August 24, 2024 • 11 mins
The Government announced this afternoon that Cabinet has agreed to recommend a suite of changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
These changes would require applications to be sent to a panel of experts to streamline approval.
Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, joins Tim Beveridge on The Weekend Collective to discuss the new recommendations.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
This afternoon, the government has changed or backed down, if
you like, from their original decision for the Fast Track
Approvals Bill. Previously that recommended giving three ministers sign off
powers to approve major projects, but today the Infrastructure Minister
announced the final say, we'll rest with an expert panel,
which will include expertise and environmental matters, will include an
(00:34):
EWE Authority representative only when required by treaty settlements, and
will include MARI development into our Mari expertise in place
of Marto Ranger Mari. It's all a bit dense actually.
To help us get on top of it, we're joined
by the Minister for Infrastructure. Chris Biship is with me now, Chris,
Good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
I thought a lot of people have thought that the
special power resting with those three ministers might make a
real difference. But now we've got an expert panel deciding.
As with the last Labor government's fast track process, have
you just checked out?
Speaker 3 (01:07):
No, this is about listening to the feedback from submitters
and also making the process a bit more clearer and
simpler and more elegant. One would say. So. The Labor
government's fast track process has actually worked pretty well. They've
accelerated a range of different projects, most of which have
been agreed to by the Pedel and we've essentially taken
that architecture. But the key difference between their version and
(01:29):
ours is at it's a one stop shop. So the
fast track under Labor was just about the RMA, only
ours is about all of the various permits and consents
that you need to get on a bill project. So
it's a much more ambitious regime.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
How confident are you you're going to be able to
get the decisions made that you want because you are
giving up a level of power of influence or power
over it by the ministers no longer having the final say.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, it's about getting the balance right and finding the
sweet spot. So ministers or a minister the Minister for
Infrastructure still have the power to essentially accept projects upon
application and send them to the expert panel, and then
the panel will make the final decision and they'll have
to balance up the environmental consideration for the economic considerations,
apply the conditions and then ultimately if they decide that
(02:21):
it's just simply not a goer they will make that decision.
So look, I think it's a good balance wreck that
listens to the feedback coming from submissions that ministers had
too much power, but also sends a very clear message
that we want to get on with development, we want
to build houses, we want to build renewable energy, and
all of the things that he's on needs to address
(02:42):
the various deathsts we've got.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Should we really be afraid of ministers having power, because
when you look at the power that, for instance, the
Minister of Immigration has over people's futures, what's wrong with
the ministers actually who have been elected having the power
to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Well, that is a good point. I mean, the Minister
for the Environment, through the RMA already has big, big powers,
you know, to call in projects, to direct councils, to
make various different plan changes and things like that. One
of the ironies of the whole thing is that, as
Minister for r and a reform in another wearing another hat,
I signed off on Wellington's district plan changes, which you know,
(03:19):
most most people, not everyone, but most people seem to
think was really good that I had that power, and
it was good that I was able to override the
decision of an independent hearings panel and then essentially agree
with the Council. So these things do go and swings
roundabouts a bit. But as I say, what we're doing
is to keep it simple. The Minister for Infrastructure rather
than the three one minister. The Minister instructures me at
(03:42):
the moment you know, hopefully we will be for a while.
Minister for Infrastructure will pick the projects, seeing them to
the panel, and the panel will have the final sign off.
And I think that's a good balance.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Is that really the key if you want people to
take it away, it's looked like we're giving the we've
given the final stade of this panel, but I have
the power. I'm basically look you like the sort of
taking everyone's betting, slips and fielding. That's probably the wrong analogy,
but you get the gist. That's the wrong analogy totally.
I just made that up. But you know what I mean.
You are acting as a funnel, as a conduit. Like
if you've got a project, my ministry will look at
(04:12):
it and if I like it, bang there it goes
to the committee.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
That is essentially how it will work. Yes, and under
law I'll have to take into account a range of
things to look at when we make the decision or
I make the decision to send it off to a panel.
