On Monday morning, Eric Crampton and I appeared before the Environment Select Committee to present the Initiative’s submission on the Fast-Track Approvals Amendment Bill. 
 
It is well known that the Bill, and the fast-track regime more generally, is controversial among environmentalists. Our concerns are more about process, but they are no less important.  
 
The Bill had a ten-day submission window and did not have a regulatory impact statement. It was not easy for us to consider the Bill and its implications in such a short period without much information on it.  
 
The Bill contains some sensible administrative improvements, but its haste does not give confidence in its quality. The Bill continues to omit any requirement that fast-track projects deliver net benefits - that benefits should exceed costs, including those for the environment. The current test, whether proposals have "significant regional or national benefits”, is silent on costs.  
 
With the benefit test so murky, some expert panels considering fast-track projects are demanding rigorous cost-benefit analysis, while others are accepting mere assertions of economic impact. Without clear statutory direction, decision-making becomes a lottery. 
 
The Bill introduces Government Policy Statements to guide decisions, but while these could provide useful guidance, much depends on how they will be formulated. The Bill has no requirement to consult on their content, while the vague language about benefits invites panels to second-guess commercial viability – something they should steer clear of.  
 
Applicants will be allowed to challenge expert panel members. This, to put it politely, is novel. Concerns about bias or the quality of panel members are better addressed by ensuring they meet stronger requirements, including the need for a panel to include a member with economic expertise. 
 
There is no sunset clause or even a requirement to review the legislation’s operation. Supposedly temporary legislation pending RMA replacement should have a sunset clause. 
 
We support faster consenting to reduce the huge costs and prolonged delays for infrastructure and development, but speed must be balanced with rigour. We make numerous recommendations to improve the Bill and ensure that fast-tracking advances projects that increase national welfare, not merely those that tick boxes.  
 
The Bill is planned to be passed before Christmas. Yet good law-making requires time for proper consideration, including points raised by submitters.  
 
Ironically, the Regulatory Standards Act was passed two weeks ago. Its purpose is to improve the quality of legislation. It is a pity it was not in force when this Bill was developed.