0:03

They are coming and

0:05

there's nothing you can do to stop

0:07

them. In a tribe. Kia

0:10

ora, I'm Sharon Breit Kelly.

0:12

Today, a Chinese sci-fi novel,

0:14

Zombie Projects, Two Tales Wagging

0:17

a Dog. No, this episode

0:19

of The Detail is not

0:21

about a dystopic futuristic TV

0:23

show, although it

0:25

has plenty of dramas. You

0:28

can prepare yourself for something very strange. We're

0:30

talking about the Fast Track

0:32

Approvals Bill, the proposed solution

0:35

to our sluggish growth. We

0:38

want more roads, we want more wind

0:40

farms, we want more homes, more solar,

0:42

more geothermal, more mines, more commerce and

0:45

more opportunity for New Zealanders to get building. The

0:48

government's one-stop shop for getting things

0:50

moving. Cut red tape, make it

0:52

easier to build infrastructure and other

0:55

big projects. Fast tracking legislation, is this

0:57

so you can dig it up and dam

0:59

it up? Big

1:01

day. We are turbocharging

1:04

the legislation that David Parker

1:06

originally developed. Fast track. The

1:09

underlying philosophy of the fast

1:11

track today is we're moving

1:13

from cancel economics to can-do

1:15

economics. But what about claims

1:17

that it is bad news for diversity,

1:20

of conflict of interest and

1:22

cronyism for the unprecedented power

1:24

it gives to three ministers,

1:26

Simeon Brown, Chris Bishop and

1:29

Shane Jones, who will

1:31

have the absolute final say. Even

1:34

some on the right are alarmed,

1:36

including former National Minister Simon Upton.

1:38

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

1:40

says the bill lacks environmental

1:43

safeguards and ministers should not be

1:45

the final decision makers. So

1:47

before we find out what it's got to do

1:49

with the Chinese sci-fi story, let's

1:51

do a recap on what the

1:54

bill is with Firar Hancock from

1:56

RNZ's In-depth team. It's

1:58

supposed to fast-track. projects to

2:01

make projects happen quicker because there's been some

2:03

studies that projects are taking really long and

2:05

costing a lot of money to get consent

2:07

to get across the line. But

2:09

this bill, it does

2:11

more than just fast track projects

2:14

it also sidesteps a whole bunch

2:16

of different acts and

2:18

legislations and it's supposed to be for

2:20

a regionally or nationally important

2:23

infrastructure or development projects.

2:26

So we might be talking about things like roads,

2:29

a wind farm, fish farm,

2:32

irrigation dams, all we could be talking

2:34

about are coal mines. Projects

2:36

which can take what months,

2:38

years to go through the

2:41

whole approvals process. I

2:43

talked to somebody from the Wind Energy Association and he

2:45

said look it can take up to nine or ten

2:47

years to get consent for a wind farm but it

2:50

only takes two or three years to build one. So

2:52

you know there is definitely a

2:54

problem there which the fast track

2:58

hopes to address.

3:00

Okay would it be guaranteed

3:02

that that process, the nine years

3:04

would cut down to a shorter

3:07

period? They do

3:09

have a time frame, I think it's

3:11

around six months. Right. So a lot

3:14

quicker and then they'll get a consent which

3:16

is valid for maybe three years so you

3:18

can't just sit on you

3:20

know commission for a long time you've got to

3:22

get cracking on getting it done. Well you

3:24

know it sounds good it's what we need

3:26

isn't it? We need it to get our

3:28

economy moving. So what

3:31

about this legislation

3:33

is bugging people?

