The Government’s proposed amendments to the Fast-Track Act take an already dangerous and anti-democratic law and push it even further. These changes would hand more power to Ministers and big corporations, sideline communities, and strip away the few environmental and democratic safeguards that remain.

Last year, people across Aotearoa mobilised in unprecedented numbers — tens of thousands of submissions and protests — to defend nature and democracy from the original Fast-Track Bill. That collective action forced the Government to drop some of its most extreme plans, including giving just three Ministers final approval powers.

Now, those same powers are creeping back through this new Amendment Bill to be rushed through before Christmas. It’s a direct threat to the rights of New Zealanders to be heard and to the protection of the places we love.

The Government is doubling down on its war on nature and democracy. The Fast-Track Approvals Amendment Bill would make it even easier for mining and fossil-fuel corporations to bulldoze our environmental protections, silence communities, and fast-track climate-wrecking projects.

The original Fast-Track Act was already one of the most extreme rollbacks of environmental law in Aotearoa’s history. It handed huge powers to Ministers, cut the public out of decisions, and opened the door for destructive industries to run roughshod over local communities.

But people fought back — nearly 30,000 New Zealanders spoke up, marched, and made submissions. That public pressure forced the Government to walk back some of its most outrageous proposals.

Now, they’re trying again — with a Bill that strips away what little accountability remains. This is the moment to draw the line.

What the Amendment Bill Would Do

This Bill isn’t about helping communities recover or build climate-friendly infrastructure. It’s about helping corporations dig, drill, and mine faster.

It would:

• Force rushed decisions — Panels would have to decide within 60 working days, even on massive projects like seabed mining or mega-dams. That’s not streamlining — it’s recklessness.
• Silence communities and hapū — It further restricts who can have a say or appeal decisions. Those who’ll live with the consequences are being deliberately shut out.
• Let Ministers interfere — Ministers could issue “policy statements” pushing for mining or fossil-fuel projects, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) would have to take them into account. That’s political meddling in what should be an independent process.
• Give corporations influence over who decides. Developers would be able to object to panel members they don’t like — giving them a say in who judges their own project.
  

How to Have Your Say

Go to the Parliament website and make your submission.

All you need to do is fill in your details, then state clearly:

I oppose the Fast-Track Approvals Amendment Bill. It should be withdrawn in its entirety.

If you’d like to add more detail, feel free to include points from below. Please refrain from copy-pasting; a few sentences in your own words, is worth than five pages of content identical to ours!

Points You Might Include

• Rushed decisions are reckless. Sixty days is nowhere near enough time to properly assess large-scale projects. Cutting corners means higher risks for our climate, wildlife, and communities.
• Communities, hapū, and environmental experts must be heard. Limiting participation and appeals silences the people who know these ecosystems best. Democracy shouldn’t be optional.
• Keep Ministers out of the process. Allowing political “policy statements” on specific projects undermines the independence of decision-making and puts profit ahead of science.
• Corporations mustn’t pick their own referees. Letting applicants object to panel members is a blatant conflict of interest. Decisions about our environment must be made by independent experts — not by those who stand to profit.
• No retrospective rule-changes. Projects already in motion should play by the rules they applied under.

Recommendations you might make:

• Protect the environment, don’t rush assessments. Sixty days is not enough time to evaluate complex projects. This deadline prioritises speed over science, ignoring environmental, social, and cultural impacts.
• Let the public and iwi be heard. Excluding hapū, iwi, community groups, and environmental organisations is anti-democratic and anti-science. Decisions affecting land, water, and taonga must involve those most affected — and include a right of appeal, which is being taken away by the Bill.
• Keep politics out of the process. Ministers should not be able to direct the EPA or issue political statements that bias the process toward destructive industries. Independent panels must remain independent.
• No corporate veto over panel members. Companies should not influence who decides on their applications. Panels must be selected for expertise and integrity, not convenience to applicants.
• No retrospective rule-changes. It is unfair and undemocratic to change the rules mid-process. Projects already underway should remain under the existing legislation.
• Reject this Bill outright. The Amendment Bill undermines environmental protection, erodes public participation, weakens Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and concentrates decision-making power in the hands of a few Ministers.

---

Please also spread the word. Encourage your friends and family, networks, local groups, and whānau to make submissions before 17 November – less than a week away! Every submission should count.

