COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to take a call in the committee stage. I want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 531. In my second reading speech, I alluded to the fact that I would be speaking to the issue of the sunset clause in this bill. In Part 1, clause 3 “Repeal of this Act” states: “(1) This Act is repealed on the second anniversary of the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Now, my SOP is to take this out to five years. And the reason, that I want to do that—and this side of the committee wishes to do that—is because we heard from many submitters who made the point that the two-year provision simply isn’t long enough. You will have heard my colleague Chris Bishop at second reading in his speech speak about the fact that it takes a considerable amount of time to get a project to the point where it is ready for resource consent. And I can talk to just one project in my electorate, the Glenvar Road project, which has taken actually about 20 years to get to the point where they’re ready now to apply for resource consent. There are many more projects like that around. And we need to acknowledge the fact that if we are serious about creating jobs and serious about a post-COVID economic recovery, we need to extend the time out to five years.

It’s been noted many times in this House by both sides, by both the Government and the Opposition, that the economic effects of COVID-19 will be felt for many, many years. We’ve just borrowed $140 billion and in order to pay that back, we are going to need another rock star economy. And the way that we get there is, in part, through this bill—by creating jobs and projects that will provide economic benefit for many, many years to come. The time frame of two years, in our opinion, is far too short, (a), to get projects to the point where they can apply for resource consent, but also the number of projects that we would see needing to go ahead in order to give us that rock star economy to get people employed, to pay back some of those billions of dollars that we’ve borrowed.

We’ve all acknowledged that the Resource Management Act (RMA) isn’t doing what it should do and that’s why we’ve had to do this a number of times, put these fast-track consenting bills in place, and this is an example of that again. It’s been mentioned that there is the Randerson report that’s coming down the pipeline and that will make some changes, but we’ve had this Government now for three years and they haven’t made a significant RMA reform to get us to a place where we can get projects under way that are going to assist our economy to recover from COVID-19, and I doubt whether or not we’re going to get that in the next term of Government after the Randerson report, given we know on this side of the House how very difficult it is to get the numbers to reform the RMA. I think this Government have realised that as well—how difficult it is to get, in an MMP environment, the votes to be able to push it through. So acknowledging how difficult it is to reform the RMA—and that’s acknowledged across the House—two years is not long enough for us to get projects under way to help our economy post-COVID.

So this SOP will seek to move that two years to five years. I would invite the comments from the Minister in the chair, Minister Parker, on his opinion and what advice he’s had; why he came up with two years. Perhaps he may support an extension of that out to five years, given the fact that he knows how very difficult it is to reform the RMA, and how we need this bill to help with our economic recovery. I’d be pleased to hear his comments on that.

Just before I call the Minister for the Environment, could I say that the member who’s just resumed her seat, while speaking very appropriately to the bill, has reverted to the old way of committee stage debate and had her target firmly set at five minutes. That’s not the agreement of the House on how we do committee stage debate any more. We’re having more of a conversational debate, so the member would ask specific questions and the Minister is expected to answer them and the member can then expect to get another call if she has further questions.

Responding to the questions raised by Erica Stanford, the two-year period has been chosen because we expect by then that we should be through the worst of COVID, the economic response. The effect of the provisions that are put through to the panel under referred projects during that two-year period will, of course, be a lot longer than that two-year period, both because proposals that are put through the second track, which is by Order in Council to these panels, will still proceed through those panels even after the two-year period if they started before that two-year period expired. And also, the actual projects, once commenced, will often take much longer than two years—some of these large projects.

In respect of the question as to why only two years, this bill really does—and Lawrence Yule commented on this earlier—take powers away from local authorities and gives them to a panel set up by local government, removes appeal rights except on matters of law or judicial review to the High Court. So it does amount to a significant truncation of citizens’ ordinary rights and local authorities’ ordinary rights and we thought that whilst that’s justified for a period of two years, those extraordinary overrides are not appropriate long term.