3:36

Yeah so there's, we have

3:38

had fast track legislation before there was

3:40

the COVID-19 fast track bill

3:42

and that was different in three

3:45

really key ways. So first of all it

3:47

only allowed projects to go through the RMA

3:49

or is this fast track let's them go through

3:51

sort of ten, ten different

3:53

acts or sets of regulations so it's

3:56

very wide and far-erection. The

3:59

other thing which is different. as ministers have

4:01

the final say on projects, the other

4:03

COVID one that was extra panels. And

4:05

then finally on this one, and this is

4:08

where people are getting quite concerned, or one

4:10

of the reasons people are getting quite concerned,

4:12

is that environment seems to take a backseat

4:14

in this one. So environmental groups are really

4:16

really worried about the saying the

4:19

fast-trick bill is you know the war on

4:21

nature gone nuclear. We're parties to a

4:23

number of international agreements including the Paris

4:25

one on climate change of course but

4:27

also agreements on

4:29

biodiversity, on renewables,

4:33

on preventing coal extraction

4:36

and a lot of those you

4:38

know are arguably being breached.

4:40

Because there's no mention of the environment

4:43

and the purpose of the act and then

4:45

when these applications projects are

4:47

being considered by an expert panel,

4:49

those panel members need to take

4:51

in the purpose of the fast-tracked

4:54

act above everything else. So they

4:56

need to think about getting these infrastructure and

4:58

development projects off the ground more than they

5:01

need to think about the purpose of the

5:03

wildlife act or conservation act or the

5:05

crown minerals act. Okay but

5:08

usually when you have these

5:10

processes they do still go through, have

5:12

to go through a number of steps don't they?

5:15

So what is the structure of this

5:17

that's so different to you

5:20

know previous processes? There's

5:22

a few differences. Ministers can

5:24

refer projects to an

5:27

expert panel so they do

5:29

have to consider a set of criteria. Then

5:32

it goes to the expert panel. The expert panel

5:35

assesses the application and

5:38

when they're assessing the application they're very

5:40

limited in who they can speak to.

5:42

They can speak to the applicant, they

5:44

can speak to people directly affected but

5:46

they can't go out to the public

5:48

and get public input, they can't go

5:50

to environmental NGOs like forest and bird

5:52

or green peas or some of these

5:54

groups or environmental defense society is another

5:56

one. Some of these groups which you

5:59

know have the legal resource to look into some

6:01

of these plans and go, well, it shouldn't be

6:04

done because of this, this and this, or this,

6:07

this and this needs to be mitigated. So

6:09

the expert panel won't be able to do

6:11

that, which is quite unusual. So

6:13

is that effectively shutting out these

6:15

organisations like Forest and Bird? Absolutely.

6:18

Completely. The whole process, they do

6:20

not have an opportunity to

6:22

make a submission or to challenge something.

6:25

They've had the opportunity, like the public

6:27

has, to make a submission on the

6:29

Bill itself. Now those closed the other day, but

6:32

they can't make submissions on individual projects.

6:34

And we don't know what those projects are

6:36

yet. They haven't been announced, but they've been,

6:39

the public and NGOs are shut out of that

6:41

process. And that is a big concern for them.

6:44

Then we have three

6:46

ministers. We have Simeon Brown, Chris

6:48

Bishop and Shane Jones. And

6:52

they have the absolute final say.

6:54

Absolutely. So the expert panel will

6:56

look at the applications and

6:58

they will make recommendations, which might

7:01

include say a mitigation, environmental mitigation.

7:03

But these ministers can go, oh

7:05

no, those conditions are too onerous.

7:07

Let's say you need to go

7:10

back and rework those. And Chris

7:12

Bishop the other day on the radio,

7:14

he called this a safeguard. We've

7:16

kept that safeguard in place in

7:19

our proposal. And that's

7:21

something that, well, the safeguard that

7:23

ministers will be making the final decision

7:25

on whether or not projects happen or

7:27

not after the application of the permits

7:29

and conditions. It's not incorrect. It's

7:32

a safeguard for the applicants. But

7:34

it's not necessarily a safeguard for the environment

7:36

or the public. And all three of them

7:38

have a final say or just one of

7:40

them. All three of them. And at times

7:43

there can be the

7:45

municipal conservation pulled in if there's

7:47

something that affects conservation. As

7:50

Farah says, submissions closed just over a

7:52

week ago. But even then, there was

7:54

a bit of drama. There was an

7:57

11th hour release of a list...

