Hūhana Lyndon and Chris Penk. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith / Louis Collins
The government is proposing changes to the Public Works Act, including incentivising payments of up to $150,000 for early land sales.
If the plan goes ahead, landowners would not be able to submit objections to the Environment Court anymore - instead that would be handled by the minister for land information or the local authority.
Landowners that chose to sell when faced with compulsory acquisition would get bonus payments - the earlier they relent, the bigger.
The government's view is this would save both sides from resorting to expensive litigation, and save developers from costly delays to construction.
It would be backed with protections. The option for judicial review, or for valuations to be reassessed by the Land Valuation Tribunal, would remain. Māori land would still have the option to go to the Environment Court, however, in recognition of historical improper confiscation and the complex ownership structures that often came with such land.
The policy only applies to Roads of National Significance and fast-track approval act projects.
The Green Party objects to the changes, saying cutting the court out of public land disputes is an attempt to centralise control.
"I think fundamentally the ability for landowners to go to an independent authority to provide objections is a real concern," Green MP Hūhana Lyndon told RNZ's Morning Report on Monday.
"All roads lead to the deciding minister, which is no different to the way that the government has been operating with the fast-track [regime] - removing the checks and balances for the community, but also now for the landowner…
"The thing is that they are seeking to speed up the process, but ultimately where this informed landowner consent sits within the space, you may provide incentives to the landowner, but will they have the time and the ability to be able to access the relevant technicians that they need to inform their decision, as well as the negotiation with the Crown on these matters? And that's part of the concern."
Lyndon said an assurance Maori would still have access to the Environment Court "doesn't provide much comfort".
"Māori landowners will still have to give up their land through compulsory acquisition. And the minister has heard from me - as well as other stakeholders - around concerns for whenua Māori, that he didn't consider that within his review that he established last year."
Land Information Minister Chris Penk told Morning Report protected Māori land "as defined, will be outside the scheme".
"They still will have the right to go to the Environment court to plead their case and also have the incentive payment. And the reason for that is there are more complex ownership structures oftentimes of Māori land, whether it's multiple owners or perhaps having a complex governance arrangement post-Treaty settlement. So we're respecting that, and we're not changing that in respect of that right to go to the Environment Court."
Labour has not ruled out backing the changes, but want to see more detail.
"I appreciate that people want to speed up the process," Lyndon said, "but informed consent for landowners and being able to take your concerns to the Environment Court is a part of natural justice, and this is being removed by the government."
Penk said there was a "balance to be struck between private property rights on the hand and the community goods, associated with infrastructure like, schools, roads, hospitals, and so on".
"And so the point of the balance is, number one, actually recognising the disruption and making an acknowledgement of that in addition to the value of the land itself of course, which is already paid, with those extra amounts - including an incentive payment to do it more quickly.
"And from the private property owner's point of view, actually it's a process to have something a bit more streamlined, and have more certainty."
He said it would cost objectors a lot less than going to the Environment Court, and if a decision-maker was "deemed to be unreasonable - and that could be me or a future minister or again the local government - that could still go to the High Court for judicial review".
"And finally, can I just add in there if you've got a dispute about the amount of compensation, the amount of valuation, that will still be available, to be disputed by the land evaluation office."
Asked if it was fair to expect those with objections to a large government-backed project to have a minister from that same government decide on their case, instead of a court, Penk said: "The point is actually that the community - by which I mean the New Zealand electorate - in terms of the roads of national significance program, which is included in the amended regime, these things are greatly desired by the community. They've got huge economic growth potential when we get those four-lane motorways up and down the country, including the Northland corridor - that's so important for them.
"And to have years of delays in some cases, completely unnecessarily, and that is without any additional, effective rights being accrued to the landowner in question, you know, we've got to balance that up."
He said it was unclear how many would take advantage of the incentive payments - "anecdotally, there would be a number".
"I don't want to be too specific or specific at all actually, about any papers that are on my desk at the moment, because of course they relate to real-life situations - some of which are in front of the court, which is of course the whole point.
"But, you know, it's, it's not unheard of for these to last more than five years' worth of legal wrangling, which, you know, serves no one really."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
