December 2024

Introduction

Fast-track projects can be beaten. This document is about lessons learned from how one fast-track project was defeated, with some additional lessons learned from other environmental campaigns I have been involved in (such as the Save Aramoana Campaign and campaigns against new coal mines). While this is a personal account, I’ve had invaluable help in putting it together from the people in the Acknowledgments below.

Background

Communities all around Aotearoa are facing a coordinated assault from a Government determined to exploit te taiao, our natural environment, to serve the interests of multinational mining companies and local vested interests such as the massive and well-funded motorway building lobby – which includes trucking, construction, quarrying and consulting companies.

One of the Government’s major tools in this assault is the Fast-Track Approvals Act, which – along with other legislation such as the Treaty Principles Bill – is intended to sweep aside opposition to resource extraction and other destructive projects from iwi, hapū, and communities.

But this isn’t the first time a National-led Government has attempted to evade scrutiny of such projects by introducing a fast-track approvals process to rubber-stamp them. John Key’s Government brought in a fast-track process, though the new one is even worse.

One of the projects National wanted to fast-track was a 380 metre long, 10 metre high motorway flyover right outside, and overshadowing, the Basin Reserve international cricket ground in Wellington. They called this project the “Basin Bridge”. This would have ruined the environment of the Basin, been an eyesore in central Wellington, and induced more carbon-spewing cars onto Wellington’s roads.

The lavishly-funded New Zealand Transport Agency wanted that flyover as part of their motorway programme, and they poured millions of dollars into pushing it through – but they lost, thanks to the efforts of the Save the Basin Campaign, The Architectural Centre, the Mount Victoria Residents’ Association, and other community groups. The head of the New Zealand Transport Agency resigned not long afterwards.

Note: Our campaign was a group of predominantly Pākehā people living in Wellington. Lots of people working to prevent destructive fast-tracked projects will be neither. While this document arises from that particular experience and situation, I hope you’ll find advice here that can be applied to your experience and situation.

General campaigning lessons

About your group and your campaign

1. Go into your campaign with the mindset that you intend to win, and will win. At the very least, don’t act as though you’ve already lost. In Save the Basin, we pushed back against statements like “When the project is built” – we always said “If the project is built”. Plenty of community campaigns have defeated proposals that were backed by a lot of money and powerful institutions. Your campaign can win, too.
   
2. There is no one best strategy or approach. Your strategy depends on your circumstances. You and the members of your group, as local people confronting a bad project that threatens you and your iwi, hapū or community, are best placed to know what works in your particular circumstances and location. You may decide to engage in political and media campaigning, economic campaigning (e.g. boycotts), legal action, or direct action. One of the books I recommend, How Nonviolence Works, is very good on the stages of a campaign, and has lots of good advice about direct action campaigns.
3. It’s valuable to get advice from others who have gone through similar campaigns – facing a fast-tracked Board of Inquiry process under the Resource Management Act, Save the Basin learned a lot from talking with other groups who had previously gone through a similar process. Learn from other campaign’s failures as well as their successes, and be appreciative of all the hard mahi those folks have put in. Don’t let experience go to waste. If you are struggling to figure out who to ask, the folks at 350 Aotearoa are always happy to help, at 350@350.org.nz.
4.  Two things that really worked for the Save the Basin Campaign were:
   • Taking the initiative (going on the attack) in the media and by organising public meetings, demonstrations etc, rather than waiting until our opponents did something, then reacting. This was also a very successful approach for the Save Aramoana Campaign, which back in the early 1980s defeated a proposal to build New Zealand’s second aluminium smelter at the entrance to Otago Harbour.
   • Reframing the issue on our terms. Our opponents said they were promoting a Basin Bridge. We kept calling it the Basin Flyover. Eventually, even the Judge at the Board of Inquiry started using the term “flyover”. That was great for our morale and a signal that we were doing well.
5. Funding expensive aspects of a campaign, such as potential legal action, is difficult for many community groups. Mounting an effective campaign can sometimes mean taking decisions to spend money before you have the money to spend, which is a difficult and stressful situation to be in.Therefore, questions about how much money your group, and the people in it, are willing to commit to the campaign need to be carefully and thoroughly discussed. How much money can you realistically raise, and what is it most effective to spend that money on in campaigning terms? Different group members may have very different assumptions on that topic, and it’s important to draw out those assumptions and discuss them before taking the plunge on major spending decisions. Serious disagreements about money can cause deep rifts in a campaign.
   
