Government on the fast track to a reckoning

There are signs the Government is getting arrogant about pushing through legislation

If National is losing control of the sales job for its fast-track consenting regime, it has itself to blame.

When Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop fronted a press conference in Parnell last week, it was to a background chorus of protesters.

The protesters were primarily protesting against fast-track legislation.

It will not be the last time they see those protesters.

Issues such as that tend to produce a semi-permanent troupe of protesters, who pop up at every event possible.

PM Christopher Luxon, Bishop, Brown and maybe Shane Jones can expect regular gatecrashers at their events. The only reason Jones might escape is if the protesters decide he’s a lost cause and they might as well howl at the moon.

It is little wonder, given the way it has been dealt with.

The fast-track legislation is rapidly shaping up as a problem for the Government. If the National Party part of that coalition Government fails this test, it risks setting the tone for the rest of the term.

Protesters and political opponents are easily dismissed as being those at one extreme of an issue. However, where it starts to get tricky is when suburban dwellers start to get furrowed brows.

Issues that relate to the environment are no longer niche, hippy considerations and haven’t been for quite some time.

Headlines about endangered species being undone by a project that has had no public input into it will never play well. It has to be handled very carefully by the government.

There are signs the Government is getting arrogant about it. The overall tenor of the ministers involved has been one of “trust us, we know what we’re doing”.

Bishop’s statement that the public would get the ultimate say on it at the ballot box in 2026 was one example. Simply saying you won the election, ergo you can do it, will only take your core supporters with you.

One of the perils every new government faces is finding that balance between moving on the mandate you manage to get on election day — and taking the public with you.

It is easy to over-estimate that mandate. Even pre-advertised change needs a strong sales job once it is happening, especially if it is quick and fast.

The fast-track legislation was only partly advertised in advance, during the election campaign. It certainly wasn’t advertised in the form it has ended up, with massive power given to ministers to sign off on projects with little nod to public input. That means the only real check on them is by protest and at the ballot box.

With such a move, you have to argue your case, over and over if need be, or the critics win an argument before you’ve even started.

That is at risk of happening with the fast-track legislation, and those critics have been helped by the obvious lack of transparency around it. As part of its sales job, the Government also has to be as transparent as possible. It has fallen short on this.

There was a belated realisation the lack of transparency could be starting to hurt on Friday when Bishop released the list of organisations that had been sent letters advising them how to apply for inclusion on the fasttrack schedule. That was too late — it was the day submissions on the law change closed and followed repeated refusals to release the information.

It is a good thing the government is allowing for public consultation at the select committee, albeit it is the bare minimum.

But if that consultation looks like a hollow exercise, the government risks looking more arrogant.

The main concerns in submissions are the powers given to ministers, the strong weighting on economic rather than environmental grounds, and the fact that the public are blind to what projects are in line to get fast-tracked, until it is too late to have a say on them.

Those that are to be included in the schedule for the bill may not be known until after it has gone through select committee.

The fast-track consenting regime was always going to invite concern and criticism, especially in the way it was structured, giving significant power to the three ministers with sign-off powers.

It has also allowed the debate to become all about mining. The prospect of fast-tracked mining projects have dominated in the debate, rather than other more politically palatable types of infrastructure which will benefit from it.

Public submissions on the law closed on Friday and there was a flurry of press releases from organisations who support or oppose it. Those who have been loudest have opposed it — on environmental grounds, climate change grounds, public health grounds.

Industry bodies who want to set up mines or other big scale things have applauded it.

Straterra put out a press release welcoming the bill and describing it as a necessary “disrupter” to put an end to the days of mining projects taking years to get up and running, subjected to legal challenges and scaring off investors in the process.

Straterra also sought to put up the environmental case, noting once projects are under way there was still a plethora of environmental protections the mining companies had to work with. It also noted that mining’s social license and reputation meant they had to pay heed to the environment.

Those are all valid points. The trouble is not many people would take the mining industry’s assurances on environmental matters.

The Government’s job is putting up the middle ground — and the middle ground is there.

There is a case to be made for not treating every inch of conservation land as sacrosanct, for example.

There is a case to be made for allowing for both jobs and the environment and making it easier for major projects that benefit a region or a country to get going quicker.

As things stand, the Government doesn’t even seem to be trying to make it look like the environment is a factor. The three ministers who made the decisions are in economic portfolios.

The advisory panel which will recommend which projects get put into the legislation are all industry people.

The expert panel that will vet them and decide on any conditions is yet to be unveiled.

It would be an outrage if there were no environmental experts on that. Nor can that panel seek public input.

The one nod to the environment thus far appears to have been in the decision to send it to the environment select committee to consider.

Nor does it necessarily help that thus far Jones has been the most vocal about it, in his usual overblown style.

It needs someone from National to make the case in a more convincing and careful fashion.

The overall tenor of the ministers involved has been one of ‘trust us, we know what we’re doing’.