Speaker 1: You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 2: This afternoon, the government has changed or backed down, if
Speaker 2: you like, from their original decision for the Fast Track
Speaker 2: Approvals Bill. Previously that recommended giving three ministers sign off
Speaker 2: powers to approve major projects, but today the Infrastructure Minister
Speaker 2: announced the final say, we'll rest with an expert panel,
Speaker 2: which will include expertise and environmental matters, will include an
Speaker 2: EWE Authority representative only when required by treaty settlements, and
Speaker 2: will include MARI development into our Mari expertise in place
Speaker 2: of Marto Ranger Mari. It's all a bit dense actually.
Speaker 2: To help us get on top of it, we're joined
Speaker 2: by the Minister for Infrastructure. Chris Biship is with me now, Chris,
Speaker 2: Good afternoon.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon.
Speaker 2: I thought a lot of people have thought that the
Speaker 2: special power resting with those three ministers might make a
Speaker 2: real difference. But now we've got an expert panel deciding.
Speaker 2: As with the last Labor government's fast track process, have
Speaker 2: you just checked out?
Speaker 3: No, this is about listening to the feedback from submitters
Speaker 3: and also making the process a bit more clearer and
Speaker 3: simpler and more elegant. One would say. So. The Labor
Speaker 3: government's fast track process has actually worked pretty well. They've
Speaker 3: accelerated a range of different projects, most of which have
Speaker 3: been agreed to by the Pedel and we've essentially taken
Speaker 3: that architecture. But the key difference between their version and
Speaker 3: ours is at it's a one stop shop. So the
Speaker 3: fast track under Labor was just about the RMA, only
Speaker 3: ours is about all of the various permits and consents
Speaker 3: that you need to get on a bill project. So
Speaker 3: it's a much more ambitious regime.
Speaker 2: How confident are you you're going to be able to
Speaker 2: get the decisions made that you want because you are
Speaker 2: giving up a level of power of influence or power
Speaker 2: over it by the ministers no longer having the final say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's about getting the balance right and finding the
Speaker 3: sweet spot. So ministers or a minister the Minister for
Speaker 3: Infrastructure still have the power to essentially accept projects upon
Speaker 3: application and send them to the expert panel, and then
Speaker 3: the panel will make the final decision and they'll have
Speaker 3: to balance up the environmental consideration for the economic considerations,
Speaker 3: apply the conditions and then ultimately if they decide that
Speaker 3: it's just simply not a goer they will make that decision.
Speaker 3: So look, I think it's a good balance wreck that
Speaker 3: listens to the feedback coming from submissions that ministers had
Speaker 3: too much power, but also sends a very clear message
Speaker 3: that we want to get on with development, we want
Speaker 3: to build houses, we want to build renewable energy, and
Speaker 3: all of the things that he's on needs to address
Speaker 3: the various deathsts we've got.
Speaker 2: Should we really be afraid of ministers having power, because
Speaker 2: when you look at the power that, for instance, the
Speaker 2: Minister of Immigration has over people's futures, what's wrong with
Speaker 2: the ministers actually who have been elected having the power
Speaker 2: to make those decisions.
Speaker 3: Well, that is a good point. I mean, the Minister
Speaker 3: for the Environment, through the RMA already has big, big powers,
Speaker 3: you know, to call in projects, to direct councils, to
Speaker 3: make various different plan changes and things like that. One
Speaker 3: of the ironies of the whole thing is that, as
Speaker 3: Minister for r and a reform in another wearing another hat,
Speaker 3: I signed off on Wellington's district plan changes, which you know,
Speaker 3: most most people, not everyone, but most people seem to
Speaker 3: think was really good that I had that power, and
Speaker 3: it was good that I was able to override the
Speaker 3: decision of an independent hearings panel and then essentially agree
Speaker 3: with the Council. So these things do go and swings
Speaker 3: roundabouts a bit. But as I say, what we're doing
Speaker 3: is to keep it simple. The Minister for Infrastructure rather
Speaker 3: than the three one minister. The Minister instructures me at
Speaker 3: the moment you know, hopefully we will be for a while.
Speaker 3: Minister for Infrastructure will pick the projects, seeing them to
Speaker 3: the panel, and the panel will have the final sign off.
Speaker 3: And I think that's a good balance.
Speaker 2: Is that really the key if you want people to
Speaker 2: take it away, it's looked like we're giving the we've
Speaker 2: given the final stade of this panel, but I have
Speaker 2: the power. I'm basically look you like the sort of
Speaker 2: taking everyone's betting, slips and fielding. That's probably the wrong analogy,
Speaker 2: but you get the gist. That's the wrong analogy totally.
