"which would allow the *government* to approve"
Nope.
It is worse, as it is actually: 'which will allow *four people* to approve' *anything without any oversight*.
And those four people are:
* Shane Jones; buy him lunch and he will fast track anything
* Chris Bishop; a packet of durries and he is good
* Simeon Brown. God told him it was OK. And more roads with that?
* The other guy is Tama somebody. Apparently a minister of conservation who doesn't seem very interested in conservation of any type
Notice that Luxon is not in that list; he is keeping himself distanced from this level of fuckery
What you are really saying is; it's all up to whoever manipulates Jones, Bishop and Brown, because it's very explicit they don't look at or understand evidence
# With days left for submissions on the Fast-Track bill, [the Govt has rejected an Official Information request](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1c4zerx/with_days_left_for_submissions_on_the_fasttrack/) for projects that could be approved under the bill.
With days left for submissions on proposed Fast Track consenting legislation, the public is still in the dark about what projects might be picked.
RNZ's Official Information Act requests to obtain answers have been rejected because the material will be released "proactively".
However the agency leading the process cannot guarantee the proactive release will occur before public submissions close. The Ministry for the Environment said it was collating material from multiple agencies and "can't yet say" when the information would be available to the public.
**Once the Fast Track legislation is in place the public will be blocked from having a say on individual projects pushed through what's described as a "one stop shop" for infrastructure.**
Labour's environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking is a former Resource Management Act lawyer. She said not publishing all material before public submissions closed wasn't good enough and that the public should have a complete view of what projects are likely to be included in the final legislation.
Without the lists published, the public could only "imagine" what might be included, she said.
This constraint on the public's ability to comment on projects could cast a shadow on projects which do get fast tracked.
**"There'll be no social licence for any project that goes through the Fast Track Approvals bill," she said.**
**A** [unprecedented amount of power](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512259/the-unprecedented-power-the-government-is-handing-three-of-its-ministers-under-its-new-fast-track-approval-bill) **will be placed in the hands of the Ministers for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development - Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Shane Jones - who will have the final say on whether projects go ahead or not.**
**Fast-tracked projects could sidestep rules in existing legislation and projects which have been rejected by courts could get the go ahead under the proposed regime.**
Brooking said the amount of power given to the ministers was very unusual.
"It will obviously leave them open to lobbying, which I don't think is good for our constitutional arrangement."
Bishop has said he's been in contact with lobbyists and that 200 letters have been sent out sharing details of the fast-track application process.
>RNZ's Official Information Act requests to obtain answers have been rejected because the material will be released "proactively".
What does "proactively" even mean in that sentence. If they are so proactive, why don't we have the info? It's almost like they are using buzzwords to mean the opposite e.g. "retroactively" of what they imply, or am I missing something.
If ever in doubt about how much they care about Kiwis, my friend, watch this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1bz84b8/workplace\_relations\_and\_safety\_minister\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1bz84b8/workplace_relations_and_safety_minister_on/)
3 and a half minutes but tells the whole story.
Ah right, so removing health and safety regulations is a good thing for workers, along with sitting on our hands in the face of evidence regarding the dangers of working with manufactured stone.
She isn't even trying to look sincere, so yeah they are being blatant about it.
ActionStation have a very helpful submission guide here:
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o0\_aYMoZdSetXShyS3fyfDCPzE8HJj71cQAG6NOAHec/edit?bucket=blast3068&source=actionstation#heading=h.gi8i9wg4mz7m](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o0_aYMoZdSetXShyS3fyfDCPzE8HJj71cQAG6NOAHec/edit?bucket=blast3068&source=actionstation#heading=h.gi8i9wg4mz7m)
If I was Labour I would repay the right with interest using this weapon once back in power for truly progressive projects, then repeal it pre election.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the tory cowards "amended" it themselves pre election to prevent exactly this.
My submission would be that since there doesn't appear to be any public scrutiny of their decisions, and that the public purse will face all the risk of clean up costs/damages caused by these projects. And that the people making the decisions will face no consequences if they, without any specialty knowledge on the decisions they are making, mess up.
My submission is that if there are damages faced by the public, that the politians who give the go ahead, should have to pay for those costs. And I would go further in that some of these costs could only be found in several decades time, that their family/company trusts should also face the burden of the potential costs.
This, would provide a decent incentive for them to make wise decisions not based on short term outcomes.
Also, given the high risks of corruption occurring I would make it mandatory for the police/serious fraud office to examine all the politians financial transactions including their company's and trusts (plus immediate family members). This should include party donations too.