But look, the intention of the legislation is to get
on was nationally and regionally significant projects. And we also
released today the list of applicants that have come through
(04:37):
so far. From a project point of view, forty percent
of them are housing, urban development twenty four percent or infrastructure,
eighteen percent are renewable energy. There's some primary industry projects
as well, so three hundred and eighty four applications already.
I mean, this is the evidence of our planning laws
and stuff, is that people want to use SASTRAK to
(04:58):
get around them because they want to get on and
build things in this country. And that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Who were the submitters or what was the what were
the submission that you really thought, oh, you know, you've
got a good point, will make a couple of changes.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
One of the it's not any particular individual submission, but
the a broad theme coming through the submissions was look,
you've gone a bit too far here. You should let
leave it over to the panel to make the final call.
And in the end we said, okay, well, that's there
some legitimate critiques there, and it's actually the way the
Labor fast Track works and it's worked pretty well. So
(05:30):
we've agreed with that. And you know, so it was
more than the individual submission, but you know, broad thematics
coming through to the Select Committee.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Bolly, you must be loving the number of times you
having to go credit to labor. But you know, anyway,
good on you. Now the time frames for you know
what the situation that we've got, Now, how much quicker
are we really going to see projects come to fruition?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Oh? I think it will speed things up. So what
happens now is we've had three hundred and forty three
and eighty four applications. I should say, we'll be considering
those projects to be lifted in the bill in the
coming weeks and months. We want to get the bill
into law by the end of the year. The projects
that we select to be listed in the bill will
then go off to the panels automatically, and so we
(06:13):
haven't made a final call on exactly how many and
which ones I hate into it. We're doing that over
the next few weeks and then those projects will be
towards the panel and you know, many, many projects I
hope will be consented and permitted next year, and that
will give us a really nice pipeline of projects to
start getting on with and start building. You know, as
(06:34):
I've been saying to a bunch of people, you know,
we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. We've got
a deficit of about one hundred billion bucks. We need
to get on and build things. We have a housing crisis.
You know, some of the highest house prices in the
developed world, you know, high rents. We need to get
on and build more houses. And we've got very ambitious
climate goals. And you know, we have a need to
energy chordage in this country. You know, we've shortage of
gas and a shortage of renewables to get on and
(06:56):
provide powers. So we do need to get on and
build a few things. And it's just become too hard
in this country to do that. And so that's what
fast Track is all about.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Okay, So the panel, it's I mean, everything's politics, isn't it.
In people, how do you choose who's going to be
on the panel?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Oh, so that the panels work in the same way
that the panels under the existing fast Track work, which
is that they are a range of legal experts and
they have to have environmental expertise. There has to be
some environmental expertise on the panel. There has to be
mari developments in Tao Maori on the panel as well,
and then economic expertise as well, and then there's essentially
(07:32):
legal experts who go through that very technical process of
applying the conditions and the consent conditions that you need
for a project. You long long lists of conditions. That's
a very technical process and it's essentially a legal process.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
So it's not so substantive where they might look at
it something or we don't like the look of this
for maybe some other reasons which you wouldn't have anticipated.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
No, I mean, the fact that the government or the
Minister of Infrastructure has sent the project to a panel
means that the government is interested in fast tracking it,
getting it consented and getting it permitted. The role of
the panel will be to go through and apply the
conditions upon which the project will happen. But as I say,
we've also given the final decision making authority to the panel.
(08:19):
So if the panel goes through and says look we
want to do this, we want to do this condition
this permit, but then they actually decide, look, actually it's
impossible to do the impact on the environment is so great,
we don't think the project should happen. That will be
their decision rather than the decision of ministers. What if
you don't like it, Well, that's the power that we
(08:40):
have decided to give up and give it to the
panel to make that decision. But you know, we are
sending a very clear message through the legislative design and
the architecture of the legislation that we want projects to
take place. The purpose statement and the legislation is going
to be very important, and the purpose statement makes it
(09:00):
clear that the intent of the legislation is to get
on and build and get consented and originally slicing projects.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Okay, if I was going to be politically throughout it,
I'd say, oh, look, you're just going to have this
panel set up to rubber stamp things, because once bishop
says he loves it, let's go.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
I don't think that's fair. It's about finding the sweet
spot between ministers making it clear they want things built
and they want things consented, but also allowing a allowing
a panel to turn something down if it has such
a deleterious or negative impact on the environment, or for
a range of other reasons. So it's about finding that
sweet spot. The feed that we had so far is
(09:37):
that we hadn't got the balance right. I think we've
made some changes to get that balance right.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Okay, So you mentioned those three hundred and eighty four projects.
