COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill

We move now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 14 to 35 and Schedules 2 to 6.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good.

The specific part I want to talk about is clause 16, “Who makes referral decisions”. It says in this that—and I brought this up very early on in the select committee process, just after the officials gave us some advice on this—the “Decisions under this subpart that relate to the referral of a project to an expert consenting panel must be made—(a) jointly by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation, if any part of the project would occur in the coastal marine area;”. So I want to ask the Minister what happens if there is disagreement, and the reason I want to ask him that question is because we have seen over the last couple of years quite a fractured relationship between the Greens and Labour, and between the two Ministers, in fact, over many different projects. In fact, I think that the relationship between the two Ministers probably wouldn’t be described as being great.

So, given that, I’d just like to know whether, if the two Ministers come head to head over something—for example, let’s take king salmon. They want to increase the number of farms and perhaps put them in different areas. It’s a very, very good project with excellent economic benefits to New Zealand with a far better return, say, than dairy. The Minister for the Environment is all in favour of it and the Minister of Conservation comes along and says no.

Now, the reason that I’m putting this forward is because this very situation happens so many times with the Green Party, who decide for many things that they’d like to go backwards or do nothing or hold the status quo because that’s the way they think, and I understand the Minister in the chair is far more progressive when it comes to these issues. So I can foresee issues like cameras on fishing boats, Campbell Island, or the Kermadecs, where you’ve got this fractious relationship, and I can see in this bill here, under clause 16, where the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation come head to head over what would be an extremely good project like the king salmon one I mentioned.

There’ll be many others that will involve the coastal marine area where the Minister of Conservation disagrees, and yet perhaps the rest of the Government thinks that it’s a good project. I just wanted to know what sort of process will be gone through in order to come out with some good decisions, because what I can foresee is that in the coastal marine area, we just won’t get anything because we know very well what the Green Party is like.

The member Erica Stanford is correct that if it is in the coastal marine area, then concurrence is required between both Ministers. That’s the same proposition that’s used in respect of the formation of marine reserves, where you need to have agreement between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Fisheries.

I wish to ask the Minister questions about specific projects that are omitted from this bill and that I believe would be of significant value not only to Wellingtonians but to New Zealand as a whole. Those projects are outlined in Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I have tabled in Parliament, and they relate to the Mount Victoria tunnel, they relate to the Terrace tunnel, unblocking the Basin Reserve, and undergrounding roading at Karo Drive.

The reason these projects are appropriate for fast tracking is that they have been discussed and consulted on in Wellington for not weeks, not months, but years. They were subject to extensive public engagement as part of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving process, which brought together local government, central government, and members of the public. They were broadly agreed to as significant priority infrastructure projects that were required to unblock traffic in the city and get it moving, that were required to ensure that we had the modern transport amenities that are expected in a growing city. They are projects that will allow not only for road traffic to move faster and to reduce the commuting time for Wellingtonians but they are also projects that will facilitate safer cycling and walking, and they are projects that will facilitate more reliable and more timely bus services—something that this city dearly needs.

I accept the Government’s position that it has selected projects that it believes are of priority in the fast tracking of this bill. I would put to this House that these are absolutely the sorts of projects that the Government should be prioritising for fast track, because they are projects that have already been broadly agreed to, they are projects that would create hundreds of jobs because their construction would require the involvement of engineers, builders, and many others, and they are projects that are needed for the ongoing growth of Wellington and that would therefore contribute to this country. So I ask the Minister: why would you not support the inclusion of my SOPs and these four very significant transport projects?

The answer that I am about to give applies, really, to a lot of the other projects that are suggested in other Supplementary Order Papers. Their non-inclusion isn’t to say that they’re not worthy. They can be considered as referenced projects through the Order in Council route. We chose 12 projects spread throughout the country—some in this region. Those were not the ones that were chosen, but they can be referred by applicants, through the referral process, for consideration by the Minister for the Environment as to whether, by Order in Council, they should be put to a panel.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I bring to your attention Standing Order 330(1), and this Standing Order—I’ll quote quite directly from it—it requires that “Any member intending to propose an amendment which may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates, or to move a change to a Vote, must give notice of the amendment or change by lodging it with the Clerk at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day on which the amendment is to be proposed or the change is to be moved.” The point I ask you to consider is that many of the amendments referred to by Nicola Willis in her contribution were amendments which clearly do have an impact on the Government’s fiscal position but were none the less tabled as recently as this afternoon.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order.

