Different roads out of a crisis
‘Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis,’’ is a saying first attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli. It’s been used by leaders in crises ever since, and despite its Machiavellian expediency it’s true that something that has shaken the world like Covid-19 also provides a chance to see how we can best emerge from the mess.
The Government this week announced one such plan for getting the economy back on track, and people back in jobs, once the lockdown ends. Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones cited Machiavelli’s quote when discussing the initiative to have ‘‘shovel-ready’’ infrastructure projects set to go once the construction sector is back.
With some horrendous unemployment forecasts, Jones says such projects – which are likely to be fast-tracked through a relaxed resource consent process – will provide crucial employment and a jolt to the decimated economy.
We don’t know yet exactly what projects are being lined up – a group led by former Meridian Energy and Fletcher Building infrastructure boss Mark Binns will make recommendations next month. The Government says they could include water, transport, clean energy and buildings, including homes. The key criteria are that they are ready to go now or within six months, are big – $10 million plus – and will have a public benefit (though private projects that can be ‘‘repurposed’’ for public benefit will also be considered).
New roads seem likely to be a big part of the plan, because they meet the criteria and were a big chunk of the Government’s $12 billion infrastructure package announced last December. But in the laudable rush to build our way out of a recession, there should be a close examination of what we are building and why, especially if we are relaxing environmental rules to do it.
In a column for Stuff yesterday, Dame Anne Salmond raises the valid point that, while the pandemic is the immediate focus, New Zealand and the world face larger threats including climate change, pollution and population pressures. She says the infrastructure project criteria should also reflect these wider threats, suggesting a $20m fund for the restoration of waterways, indigenous forests and other habitats, for example.
To extrapolate her thinking, should we be building new and larger highways that could add to the climate’s load? There are questions about delivering extra roading anyway, with revelations that the New Zealand Transport Agency could get through only half its safety improvement programme because of physical constraints, and a shortage of specialists.
We might have a labour pool from the ranks of the unemployed, but will we have enough engineers? Would it make sense to look at expanding the skeleton rail network, in the main centres and between them? Hospital redevelopments could be given extra priority and funding in light of shortcomings exposed by the pandemic.
When the Government sits down to push the button on infrastructure projects, it needs to closely consider the long-term benefits and impact on the environment. As Dame Anne says, when our own lives and those of our loved ones are at immediate risk, denial and complacency fly out the window. It opens the way for ‘‘radical responses’’, or in other words crisis-born opportunities.
When the Government sits down to push the button on infrastructure projects, it needs to closely consider the long-term benefits and impact on the environment.