 

Our full submission is also below, for reference:

Submission by: 350 Aotearoa

On the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill
Date: 10 Nov 2025
To: Environment Committee

350 Aotearoa is a climate justice organisation committed to ensuring that Aotearoa New Zealand takes decisive and equitable action on climate change. We have previously submitted on the fast-track bill – and took direct action during its passing – where we highlighted our deep concerns about its potential to undermine climate justice and the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Introduction

We are collectively and deeply concerned at the direction and specific provisions of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill ( “the Bill”). The Bill as drafted poses grave risks to democracy, to environmental protection, and to the obligations of the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. We oppose its progression in its present form and urge the Select Committee to reject the Bill. Failing that, it should be amended comprehensively to honour Te Tiriti, restore rights of participation, safeguard environmental standards, independent Panels, and the independence of the EPA.

Key concerns

1. Erosion of democratic and participatory processes
   • The Bill enables the relevant Minister(s) to make policy statements such as to determine whether a project is “regionally or nationally significant” via a Government Policy Statement (GPS) (Section 10A). That means substantial power is being shifted from independent assessment and public scrutiny to ministerial discretion.
   • The Bill allows the Minister to issue general directions to the EPA (Clause 93A).  This raises major concerns about regulatory capture, loss of independence, and undermining of the checks and balances that underlie good governance.
   • The Bill limits or removes meaningful community involvement by further restricting the rights of community groups or environmental organisations to comment (section 33) and restricts rights to appeal (section 99) 
   • The absence of a clear duty to apply the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in decision-making is unacceptable. 
   • From a democracy standpoint, handing ministers such sweeping powers to fast-track projects—and potentially override earlier refusals—is inconsistent with transparent, participative governance and undermines public trust.
2. Weakening of environmental protections
   • The Bill’s shift in balance from environmental protection to development means long-term ecological cost may be traded for short-term economic gain—a false choice that risks irreversible damage including to the climate.
3. Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Indigenous rights concerns
   • The Bill fails to embed an explicit Treaty-obligation clause; it only says persons “must act in a manner consistent with existing Treaty settlements and customary rights.”  
   • There is concern that Māori participation, Māori decision-making rights, and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) over taonga will be undermined if decisions are fast-tracked under ministerial discretion rather than through inclusive, treaty-responsive processes.
   • The Bill runs counter to international Indigenous rights norms (e.g., United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) in failing to provide meaningful consultation, participation and protection of Māori interests.  
   • For Māori and communities connected to land/water/ancestors, the Bill signals a step backwards in self-determination and in the partnership aspirations of te Tiriti.
4. Risk of unintended and irreversible environmental and social harm
   • By fast-tracking projects, often large-scale mining, infrastructure or urban development, the margin for error is reduced; rigorous assessment, community input, cumulative effects and intergenerational impacts may not be fully considered.
   • The context of multiple ecological crises (biodiversity loss, freshwater degradation, climate change) means that any lowering of protections increases risk to taonga species, ecosystems and communities. bypassing traditional environmental assessments and public input. 
   • Once environmental damage is done (especially to ecosystems, species, water systems, Māori cultural values) it cannot simply be undone. Hence the precautionary principle demands robust protections, not shortcutting.

Requested amendments / what must change
This Bill should be withdrawn. If it is not, the following minimum amendments should be required:

• Embed a duty in the Bill for decision-makers to apply the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and to engage with iwi/hapū early, meaningfully and as partners rather than as consultees after the fact.
• Reinstate mandatory full public consultation, notification and rights of appeal for all projects in the fast-track regime.
• Ensure that the Minister’s power to issue “general directions” is either removed or strictly limited, with full transparency, and independent oversight and powers of review.
• Require that any project going through the fast-track process still must meet the same baseline environmental protections (including biodiversity, freshwater, landscape, customary rights) that apply under existing law—not lower standards.
• Prohibit retrospective revival of previously refused projects unless there is full new assessment including environmental, social, and cultural matters.
• Ensure transparency: Provide full disclosure of referral application information, project description, amendments to schedule definitions, financial interests and conflicts of interest of decision-makers and applicants.
• Allow for independent review of the decision-making process (e.g., judicial review, public reporting) so the fast-track process does not become an opaque “rubber stamp”.
• Provide sunset clauses and/or powers of review in case effects prove to be unacceptable.