So can we just see if I can get it right first go, and then I’m happy to take your advice or your contribution after this. So if the member refers to Standing Order 330(3) and reflects on the process that this bill has gone through, there hasn’t been an opportunity for the further Standing Order to be met, which is why it says, “This Standing Order applies in respect to an amendment to a bill only when the bill is set down for consideration and committee on the next sitting day.” We moved straight to committee stage from the second reading. Did I get that right, Mr van de Molen?

Tim van de Molen: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Perfect. We’re in agreement.

The Minister David Parker has just set out his view that the four projects I have referred to in my amendment could still be considered for fast track under this legislation. So I want to ask the Minister a very direct question and I expect a direct answer. Will the Government allow these projects to progress under the fast-track mechanisms of this bill if they are referred by Order in Council?

That would be a decision that I would be required to take in accordance with the bill.

My question to the Minister is: does he at this stage believe that those are the sorts of projects we could expect to receive in Order in Council and that would be progressed under this bill? Because the significance of this is that, actually, New Zealanders around the country are asking “What sorts of projects are actually going to be referred under this legislation?” Is this fast tracking just Shane Jones’ special projects, or are these projects that have broader support across our community? Will these projects need to get the agreement of the Greens, who oppose, for example, a second Mount Victoria tunnel, or are these projects that will actually be assessed against national good criteria and that will be projects that will advance regional benefit?

So I put to the Minister: would he expect projects to be agreed to if they do not have the support of other Government partners, such as the Green Party?

The answer to the member’s question about whether the projects of the sorts that she has described would be suitable for consideration for referral by Order in Council is yes.

I’d just like to ask the Minister for the Environment about—some of the feedback that occurred during consultation on the bill and in the select committee stages was strongly asking for an environmental bottom-line, and I understand that the Minister has included that in the bill, but I’m just seeking clarification. I believe that the clause is—clause 11 in Schedule 6, “Matters to be covered in assessment of environmental effects”, states, “The assessment of an activity’s effects on the environment under clause 9(4) must cover the following matters:”, and then it lists a series of matters. I just wanted to ask if that is the Minister’s understanding—that that is the environmental bottom-line clause that was being looked for—or are there other clauses in Part 2 that I’ve missed?

That’s one of them. There are quite similar clauses in respect of notices of requirements as well as consent applications. Referring to referred projects, I could give an example of clause 13(4) of Schedule 6, which describes the documents that the panel has to assess an application against, and that lists “(a) a national policy statement: (b) … coastal policy statement: (c) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (d) a plan or proposed plan: (e) a planning document recognised by a relevant iwi authority and lodged with a local authority.” So that’s how those are brought to bear. Then there are also more general references to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act in related clauses as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill. I want to start by speaking to a particular project under Schedule 2, and I want to explain just a little bit to join a few dots as to why I’ve chosen this project, of several, to lead off here this afternoon. This is the Ruakākā recreational facility project. Why I’m leading off with this is because in discussion with the Clerk, with a view to what the voting might look like when we come to the ends of things, I was mindful under the reform of vocational education how there was a sample taken and they were aggregated together.

So I’ve chosen this project to lead, specifically, for several reasons. First of all, it will demonstrate that it’s quite different to the others I’m speaking to. Secondly, this is a project that was actually announced the day before yesterday, and so it is highly likely, and our understanding is, that various parties across the Chamber will actually vote for it, therefore proving the point that the projects that we vote for tonight—it will not necessarily be by default that it will be a no for all these projects; therefore, the view of the committee of the whole House cannot be predetermined; therefore, individual voting.

So if I can then speak to, please, the Ruakākā recreational facility project, I’ll give a very brief summary and then three very short questions to the Minister, if I can. This is a project that came to me in 2018, I believe, and it’s a very important facility at Ruakākā. Ruakākā’s having substantial growth. It’s out in Bream Bay. I actually believe my colleagues in New Zealand First may be the ones who are particularly supporting this, and I commend them for it. It’s an excellent project. This project will remove the existing squash and, I think, its soccer rooms, and replace it with a facility that will have multiple uses by the community—not just sporting but for other uses as well.

So in that very general background, if I could pose three questions to the Minister. The first is: is he aware that the Government announced this project as one of their infrastructure projects yesterday, actually?

I’m unsure whether that project needs a resource consent or a Building Act consent. That’s one of the reasons why you’ve got to be a bit careful that we don’t just put these things in on the floor, because they might not be appropriate for inclusion. None the less, it could be appropriately considered through the reference track via Order in Council.

Thank you. My second question is: has he seen the thousands of letters of support for this project, including from the local MP on 29 August 2013?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Are you going to identify the local member of Parliament?

Yes. That’s actually myself, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, thank you, Dr Reti.

No, I haven’t seen it. But knowing the member, I’m sure the grammar was good.