How many are we going to get off the out
of the blocks and in what sort of time frame
first cab off the ranks so to speak.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Well, well, it's hard to say on that right now.
We're just working our way through the We've received an
independent report from the advisory group on that, we're receiving
further advice on it. We're just working our way through that.
So we will make decisions on that in the next
few weeks a couple of months. And attached that list
to the legislation and the intention is to pass from
(10:12):
the legislation into law by the end of the year.
So yeah, next few months.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Sorry, one just last little question. How much time difference
do you think Plan A being the plan you've just
abandoned into Plan B where you got the expert panel,
but it's been funneled through the MISS infrastructure. What time difference.
Have you been advised that this will make to your plans?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Oh, it doesn't slow down fast track. It doesn't slow
down the fast track projects. It just just changes the
changes the way it works basically, So it's no intention
to slow down. This is just as I say it's about.
We've always said we're open to sensible changes either. You
know some of the sensible changes we've adopted, but it
won't slow down the projects.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Excellent. Look, I really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thanks
so much. Thanks matche Yes, that's Chris Bishop miss for Infrastructure.
We text your feedback we're on. Did you talk back
on this after half past? I don't mind saying I
did think when I was writing my questions now for this,
because this press release has only been out for about
an hour and a bit, that it did look like
(11:13):
a checking out. But the way he's described it, I
would say I'm reasonably assuaged. If icking use that rule
that expression. What do you make of it? Do you
think that this is the government backing down or is
it the government listening to some sensible advice. It's going
to be funneled. Everything's going to be funneled through the
Minister for Infrastructure, tying in his colleagues were necessary when
it comes to transport or environment, et cetera. And then
(11:35):
the final say is with an independent panel. Not so much.
I'm not going to use the reuord Ruber stamping actually,
but to go through the legal processes and check that
everything stacks up, and then away we go.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
This afternoon, the government has changed or backed down, if
you like, from their original decision for the Fast Track
Approvals Bill. Previously that recommended giving three ministers sign off
powers to approve major projects, but today the Infrastructure Minister
announced the final say, we'll rest with an expert panel,
which will include expertise and environmental matters, will include an
(00:34):
EWE Authority representative only when required by treaty settlements, and
will include MARI development into our Mari expertise in place
of Marto Ranger Mari. It's all a bit dense actually.
To help us get on top of it, we're joined
by the Minister for Infrastructure. Chris Biship is with me now, Chris,
Good afternoon.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
I thought a lot of people have thought that the
special power resting with those three ministers might make a
real difference. But now we've got an expert panel deciding.
As with the last Labor government's fast track process, have
you just checked out?
Speaker 3 (01:07):
No, this is about listening to the feedback from submitters
and also making the process a bit more clearer and
simpler and more elegant. One would say. So. The Labor
government's fast track process has actually worked pretty well. They've
accelerated a range of different projects, most of which have
been agreed to by the Pedel and we've essentially taken
that architecture. But the key difference between their version and
(01:29):
ours is at it's a one stop shop. So the
fast track under Labor was just about the RMA, only
ours is about all of the various permits and consents
that you need to get on a bill project. So
it's a much more ambitious regime.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
How confident are you you're going to be able to
get the decisions made that you want because you are
giving up a level of power of influence or power
over it by the ministers no longer having the final say.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Yeah, it's about getting the balance right and finding the
sweet spot. So ministers or a minister the Minister for
Infrastructure still have the power to essentially accept projects upon
application and send them to the expert panel, and then
the panel will make the final decision and they'll have
to balance up the environmental consideration for the economic considerations,
apply the conditions and then ultimately if they decide that
(02:21):
it's just simply not a goer they will make that decision.