   (That said, if you have a clear kaupapa and a just cause, you may find, as Save the Basin did, that donations turn up from community members you had no idea were on your side.)
6. Especially when you’re seen to be “stopping progress”, your group is going to get a lot of hate on social media, in comments sections etc. If it rises to the level of threats to personal safety, don’t delay – contact the police, or use other appropriate community channels. (I’m aware that different communities have different experiences of dealing with the police, so that may not apply in your circumstances. But in any case, please take threats of physical harm seriously.)
7. Concentrate on encouraging your existing supporters, and turning “persuadable” neutrals into active supporters. Who are your allies – in the community and in politics, officialdom etc? Who’s in the middle and can be swung to your side? What’s the best way of doing that? Don’t waste time and energy trying to persuade the trolls and the haters, or even people who just sincerely disagree with you. [There are a lot of excellent guides out there about messaging – I’ve got no pretensions to be a comms person, so I’ll leave that area to others!]
8. Who are the key backers of the proposal you are opposing? In the case of organisations, what are their pressure points? Who are key decision-makers within these organisations? Can you get them moved on from their roles? No-one wants to spend the rest of their career associated with a failing or failed project, especially when they can be publicly called out as the reason for its failure – we saw that at NZTA (Waka Kotahi) after the Basin Reserve flyover proposal was defeated.
   
9. Your aim is to stop a bad project being built. But it’s often easier to delay a project into non-existence than to stop it outright. The longer the start of a project can be delayed – in particular, the signing of contracts to construct it – the more likely it is that economic circumstances will change, that your opponent’s chief personnel will change, or that the Government will change.
   
   New Governments like nothing better than cancelling the previous Government’s pet projects (which is not always a good thing!!), and within institutions and businesses, projects are often identified with a particular leader: when the leader departs, so does the organisation’s commitment to the project. In the case of cyclical industries, a project that appears economically viable on the upswing can be a wasted investment on the downswing. Capitalists want swift return on their investments, and most of them will move on if they think they’re not going to get it.So, as well as seeking to defeat projects outright, do whatever you can to stop contracts being signed and shovels going in the ground. Every delay will reduce your opponents’ morale, increase the amount of money they need to spend just to keep the project ticking over (all those salaries and expenses soon add up) and make the projects’ supporters more disillusioned. In the case of the proposed Aramoana aluminium smelter, even those community members most fervently in favour of it got sick of waiting and moved on to other causes as the delays and false starts mounted up.However, delaying a project rather than defeating it can cause it to rise up from the grave, vampire-like, when you’re looking the other way. If you can press on until you get legal protection for the site that is threatened by the project, that is well worth doing – as is changing public opinion to the point that such projects no longer have social licence.
   

   “Stop the Flyover” rally leaflet.

About your opposition

1. It’s easy to look at big organisations like the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi), or big mining companies, and think they must be on top of everything: that their strategies are tried and tested, their experts are really expert, and their media and social media people are all over every possible channel.But my experience is that, mostly, that isn’t true. Big organisations are often slow-moving, bureaucratic, and assume they can win just by turning up, or by having Government support. Perhaps your group is small – but that also means it can be nimble, and it can try out multiple tactics. When big organisations full of big egos face agile, determined opposition, they get rattled and they make mistakes. That’s especially true in legal processes, and I say more about that below.
2. Another thing in your favour is that the people in that big organisation you’re opposing mostly don’t care about the project they’re trying to foist on you. They care about their pay check, they care about career advancement, they care about their personal and professional reputation. On the other hand, you care deeply about your whenua and your community. You care about your home. You care about your family.That has several implications. First, it makes the individuals who are leading these projects vulnerable to reputational and career damage. I believe all individuals deserve to be treated with respect, and I don’t believe in targeting ordinary workers, but in my view, campaigners should make it very clear to the leadership of their opposition that the price of trying to push ahead with their project is likely to be professional failure and reputational harm – to both their companies and themselves. You want them to get to the point where they dread thinking about the project they’re working on, and want nothing more than to move on to something else.
3. Do your research, and do it well! There is lots of information available, much of it online, about companies and institutions. When it comes to New Zealand company directors, shareholders etc, there is a lot of information about those individuals available on the New Zealand Companies Register at https://companies-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/. Every company, every Government agency, has facts it doesn’t want to come to light, skeletons in the closet. Stick to the facts – don’t make things up – but be diligent in uncovering those facts. If you can back up your discoveries with solid evidence, you may be able to get the media interested.
4. This is Aotearoa, where the odds a member of your campaign will know or be related to someone in your opponent’s company or Government agency are high. What’s more, there are probably people working for your opponents who don’t agree with the project you’re opposing. Try to make contact with individuals working for the opposition, and cultivate them as contacts and discreet sources of information. (Even the threat that your campaign is trying to sweet-talk their staff will be enough to make your opposition jittery and put them on the defensive.)
   

   Closeup of No Flyover banner.

Engaging in a legal process

An important part of defeating the Basin Reserve flyover proposal was our successful use of the legal options available to us. This time round, the legal options available to opponents are different, and more restrictive. In this briefing, I talk about using legal processes in general terms, not the specifics of legal action under the new Fast-Track Approvals Act. I’ll try to add supplementary material to this guide once those legal options have become clear.

Things to consider as a community group:

1. What are your resources? You’re almost certainly fighting a larger, more experienced, and better funded adversary. But you do have resources, and it’s important to recognise that. Remember: All that your opponents have riding on the outcome are their job titles and promotion prospects. But, for some of your supporters, their whole way of life may be on the line. So you will start with the advantage in determination and commitment.
2. Are you a legal entity? If not, you either need to become one (e.g. an Incorporated Society) or partner with an existing Incorporated Society who will formally take the legal action. You must avoid your members becoming legally liable for the costs of legal action.
3. Choosing the right lawyer is vital. Ideally, they should be affordable, easy to work with, thoroughly versed in the relevant law, and good in court: you want the judge to be eating out of their hand. However, lawyers that meet those criteria may not come cheap or be easy to find.
4. Once you’re in a legal process, the media is required to give you at least the appearance of equal treatment. Complain, vigorously and publicly, if they don’t.
5. Depending on the legal options available to you, you may end up needing to liaise with staff from organisations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, or court staff. If so, be pleasant and professional with them. They are almost always trying to do a good, neutral job. Cultivating them can help you get “behind the scenes” tips that may be very helpful, e.g. who isn’t getting on with whom on the opposition side. 
6. (If relevant to your situation) Expert witnesses who’ll appear for you are treasures. Find them early and treat them well. Recognise that they must remain independent, but ensure that they are thoroughly versed in the legal process. Sometimes, securing an expert witness amounts to which side approaches them first. There are rules when expert witnesses submit to court about when they can talk to you; be sure to follow these.
7. (If relevant to your situation) Individual submitters are also very valuable, especially those who can speak to their personal connection with the area under threat from the proposal. Individual submitters should not pretend to be experts, unless they genuinely are.
8.  Before going into the Basin Board of Inquiry process, I was daunted by the thought of having to break down our opponent’s expert evidence and expert witnesses. I shouldn’t have been, because much of the opponent’s expert evidence was of poor quality. The opponent expected to win easily and evidently hadn’t briefed or chosen their witnesses well. Many of their witnesses:
   • Didn’t know the specific subject matter (they may have had the right general expertise, but no expertise relevant to the project in question)
   • Didn’t in fact have the claimed general expertise in the area of evidence under discussion
   • Performed poorly under cross-examination: generally, this included being unable to answer relevant questions, attempting to answer questions beyond their expertise, or getting defensive and annoying the judge.
9. If you are engaged in a legal process, ask your lawyer for advice about what you can say about the process in your internal and external communications, including social media, and how to say it. You may need to strike a balance between the need not to prejudice your case versus your political and comms needs.
10. It’s your opponent’s job to defend their proposal and yours to defeat it. Politically, you may need to put up an alternative proposal, but in the legal process your job is to defeat their proposal, not advance a counter-proposal of your own. Make them do all the hard work. Odds are, they’ll mess it up, and give you an opening.
11. This is hard mahi, and engaging with a legal process, with its strict timelines and arcane language (go, Team Latin!) is probably the hardest of all. You don’t want everyone in your group tied up on the legal side, but those who take on that responsibility will almost certainly need to step back from other campaigning during the weeks leading up to and including the court process. Afterwards, they are going to need a break. While those people are so heavily committed, what support can your group and your community offer them – perhaps dropping off meals or offering help with childcare? A listening ear, someone not involved in the legal minutiae whom they can vent to when they need to, can also be a big help.
    The Government’s suite of destructive fast-track projects threatens us all. Let us commit to defeating these fast-track projects, and protecting te taiao and our communities, using the spectrum of nonviolent means available to us. Kia kaha!

– Tim Jones, former Co-Convener, Save the Basin Campaign Inc.
Photo credit: Ebony Lamb

Key resources

This guide is a once-over. Here are three in-depth guides I recommend:

350.org Climate Resistance Handbook: A very good general guide, written mainly in a US context. Goes in-depth into areas such as communications strategy.
How Nonviolence Works (PDF): Combines two 1980s guides from Aotearoa on nonviolent direct action campaigning. Especially strong in how the different stages and aspects of a campaign work, plus effective organising for the nonviolent direct action phase of a campaign..
Rules for Radicals: Saul Alinsky’s classic guide to winning campaigns and putting your opponents on the back foot. Cynical but effective! This link is to a summary, but the book is fairly widely available.

Also, check out 350 Aotearoa’s map of proposed fast-track projects.

Bonus reading

If you want to delve further into the successes and failures of campaigns in the social media era, and why campaigns tend to fall into the trap of repeating the same tactic despite diminishing returns, I also recommend Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and tear gas : the power and fragility of networked protest (2017)

For a short, well-illustrated history of protest movement in Aotearoa, written especially for young people, I recommend Mandy Hager’s book Protest! Shaping Aotearoa.

And finally, my notes are written for nonviolent campaigns, but there is a great deal of relevant strategic wisdom in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. One of the key insights is into the value of misdirecting your opponent – make them look one way while you’re preparing to attack them from another.

Acknowledgements: many thanks to Frances Mountier and Tess Upperton for their feedback on the first draft.