In doing so, he set a benchmark that, for better or worse, new governments the world over are judged by to this day: their first hundred days. Back on November 29 the National-Act New Zealand-New Zealand First coalition announced what it termed an ambitious, 49-point action plan for its first hundred days. Last week, courtesy of an exhausting sitting schedule and regular use of urgency, the government proclaimed its plan had ticks beside all 49 of its bullet points.
Some of those were hardly strenuous, such as stopping work on various policy initiatives left in place by the previous government, or beginning work on various other things — a single meeting could be cited as "job done" on those.
For others, gauging progress is harder. The government can claim that "start reducing public sector expenditure" is under way, but until Budget day we will not have much of an idea if that has happened or not. And "begin work on delivering better public services and strengthening democracy" is so nebulous that it could mean absolutely anything.
But many things the government has said it would do, it has. The Auckland Regional Fuel Tax and Clean Car Discount scheme are gone; Fair Pay Agreements are history as is the Māori Health Authority; Three Waters and RMA reforms have been rolled back and proposed bans on gang patches and cellphones in schools have been rolled forward.
There has been controversy: even the coalition’s most ardent supporters will have blinked at the repeal of the previous government’s smokefree legislation, and as the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks on the Christchurch mosques nears many remain to be convinced that rewriting the Arms Act is necessary.
One thing all parties in Parliament agree on is the need to reform the Resource Management Act. Labour passed its own legislation last term, law changes the coalition deemed inadequate and repealed as item 21 of 49.
The Bill is the first of the new government’s replacement pieces of legislation, and it occupies similar territory to Covid-19 response legislation Labour passed at the height of the pandemic response.
The latter law change recognised the need to keep construction and related firms operating with guaranteed work following lockdowns, and named various projects — including the new Dunedin hospital — for consideration by an independent panel for fast-track consent.
The new law comes in response to a claimed emergency, that being a dearth of infrastructure investment in New Zealand. It names no specific projects, instead establishing an independent panel (which must be convened by a current or former High Court or Environment Court judge), which will spend up to six months assessing the validity or otherwise of proposals for fast-track consenting.
Assuming a project makes the grade, it would then be up to RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and then to Cabinet, to decide whether to approve or decline it, or refer it back to the panel if any proposed conditions recommended are "too onerous". Whatever the shortcomings of the RMA, at least the length of time it could take to gain consent allowed consideration of the potential pitfalls, as well as positives, of any development. The Opposition argues that the planned fast track is too much of an expressway; Mr Bishop argues it is necessary for economic growth and that ministers can be trusted with their proffered new powers.
No disrespect to the probity of Mr Bishop and co, but it seems reasonable to want a little more oversight of the spending of billions of taxpayers dollars than what the current draft legislation offers. The RMA regime was created with environmental protection in mind, and it would also be desirable to see as much consideration given to the ecology as the economy in the new regime. At least this law change, unlike many in the 100-day plan, is going to select committee for consideration. Hopefully there is a middle ground which not only allows things to get done, but allows them to be done right.