In respect of why it was that the last Government couldn’t overcome the difficulties they saw in the Resource Management Act (RMA), I’ve sort of summed up my view of the RMA as: it takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t protected the environment. The National Party’s proposition in their last term of Government was to cut through length and cost but to undermine the environmental protections that are in the RMA, and we didn’t think that that was appropriate. It’s notable that the coalition Government of the Labour Party, New Zealand First, supported by the Greens has managed to bring forward and pass an RMA amendment bill, to agree, largely, this bill; and commit us to the Randerson review terms of reference.

In debating Part 1 of this COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, I’d like to ask the Minister why we would not include the most significant project for my constituency of Nelson. People know the geography of my community. The Nelson City sits right at the northern end of the region. We have 100,000 people. We have about 10,000 people living north of Nelson City. We have about 90,000 people living to the south. A huge issue has been efficiently getting people from Stoke into Nelson City.

I’m proud that over the last 30 years we progressively built the Stoke bypass, a $130 million project that was completed, approved, by the previous Bolger-Shipley Government. We had Queen Elizabeth II Drive, which is to the north of Nelson—many would have tripped on that part of the route. And we also have the Richmond Deviation that goes back to the 1980s. So we’ve got a roading network in Nelson where three-quarters of the job has been done, but this crucial link has not been constructed. It’s about a $200 million project.

To outline its economic significance, I would point out to the House that over the last 20 years, retail sales in Richmond have doubled. Over the same period, retail sales in Nelson City have been static—have not increased at all. That is largely as a consequence of the roading route into Nelson City being so congested and jammed. Every morning, past my own home, from about quarter past 7 in the morning to about quarter past 9, the road is jammed, and exactly the same occurs every afternoon.

Now, why it’s so economically significant is because the retail sector in Nelson has never had as hard a period as the last three months. There are over 30 stores in Nelson that have surrendered their lease; they’ve closed. If we really are, with this COVID-19 recovery bill, serious about ensuring the recovery of that city, that piece of transport infrastructure is absolutely crucial.

There’s also a huge environmental benefit from it. Anybody who has been to Nelson would know the gorgeous Rocks Road waterfront. I am rather parochial, but I even think many others would recognise it as one of the most beautiful waterfronts in New Zealand. There’s actually a very strong consensus in Nelson that it should be a walking and cycling boulevard. But that is only possible—only possible—if we deal with the issue of the State highway. While I agree with my colleague James Shaw from the Green Party that, indeed, it should be a walking and cycling boulevard, that will never be practicable while you’ve got 4,000 trucks and 18,000 other vehicles. That can only be achieved by the inland route being constructed, and it is the most important infrastructure project for Nelson.

Now, just yesterday, the Government increased the road-user charges and petrol taxes for my community. It’s estimated that we are now contributing over $100 million a year from the Nelson-Tasman region to the road transport fund. We have, over the last three years, seen the Southern Link project cancelled, we’ve seen even a basic sealing project in our region cancelled, and that is why we are so keen to see this project advanced.

That is why to Schedule 2, which we are debating as part of Part 1 of this bill, there’s an amendment in my name—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but my understanding is that Schedule 2 is part of Part 2, so we look forward to your contribution when we’re debating Part 2.

Could I just refer to clause 5. Clause 5, under Part 1, specifically refers to Schedule 2, and my amendment is to Schedule 2. We do not debate the Schedules separately. My understanding—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We’re debating Schedule 2 under Part 2.

I’m sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We’re debating Schedule 2 under Part 2, and you’re welcome to take a call then.

Can I just get clarity that if I look at Part 1, clause 5 specifically mentions—in clause 5, subclause (4)—Schedule 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Schedule 2 will be debated in Part 2. We’re happy to have that debate later.

Well, I would just indicate very strong support for the amendment that is in my name to include that project. If we’re serious about this COVID-19 recovery bill working for the community of Nelson, that is the project that is so crucial.

