Process Purity vs. Policy Influence

This week’s Strategic Economic Workshops sparked a public exchange between the Employer Council and Minister of TEATT Grisha Heyliger-Marten. The Council said it supports a national plan, but questioned the consultation process and did not attend the sessions. The Minister responded that the workshop is one step in a longer, multi-stage process and that business participation is essential for the plan to succeed.

The Employer Council is right about one thing, process matters. A Strategic Economic Plan only works if the people expected to implement it believe in it, and understand how it is being built. Calls for transparency, clear governance, and a realistic timeline are part of what makes a national plan credible.

Even so, the Council’s public position reveals a tension that is hard to ignore, because the argument for inclusion is being made through non-participation, at the very moment participation was available and invited. That is where the position starts to wobble, not because the concerns are invalid, but because the remedy they chose, stepping away, runs against their own premise.

A big part of the Council’s critique is that the invitation came with a structure already in place, a format, a methodology, and goals. That is described as a “preset agenda.” In practice, workshops are almost always preset in that sense. If there is no framework, you do not get a workshop, you get five days of people talking past each other. The more important question is whether the process stays open after the workshop, and whether stakeholders can still shape what becomes the final plan. On that point, the minister’s response is clearer and, frankly, more realistic: this week is not the plan, it is a step in a longer process that will take well over a year, with stages of consultation, refinement, and validation.

The other pillar of the Council’s argument is access to the Plans of Approach tied to the E6 reform trajectory. It says it could not “responsibly” participate without first reviewing those documents, or at least their management summaries. That request is understandable. If the public is being asked to invest time and credibility, it is fair to ask what the project’s scope and governance look like on paper. But making participation conditional on those documents being produced first is where the logic loses steam. It assumes the workshop is a decision point, not a listening point. The minister is saying the opposite, and nothing in the Council’s own description proves otherwise.

There is also a practical contradiction here. The Council says the private sector will ultimately be responsible for investing, creating jobs, and adapting to whatever strategic direction is adopted. That is true, and it is exactly why opting out is such an odd choice. If you believe the plan will shape the investment climate and the rules of the road, you usually want to be in the room early, even if the process is not perfect, even if you are still pushing for documents, even if you have reservations. You can participate and still insist on transparency, those are not mutually exclusive.

The back-and-forth over who should release the Plans of Approach, the ministry or TWO, reads like an administrative knot that needs to be untied. The Council says the ministry pointed them to TWO, and TWO pointed them back to the ministry. The minister says the procedural side sits with TWO and that TWO will respond. That is frustrating, and it should be resolved quickly. But it is also separate from the substance of the workshop itself. If the goal is to “strengthen the process rather than delay it,” as the council stated, then staying engaged while pressing for those documents would have matched that message more closely.

This is where the minister has the stronger footing. She does not dismiss the Employer Council, she welcomes their statement, repeats the point that buy-in is essential, and keeps the invitation open. She also makes an important clarification that is easy to miss, nobody is claiming a finished plan will pop out of a single week. The work is meant to build over time, and the business community’s input is needed across that timeline. Her reminder that no plan moves forward without public and private engagement is a basic description of how implementation happens.

Captains of industry can still make their point without sidelining themselves. The Employer Council can demand the Plans of Approach, call for governance clarity, and press for earlier involvement in shaping future stages, while also contributing expertise on labor markets, investment constraints, cost drivers, and sector competitiveness.

Participation does not mean endorsement of every procedural detail, it means taking responsibility for the outcomes the private sector will later be asked to help deliver. Participation is leverage. It is also responsibility. If the private sector wants the plan to reflect operational reality,then the most effective place to put that knowledge is inside the process, not only in a statement outside it.

A balanced view recognizes that both sides are pointing to legitimate concerns, one about process integrity, the other about keeping momentum and building national buy-in over time. The practical conclusion, however, favors the Minister’s approach: show up, shape the work, document the gaps, and keep pushing for improved transparency as the process evolves. The stakes are too high for key stakeholders to treat engagement as conditional when the opportunity to influence is already on the table.

‍