Speaker 2: I just made that up. But you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: You are acting as a funnel, as a conduit. Like
Speaker 2: if you've got a project, my ministry will look at
Speaker 2: it and if I like it, bang there it goes
Speaker 2: to the committee.
Speaker 3: That is essentially how it will work. Yes, and under
Speaker 3: law I'll have to take into account a range of
Speaker 3: things to look at when we make the decision or
Speaker 3: I make the decision to send it off to a panel.
Speaker 3: But look, the intention of the legislation is to get
Speaker 3: on was nationally and regionally significant projects. And we also
Speaker 3: released today the list of applicants that have come through
Speaker 3: so far. From a project point of view, forty percent
Speaker 3: of them are housing, urban development twenty four percent or infrastructure,
Speaker 3: eighteen percent are renewable energy. There's some primary industry projects
Speaker 3: as well, so three hundred and eighty four applications already.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is the evidence of our planning laws
Speaker 3: and stuff, is that people want to use SASTRAK to
Speaker 3: get around them because they want to get on and
Speaker 3: build things in this country. And that's a good thing.
Speaker 2: Who were the submitters or what was the what were
Speaker 2: the submission that you really thought, oh, you know, you've
Speaker 2: got a good point, will make a couple of changes.
Speaker 3: One of the it's not any particular individual submission, but
Speaker 3: the a broad theme coming through the submissions was look,
Speaker 3: you've gone a bit too far here. You should let
Speaker 3: leave it over to the panel to make the final call.
Speaker 3: And in the end we said, okay, well, that's there
Speaker 3: some legitimate critiques there, and it's actually the way the
Speaker 3: Labor fast Track works and it's worked pretty well. So
Speaker 3: we've agreed with that. And you know, so it was
Speaker 3: more than the individual submission, but you know, broad thematics
Speaker 3: coming through to the Select Committee.
Speaker 2: Bolly, you must be loving the number of times you
Speaker 2: having to go credit to labor. But you know, anyway,
Speaker 2: good on you. Now the time frames for you know
Speaker 2: what the situation that we've got, Now, how much quicker
Speaker 2: are we really going to see projects come to fruition?
Speaker 3: Oh? I think it will speed things up. So what
Speaker 3: happens now is we've had three hundred and forty three
Speaker 3: and eighty four applications. I should say, we'll be considering
Speaker 3: those projects to be lifted in the bill in the
Speaker 3: coming weeks and months. We want to get the bill
Speaker 3: into law by the end of the year. The projects
Speaker 3: that we select to be listed in the bill will
Speaker 3: then go off to the panels automatically, and so we
Speaker 3: haven't made a final call on exactly how many and
Speaker 3: which ones I hate into it. We're doing that over
Speaker 3: the next few weeks and then those projects will be
Speaker 3: towards the panel and you know, many, many projects I
Speaker 3: hope will be consented and permitted next year, and that
Speaker 3: will give us a really nice pipeline of projects to
Speaker 3: start getting on with and start building. You know, as
Speaker 3: I've been saying to a bunch of people, you know,
Speaker 3: we have an infrastructure crisis in this country. We've got
Speaker 3: a deficit of about one hundred billion bucks. We need
Speaker 3: to get on and build things. We have a housing crisis.
Speaker 3: You know, some of the highest house prices in the
Speaker 3: developed world, you know, high rents. We need to get
Speaker 3: on and build more houses. And we've got very ambitious
Speaker 3: climate goals. And you know, we have a need to
Speaker 3: energy chordage in this country. You know, we've shortage of
Speaker 3: gas and a shortage of renewables to get on and
Speaker 3: provide powers. So we do need to get on and
Speaker 3: build a few things. And it's just become too hard
Speaker 3: in this country to do that. And so that's what
Speaker 3: fast Track is all about.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the panel, it's I mean, everything's politics, isn't it.
Speaker 2: In people, how do you choose who's going to be
Speaker 2: on the panel?
Speaker 3: Oh, so that the panels work in the same way
Speaker 3: that the panels under the existing fast Track work, which
Speaker 3: is that they are a range of legal experts and
Speaker 3: they have to have environmental expertise. There has to be
Speaker 3: some environmental expertise on the panel. There has to be
Speaker 3: mari developments in Tao Maori on the panel as well,
Speaker 3: and then economic expertise as well, and then there's essentially
Speaker 3: legal experts who go through that very technical process of
Speaker 3: applying the conditions and the consent conditions that you need
Speaker 3: for a project. You long long lists of conditions. That's
Speaker 3: a very technical process and it's essentially a legal process.
Speaker 2: So it's not so substantive where they might look at
Speaker 2: it something or we don't like the look of this
Speaker 2: for maybe some other reasons which you wouldn't have anticipated.