Thank you. The member’s time has expired. Can I just remind the member of the contribution I made after Erica Stanford’s debate. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has reverted to the old way of committee stage debate. That is not the agreement of the House; the agreement of the House is that we have a conversation between members who have questions to raise and the Minister. Obviously, when you have a Supplementary Order Paper, a contribution on that is valid, but five minutes is not a target any more in the committee stage of debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Parker, and it’s around Schedule 3 in Part 1, which is around referred projects: requirements for referral order. I want to ask a few questions now—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. Schedule 3 is part of Part 2, and the member will get a call on Part 2 so that she can make that contribution on Schedule 3. Would you like to speak to clauses 3 to 13, or Schedule 1?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d like to raise a point of order because I simply don’t understand, which clearly isn’t a point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s right. Not understanding the layout of legislation is not a point of order, so I’d ask the member to resume her seat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of the back and forth debate, I would like to ask the Minister some questions about some comments that he made in response to my first call, where he said that in two years we will be through the worst of this, which I find extraordinary, given the way the world is going and the fact that we’ve borrowed so much money. How he thinks that in two years we’ll be through the worst of this, and why a two-year sunset clause on this bill would fit with his expectations that we’re going to be through the worst of this in two years—it seems astounding to me that we’ve borrowed $140 billion and in two years we’re going to be in such a great economic state that we won’t need to fast track these projects any more.

But I guess the question I’d like him to answer is: given that comment, how many projects does he expect to go through this process? How many would he expect in two years would be referred to the panel? I’ve got some more questions, but, in the spirit, I’ll let him answer that.

Well, that will depend on the number of projects that come forward and are referred through to panels. It’ll be a significant number. It’ll be larger than the initial tranche of listed projects, which is the first track.

In terms of why I think that it is likely that the first two years of post-COVID will be the worst, that’s because that’s Treasury’s projection.

I wanted to speak to clause 4 in Part 1—the purpose of the bill. I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker: given the purpose of the bill—the purpose being to urgently promote employment to support New Zealand’s recovery—given that, why was it that only 11 projects were listed in Schedule 2? This is going to the purpose in Part 1. Why was it that only 11 projects were put in to go straight through to the panel? How did they come up with these 11 projects? Why was it that these specific ones were selected? How many jobs will be created from these 11 projects? And what sort of economic analysis has been done on those projects to see whether or not they fit the purpose of the bill?

The concern that we have on this side of the House is, in fact, that the ongoing economic benefits from some of these projects isn’t that great, and I’d be very keen for the Minister to answer the question on what sort of analysis has been done and why these projects, these 11 projects, were listed ahead of the many other projects—very good projects—that could be—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: That’s Schedule 2.

No, it’s to go to the purpose of the bill, which is in Part 1.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Definitely in Schedule 2.

Tim van de Molen: Don’t do the Chair’s job. Let her rule, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Thank you both for your assistance. The member was quite specific in referring to the purpose of the bill. She is now referring to something that is outside the scope of this debate, but she very cleverly managed to work it into the purpose of the bill, so I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. I will sit down in a minute, but thank you, Madam Chair, for that kind comment.

But I am interested in why 11 projects—how were they selected, why were those ones come up with rather than other ones, and what was the economic value, the ongoing economic value? What was the analysis done around those, compared to many, many other projects that were not selected?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The estimated number of direct jobs from the first 12 projects is 1,700 jobs. There will be indirect benefits as well, with flow-on effects, of course, of the money that is spent into the economy on those 1,700 jobs, most notably through wages being spent in the local economy but also contractors employing local repair people, etc.

As to the question of how many projects do you put in, that’s a fair question. The Government was of the view that if we put too many projects in at the start, we choke the system and you won’t get anything out quickly, and we thought that it was desirable to get some projects out quickly. That’s the reason why we haven’t thrown everything in.

Also, in respect of the projects that you do put in, there is a degree of effort required to make sure that they’re appropriate for the first fast track, which the panel has limited rights to turn down. Not every project that is suitable for the second track, on referral, where there are broader rights of turning down, is suitable for the first track. That requires an assessment that is reasonably complex and, in itself, takes time. If we put too many projects through that, we would have actually slowed the passage of this legislation.

And how does that happen, in terms of the choice? It’s a choice that was made by Cabinet after advice from the Ministry for the Environment, after advice from various agencies, including the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

💬 Andrew Falloon: Madam Chair?

💬 Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?

Andrew Falloon.