8:00

recipients a list of 200 groups

8:02

or organizations who received a letter from

8:05

Chris Bishop's office. Now the leader was,

8:07

who says it wasn't an invitation to

8:09

apply for fast track project approval but

8:12

it was just informing these groups of

8:14

the process and many of these groups

8:16

had been in contact with him he

8:19

said. So he said he

8:21

was releasing this in the interest of

8:23

transparency. Forrest and Bird

8:25

have, they

8:27

disagree with that and they say that

8:30

they made a complaint to the Ombudsman

8:32

and the Ombudsman directed him to release

8:34

the list before public submissions closed. They

8:37

wanted the public submission period to extend so

8:40

people could have a chance to look at

8:42

that list and look at the names on

8:44

it. Oh that didn't happen. So it was,

8:46

I think it got released at 3 p.m.

8:48

or 2 p.m. something like that and the

8:51

submissions closed at midnight. So it was only

8:53

a few hours. It squeaked in. What's his

8:55

reasoning for this? He

8:57

initially didn't want to

9:00

release who might

9:02

be on the project list because he said

9:04

that knowing the projects might

9:06

overwhelm the Select Committee when they were

9:08

considering the bill he thought they might

9:10

get fixated on the exact projects in

9:13

it rather than the bill in its

9:15

entirety and that's been his line. I

9:17

mean RNZ and I've made OAAs and

9:19

been rejected as well. I've

9:21

been told things are going to be released

9:23

proactively. It hasn't happened yet.

9:26

And so he's got this

9:28

list of 200. What about the other two ministers?

9:30

Do they have a list? I

9:33

think it's all being run through his office so

9:35

I think that would be all encompassing. I have

9:37

asked for all sorts of emails and

9:40

we'll see. The same response

9:42

you've been told they'll be released proactively.

9:45

Yes. Also last

9:47

week though there were two

9:49

appeals from two key people.

9:52

A couple of big parliamentary watchdogs want

9:54

major changes to the government's fast track

9:56

approvals bill. One from the Parliamentary Commissioner

9:58

for the Environment Center. and it is one

10:00

from the order to General and at sea.

10:03

To say neither of them were glowing. Endorsements

10:05

of the both: The Parliamentary Commission

10:07

of for the Environment is the

10:09

bill lex environmental safeguards. I've. Got

10:12

a little quite hear from him.

10:14

the both legs and many environmental

10:16

safeguards it's predecessor legislation contained. even

10:19

the much maligned National Development Act

10:21

of nineteen Seventy Nine had more

10:23

environmental checks. And balances the order

10:25

to general to John Ryan. I

10:28

want stronger management of ministerial conflicts

10:30

of interest, a public record of

10:32

the minister's decision making, open seats

10:34

and beta transparency and accountability measures.

10:37

Such conflicts of interest. what would

10:39

they pay For example of Kobe

10:41

a diner so so don't know

10:43

With as I going to apply

10:45

that we allow businesses to the

10:47

knights political parties answer political candidates

10:49

and New Zealand so there is

10:51

a chance set some. But

10:53

he might make a donation and

10:55

the a menace might receive project

10:57

To these us it serves. This

11:00

opens the door of the Labour

11:02

party says it risks that leading

11:04

to accusations of bias, particularly when

11:06

political donations are thrown into the

11:08

mix that it's made that decision

11:10

said they'd been and to open

11:12

them up to allegations of of

11:15

improper behavior if that had donations.

11:17

Made. By those that different players

11:19

so it the theory strangely the minutes

11:21

is up to open and have that

11:23

site said he sang est kind of

11:25

thing happens that the minister. Said to

11:28

clear a conflict of interest. The

11:30

and sleep away from from thing involved

11:32

in that protein. They're saying some kind

11:34

of like guns said be written into

11:36

the bell that handle that situation because

11:39

otherwise the public as going to be

11:41

in on not very confident and. The

11:44

purses. It feels like this has

11:46

got away on the government a

11:48

little. but the criticism and that

11:51

the backlash over at. A

11:53

when I read the bell says Time

11:55

I was quite surprised. I'm not illegal

11:57

leaks, but Saga on the phone to.