So look, I think it's a good balance wreck that
listens to the feedback coming from submissions that ministers had
too much power, but also sends a very clear message
that we want to get on with development, we want
to build houses, we want to build renewable energy, and
all of the things that he's on needs to address
(02:42):
the various deathsts we've got.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Should we really be afraid of ministers having power, because
when you look at the power that, for instance, the
Minister of Immigration has over people's futures, what's wrong with
the ministers actually who have been elected having the power
to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Well, that is a good point. I mean, the Minister
for the Environment, through the RMA already has big, big powers,
you know, to call in projects, to direct councils, to
make various different plan changes and things like that. One
of the ironies of the whole thing is that, as
Minister for r and a reform in another wearing another hat,
I signed off on Wellington's district plan changes, which you know,
(03:19):
most most people, not everyone, but most people seem to
think was really good that I had that power, and
it was good that I was able to override the
decision of an independent hearings panel and then essentially agree
with the Council. So these things do go and swings
roundabouts a bit. But as I say, what we're doing
is to keep it simple. The Minister for Infrastructure rather
than the three one minister. The Minister instructures me at
(03:42):
the moment you know, hopefully we will be for a while.
Minister for Infrastructure will pick the projects, seeing them to
the panel, and the panel will have the final sign off.
And I think that's a good balance.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Is that really the key if you want people to
take it away, it's looked like we're giving the we've
given the final stade of this panel, but I have
the power. I'm basically look you like the sort of
taking everyone's betting, slips and fielding. That's probably the wrong analogy,
but you get the gist. That's the wrong analogy totally.
I just made that up. But you know what I mean.
You are acting as a funnel, as a conduit. Like
if you've got a project, my ministry will look at
(04:12):
it and if I like it, bang there it goes
to the committee.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
That is essentially how it will work. Yes, and under
law I'll have to take into account a range of
things to look at when we make the decision or
I make the decision to send it off to a panel.
But look, the intention of the legislation is to get
on was nationally and regionally significant projects. And we also
released today the list of applicants that have come through
(04:37):
so far. From a project point of view, forty percent
of them are housing, urban development twenty four percent or infrastructure,
eighteen percent are renewable energy. There's some primary industry projects
as well, so three hundred and eighty four applications already.
I mean, this is the evidence of our planning laws
and stuff, is that people want to use SASTRAK to
(04:58):
get around them because they want to get on and
build things in this country. And that's a good thing.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Who were the submitters or what was the what were
the submission that you really thought, oh, you know, you've
got a good point, will make a couple of changes.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
One of the it's not any particular individual submission, but
the a broad theme coming through the submissions was look,
you've gone a bit too far here. You should let
leave it over to the panel to make the final call.
And in the end we said, okay, well, that's there
some legitimate critiques there, and it's actually the way the
Labor fast Track works and it's worked pretty well. So
(05:30):
we've agreed with that. And you know, so it was
more than the individual submission, but you know, broad thematics
coming through to the Select Committee.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Bolly, you must be loving the number of times you
having to go credit to labor. But you know, anyway,
good on you. Now the time frames for you know
what the situation that we've got, Now, how much quicker
are we really going to see projects come to fruition?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Oh? I think it will speed things up. So what
happens now is we've had three hundred and forty three
and eighty four applications. I should say, we'll be considering
those projects to be lifted in the bill in the
coming weeks and months. We want to get the bill
into law by the end of the year. The projects
that we select to be listed in the bill will
then go off to the panels automatically, and so we
(06:13):
haven't made a final call on exactly how many and
which ones I hate into it. We're doing that over
the next few weeks and then those projects will be
towards the panel and you know, many, many projects I
hope will be consented and permitted next year, and that
will give us a really nice pipeline of projects to
start getting on with and start building. You know, as
(06:34):
I've been saying to a bunch of people, you know,
we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. We've got
a deficit of about one hundred billion bucks. We need
to get on and build things. We have a housing crisis.
You know, some of the highest house prices in the
developed world, you know, high rents. We need to get
on and build more houses. And we've got very ambitious
climate goals. And you know, we have a need to
energy chordage in this country. You know, we've shortage of
gas and a shortage of renewables to get on and
(06:56):
provide powers. So we do need to get on and
build a few things. And it's just become too hard
in this country to do that. And so that's what
fast Track is all about.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Okay, So the panel, it's I mean, everything's politics, isn't it.
