It would be a brave person who argued that consenting of major infrastructure projects didn’t need an overhaul. Labour and National agree it is cumbersome, and Oxford Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, a world authority on major projects, would likely agree as well. He may also highlight that it’s the least of our problems.
In a quest for successful projects, it’s not just whether consenting needs an overhaul, but what else needs attention too. Without seriously adjusting its scope and approach, the Fast-track Approvals Bill may end up looking like a bulldozer shifting deckchairs on you-know-what. The Bill’s Legislative Statement tells us it seeks a “fast-track one-stop-shop consenting regime” for selected major projects because “consenting major infrastructure and other projects in New Zealand takes too long, costs too much and places insufficient value on the economic and social benefits of development relative to other considerations”.
That echoes the well-known project management mantra of “time, cost, and quality” and, other things being equal, should draw ready agreement on the merits of saving time or money on consents. As expanding attention to economic and social outcomes would presumably add to consenting issues, that largely leaves the thrust of the Bill as streamlining consenting by downplaying environmental factors. Professor Flyvbjerg, having assembled the world’s largest database on big projects (16,000 and climbing), makes astute observations abou.