12:00

Like spirit and they will also don't

12:02

know this is unprecedented this hasn't happened

12:04

before and to assess a little than

12:06

the case of the my level of

12:09

surprise that as unusual how much power

12:11

as been given to ministers and. Vitter

12:15

as a concern that prohibits of

12:17

things like sun for supper habits

12:19

of under the resource management egg

12:21

could get approval. Under the

12:23

spell and Vinny or Passenger must

12:25

pass on the judiciary endless executive

12:28

level of. Government against it

12:30

So the when you're leaving the government

12:32

go where it nor and the court

12:34

decision doesn't matter So that is also

12:37

very very unusual. said I would have.

12:40

Power. Over those kind court

12:42

decisions as well. Second suicide,

12:44

but. As the

12:46

zombie projects cause they wouldn't let what

12:49

are some be projects A Zombie Projects

12:51

A projects which the courts have rejected

12:53

and paypal. it's Oregon why my my

12:55

of fault them for years and years

12:58

and it's so the word Sikhism mine

13:00

which has a a wasn't it twice

13:02

and some to mine. And

13:04

an area with these and did

13:07

injured three sons wildlife. That's one

13:09

what's could come back these another

13:11

one. The Rule: tiny saw irrigation

13:13

damn know that got rejected because.

13:16

They. Wanted to swap conservation land with

13:18

some other conservation lane less uncles. The

13:20

supreme court said, no, you can't say

13:22

that, that's not So that kind of

13:24

stopped his head. Results can seem thought

13:27

abundantly. The lane swap at

13:29

wanted to this worry that some of these projects

13:31

as people have fought for years and years and

13:33

years and fault that one could come back from

13:35

the did. But. How how

13:37

us government responding to assess.

13:40

The. Wasn't until you Christmas every other day

13:42

and or ensued and moaning. He mentioned

13:44

that sides I could be looking at

13:46

censoring the Select committee purses. By expert

13:49

panel were the ones during my

13:51

relevant permits and conditions are Aids

13:53

out. There will be a

13:55

procedure to go back to. must have to other

13:57

approval to find that I see that as a.

14:00

I've got I'm others would sign of that. Far

14:02

out at Christmas is too much power was you

14:04

hit it to bite through the sleek committee persist.

14:06

Less I think. It's been feeling

14:09

loud and that's been consensual. Sides of

14:11

got to be noticing. The concern is

14:13

the anybody who eight Sleep supporters presumably

14:15

the two hundred that are on Christmas

14:18

senseless tongue. Oh look and for such

14:20

a paypal people are interested in building

14:22

things and on creating things. Are really

14:24

interested in this. The. Chief Executive of

14:26

Industry advocates to tear up Jersey, but

14:29

Aussies prices can be speed up without

14:31

having a negative impact on the environments.

14:33

The system as far can. On. And

14:35

they say sexed mining as

14:37

part of unlocking our economic.

14:39

Growth. I'm doing something

14:41

fast, doesn't mean. Doing

14:43

it badly. and there's absolutely no

14:46

suggestion that any. Of the project.

14:49

And. The mining side will be at the

14:51

expense of the environment. But. A

14:53

lot of people who might be against

14:55

us to go and look for just

14:57

makes up sucks are in I liked

14:59

of as You Please Be Bisa putting

15:01

your enunciating towards sex and are my

15:03

earth than I have the sauce trick

15:05

make it more like third president Same

15:07

fast track which had a good i

15:09

expect panels. My son recommend Essence. Resisted.

