Kerre Woodham: On the Governments Fast Track Approvals Bill

It was interesting seeing the Governments backed down on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

And that's the thing about being in government, isn't it? Well, really any position of authority. You will be criticized whatever you do. It's a truism that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, you just simply can't. So when the government announced it would introduce the Fast-track Approvals Bill that would give final sign off on infrastructure projects to just three ministers, without the usual consent process, there was squawking. Much squawking, far too much power invested in the hands of just three ministers. Some of it was genuine. Some of it came from people like the Auditor General, who were a little bit concerned and I've got a big crush on the Auditor General after his searing analysis of where the money went under the previous administration, so if he's got concerns, so have I. But there was also just political squawking from the usual suspects. But it was a lot of power invested in the hands of just three men. And as the AUT’s professor in the School of Future Environments John Tookey told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast, had they gone ahead, it would have used up a lot of the Government's goodwill...   

"I suspected it was going to be an excessive investment in political capital that they might back away from, and sure enough that happened."

Exactly. So the Governments backtracked a little. The final decisions will be made by expert panels, which of course the government will stack with their own people, but they are also required to include environmental experts.

Now naturally, by pulling back a bit, there are concerns from those who are looking forward to absolutely getting cracking that now the process will not see any kind of improvement or speeding up. But, as Chris Bishop said, one of the troika of incredibly powerful ministers, there was a real risk that had they gone ahead, the ministers would have been likely to face legal challenges and judicial review proceedings.

That was far more likely to happen than if the decisions were made by expert panels and that is very, very true. There would have been those who were genuinely concerned about a political/particular project, others who are more like vexatious litigants, who would just oppose every development on purely political grounds and to get up the schnoz of the government to put grit into the bureaucratic process to slow it down still further. But there was also a nod to those who don't trust ministers of any hue, having that much power.

And I have to say, I was a little bit nervous about three ministers having that much power, having seen what happens when you are given a pot of gold, as happened with New Zealand First and where they spent that money

. Some of it according to you, was money well spent on really good projects. Others looked like, you scratch my back,I'll scratch yours. So there was a little bit of concern about three ministers having that much power. What's actually changed? Well, Ministers will still get the say over which projects will be put forward to be considered by the expert panel. Chris Bishop, it's true, will no longer have the final sign off. But as Claire Trevett says in the New Zealand Herald, if he doesn't like a project, it won't go anywhere, he's the gatekeeper.

So I guess if you are involved in trying to make things happen, to get things done, does this give you any concern, any pause for thought whatsoever?  As Claire Trevett says, if a project doesn't look suitable, it's not going to go anywhere. As Chris Bishop said had the three ministers stayed solely responsible for the decision making, you bet your bippy there would have been lawsuits up the ying yang and judicial reviews and time wasting, and in the end more time and more money would have been spent fighting the dissenters. And do we trust ministers to have that level of power. Not entirely sure yet, it sets a precedent.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carry Wood of morning's podcast from
news Talk, said b.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
It was interesting seeing the government's back down on the
fast Track Approval spill. And that's the thing about being
in government, doesn't it. Well, really any position of authority,
you will be criticized whatever you do. It's a truism
that you cannot police all of the poliple all of

(00:32):
the time. You just simply can't. So when the government
announced it would introduce the fast Track Approval spill that
would give final sign off on infrastructure projects to just
three ministers without the usual consens process, there was squawking,
much squawking, far too much power invested in the hands

(00:55):
of just three ministers. Oh, some of it was genuine,
you know. Some of it came from people like the
Order to General who were a little bit concerned. And
I've got a big crush on the Auto to General
after his searing analysis of where the money went under
the previous administration. So if he's got concerns, so have I.

(01:19):
But there was also just political squawking from the usual suspects.
But it was a lot of power invested in the
hands of just three men. And as the AUT's professor
in the School of Future Environments, John Turkey told Mike
Costing and the Mic Costing breakfast, had they gone ahead,
it would have used up a lot of the government's goodwill.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
I suspected it was going to be an excessive investment
in political capital that might buck away from MA.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Sure enough that happened exactly so the government's back tracked
a little. The final decisions will be made by experts panels,
by expert panels, which of course the government will stack
with their own people, but they are also required to
include environmental experts. Naturally, by pulling back a bit, there

(02:07):
are concerns from those who are looking forward to absolutely
getting cracking that now the process will not see any
kind of improvement or speeding up. But as Chris Bishop said,
one of the troika of incredibly powerful ministers, there was
a real risk that had they gone ahead, the ministers
would have been likely to face legal challenges and judicial

(02:29):
review proceedings. That was far more likely to happen, and
that if the decisions were made by expert panels, and
that is very very true, there would have been those
who were genuinely concerned about a particular project, others who
are more like vexatious litigants who would just oppose every

(02:49):
development on purely political grounds and to get up the
snawes of the government to put grit into the bureaucratic
process to slow it down still further. But there was
also a nod to those who don't trust ministers of
any hue having that much power. And I have to
say I was a little bit nervous about three ministers

(03:15):
having that much power, having seen what happens when you
are given a pot of gold, as happened with New
Zealand first, and where they spent that money. It was,
you know, some of it, according to you, was money
well spent on really good projects. Others that looked like,
you know, you scratch my back, old scratch yours. So
there was a little bit of concern about three ministers

(03:38):
having that much power. What's actually changed, Well, ministers will
still get the say over which projects will be put
forward to be considered by the expert panel Chris Bishop.
It's true will no longer have the final sign of
But as clear Trevett says in the New Zealand Herald,
if he doesn't like a project, it won't go anywhere.

(04:00):
He's the gatekeeper So I guess, if you are involved
in trying to make things happen, to get things done,
does this give you any thought, any concern, any pause
for thought whatsoever? You know, as clear Trovet says, if
a project doesn't look suitable, it's not going to go anywhere.

(04:24):
As Chris Bishop said, had the three ministers stayed solely
responsible for the decision making, you bet your bippy, there
would have been lawsuits up for yin Yang and judicial
reviews and time wasting, and in the end, more time
and more money would have been spent fighting the dissenters.

(04:48):
And do we trust ministers to have that level of power?
I'm not entirely sure. Ye sets a precedent anyway, So
are we?

Speaker 1 (04:57):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.