My apologies to my colleague Erica Stanford, Madam Chair, but I do have a few questions just to follow up on some of the Minister’s comments and they do relate to clause 7 of the bill, which refers to listed projects. I’m not going to go into those projects, because you’ve made your points very clear on that. But I do want to ask the Minister, following on from some of Erica Stanford’s points, in relation to how those projects were selected, because it’s certainly been noticed by members on this side of the House, and I’m sure by members across the House, that the initial list, which the Minister referred to in his comments just previously, skews very heavily towards the North Island rather than the South Island. So my questions to the Minister are: who did he ask—who did he consult with in coming up with those listed projects that are referred to in clause 7 of the bill? Did he, for example, discuss it with local authorities? Did he approach, for example, pan-mayoral groups, for example the Canterbury Mayoral Forum?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. That wasn’t nearly as clever as your colleague. You could take a call in Part 2 if you would like to discuss the contribution that you’re making now or you could direct your contribution now to Part 1, which we’re debating.

Happy to move on to clause 12, which is the RMA aspect, which is the relationship between this bill and the Resource Management Act. Some comments were made earlier in the debate, in the first reading, which was in relation to why we’re not considering wider RMA reform at this time. Certainly—and I’m not going to go into the projects, of course—there are a range of projects across the country that could be considered as part of this bill. So I want to ask the Minister: was wider RMA reform considered rather than ramming through a bill which focuses only on a small number of projects for now and then, obviously some further projects later on? Was wider RMA reform considered that would have enabled any range of projects, some of which we don’t even know about at this stage? So there’s obviously a list of projects that we on this side of the House would like to see progress. I’m sure there’s other projects that members on the other side of the House would like to see progressed as well. And so my question for the Minister is: was wider RMA considered?

Because what I worry about, when we discuss the RMA, actually is it’s not so much about the projects that we know about that are declined; it’s often about the projects that we don’t even know about. Because there’s a whole range of things. People get put off by the RMA. It’s a time-consuming, laborious, and costly process to go through often. And so there’s a range of projects that might even never be proposed because people are put off by the RMA and the huge impediments it puts in place.

And so my question to the Minister, which I hope he’ll address, is: was wider RMA reform considered or did he just decide to progress the COVID-19 recovery bill faster, a consenting bill, with a small range of projects, accepting, of course, that there’s a process to go through for additional projects, but did he at any point consider wider RMA reform? If he did, why did he discount that? And if he is perhaps looking at wider RMA reform, can he perhaps go into some of the detail of that about what we might see in future? Thank you.

In respect of the issue as to wider Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, the member will be aware that in the last couple of weeks we’ve already passed a significant reform to the RMA. Unlike most of the prior reforms of the RMA over the last 15 years or so, it didn’t add much to the overall length of the RMA because it stripped out some of the verbiage that had been put in by the last Government, particularly in respect of the so-called collaborative planning process, which is meant to be sort of a collaborative, consensual process and was so overregulated by codification by the last Government that they added many tens of pages to the length of the RMA that the process was never used.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Think of the 48th Parliament—800-page SOPs.

800-page Supplementary Order Papers?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: The Minister was the author of an 800-page SOP.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can we just get back to the debate on this part, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of the wider RMA reform, it is complex and you couldn’t do it through a short-term process. And if you did, it would be quite inappropriate to push it through in a shortcut process such as this, which had a very limited select committee period, and that would cut across the rights of many people to have a say in legislation like this in a more fulsome way. So it would not be able to be done in practice properly and it would also be a poor process.

Whilst I’m on my feet, if I could mention my two SOPs on this part of the bill. There is a list of technical amendments, which I won’t go through in detail; they truly are technical. There’s also a second Supplementary Order Paper in my name, SOP 534.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Four—that’s an interesting one. What’s gone on there?

SOP 534 is easily explained by reference to page 3 of the bill, as reported back from select committee, which shows struck-out language, which says that under the Act “all persons performing functions and exercising powers under it must act in a manner that is consistent with (a) the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Treaty settlements.” The Treaty settlements subset is covered elsewhere in the bill as well. But that was replaced with the wording in the existing Act, which is “[For the purposes of this Act] all persons exercising functions and powers under it … must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. That was the form that came out of the select committee. We prefer the earlier form and therefore we’ve promoted a Supplementary Order Paper for the benefit of the House to consider, in my name, which would restore section 6 to the form in which it went to select committee rather than came out of select committee, with some other consequential amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to open the batting on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 534, and Minister David Parker has pretty much done it for us, but I believe his explanation leaves more questions than answers. Firstly, it’s about select committee process, because the reality is the Environment Committee, in its consideration of this bill—a committee that had a reasonably good number of Government members on it, who—

💬 Erica Stanford: A majority.

