You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.
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 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.
Good afternoon.
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?
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
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.
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.
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 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 the various deathsts we've got.
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.
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, 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 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.
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 it and if I like it, bang there it goes to the committee.
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
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 get around them because they want to get on and build things in this country. And that's a good thing.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 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 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 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 clear that the intent of the legislation is to get on and build and get consented and originally slicing projects.
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.
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 that we hadn't got the balance right. I think we've made some changes to get that balance right.
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.
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 the legislation into law by the end of the year. So yeah, next few months.
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?
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.
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 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 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.
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news Talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.