The unprecedented use of urgency is “great”, and the fast-track consenting bill, deliberately disruptive, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Fast track consenting ‘deliberately disrupting the system’

Announced last Thursday, the government’s fast-track consenting bill for infrastructure projects was the subject of an interview between Q&A’s Jack Tame and the minister for housing, infrastructure and RMA reform, Chris Bishop, on Sunday. When asked if it was appropriate for ministers to use ministerial discretion to overrule judicial decisions as allowed by the bill, Bishop said they were trying to “change the system”, he makes “no apologies for it”, and that they are “deliberately disrupting the system”. As an example of the value of longform, on-camera interviewing, it’s worth a watch. At the announcement, Bishop described the approach as a “one-stop shop” system that would “cut through the thicket of red and green tape holding New Zealand back, make it clear to the world that we are open for business, and build a pipeline of projects around the country to grow the economy and improve our productivity”.

Officials didn’t have time to consider environmental impacts

Catherine covered the alarm bells being rung by environmental experts about the approach in mid-February. Ecologist Marnie Prickett told The Spinoff then that it wasn’t “normal, everyday bill-making” and that it would “bypass environmental law that we have had in place for 30 years”. It is one of the most significant components of the government’s 100 day plan. As the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan writes in a good overview of what the bill will allow and what it overrides, it gives ministers the ability to effectively consent to proposals themselves, with expert panels only able to apply relevant consent and permit conditions.  As Newsroom’s Jono Milne details, officials didn’t have time to consider the bill’s impact on fisheries and conservation estate. The government has likened the bill to the previous fast-track consenting legislation put in place during the Covid pandemic, but Bell Gully’s Natasha Garvan and Will Hulme-Moir highlight a number of key differences.

Record set for use of urgency

The fast-track consenting bill and the rhetoric around disruption, speed and getting things done is dovetailing with concerns about the government’s use of urgency during the 100-day plan period. As Newsroom’s Marc Daalder reports, data from the parliamentary library shows that urgency has been used more than ever before at such an early stage in the term. RNZ’s Jo Moir cites Victoria University’s Dean Knight, who says the claim that the government has a mandate for abnormal, expedited law-making is “nonsense and illogical”.

Urgency taking a toll as Luxon’s radar diagnosed as on the blink again

For all the talk of “kick-arse” and “great” progress when questioned about speed, the question of Luxon’s political radar has entered the chat again after first appearing around his handling of the accommodation allowance issue. The Post’s Luke Malpass noted Luxon struggled and seemed tired when speaking to the cost increase caused by changes to the way interest deductibility for residential investors will be phased in on Monday. Malpass points to days of urgency. The Herald’s Audrey Young (paywalled) suggests it is not so much the change that’s the sin but the inability to front it with the gravitas required. Young observes that “It is reasonable to adjust a fixed plan as circumstances allow. But it should not be dismissed as something done lightly. And if it has to be changed now, when the ink on the coalition deal is barely dry, what else might change?”