I know when I write a post that if two statements in the post seem to disagree someone will quickly point out the apparent logical inconsistency to me and I’ll either have to explain it or fix it. Which is all well and good. So, I thought I would do the same for Vernon Small and Tracey Watkin’s article on the front page of the Dom today.
At the beginning of the article, triumphantly entitled ‘Government bulldozes barriers to growth‘ we are told that “Sweeping changes to the Resource Management Act were unveiled yesterday, designed to help fast-track big projects with economic spinoffs” to “ease the pain of the recession”. In the related article on A2 (‘RMA changes may go too far‘ – different sub-editor?), we’re told that, in a best-case scenario, “an 18-month delay could be halved.”
But, then, at the end of the first article Bill English is quoted as saying the end of the recession “hopefully six to 12 months away”.
First, no-one else believes that recovery will be so soon and all our major trading partners are expecting large decreases in growth this year and into next year, which you would have thought might have prompted the journos to challenge English’s claim.
Secondly, if the end of the recession is really so close, how can the RMA changes, or any infrastructure spending aid in that recovery? The RMA changes won’t even be passed until September and the first major projects gaining consent under the new rules are years away. The major new infrastructure spending Key is meant to announce soon will be barely underway by the time English’s 6-12 months are up.
In fact, if the recession really is going to be over in 6-12 months, what are we getting all worked up about? Why would we even need more recovery programmes? It would have been nice if these inconsistencies had been pointed out to English or, at least, recognised in the article.