15:12

Doing government by amateurs minutes is a

15:15

professional politicians but they are not Austin's

15:17

policy experience than orders from continental subject

15:19

experts in the fields of any to

15:21

learn from. An automated voice comes from

15:24

the foothills. Richard. So what

15:26

is a professor of politics? It's

15:28

messy university. He's talking about what

15:30

it means when politicians have the

15:32

final say. the ministers are

15:34

not obliged to take that advice

15:37

ministers of ravens acting contrary to

15:39

the advice of officials but it's

15:41

unusual fool a piece of legislation

15:43

to be designed and perhaps to

15:46

be passed which is centrally reduces

15:48

the requirements upon ministers to take

15:50

expert advice so i think that

15:52

you can absolutely say it is

15:55

a reflection of the position that

15:57

this government put the fool them

15:59

in before the election, but there

16:01

is more to it than that with a

16:03

specific piece of legislation. I think there are

16:06

broad areas of public policy. Monetary policy is

16:08

another example where decisions are taken by impartial

16:11

expert bodies for a really good reason

16:13

or a series of reasons. And one

16:15

of those reasons is that there are

16:17

just some areas we've collectively decided should

16:19

not be overtly politicised. So, Sharon,

16:21

I don't dispute the fact that the government

16:24

has an electoral mandate to govern, but

16:27

it is a little bit more complex than that. We do

16:29

want our governments to have checks and we want

16:31

them to have balances, particularly in a

16:33

constitutional context such as ours, where we

16:35

don't have many of the guardrails that

16:37

apply in most other constitutional jurisdictions around

16:39

the world. We don't have a

16:42

chamber, a second chamber, a Senate or

16:44

an upper house. We don't have a

16:46

codified constitution. We don't have a

16:48

judicial branch which has the constitutional right to rule

16:51

on the constitutional property of what governments do. So,

16:53

we have really powerful governments in this country. So,

16:55

we need to have other ways of holding them

16:58

to account and to ensuring that decision making is

17:00

transparent. And I think

17:02

some of those norms and conventions

17:04

are not met by this particular

17:06

piece of legislation. So,

17:08

if, say if the

17:11

three ministers were

17:13

taken out as in, you

17:15

know, their role as the decision makers

17:17

was scrapped, if the Prime Minister has

17:20

said that... I've got every confidence that

17:22

actually we do need ministerial decision making to cut

17:24

through and to actually make a hard yes or

17:26

a hard no. But if he

17:28

backed down and they were taken out

17:30

as the, you know, key decision makers,

17:32

would that make a difference? Would

17:35

this fast track legislation be more

17:37

palatable to people? It would

17:39

depend on where that final executive authority was

17:42

vested. If it was vested in the Cabinet,

17:44

it tends to be the case. But

17:46

there was a subcommittee, you

17:48

know, a Cabinet committee or an

17:50

informal committee of ministers, including the

17:52

Environment Minister who had an

17:54

appropriate relationship with external expert advisory groups.

17:57

I think that would absolutely go some

17:59

way towards... are laying the concerns

18:01

of people. But I

18:03

think there are both substantive concerns

18:05

with the legislation, and there are

18:07

procedural concerns. And on the latter,

18:10

one of the issues that critics

18:12

of the legislation have is that

18:14

the primary principle, the purpose of

18:16

the legislation is to facilitate the

18:18

delivery of projects. There's

18:21

no mention made of environmental

18:23

sustainability or development issues. So

18:25

you could theoretically maintain that

18:27

purpose and reject the reporting

18:30

requirements. But it wouldn't entirely take away

18:34

from the issues around process and

18:36

public accountability and the truncation of

18:39

time frames for the consideration of

18:41

official advice and the

18:43

removal of opportunities for

18:45

people to express their voices, either for or against.

18:47

So there would be other issues which would need

18:50

to be attended to as well. Richard,

18:52

of all the things that

18:55

have happened since this coalition

18:57

government came into power, how

18:59

does this particular piece of

19:01

legislation, how does it sort

19:03

of rank in all of the

19:05

other stuff that's going on? I

19:07

think something is happening

19:10

around this particular bill, which

19:12

is crystallizing both support for and

19:15

concerns with the nature

19:17

and the conduct of this administration.