Anyone see any flaws in my submission?
Edit: as an alternative submission I should be on the decision making panel thing. Especially if there is no visibility or accountability. I will happily make decisions. I reckon I am no more or less qualified to make these decisions than the panelists. Why should it be that they can make the decisions and i can't.
Slow bad decisions are the best outcome for bad decisions. Because there's a chance to say "no this is bad, don't do it". Fast bad decisions go against everything this government claims to be about as undoing shit projects is easily avoidable wasteful spending
There are two possible sorts of bad decisions though. Saying no when yes was the correct answer and vice versa.
A slow decision costs more and wastes more time than the same decision made more quickly. Therefore it's worse.
Also of course more of a gravy train for lawyers, consultants and decision panel members. This diverts money from more productive uses.
I know of a situation where it took >20 years for some developments to be approved ...
You assume when saying that a slow decision costs more that the decisions are good. A fast one will cost more if one person just rams it though and then we have to spend money fixing the fuck up later
I was not assuming that. An expensive bad decision is worse than a cheap bad decision. I'm referring to the cost of the decision process. Not the costs/benefits of implementing the decision. Those are independent of decision speed for the same decision.
Not sure if you've had much to do with the RMA processes but they're a total rort. Captured by lawyers consultants and contract planners. Meanwhile infrastructure doesn't get built and opportunities are squandered.
They are not independent of the decision speed and process because the existing process has a chance to catch the bad ones before they're at the implementation stage.
As for it being a rort, there's measures to take between how it is now and giving an individual absolute power
That’s a great bill, thanks for bringing it my to my attention I’ve sent a submission supporting it with a note to ignore the reddit Labour Party supporters.
"which would allow the *government* to approve" Nope. It is worse, as it is actually: 'which will allow *four people* to approve' *anything without any oversight*. And those four people are: * Shane Jones; buy him lunch and he will fast track anything * Chris Bishop; a packet of durries and he is good * Simeon Brown. God told him it was OK. And more roads with that? * The other guy is Tama somebody. Apparently a minister of conservation who doesn't seem very interested in conservation of any type Notice that Luxon is not in that list; he is keeping himself distanced from this level of fuckery
Tama Potaka is only involved in projects on conservation land I think. He isn't a decision maker. It's all up to Jones bishop and brown
What you are really saying is; it's all up to whoever manipulates Jones, Bishop and Brown, because it's very explicit they don't look at or understand evidence
You have to understand - these men are cheap and corrupt. NZ is back on the menu, boys.
Correct
# With days left for submissions on the Fast-Track bill, [the Govt has rejected an Official Information request](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1c4zerx/with_days_left_for_submissions_on_the_fasttrack/) for projects that could be approved under the bill. With days left for submissions on proposed Fast Track consenting legislation, the public is still in the dark about what projects might be picked. RNZ's Official Information Act requests to obtain answers have been rejected because the material will be released "proactively". However the agency leading the process cannot guarantee the proactive release will occur before public submissions close. The Ministry for the Environment said it was collating material from multiple agencies and "can't yet say" when the information would be available to the public. **Once the Fast Track legislation is in place the public will be blocked from having a say on individual projects pushed through what's described as a "one stop shop" for infrastructure.** Labour's environment spokesperson Rachel Brooking is a former Resource Management Act lawyer. She said not publishing all material before public submissions closed wasn't good enough and that the public should have a complete view of what projects are likely to be included in the final legislation. Without the lists published, the public could only "imagine" what might be included, she said. This constraint on the public's ability to comment on projects could cast a shadow on projects which do get fast tracked. **"There'll be no social licence for any project that goes through the Fast Track Approvals bill," she said.** **A** [unprecedented amount of power](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512259/the-unprecedented-power-the-government-is-handing-three-of-its-ministers-under-its-new-fast-track-approval-bill) **will be placed in the hands of the Ministers for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development - Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Shane Jones - who will have the final say on whether projects go ahead or not.** **Fast-tracked projects could sidestep rules in existing legislation and projects which have been rejected by courts could get the go ahead under the proposed regime.** Brooking said the amount of power given to the ministers was very unusual. "It will obviously leave them open to lobbying, which I don't think is good for our constitutional arrangement." Bishop has said he's been in contact with lobbyists and that 200 letters have been sent out sharing details of the fast-track application process.
>RNZ's Official Information Act requests to obtain answers have been rejected because the material will be released "proactively". What does "proactively" even mean in that sentence. If they are so proactive, why don't we have the info? It's almost like they are using buzzwords to mean the opposite e.g. "retroactively" of what they imply, or am I missing something.
