Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill
(Government Bill, Chris Bishop)
From: Ukes Baha | 16 November 2025
Submitted in response to the Committee’s call for submissions on the Bill
I oppose this bill in its current form.
The Government presents the bill as a narrow technical amendment to improve grocery competition and efficiency. However, the Minister’s statements, the Hansard debate, and the structure of the bill demonstrate that it is a broad restructuring of the fast-track regime with far-reaching consequences for environmental protection, Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, public participation, and democratic accountability.
The amendment goes far beyond supermarkets. It weakens safeguards, restricts independent scrutiny, and expands ministerial influence over decisions that should remain evidence-based and independent.
For these reasons, I cannot support the bill.
Although “supermarket competition” appears throughout the public messaging, most of the bill is unrelated to grocery retail. This was acknowledged in the House.
The supermarket provisions already exist under the current Act — retailers can already apply for fast-track referral. The bill’s purpose is therefore not to fix competition barriers, but to restructure the fast-track system in favour of speed over scrutiny.
In the first reading, Hon Chris Bishop confirmed that the bill:
These changes pre-determine “benefit” at the political level, reduce the ability of panels to test claims, weaken independent judgment, and increase reliance on ministerial direction rather than evidence.
This restores ministerial dominance indirectly, by binding panels to ministerial policy statements and pre-defined significance.
A critical safeguard in the current fast-track regime is the ability of expert panels to request additional information, invite technical experts, and seek environmental and cultural impact evidence. This bill weakens those powers.
Removing the panel’s ability to obtain necessary information undermines evidence-based decision-making, environmental and cultural risk assessment, community safeguards, and professional independence.
The bill shortens key timeframes and weakens appeal rights. The existing process already limits public input, and this bill reduces it further. This increases the risk of flawed or unlawful decisions proceeding without challenge.
With panels unable to request full evidence and Ministers empowered to direct decision-making through policy statements, environmental protection becomes secondary to speed and political preference.
Projects with significant risk — including those previously rejected by courts or regulators — could be accelerated without adequate scrutiny.
The amendment directly affects the Treaty principles of partnership, active protection, informed decision-making, participation, and redress. These principles require meaningful engagement, reciprocal communication, and decision-making based on full and accurate information.
The bill replaces pre-application consultation with a notification-only process. Under Treaty jurisprudence, notification is not consultation and does not meet the standards of partnership or participation.
Shortened statutory timeframes restrict the ability of iwi, hapū, and post-settlement governance entities to assess impacts, prepare evidence, and participate on equal terms.
The bill limits the ability of expert panels to request information or obtain cultural, technical, or environmental advice. This weakens active protection and undermines informed decision-making.
Accelerated processes and reduced engagement increase the likelihood of decisions that conflict with Treaty settlement arrangements and sideline iwi and hapū with statutory kaitiaki roles.
The bill’s mechanisms — reduced consultation, compressed timelines, restricted evidence pathways, and accelerated approvals — collectively weaken the Crown’s ability to meet its Treaty obligations. Meaningful engagement is a legal and constitutional requirement.
Permitting approvals before necessary infrastructure is in place pushes costs onto councils, forces reactive spending, and creates long-term liabilities for ratepayers. The Minister confirmed that applications may proceed without planned infrastructure.
Supermarket entrants are already eligible for fast-track. The Government has not implemented key Commerce Commission competition recommendations. The major barriers — land banking, wholesale access issues, duopoly power — are not addressed by this bill.
A National Policy Statement could address zoning barriers without weakening environmental protections.
The bill blends a widely supported issue (lower grocery prices) with amendments that erode environmental safeguards and expand political power. This undermines public trust and the integrity of democratic law-making.
The Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill is not a narrow supermarket reform. It is a structural reshaping of New Zealand’s environmental decision-making system, presented under the banner of grocery competition.
It weakens scrutiny, reduces Māori participation, expands ministerial power, limits evidence, and creates long-term environmental and infrastructure risks.
I urge the Committee to substantially amend the bill or reject it in favour of targeted, transparent reforms using appropriate planning tools.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com