to be seeking advice on different areas.”

Brooking believed it was “entirely possible” the Bill could fall foul of some trade deal provisions, given the lack of opportunities for public consultation and limited tests on the types of projects that could be approved.

“Any new mine is going to have some significant environmental effects, and … my understanding is that would trigger some of those FTA obligations for having an environmental impact assessment that the public can feed into.”

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson told Newsroom her party believed concerns about the Bill’s compliance with international obligations needed to be considered more thoroughly, and were “an example of yet another potential consequence of the coalition Government’s poor law-making practices and reckless disregard for the environment”.

Davidson said it was worrying that foreign affairs officials had not provided any advice to the Government about the Bill, while there were other areas where ministers’ engagement had fallen short of what was needed.

“International obligations and reputation, together with democratic norms of good law making, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, are all being left by the wayside in the Government’s rushed process and executive overreach.”

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said the Government took its international obligations seriously.

“As part of the policy process, officials, including Mfat, have considered the impact the new fast-track bill could have on these obligations.”

Newsroom asked his office how that statement tallied with the ministry’s OIA response to Forest & Bird, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Bishop said New Zealand’s free trade agreements, including the UK deal, recognised the country’s right to set its own environmental law and policies, and the Government was committed to protecting the environment, including action on climate change.

The fast-track bill would allow ministers to put in place environmental protections “that are appropriate to the circumstances of each approval”, he said.