Government unveils acceleration of Public Works Act changes to remove Environment Court appeal rights from landowners, but with sweetener payments; Iwi get cash too, but can still appeal
Well, yes, why would foreigners invest in the country when the govt won't, unless, presumably they see some serious gains to be made?
As for the government seizing/stripping land. Interesting that they say they will pay extra. Extra to what? Also, what if people don't want to sell? Shades of the willing buyer/willing seller model the ANC introduced into SA. Spoiler, it was not well received.
You should check out the list of companies who are coming to this “investment “ forum. Not a lot of fresh blood, just current ones in the market, or previously spurned lovers like the Canadian pension fund (light rail project that government pulled pin on). Love it how it has been portrayed as how good NZ people is that these off shore entities are keen to come and invest, they are here to make a return and they see our current regime as easy prey to sink their teeth into… come join the squattocracy, let’s build rentier’s paradise!
- talks more about policy development rather than trying to trick some loose money to be invested here ( this is the only way not to increase exporting of funds, trick offshore investors into a bad investment. ) last time I checked the loose money is not going into infra.. it is crypto. maybe that summit is in April?
I’ve suggested a nz housing NFT, when they were hot back in COVID times, that way people could buy the digital version of that house they have always wanted! I was also going to suggest that the minister of transport sells naming rights to all the bridges in nz as it might be more profitable than privatisation of public infrastructure…
The PWA amendment is problematic for 3 reasons: it will further increase executive power; it is designed to push through fast-track and roading projects while a broader review is undertaken; and it also clearly demonstrates an oddness (without explanation) to how this government aims to deal with Iwi (clearly putting the arguments used around the Treaty Principles Bill to one side)
1) Increase executive power:
“Landowners who object to land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects will no longer go through the Environment Court. They will instead submit their objections directly to the relevant decision-maker, either the Minister for Land Information or the local authority, for faster resolution.”
So Ministers will be making judgements on appeals and not the independence of courts. This is problematic given the documented links between lobby groups (including private businesses) and this government. It’s also problematic given the closeness between lobbying and governments of every stripe over past decades; and the unwillingness of the two main parties (national and Labour) to address this OECD recognised hole in transparency across our electoral system.
2) Push through fast track and roading projects.
“In the coming months, we’ll be amending the PWA to accelerate the acquisition of land needed for the public projects that are listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, and the Roads of National Significance listed in the Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024. It is intended that amendments will come into force six months before wider PWA review amendments.”
Despite this singular focus this is already being positioned as the broader overhaul.
Yet it’s not that broader work: that will come through next year.
So this action provides an appearance of action (politically a plus for this “say yes” government) but is only an appearance.
What this announcement is actually about is
getting the announced projects pushed through. It’s not intended to overhaul or improve the overhaul the underlying process. In short its focus is just on those projects, of which many have been identified as being of private not public interest. This further promotion of private interest via a government bill is not good.
3) Non explanation for why Iwi will retain the right to appeal to the environment court.
“Owners of protected Māori land will gain the benefit of the payments; however, they will retain the right to object to the Environment Court.”
No explanation is given for this. Curious and needs more digging.
But it may suggest that the binary arguments (dogwhistles) used by ACT and NZ First around “equality in law” are not universally supported within National. Simpson Grierson summarised Penks position as “The issue at the core of this press release related to better safeguarding Māori land and providing fairer compensation processes for Māori landowners. Penk acknowledged that “historic confiscation of Māori land remains a deep source of pain for many New Zealanders”, and for that reason, as well as the special significance of Māori freehold land, “the Government reaffirms its commitment that acquiring Māori land for public works is and will remain a last resort”.
The government is dealing with iwi by cutting healthcare funding so killing them more quickly than they would otherwise die. It may also introduce Stage 2 of PWA amendments to remove iwi appeal rights, just before the 3rd reading!
Kia ora Bernard, thanks as always for your awesome morning report. I'm in shock about the Public Works Act changes, specifically the inclusion of Fast Track projects. Correct me if I am wrong but they seem to include 1. a massive government payment on behalf of private landowners of up to $250,000 to other private landowners, e.g. these are all projects that will remain in private hands - many of them highly controversial and 2. they represent a serious impingement on property rights - they effectively give preference to one private landowner (the listed Fast Track project) over another (the existing landowner, who may not wish to sell). This all seems utterly extraordinary, or would if it wasn't this government..Ngā mihi, Valerie
"As historian Vincent O’Malley remarked to the Herald’s Julia Gabel last year: “One of my standing jokes is that one of the reasons New Zealand roads are so windy is they go from one piece of Māori land to the next, avoiding all the European lands nearby.”
I'm sorry, but this infrastructure conference, I keep imagining a Farmers red flag sale! I giggle like a crazed woman, and then realise Luxon is deadly serious and actually thinks this will work.
And I've been saying what Shameel has been saying, why would anyone invest in anything in this country when our government won't, and not only that, they keep telling anyone who will listen how terrible everything is in NZ. They can't say anything positive about NZ business (remember the B-graders that were with Luxon on the Trade trip when he made that commment?), they think we are so bad that they can't even do $100m on things that are needed. Now they are going for charities? Seriously, why would anyone do business with that lot?