19:20

This particular piece of legislation is

19:22

a very clear and

19:24

unambiguous and explicit expression

19:26

of executive power. You

19:29

can come at that issue from many different

19:31

points of view. One of them,

19:33

the obvious one is, well, that is why we

19:35

have governments. We indirectly elect

19:37

our governments to do

19:39

things. I think, however,

19:42

in the context of the contemporary

19:44

or modern New Zealand politics, and

19:46

in particular in the post-MMP era,

19:49

what we expect from governments is

19:51

a willingness and ability

19:55

and a political maturity to deal with other

19:57

points of view. We expect to have

19:59

some. some capacity to participate in

20:02

the processes out of which the rules

20:04

which governors are made. And I think

20:06

what this legislation is doing, I suspect

20:08

it won't be the last, but

20:10

it is certainly the first major piece of legislation

20:12

which is crystallizing views

20:14

both for and against the government

20:16

both on substantive and procedural grounds.

20:19

So it is significant in terms

20:21

of its substance, but it's also

20:23

significant as a marker

20:25

of the political tone of

20:28

this government. Right

20:32

to be scattered. So how does

20:35

the Chinese sci-fi novel fit into

20:37

all of this? And I need your

20:39

help. I don't know

20:41

how many of you listeners Sharon have read

20:43

the science fiction that came out of China

20:45

called the three-body problem. We'll watch the Netflix

20:47

series, but the three-body problem is a problem

20:50

in which you have three bodies trying to orbit

20:52

each other and the orbits can never be stable.

20:55

They are always chaotic and they are always unpredictable.

20:57

And we're used to having

20:59

two-party governments where there is a dominant

21:01

partner and a junior partner and the

21:03

limits to which the junior partner can

21:05

go to distinguish itself from the dominant

21:08

coalition partner are reached pretty quickly and

21:10

it's pretty clear. This is a very different

21:12

set of circumstances when there were two minor

21:15

parties in a three-party coalition.

21:17

They arguably, that's a structural arrangement which

21:20

allows each of those parties, the small

21:22

parties to exercise more authority and to

21:24

behave in ways which they may not

21:27

get away with under the more classical

21:30

two-party coalition arrangement. One,

21:32

there are a couple of lessons from history.

21:34

I think Mr. Luxon will not be unaware

21:36

of these. The senior people within the national

21:38

party certainly won't be. The two occasions

21:41

on which New Zealand first supported in

21:43

a formal executive coalition, both the national

21:45

party and latterly the Labor Party, things

21:48

went really badly for New Zealand first

21:50

at the subsequent election. New Zealand voters

21:52

tend to punish small parties

21:54

who prop up a larger party

21:57

for all sorts of reasons. largely

22:00

because the policy offer of the small party

22:02

gets diluted in the waves of policy which

22:05

larger parties are able to put through because

22:07

it is the dominant player in the coalition.

22:10

And so the next election, I mean who

22:12

would know, it's quite some way away, many

22:14

things will happen between now and then, but

22:16

the recent history in New Zealand suggests that

22:18

small parties to go into formal coalitions tend

22:20

to get punished by voters. And

22:22

one of the reasons for that is because many

22:25

New Zealand voters really dislike the

22:28

perceived or actual wagging of

22:30

dogs by little tails. And

22:32

this coalition has two tails, a 6.8% tail and an

22:34

8.6% tail. And at the moment, both of

22:39

those tails are doing an awful lot of wagging,

22:41

whether or not that continues to be the case, whether

22:43

or not that has any impact upon the polling of

22:46

the government. I think it is

22:48

certainly a challenge to the authority and the

22:50

skill of the Prime Minister. And

22:52

that will be something that is that three-body

22:55

problem that we have with this government will

22:57

be an absolutely fascinating thing to track looking

22:59

ahead. For

23:05

today, thanks to Farah Hancock

23:07

and Richard Shaw, the detail is

23:10

supported by RNZ and NZ On

23:12

Air. Alexia Russell produced this episode,

23:14

Jeremy Ansel engineered it. I'm Sharon

23:17

Brie Kelly, Ma Keewon.