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.