I also wonder if Winnie actually cares about his voter base? I wonder if he just wants to go out with a bang - meaning a financial bang in 'kick backs' from National/Act donors.
The announcement to amend the Public Works Act before the review and parliamentary process undermines the independence of the judiciary—in this case, the Environment Court—to rule on property rights, setting up perverse and unfair outcomes.
In my opinion, this move has strong ‘30 pieces of silver’ and The Castle vibes. It’s yet another example of the erosion of rights through ministerial review, bypassing both the parliamentary process and judicial oversight.
Lol. Reading that response, I’ve just had a vision of Bernard vs Luxon jousting like in A Knight’s Tale—Sir Bernard of Waiheke, with his followers, declaring to a defeated Luxon:
"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."
It's interesting that such a small number of voters moving from NZ First to another party (<14k) would result in them not reaching the threshold. This coalition really is built on very thin margins. The fact that older people are most disillusioned with the performance of the government in the Horizon survey (usually a stronghold of the National party) is also very telling.
Thanks very significant. Let’s hope there is a reasoned, rational, articulate case argued by another political party, next opportunity to vote, to give them a great alternative.
When you try please the anti-vaxxets types you will always lose as they will never be satisfied unless it's 100% what they want. The tricky part is they all want different things at various degrees of delusion.
Many thanks to all paying subscribers. We're over the 100 likes mark so I've opened this up for all to read, listen to and share. Ngā mihi nui. Bernard
Well, yes, why would foreigners invest in the country when the govt won't, unless, presumably they see some serious gains to be made?
As for the government seizing/stripping land. Interesting that they say they will pay extra. Extra to what? Also, what if people don't want to sell? Shades of the willing buyer/willing seller model the ANC introduced into SA. Spoiler, it was not well received.
You should check out the list of companies who are coming to this “investment “ forum. Not a lot of fresh blood, just current ones in the market, or previously spurned lovers like the Canadian pension fund (light rail project that government pulled pin on). Love it how it has been portrayed as how good NZ people is that these off shore entities are keen to come and invest, they are here to make a return and they see our current regime as easy prey to sink their teeth into… come join the squattocracy, let’s build rentier’s paradise!
Nats probably see the investors as funders of their future election campaigns! Nudge nudge.
They even have Blackrock that abandoned its employees just before Christmas with a complete disregard to our labour laws!
and I have to wonder how many of these 'overseas investors' actually paid for their own flights and accomodation?
haha most of them will be sleeping in houses they own here ;-)
Where is the one million dollars going to?
As Robert Macculloch pointed out - Only half the invitees are actually international.
https://www.downtoearth.kiwi/post/it-beggars-belief-but-could-pm-luxon-s-leader-of-house-bishop-s-stated-100-overseas-investors-vi
nice pull Grant! The AFR runs a better summit... https://www.afr.com/afrlive/infrastructure-summit
- talks more about policy development rather than trying to trick some loose money to be invested here ( this is the only way not to increase exporting of funds, trick offshore investors into a bad investment. ) last time I checked the loose money is not going into infra.. it is crypto. maybe that summit is in April?
Don't be giving anyone ideas!
I’ve suggested a nz housing NFT, when they were hot back in COVID times, that way people could buy the digital version of that house they have always wanted! I was also going to suggest that the minister of transport sells naming rights to all the bridges in nz as it might be more profitable than privatisation of public infrastructure…
The PWA amendment is problematic for 3 reasons: it will further increase executive power; it is designed to push through fast-track and roading projects while a broader review is undertaken; and it also clearly demonstrates an oddness (without explanation) to how this government aims to deal with Iwi (clearly putting the arguments used around the Treaty Principles Bill to one side)
1) Increase executive power:
“Landowners who object to land acquisition for critical infrastructure projects will no longer go through the Environment Court. They will instead submit their objections directly to the relevant decision-maker, either the Minister for Land Information or the local authority, for faster resolution.”
So Ministers will be making judgements on appeals and not the independence of courts. This is problematic given the documented links between lobby groups (including private businesses) and this government. It’s also problematic given the closeness between lobbying and governments of every stripe over past decades; and the unwillingness of the two main parties (national and Labour) to address this OECD recognised hole in transparency across our electoral system.
2) Push through fast track and roading projects.
“In the coming months, we’ll be amending the PWA to accelerate the acquisition of land needed for the public projects that are listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, and the Roads of National Significance listed in the Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024. It is intended that amendments will come into force six months before wider PWA review amendments.”
Despite this singular focus this is already being positioned as the broader overhaul.
“Bishop and Land Information Minister Chris Penk are promoting a draft Bill to Parliament, expected in May, which fulfils the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First to prioritise strategic infrastructure and simplify the planning system.” RNZ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/544233/government-moves-to-speed-up-land-acquisition-for-public-works
Yet it’s not that broader work: that will come through next year.