A majority—thank you, Mrs Stanford. That is a significant development. I don’t believe I have ever seen a Minister overrule a Government-majority select committee in its careful deliberations on an amendment in this way, and, indeed, the House confirmed those changes in its consideration of the bill at its second reading. So I’m fascinated to know why it is that the Minister felt that the select committee process was somehow suboptimal and whether that’s a dispositional or situational trait that he might have.

But, secondly, I don’t believe that his explanation of why we are considering reverting back to the original wording of the bill is adequate. We have Treaty of Waitangi legislation and principles that are clearly articulated in clause 6 as it was reported back to the House, and the Minister’s not happy with that. So he’s going to ask the House to do the opposite of what it just did half an hour ago at second reading, and it’s doubled down on that, because it’s adding a number of other clauses into it which continue to refer back to section 6—it will be—through clause 34 and its schedules.

So I don’t, frankly, Minister, think that the explanation is yet adequate enough for the committee to understand and consider whether SOP 534 should be supported.

Well, the explanation is pretty simple, and I’ve already given it. We’ve preferred the wording that went into select committee over that which went out, and whichever way it falls, we’re confident that Treaty interests and settlements will be protected.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, the Minister referencing his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) actually piqued my interest, and I went and had a look at the clause he mentioned. I also looked up section 8 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and the Minister did rightly, in his earlier contribution, point out that the Environment Committee adopted wording which mirrors what the RMA currently has. The original bill and the Minister’s SOP uses wording which is more stringent, and it is a higher test that the panels will have to take into account.

So I guess my concern and question for the Minister is, given that this bill removes the substantive appeals process that normally is in place under the RMA and it still provides for appeals on points of law and judicial reviews, which—Madam Chair, it is in Part 1; it’s clause 13. I see you looking at me. Given that the only real way in which a challenger could challenge a project like this, and given there are some meaty issues in some of the projects around water, and given the strong views held by iwi in this country over the issues of water and the use of water, the way in which the Minister’s SOP changes the dynamic in relation to the consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi—where panels don’t just have to give consideration to the principles; they have to act in a manner that’s consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—it almost sets up a situation where the more stringent wording that will be in this Act versus the more relaxed wording under the RMA—challengers to any of the projects could simply use a High Court attack on the panel’s decision on the basis of Treaty of Waitangi principles.

And whereas the panel would previously have had to just give consideration to the principles, they now have to act in a manner that’s consistent with the principles. So by strengthening the wording here, making it more difficult for a panel to make decisions in line with the Treaty of Waitangi, and given the only appeal provision is on points of law, we will see what might have otherwise been substantive appeals on the whole project now reverting and becoming appeals on points of law relating to this Treaty of Waitangi clause, in the manner to attack projects that interest groups that have significant views on these projects relating to Treaty of Waitangi principles may wish to exercise.

So I wonder if the Minister has received advice or adequately considered that by making these provisions more difficult for panels to meet, he’s actually almost setting himself up to see projects defeated on High Court appeals using the Treaty clause, which is now more stricter than the RMA.

I don’t think that is the effect of this. In respect of Treaty settlements, the issue does come up under Part 2. I’m not going to address it, but the member might want, in preparation for that, to look at clause 32(1)(b) of Schedule 6.