Speaker 3: No, I mean, the fact that the government or the
Speaker 3: Minister of Infrastructure has sent the project to a panel
Speaker 3: means that the government is interested in fast tracking it,
Speaker 3: getting it consented and getting it permitted. The role of
Speaker 3: the panel will be to go through and apply the
Speaker 3: conditions upon which the project will happen. But as I say,
Speaker 3: we've also given the final decision making authority to the panel.
Speaker 3: So if the panel goes through and says look we
Speaker 3: want to do this, we want to do this condition
Speaker 3: this permit, but then they actually decide, look, actually it's
Speaker 3: impossible to do the impact on the environment is so great,
Speaker 3: we don't think the project should happen. That will be
Speaker 3: their decision rather than the decision of ministers. What if
Speaker 3: you don't like it, Well, that's the power that we
Speaker 3: have decided to give up and give it to the
Speaker 3: panel to make that decision. But you know, we are
Speaker 3: sending a very clear message through the legislative design and
Speaker 3: the architecture of the legislation that we want projects to
Speaker 3: take place. The purpose statement and the legislation is going
Speaker 3: to be very important, and the purpose statement makes it
Speaker 3: clear that the intent of the legislation is to get
Speaker 3: on and build and get consented and originally slicing projects.
Speaker 2: Okay, if I was going to be politically throughout it,
Speaker 2: I'd say, oh, look, you're just going to have this
Speaker 2: panel set up to rubber stamp things, because once bishop
Speaker 2: says he loves it, let's go.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's fair. It's about finding the sweet
Speaker 3: spot between ministers making it clear they want things built
Speaker 3: and they want things consented, but also allowing a allowing
Speaker 3: a panel to turn something down if it has such
Speaker 3: a deleterious or negative impact on the environment, or for
Speaker 3: a range of other reasons. So it's about finding that
Speaker 3: sweet spot. The feed that we had so far is
Speaker 3: that we hadn't got the balance right. I think we've
Speaker 3: made some changes to get that balance right.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you mentioned those three hundred and eighty four projects.
Speaker 2: How many are we going to get off the out
Speaker 2: of the blocks and in what sort of time frame
Speaker 2: first cab off the ranks so to speak.
Speaker 3: Well, well, it's hard to say on that right now.
Speaker 3: We're just working our way through the We've received an
Speaker 3: independent report from the advisory group on that, we're receiving
Speaker 3: further advice on it. We're just working our way through that.
Speaker 3: So we will make decisions on that in the next
Speaker 3: few weeks a couple of months. And attached that list
Speaker 3: to the legislation and the intention is to pass from
Speaker 3: the legislation into law by the end of the year.
Speaker 3: So yeah, next few months.
Speaker 2: Sorry, one just last little question. How much time difference
Speaker 2: do you think Plan A being the plan you've just
Speaker 2: abandoned into Plan B where you got the expert panel,
Speaker 2: but it's been funneled through the MISS infrastructure. What time difference.
Speaker 2: Have you been advised that this will make to your plans?
Speaker 3: Oh, it doesn't slow down fast track. It doesn't slow
Speaker 3: down the fast track projects. It just just changes the
Speaker 3: changes the way it works basically, So it's no intention
Speaker 3: to slow down. This is just as I say it's about.
Speaker 3: We've always said we're open to sensible changes either. You
Speaker 3: know some of the sensible changes we've adopted, but it
Speaker 3: won't slow down the projects.
Speaker 2: Excellent. Look, I really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much. Thanks matche Yes, that's Chris Bishop miss for Infrastructure.
Speaker 2: We text your feedback we're on. Did you talk back
Speaker 2: on this after half past? I don't mind saying I
Speaker 2: did think when I was writing my questions now for this,
Speaker 2: because this press release has only been out for about
Speaker 2: an hour and a bit, that it did look like
Speaker 2: a checking out. But the way he's described it, I
Speaker 2: would say I'm reasonably assuaged. If icking use that rule
Speaker 2: that expression. What do you make of it? Do you
Speaker 2: think that this is the government backing down or is
Speaker 2: it the government listening to some sensible advice. It's going
Speaker 2: to be funneled. Everything's going to be funneled through the
Speaker 2: Minister for Infrastructure, tying in his colleagues were necessary when
Speaker 2: it comes to transport or environment, et cetera. And then
Speaker 2: the final say is with an independent panel. Not so much.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to use the reuord Ruber stamping actually,
Speaker 2: but to go through the legal processes and check that
Speaker 2: everything stacks up, and then away we go.
Speaker 1: For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news
Speaker 1: Talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio.