Bishop: Releasing list of fast-track applicants ‘would lead to lobbying’

Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop has refused to release a list of fast-track applicants under the Official Information Act, but his reasoning has confused Suze Keith, the Tarras local who sought the list. 
Bishop refused to provide the list because he believed doing so would jeopardise proper procedures. He said the information would inspire “extensive lobbying, even campaigning, both for and against applications”. But the requested information was merely a list of applicants, not final decisions or related advice, something Keith does not believe is covered by the section of the Act that Bishop used to deny the request.
The relevant section, as Bishop explained, can be used to withhold information if its release “would harm the orderly and effective conduct of the relevant decision-making process” – would, not could. A complaint has been made about this decision to the Ombudsman, and Bishop’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 
The Fast-Track Approvals Bill has attracted heavy public scrutiny, but one part remains shrouded in mystery: Schedule 2B. This section contains a list of projects that will automatically get approval should the bill pass, but they haven’t been released to the public. 
On June 17, Tarras resident Suze Keith asked Bishop for a list of these projects by leveraging the Official Information Act. Keith didn’t ask for the final list of baked-in projects, she only requested the list of applicants to the fast-track. In her request, Keith cited “extremely high public interest” in the bill and the projects it would automatically greenlight. Public interest is a key factor in determining if otherwise-guarded information must be made public.
A month later, her request was denied by Bishop’s office; the information was withheld under the Official Information Act’s Section 9(2)(f)(iv), which Keith promptly looked up, and was confused by what she found. 
According to the Ombudsman’s guide, this section allows an information request to be denied when that material is “related to executive government decision making processes; that has or will be tendered to Ministers or Cabinet; by Ministers or officials; where disclosure would harm the orderly and effective conduct of the relevant decision making process; and most often on a temporary basis – while the advice remains under active consideration”. 
In short: it’s used to shield official decision-making processes from outside influence. In this case, in Bishop’s words, it was used “to maintain the constitutional conventions for the time being which protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials”. 
This struck Keith as odd. She had not asked for any advice or anything relating to decision-making processes, merely a list of applicants – not even the final selections. 
Bishop’s response went on to explain that because decisions on the bill are yet to be made, “releasing the list of applicants at this time would impact the orderly and effective conduct of executive government”, and “result in extensive lobbying, even campaigning, both for and against applications ahead of Cabinet consideration”. Bishop explicitly feared “attempts would be made to influence Cabinet Ministers”. 
To Keith, this reasoning was “a bit rough”. She told Newsroom the “extensive lobbying” Bishop cited was already happening, “it’s just that’s being done by the proponent, not the public”. She said major developers had been “campaigning and lobbying ministers about their projects” since the fast-track was released, and argued Bishop’s fears of “lobbying” smelled of a double standard.
Bishop’s own coalition partner Minister for Regional Development Shane Jones took a private dinner with mining executives at which he floated the idea of applying to the fast-track, which they then proceeded to do, writing directly to Bishop and Jones in a letter espousing the billion dollars to be made on the coast with “no negative impacts to the environment, in fact, with some benefits”.
Up north, Trans Tasman Minerals wants to build a wildly unpopular seabed mining operation on the Taranaki Bight, and has publicly stated itsdesire to use the fast-track to do so. The group’s parent company, Manuka Resources, put out a public statement saying it had been “formally invited” by the New Zealand Government, something it said was a “positive step”.  
The 27,000-plus public submissions on the bill – almost entirely opposed – were not heard directly by these ministers, but were heard by a select committee so overwhelmed it had to split itself in two to cover all the interested oral submitters. 
Keith said the fast-track would “attract cowboys who don’t need to maintain social licence to operate because they’re coming in for a one-off hit, and don’t need to build that community goodwill”.
The Environmental Defense Society has caught wind of the information refusal, and has lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. Section nine is subject to a public interest test, meaning if the Ombudsman decides the information is of significance, Bishop’s office would have to release it. 
Shay Schlaepfer, the chief operating officer of the society, said: “Scheduled projects are fundamental to the potential impact of the bill, because the bill is designed in a way that almost guarantees approval of them. So people have a right to know what is being considered, especially because they won’t have any opportunity to submit on the final list.”
One of the society’s own requests recently came back successfully. Its August newsletter notes “we have been advised that at least 78 projects are under active consideration, the exact nature of which remains a heavily guarded secret”.