Thanks, Madam Chair. It’s just worthwhile going back to an issue that was raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and in fact I was in the select committee on this day when we talked about—this is to do with clause 6 of Part 1, Treaty of Waitangi. So in the bill that was proposed, first reading moved, second passed, went into the select committee, the wording was: “In achieving the purpose of the Act, all persons performing functions and exercising powers under it must act in a manner that is consistent with—(a) the principles of Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Treaty settlements.” And Jenny Marcroft, who is a New Zealand First member, proposed a change which aligns with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and it reads, “In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. The committee, by majority, everyone—in fact, I’ve got the minutes here. Eight members voted for that: Labour members, Duncan Webb as the chair, Scott Simpson, Liz Craig, Jacqui Dean, myself, Jenny Marcroft, Erica Stanford, Angie Warren-Clark all voted for that. One member, Chlöe Swarbrick, voted against it, and she’s nodding her head confirming that so the minutes are true, accurate, and correct. So what I find a bit offensive is that the Minister now has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—numbered 534, he’s just spoken about it—reinserting the words back in, effectively riding roughshod over the Labour members. And the chair of the committee, Duncan Webb, may wish to take a call—I see over the other side of the House he’s got his head down at the moment. Something’s amiss here, that the Labour members of the Environment Committee voted for this clause to be taken out and voted with National and New Zealand First; now the Minister is proposing in SOP 534 to effectively change it back, as the wording was.

What I’m interested in trying to understand—and the Minister in his address before said he could live with actually both, but he prefers the one that’s his SOP and the original wording of the bill. What I’m keen to understand is what changed. Does the chair of the Environment Committee not talk to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, about this bill and how it’s progressing through the committee? I just can’t fathom that the Labour members voted with New Zealand First and National to change this, and now we have an SOP that proposes changing it back, and I can’t understand why on earth there wasn’t open communication between the Minister and, particularly, the chair of the committee, Dr Duncan Webb. We’ve had numerous examples over the last month where the support parties of the coalition Government are starting to fracture. Is this another example whereby the coalition Government, left hand, right hand, hands in the middle coming together are not talking to one another?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just remind the Hon Nathan Guy that this is not the old style of committee stage debate. This is a conversation with the Minister, and I can’t hear much conversation and I can’t hear many questions. So if you could move to the new style of debate where five minutes is not a target.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. I actually quite like the new style, too, because this is not the first question that I’ll have, even though I’ve been here 15 years. I think the new style is great, because it really means that the Minister in the chair has to be accountable, open, and transparent, which is back to the Speech from the Throne.

So I guess my substantial question is: why was there a change between the way Government members voted in the Environment Committee about the Treaty of Waitangi clause; why did they do that? And now they’re being asked to vote for something that is different.

The select committee acted appropriately. No one has done anything wrong here. It’s up for the committee to decide whether they vote through the Supplementary Order Paper that I’ve proposed or not.

Madam Chair—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Lucky the list ranking’s been done!

Well, it just explains why he wasn’t considered as the Minister of Health. My questions for the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. That’s a really unhelpful, unparliamentary way of starting a debate, which is meant to be a conversation—could the member resume her seat, please—with the Minister, not a cheap shot at other people. Nicola Willis—second attempt.

Madam Chair, my questions to the Minister relate particularly to clause 12, “Relationship between this Act and Resource Management Act 1991”. And I build on questions that my, in your words, clever colleague Erica Stanford put to the Minister and that I’d just appreciate some more detail on. What they go to is the way that this bill interacts with the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Minister has shared with this House and with the New Zealand public that he has under way a working group to reform the Resource Management Act, recognising some of its flaws. I think there’s general agreement across the House that the RMA is responsible for delaying much-needed developments in New Zealand.

So my question is: given that admission—that the RMA has these significant flaws—and given the intent of this bill and this particular clause, in particular, to fast track projects and carve them out of that RMA process, has the Minister given thought to allowing this bill to continue beyond two years and, instead, to allow this bill to be in place for so long as it takes for reform of the Resource Management Act to have occurred? It seems to me that there is an opportunity here to fast track much-needed development across New Zealand, not just restrictive to the 13 special projects in this bill but to include the many housing developments that we need in this country—to include, for example, the roading projects that are so desperately needed in Wellington and the transport projects that are needed throughout the country. So my question to the Minister is: on what basis will this interact with the Resource Management Act and whether or not he has given consideration to that relationship?

I am also interested, if I can just take this opportunity for the back and forth, to ask the Minister on what basis he has defined the difference between the listed projects and the referred projects, and I ask that with reference to his earlier answer that he felt that if too many projects were listed, that could overwhelm the authority—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s a very good question to make on Part 2.