So this action provides an appearance of action (politically a plus for this “say yes” government) but is only an appearance.
What this announcement is actually about is
getting the announced projects pushed through. It’s not intended to overhaul or improve the overhaul the underlying process. In short its focus is just on those projects, of which many have been identified as being of private not public interest. This further promotion of private interest via a government bill is not good.
3) Non explanation for why Iwi will retain the right to appeal to the environment court.
“Owners of protected Māori land will gain the benefit of the payments; however, they will retain the right to object to the Environment Court.”
No explanation is given for this. Curious and needs more digging.
But it may suggest that the binary arguments (dogwhistles) used by ACT and NZ First around “equality in law” are not universally supported within National. Simpson Grierson summarised Penks position as “The issue at the core of this press release related to better safeguarding Māori land and providing fairer compensation processes for Māori landowners. Penk acknowledged that “historic confiscation of Māori land remains a deep source of pain for many New Zealanders”, and for that reason, as well as the special significance of Māori freehold land, “the Government reaffirms its commitment that acquiring Māori land for public works is and will remain a last resort”.
The government is dealing with iwi by cutting healthcare funding so killing them more quickly than they would otherwise die. It may also introduce Stage 2 of PWA amendments to remove iwi appeal rights, just before the 3rd reading!
Yes, needs more digging and transparency to understand exactly what they are thinking. Some good journalism would help, but…
Very interesting Geoff. Another National vs ACT fight to come.
Appreciate your insights Geoff
Kia ora Bernard, thanks as always for your awesome morning report. I'm in shock about the Public Works Act changes, specifically the inclusion of Fast Track projects. Correct me if I am wrong but they seem to include 1. a massive government payment on behalf of private landowners of up to $250,000 to other private landowners, e.g. these are all projects that will remain in private hands - many of them highly controversial and 2. they represent a serious impingement on property rights - they effectively give preference to one private landowner (the listed Fast Track project) over another (the existing landowner, who may not wish to sell). This all seems utterly extraordinary, or would if it wasn't this government..Ngā mihi, Valerie
Thanks Val. Could easily be more than that. Often projects involve multiple parcels of land owned by many. Especially motorways.
The Spinoff Bulletin had a great quote:
"As historian Vincent O’Malley remarked to the Herald’s Julia Gabel last year: “One of my standing jokes is that one of the reasons New Zealand roads are so windy is they go from one piece of Māori land to the next, avoiding all the European lands nearby.”
I'm sorry, but this infrastructure conference, I keep imagining a Farmers red flag sale! I giggle like a crazed woman, and then realise Luxon is deadly serious and actually thinks this will work.
And I've been saying what Shameel has been saying, why would anyone invest in anything in this country when our government won't, and not only that, they keep telling anyone who will listen how terrible everything is in NZ. They can't say anything positive about NZ business (remember the B-graders that were with Luxon on the Trade trip when he made that commment?), they think we are so bad that they can't even do $100m on things that are needed. Now they are going for charities? Seriously, why would anyone do business with that lot?
I also wonder if Winnie actually cares about his voter base? I wonder if he just wants to go out with a bang - meaning a financial bang in 'kick backs' from National/Act donors.
The announcement to amend the Public Works Act before the review and parliamentary process undermines the independence of the judiciary—in this case, the Environment Court—to rule on property rights, setting up perverse and unfair outcomes.
In my opinion, this move has strong ‘30 pieces of silver’ and The Castle vibes. It’s yet another example of the erosion of rights through ministerial review, bypassing both the parliamentary process and judicial oversight.
How do we put a stop to this?
'Tell him he's dreamin'' One of my favourite movies. Thanks Paul S.
Lol. Reading that response, I’ve just had a vision of Bernard vs Luxon jousting like in A Knight’s Tale—Sir Bernard of Waiheke, with his followers, declaring to a defeated Luxon:
"You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."
How can we trust Ministers to make the right decisions in lieu of the Environment Court when decisions like this are coming out - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/544279/nzta-waka-kotahi-s-permission-to-kill-protected-species-at-mt-messenger-ruled-unlawful
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/544300/all-roads-lead-to-the-deciding-minister-greens-wary-of-government-s-environment-court-bypass-proposal
It's interesting that such a small number of voters moving from NZ First to another party (<14k) would result in them not reaching the threshold. This coalition really is built on very thin margins. The fact that older people are most disillusioned with the performance of the government in the Horizon survey (usually a stronghold of the National party) is also very telling.
Thanks very significant. Let’s hope there is a reasoned, rational, articulate case argued by another political party, next opportunity to vote, to give them a great alternative.
Yep. Promises to anti-vaxxers and Groundswell types was enough to change the Government.
When you try please the anti-vaxxets types you will always lose as they will never be satisfied unless it's 100% what they want. The tricky part is they all want different things at various degrees of delusion.
Unable to run the audio again?
Many thanks to all paying subscribers. We're over the 100 likes mark so I've opened this up for all to read, listen to and share. Ngā mihi nui. Bernard
Appreciating the photo of the Ducks.