Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Resources Minister Shane Jones set out changes to the government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill
Video / NZ Herald
Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
On Wednesday, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop triedhis utmost to launch the Good Ship Political Consensus, only to have it quickly and predictably founder on the rocks of hypocrisy.
Bishop had set out his moves for a 30-year infrastructure plan, and in the process bemoaned that infrastructure had become too politicised.
It was a good enough – and fair enough – line. In this case, the bride was still stinging from Bishop’s own politicisation of Labour’s plans for big infrastructure – notably, National’s derision of Labour’s projects such as light rail in Auckland, the Inter-Islander ferries upgrades and cycle bridges over the Waitematā Harbour.
Every change of government is marked by a great bonfire of the things the new government deems to be the white elephants of the previous government.
Labour comes into power and scotches four-lane highways, replacing them with safety barriers and cycle paths. National comes in and scotches almost everything that hasn’t already been built so it can build four-lane highways.
Ah, that mythical beast, political consensus. It’s why we can’t have nice things.
It’s just too tempting to use infrastructure projects for either political mischief or electoral gain. There’s a plague on both houses for it.
Infrastructure is too often used to get votes. It is not always successful, of course, not least because sometimes the voters see the pork-barreling opportunism behind it.
However, there is some merit to operating on the basis that the road to political success is paved with bitumen – preferably four lanes wide.
All of this can turn infrastructure development into an unseemly scramble between elections – a rush to get far enough along in a particular project to make it impossible for the other side to pull the pin if they win the next election.
That worked well enough in some cases, such as the Waterview Tunnel and the City Rail Link, but it is far from ideal.
Bishop recognised that in his speech. “I find it frustrating that particular modes of transport have become politicised. National likes roads, the Greens like cycleways, Labour likes light rail, and so it goes. It’s frankly pretty trite and unsophisticated.”
He is, of course, very well aware he was one of those engaging in such trite and unsophisticated politicisation, as was the other half of his Infra Boys team: Transport Minister Simeon Brown.
Hipkins has reason to be sceptical of Bishop’s offering.
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, left, and Transport Minister Simeon Brown admiring infrastructure projects. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Even after Bishop’s announcement saying he wanted more political consensus, he couldn’t help himself.
Defending himself against claims National pulled the pin on a vast tract of Labour projects, he denied it before listing them himself: including Auckland Light Rail, Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Three Waters, and the housing accord. He claimed that was different because they were “dumb projects”.
All of this turns the idea of consensus into a weapon, used to try to ram the other party into a corner. Both sides say they want consensus on various issues – but only if it is around the stuff they want to do. If the other side says no, they get accused of refusing to be constructive.
Having faced years of pillorying, it’s understandable Hipkins is not quite willing to give up his chance to get revenge by rushing in with an olive branch of consensus.
But despite all of this, the last week has seen a relatively notable surrendering by Bishop (and other ministers) of political sway over such proceedings.
That happened both with the decision to vest final decision-making powers in the hands of expert panels rather than three government ministers on the Fast-track Approvals Bill and in the move to allow the Infrastructure Commission to put together the 30-year-plan.
It is not quite an absolute removal of politics.
However, it is significant enough to appear to be a genuine attempt to put in place a system that is less prone to political motivations and fancies.
Consensus on what projects get done might be a pipe dream because of political differences, but what Bishop actually seems to be seeking is certainty.
The bipartisanship element he refers to is some certainty that projects begun by one government will be completed by the next, whether or not they might have preferred to do something else instead.
Certainty around the big long-term projects is critical when it comes to funding issues, such as the use of private or foreign investment to pay for the projects.
Bishop’s plan for infrastructure is to get the Infrastructure Commission to assess what infrastructure the country needs (and some it might want) over the next 30 years, suss out economic and other benefits – and the pitfalls – and then put it all together in one big document.
This document – the National Infrastructure Plan – would look at what was already planned, what was needed and what should be prioritised.
It is also charged with doing some of the heavy lifting in terms of building consensus.
It would include the good, the bad and the ugly: projects that could be done but are not worth the time and money.
Bishop is relying on that plan to help build consensus – he has modelled it on Australia, saying it was a similar move that helped get political consensus over there.
It would not starve out the politics. The politicians would still be the ones deciding what got done and when.
The list becomes a bit of a pick-and-mix for governments to choose from when putting up their infrastructure plans over the short and medium term.
Presumably, it is also a pick-and-mix for parties to put in their election campaign manifestos.
Bishop’s assessment is that it would allow political flexibility for all sides: for instance, a government with a strong Green Party influence on it would presumably tilt more toward public transport projects in the plan, a government on the other side would eye up roads.
He’s picking that the existence of such a list would make it more uncomfortable for a new government to pull out of infrastructure projects that the other side has started, especially if they stacked up in the plan.
It would also make it harder for political parties to justify embarking on projects that do not stack up on the assessment of the Infrastructure Agency.
Of course, things are never that clear-cut. Political parties will always want the freedom to put up their own blue-sky thinking on things – such as National’s 2020 proposal for big tunnels under the Brynderwyns and the Kaimai Ranges, and Labour’s light rail dream.
But if the two biggest obstacles to long-term planning are politics and money, both National and Labour should be happy to consider whether such a plan would work to remove at least one of those obstacles.
Claire Trevett is the NZ Herald’s political editor, based at Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