Well, I’m referring, Madam Chair, to clause 12, “Listed projects and referred projects”—Part 1, clause 12 of the bill—which specifically outlines the processes that relate to listed projects and referred projects. My question for the Minister is simple, and I’ll take my chair in a minute and sit down, but I simply want to ask why it is that he is confident that this authority won’t be overwhelmed with referred projects. Because I put it to you, Minister and Madam Chair, that there are hundreds of projects in New Zealand that would like to avoid the delays and costs of the Resource Management Act and that would likely wish to be referred to this Act instead. Thank you.

Just referring to those questions, this amendment bill does not seek to undermine environmental standards; it seeks to retain them, and the references here to the Resource Management Act, cross-referenced through other clauses of the bill, achieve that outcome. In respect of how many projects could be referred before the system would be choked up—or “Couldn’t it be choked up by referred projects?”—of course, that’s the very reason that the Government has retained control over how many projects are referred. The Government controls the number of projects that go through by virtue of the Order in Council process that applies to referred projects.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this bill. I’m really mindful of the thorough consideration of the Environment Committee and just wanted to—in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 534, which has been tabled, in relation to re-inserting section 6 but, more importantly, the intent of the provision that had always remained core to your aspiration—ask if the Minister could clarify the level of aspiration from iwi who want to take a proactive role in the economic recovery of this country and leverage their Treaty settlements to be able to do that. I’m wondering, Minister, what type of conversation you have heard in terms of the level of aspiration which led to the reason why the provision of Treaty settlements was such a strong consideration.

I am aware, like you, Minister, that there were a number of iwi who participated in the response during the COVID period and, at the same time, have given their own thought to the way in which recovery, by region, by sub-region, with their inclusion, might well be a total sum benefit to the creation of jobs and the opportunities that arise at a regional level. So I’m really keen to ensure that without a shadow of a doubt, the legislation as you had intended it was designed to enable—[Interruption] The legislation, as the Minister had designed it, was to ensure that there would be a positive—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: There should have been open communication between the Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don’t think bellowing like that is very helpful.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: This is my normal voice.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, could you turn it down, please.

The legislation, Minister, that you had intended, in so far as it related to the contribution of iwi would enable economic growth and recovery and actually create the type of environment where, with the assurance of the protection that the legislation would not cut across Treaty settlements, yet it would enable a more productive conversation by region, by sub-region, about the way in which iwi could contribute to economic recovery that would see the creation of jobs, that would also see the protection of the environment, and that would be a more proactive, productive way of trying to initiate that type of focus and conversation at a local level.

The intention of this legislation is to support the recovery of New Zealand. I think just about every group in New Zealand recognises that the economic challenges we face as a consequence of the disruption that’s been caused by the COVID disease is significant. It’s pleasing to me that all sectors of society, including iwi groups, want to contribute to that. The member will be aware that—well, I’m not allowed to refer to the listed projects, because they come from a schedule, but we can debate that when it comes.

In respect of protection of Treaty interests, the bill endeavours to do that. We are promoting—or I am promoting—Supplementary Order Paper 534, in respect of the original language in that regard. But, either way, I believe Treaty interests are properly protected.

The question I have for the Minister in Part 1 refers to the repeal of the Act on the second anniversary of the date on which it receives Royal assent. Under the provisions relating to this we read that the consenting panel will continue its duties after the repeal of this Act until the matters set out before it are dealt with. So the questions I have around that are: how long does the Minister anticipate that that provision and that function of the consenting panel will continue? That is one question.

There are statutory periods for the different steps that the panel takes in respect of referred projects. There is written commentary that’s required or asked for from a listed group of representative bodies. That’s in the next part of the bill.

Further to that, could the Minister detail—I understand that the statutory time frames, they are set out in the bill, soon to become the Act, and I agree with the Minister around the process around that. My question, really, is around what consideration in the drafting of this bill was given to what could be a considerable number of applications sitting before the consenting panel at, I presume, different stages. So I guess my question is now twofold: firstly, how many projects does the Minister anticipate being before the consenting panel, and what advice has he received on what those numbers might potentially be? Then, secondly, going back to my earlier question: how long, subsequent to the repeal of the Act, does he expect the consenting panel to be still conducting its business?