In people, how do you choose who's going to be
on the panel?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
Oh, so that the panels work in the same way
that the panels under the existing fast Track work, which
is that they are a range of legal experts and
they have to have environmental expertise. There has to be
some environmental expertise on the panel. There has to be
mari developments in Tao Maori on the panel as well,
and then economic expertise as well, and then there's essentially
(07:32):
legal experts who go through that very technical process of
applying the conditions and the consent conditions that you need
for a project. You long long lists of conditions. That's
a very technical process and it's essentially a legal process.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
So it's not so substantive where they might look at
it something or we don't like the look of this
for maybe some other reasons which you wouldn't have anticipated.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
No, I mean, the fact that the government or the
Minister of Infrastructure has sent the project to a panel
means that the government is interested in fast tracking it,
getting it consented and getting it permitted. The role of
the panel will be to go through and apply the
conditions upon which the project will happen. But as I say,
we've also given the final decision making authority to the panel.
(08:19):
So if the panel goes through and says look we
want to do this, we want to do this condition
this permit, but then they actually decide, look, actually it's
impossible to do the impact on the environment is so great,
we don't think the project should happen. That will be
their decision rather than the decision of ministers. What if
you don't like it, Well, that's the power that we
(08:40):
have decided to give up and give it to the
panel to make that decision. But you know, we are
sending a very clear message through the legislative design and
the architecture of the legislation that we want projects to
take place. The purpose statement and the legislation is going
to be very important, and the purpose statement makes it
(09:00):
clear that the intent of the legislation is to get
on and build and get consented and originally slicing projects.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Okay, if I was going to be politically throughout it,
I'd say, oh, look, you're just going to have this
panel set up to rubber stamp things, because once bishop
says he loves it, let's go.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
I don't think that's fair. It's about finding the sweet
spot between ministers making it clear they want things built
and they want things consented, but also allowing a allowing
a panel to turn something down if it has such
a deleterious or negative impact on the environment, or for
a range of other reasons. So it's about finding that
sweet spot. The feed that we had so far is
(09:37):
that we hadn't got the balance right. I think we've
made some changes to get that balance right.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Okay, So you mentioned those three hundred and eighty four projects.
How many are we going to get off the out
of the blocks and in what sort of time frame
first cab off the ranks so to speak.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Well, well, it's hard to say on that right now.
We're just working our way through the We've received an
independent report from the advisory group on that, we're receiving
further advice on it. We're just working our way through that.
So we will make decisions on that in the next
few weeks a couple of months. And attached that list
to the legislation and the intention is to pass from
(10:12):
the legislation into law by the end of the year.
So yeah, next few months.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Sorry, one just last little question. How much time difference
do you think Plan A being the plan you've just
abandoned into Plan B where you got the expert panel,
but it's been funneled through the MISS infrastructure. What time difference.
Have you been advised that this will make to your plans?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Oh, it doesn't slow down fast track. It doesn't slow
down the fast track projects. It just just changes the
changes the way it works basically, So it's no intention
to slow down. This is just as I say it's about.
We've always said we're open to sensible changes either. You
know some of the sensible changes we've adopted, but it
won't slow down the projects.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Excellent. Look, I really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thanks
so much. Thanks matche Yes, that's Chris Bishop miss for Infrastructure.
We text your feedback we're on. Did you talk back
on this after half past? I don't mind saying I
did think when I was writing my questions now for this,
because this press release has only been out for about
an hour and a bit, that it did look like
(11:13):
a checking out. But the way he's described it, I
would say I'm reasonably assuaged. If icking use that rule
that expression. What do you make of it? Do you
think that this is the government backing down or is
it the government listening to some sensible advice. It's going
to be funneled. Everything's going to be funneled through the
Minister for Infrastructure, tying in his colleagues were necessary when
it comes to transport or environment, et cetera. And then
(11:35):
the final say is with an independent panel. Not so much.
I'm not going to use the reuord Ruber stamping actually,
but to go through the legal processes and check that
everything stacks up, and then away we go.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.