More than 100 amendments to the Fast-Track Approvals Act were released for consultation earlier this month (with just a 10-day submission window), even though the law had only been in force for a matter of months. The changes would restrict public participation, limit what evidence the panel may consider and compress timeframes to as little as 60 days.
Phil McCabe of Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM), who has tracked the issue for almost 15 years, says the changes appear designed to assist Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR), whose application to mine the South Taranaki seabed has repeatedly failed under previous legal regimes.
“My sense is that it was to narrow the scope of information to come into the decision-making process. If you’ve got less time and fewer people telling you information, you don’t have all the information to make a robust decision.”
The fast-track amendments landed just as the decision-making panel – chaired by a retired High Court judge – began receiving some of the strongest and most wide-ranging evidence ever presented against TTR’s proposal.
The Fast-Track Act was promoted as a way to speed approvals and reduce bureaucracy, but the panel unexpectedly widened participation, inviting nearly 50 groups to offer evidence. This expansion represents a direct departure from the model ministers have promoted and raises questions about political pressure on an independent process.
“It was quite striking that they opened it that wide,” Phil said.
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones reacted sharply after the panel invited dozens of submitters, accusing the EPA of failing to follow the Government’s directive for a rapid, narrow decision-making process. His claim that the EPA “didn’t get the memo” was widely interpreted as political pressure on an independent panel tasked with evaluating a highly contentious proposal on its merits.
Over three days in Hāwera, the panel heard evidence that directly challenged the foundations of TTR’s case. New reef mapping by the Taranaki Regional Council revealed extensive, biodiverse reef systems in the proposed mining zone. These reefs sit within a unique offshore contour that minimises ‘natural’ sedimentation and supports high biodiversity.
“These reefs are extraordinary,” Phil said. “The company has always said it’s a desert, that there’s nothing out there, but that’s simply not the case.”
Recreational fishers described generations of productive fishing in the area, and offshore wind companies warned that mining could destabilise the seabed in ways that threaten renewable energy infrastructure.
“The wind companies said, ‘we can’t have both,’” Phil said.
The Government’s mid-process amendments appear aimed at curtailing the very scrutiny that emerged in the hearings. If passed, they would allow ministers to further dictate the scope and pace of assessments, weakening independent checks and potentially tipping the balance in favour of applicants.
Coalition dynamics are also influencing the direction of the legislation. ACT and New Zealand First pushed for the fast-track regime in coalition negotiations. Labour has criticised the Act, and the Greens have pledged to revoke any seabed mining approvals granted under it.
Phil said the amendments were being driven by political pressure from minor coalition partners rather than by evidence, calling it “the tail wagging the dog.”
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton made a similar point in his submission, noting that, “as noted by the Griffith University analysis (which makes many of the same points as above), what is missing from the NZIER analysis is a view on total economic value.” He said any credible assessment must include “the costs created by the damage the project causes to the country’s natural capital (and potentially, its international reputation).”
“They haven’t taken the economic costs into account – only the cash in,” Phil said.
He noted that no seabed mining operation in New Zealand has ever proved viable.
“Every other seabed mining company has left. It’s been a bad investment for 20 years. No dollars have ever gone into the bank account. A lot have gone out.”
TTR’s proposal has been rejected or overturned at every level – EPA, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court – before the Government introduced fast track as an alternative pathway.
All parties met in Auckland this month for what is expected to be the last legal session. The panel will spend December and February drafting its decision, with a ruling due on 8 March. January will effectively be lost to the holiday period.
Phil says KASM’s resources are exhausted.
“Pretty bottomed out. We had to throw everything at this process.”
He warns that the credibility of the entire fast-track system is now at stake.
“On an information basis, there’s no way it (seabed mining) could ever get consented – but the law is written in a way that makes it very difficult to decline. I just hope they can find a pathway to decline it.”
While Phil hopes the panel declines the application, he says the outcome now carries implications well beyond TTR. The ruling will indicate whether the fast-track system can deliver fair, evidence-based decisions – or whether political influence has overtaken the process it was meant to streamline.