In respect of the second part of that question, I can’t give an exact answer, but I would expect it would be less than a year. In respect of the first question as to how many projects, we really don’t know. A lot of the questions or the uncertainties arise not just from consenting, they rise from consenting under other legislation—Building Act, Public Works Act—they also depend upon which projects have been funded. Because of those uncertainties, we’ve designed this in a way that a number of panels can be set up by the panel convenor, who’s likely to be the existing head Environment Court Judge Newhook. It’s his responsibility to set up the number of panels that are required.

Just a technical question for the Minister on permitted activities. Minister, if you go to clause 12(3B)(b), you talk about permitted activities and associated permitted activities and the standards for them. It says that the exemptions that are under Schedule 4 shall not override or replace any other national environmental standards or any condition that applies to an existing resource consent or designation. I understand that, Minister.

But when you have an interaction between, say, a territorial authority and a regional authority—and I’ll give you an example. A regional council may have a plan or a set of performance standards on what you can do and not do in a riverbed, as an example. I can’t see how that is provided for in this bill. So, in other words, the performance standards associated with permitted activities in this bill may actually be more liberal than the regional plan allows for activities in waterways. So the interaction between those two I can’t—because it’s not listed there as part of a regional plan or another thing for a regional council. I can’t see how you’re not saying that those provisions are actually overridden, and I would like the Minister to clarify how that’s protected.

I understand what you’re saying in those two clauses—that this cannot supersede consent conditions or a national standard—but a regional plan or performance standards from a regional authority is not included. How’s that issue protected?

Schedule 4 lists the various standards that would apply to permitted activity at Part 1 of that schedule, which starts from clause 4 of Schedule 4.

Which is in the next debate. So people, I know—I can feel that people are keen to move on to Part 2, and the way to get to that is to stop taking calls on Part 1. If you continue taking calls on Part 1, could you please address Part 1.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I was in the middle of a conversation with the Minister in the chair, David Parker, around the provision whereby the Act is repealed on the second anniversary of the date at which it receives Royal assent. My question now to the Minister goes to—and I have several questions, but I will take them one at a time—the Minister’s answer to my previous question, where he told the committee that he really had no idea how many applications would be before the hearings panels. My question to the Minister is: what work was done in the development of this bill, in the drafting and the policy work prior to the bill hitting the committee and the House, on the estimation of the number of infrastructure projects—not the listed but the referred projects—that may potentially be referred to the panel? I want to understand the lack of certainty the Minister has on just how large the workload will be, because please reassure me and other members that policy work was done and that the Minister has a better handle on just, you know, round-figure numbers of consents that might apply to be considered as part of this process.

I did have discussions with officials as to whether we could identify a more specific figure. We concluded that it was impossible to do so, partly because there are so many variables involved—including the funding and whether people choose to use another process track; people aren’t forced to come forward for this. A lot of the projects that are to be done over the next few years, some of them will be relatively uncontentious and they’ll be easily consented through district councils, and they’ll probably still go through that route because it might be cheaper. So, for those reasons, we decided that it really wasn’t worth spending any more time and effort on trying to come up with an accurate figure. We’ll just deal with the applications as they come in.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. In your last ruling—or it wasn’t a ruling—you suggested I shouldn’t carry on with clause 4 of Schedule 4. I actually wasn’t intending to talk about clause 4. I wanted to talk about why regional plans weren’t included in subparagraph (i), and I’d seek your guidance as to how I would handle that.

As long as your contribution is relevant to the part that you’re talking to, it will be acceptable.

So I come back to what I was trying to allude to, maybe not as succinctly as I should have. But under Part 1, clause 12(3B)(b)(ii), “any conditions that apply to an existing resource consent or designation.”, my simple question to the Minister is: why are regional plans not also included in that provision, in that particular piece?

Officials can correct me if I’ve got this wrong, but my understanding is that what that’s referring to is existing designations or existing consents and the conditions or designation conditions which sit therein. They sit in the designation or the consent, not in the plan. References to regional plans and district plans where they are relevant are found in later parts of the Act, and they would be relevant to panel considerations in respect of a referred application, for example.

I move, That the question be now put.