Is the fast-track bill at risk of corruption?
New Zealand is known for our standing as one of the world’s least-corrupt nations. For me, our country is also special because of how close politicians can be to our communities and local problems.
But according to a recent Ipsos survey on populism, disillusionment with politicians around the world is rising, including in New Zealand. People believe that the system doesn’t work for ordinary people and is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful.
MPS of all stripes should be worried about those results, including two groups who matter to the coalition’s leadership: newly elected National MPS who will be working hard to earn the trust of their electorates, and Act MPS talking to the top end of town about the risk of corruption from Chris Bishop’s fast-track bill.
The problem with the fast-track bill is that it concentrates decisionmaking power in just three ministers — Chris Bishop, Shane Jones and Simeon Brown. Act doesn’t have a minister in the circle of approvals. The trio would have the power to determine which projects get fasttrack approval.
Unlike Labour’s fast-track system during the Covid recovery, it’s ministers who have the final say on whether a project is granted consent, without the environmental bottom lines. National has not made available a list of potential projects that would be considered for fasttracking.
This bill has faced considerable opposition from environmental groups, scientists, business groups and government watchdogs. Half of respondents to a recent TVNZ poll opposed it. But it’s not just the impact on the environment that should worry New Zealanders, it’s also the turn toward populism that the bill represents.
Populists, whether from the left or right, view themselves as strong leaders with a unique claim to be acting in the interests of the people. They are generally distrustful of “the system” and reject the legitimacy of institutions that act to constrain the exercise of their power.
In hurrying this extraordinary bill through, Chris Bishop and Shane Jones have been consistently dismissive of criticism. Despite there being little to no public scrutiny of this proposal during the election, they claim there is a mandate from the public for giving themselves this power. We are being told that the only way to fix New Zealand’s planning system is for these ministers to be in total control.
Are New Zealanders asking too much of their Government to think that we can have a resource consent system that simultaneously supports future development needs, protects the environment and gives communities a meaningful say on projects that will affect them?
This was the intended goal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, both passed by Labour in place of the Resource Management Act after years of policy work.
National agitated to overhaul the RMA for decades but failed to do so while they were in office. It could have worked within the structures of the new system while amending whatever aspects it disagreed with. Instead, National repealed the new legislation under urgency without having an alternative plan ready to put forward.
With so much power resting with these three ministers, many are concerned about conflicts of interest and the influence of lobbying on decision-making. It was concerning to learn that Chris
Bishop has written to a number of organisations, including companies that have recently donated to both the National and Act parties, inviting them to consider applying to the process. This is also a concern for businesses looking to invest who do not have such political connections.
The Government’s approach to this issue is all the more frustrating given there is a real need for proper solutions within our planning system. New Zealand is not good at building for its future needs. The productivity of the building sector is low by international standards. We need both greater intensification of existing urban areas and the infrastructure to support new housing developments.
If National had good ideas about how to build a better, more robust planning system, there is every opportunity for it to make meaningful improvements.
Instead, the fast-track bill represents a view that economic development will only happen at the expense of environmental protections and democratic input, and that those who want to “get stuff done” should not be limited by checks and balances. The ministers, despite clearly not having expertise in areas relevant to the decisions, would be freed from having to listen to those who do.
There is a better way. We can build a system that will meet the future needs of our communities and that they can have trust in. We can make sure that timely and balanced decisions are made on the problems that people want addressed in their lives.
It involves building our decisionmaking capability and robust systems to govern resource management and planning. It requires, in other words, building a more effective state — the same state that National is trying to dismantle.