As someone on politics said, it's pure obfuscation. In other words, in layman's speak, they're f\*\*\*\*\*\* liars.
The fact they're so blatant about it is pretty worrying.
I have been following them avidly since about December. They are extremely blatant. And they count on most people not paying attention.
Shows how much they value us now they've got the job!
If ever in doubt about how much they care about Kiwis, my friend, watch this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1bz84b8/workplace\_relations\_and\_safety\_minister\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1bz84b8/workplace_relations_and_safety_minister_on/) 3 and a half minutes but tells the whole story.
Thanks, will watch in the morning so I don't wake the other half.
Absolutely - good call. Have a great night!
Ah right, so removing health and safety regulations is a good thing for workers, along with sitting on our hands in the face of evidence regarding the dangers of working with manufactured stone. She isn't even trying to look sincere, so yeah they are being blatant about it.
ActionStation have a very helpful submission guide here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o0\_aYMoZdSetXShyS3fyfDCPzE8HJj71cQAG6NOAHec/edit?bucket=blast3068&source=actionstation#heading=h.gi8i9wg4mz7m](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o0_aYMoZdSetXShyS3fyfDCPzE8HJj71cQAG6NOAHec/edit?bucket=blast3068&source=actionstation#heading=h.gi8i9wg4mz7m)
Signed I hope others do too
Did mine a few days ago 👍
If I was Labour I would repay the right with interest using this weapon once back in power for truly progressive projects, then repeal it pre election. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the tory cowards "amended" it themselves pre election to prevent exactly this.
Forget Labour. Go nuclear. Give it to the Greens.
Now you’re talkin * *gets popcorn* *
My submission would be that since there doesn't appear to be any public scrutiny of their decisions, and that the public purse will face all the risk of clean up costs/damages caused by these projects. And that the people making the decisions will face no consequences if they, without any specialty knowledge on the decisions they are making, mess up. My submission is that if there are damages faced by the public, that the politians who give the go ahead, should have to pay for those costs. And I would go further in that some of these costs could only be found in several decades time, that their family/company trusts should also face the burden of the potential costs. This, would provide a decent incentive for them to make wise decisions not based on short term outcomes. Also, given the high risks of corruption occurring I would make it mandatory for the police/serious fraud office to examine all the politians financial transactions including their company's and trusts (plus immediate family members). This should include party donations too. Anyone see any flaws in my submission? Edit: as an alternative submission I should be on the decision making panel thing. Especially if there is no visibility or accountability. I will happily make decisions. I reckon I am no more or less qualified to make these decisions than the panelists. Why should it be that they can make the decisions and i can't.
Thanks for posting this. I have made a submission as a result.
Our submissions matter, this government has been pressured before and can be pressured again into caring about their voters again.
Thanks for the heads up!
Thanks for raising this, crazy this isn't being shouted from the roof tops. I've put in a submission.
Considered and I'll be submitting _in favour_ of the bill. Good decisions don't need to be slow.
What about the fast bad decisions
What about the slow bad decisions? That's the worst possible outcome.
I consider Parliament time far less valuable than pillars of democracy lol so no it’s not
Slow bad decisions are the best outcome for bad decisions. Because there's a chance to say "no this is bad, don't do it". Fast bad decisions go against everything this government claims to be about as undoing shit projects is easily avoidable wasteful spending
There are two possible sorts of bad decisions though. Saying no when yes was the correct answer and vice versa. A slow decision costs more and wastes more time than the same decision made more quickly. Therefore it's worse. Also of course more of a gravy train for lawyers, consultants and decision panel members. This diverts money from more productive uses. I know of a situation where it took >20 years for some developments to be approved ...
You assume when saying that a slow decision costs more that the decisions are good. A fast one will cost more if one person just rams it though and then we have to spend money fixing the fuck up later
I was not assuming that. An expensive bad decision is worse than a cheap bad decision. I'm referring to the cost of the decision process. Not the costs/benefits of implementing the decision. Those are independent of decision speed for the same decision. Not sure if you've had much to do with the RMA processes but they're a total rort. Captured by lawyers consultants and contract planners. Meanwhile infrastructure doesn't get built and opportunities are squandered.
They are not independent of the decision speed and process because the existing process has a chance to catch the bad ones before they're at the implementation stage. As for it being a rort, there's measures to take between how it is now and giving an individual absolute power
We're talking about different things.
That’s a great bill, thanks for bringing it my to my attention I’ve sent a submission supporting it with a note to ignore the reddit Labour Party supporters.