You’re very kind. Thank you. My final question on this: does he agree that Bream Bay is an area of growth, and that the facility would be a multi-function facility with broad benefit across the community and might fit in with the goals and aims of the Government overall?

If the Government’s agreed to fund the project, I think that indicates the Government thinks it’s a good one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t hold the Minister in the chair, David Parker, for long; I know there are a number of people raising issues. Fundamentally, fast-tracking of some projects is a really positive thing. I think Schedule 2 outlining up to 11 projects is positive. I suppose, as context, for me, Minister, I would be keen to see that to be more ambitious, when we’re looking at—

💬 Hon David Parker: 12.

12 now? Oh, well, we’ve gone apostolic—that’s not a bad thing. We’re up to 12 now. I’m ambitious further, though, Minister, that we might get to 13 with your support tonight.

In my own electorate of Tāmaki—you’ll know it well; I know you’ve visited Auckland—a significant project there has been pushed by myself and with the support of the local board to develop, and it has developed, a master plan to have Tāmaki Drive completely and comprehensively upgraded. I am optimistic, I would hope, for your support, because not only is it a road of local significance but also regional and national significance. I’m sure of great interest to the Greens is that Tāmaki Drive is very popular for walking, for other forms of recreation—cycling, and so forth. As the Minister, I’d hope you would appreciate it’s underdeveloped or needs further support.

So I would like to see if the Minister would support my call, and that of my local constituents, to have a comprehensive upgrade of Tāmaki Drive so that it can be used by all—not just the locals but by the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, who visit. Most importantly, it’s to support something which is a safety upgrade. Ultimately, it’s a shared area. Obviously, for those who cycle, who walk, and who ride scooters and cars, it’s become relatively unsafe. So I see this as a very positive project for the area, but one, as I say, that also has regional and national significance.

I repeat an earlier answer: we believe that the make-up of the list of 12 projects already listed is appropriate. We don’t want to overrun the system with too many projects at the start. We will, though, quickly receive other applications to consider under the second tract of referral via Order in Council.

Thank you Madam Chair. The questions to the Minister, then, are around the 12 projects that have been listed. Given that this bill is about fast tracking consent but doesn’t formally guarantee funding for the projects that may go through this process, why limit it to 12? There’s ample scope for many projects across the country to benefit from this, particularly as we’ve heard contributions this afternoon about current Resource Management Act process, and I draw the Minister’s attention to Mr Bishop’s comments about the shared cycleway and walkway between Pētone and Ngauranga, which was forecast to take four years, at least, through the consenting process—so many other projects that might benefit from that.

I draw his attention specifically to my tabled amendment seeking to add the Pētone to Grenada link road into the schedule. If the Minister continues an answer that he wants to limit that, then I would add a supplementary question: will he, under the criteria I’m about to set out, in his bill, support that particular link road if an application for a referral were made?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member, but can I just advise the committee that if members are going to repeat the question with a different insertion in it—so you’re just saying your project instead of the project that’s just been replied to, and the Minister would therefore be giving exactly the same response—I will view that as repetitious.

Madam Chair, I can tell you I’m going to use the specific criteria set out in clause 19, which are the criteria under which the project would help to achieve the purpose of the Act, and to show that that particular amendment—in my view, and I’m hoping the Minister might well agree, even tonight—meets the conditions that are set down so strongly that if it were not to be part of Schedule 2 today, the Minister might signal his willingness to accept a referral application.

For instance, 19(d)(ix) talks about resilience, and particularly the management of risks from natural hazards. So the Minister is probably aware, just the other night, of a five-hour delay, impacting about 46,000 vehicles, from a small slip on the highway between Ngauranga and Pētone. In fact, one of the key purposes of this link road is to provide transport resilience to the Wellington area, particularly for such hazards and potential impacts of climate change in the future.

I also note that in 19(d)(iv) it talks about increasing productivity. This road is forecast to take up to 25,000 vehicle movements per day off the Wellington motorway. At its inception it was talked about improving productivity through a direct link between Porirua and the northern parts of Ōhāriu to the Lower Hutt valley and vice versa. It’s assessed that it would reduce 10 minutes each way from those journeys. It would also have taken 25,000 vehicle movements a day off the current Northern Motorway. It would therefore improve—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member again. The member is being—could you please resume your seat. The member is being quite defiant on the contribution that I made to him just a couple of minutes ago. The Minister has been asked that question, has answered it by advocating and inserting a new title. It is repetitious, and I’d ask the member to either ask a new question or recall the answer to his question that the Minister has given on several occasions already in this debate.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think the concern we have here on this side is that this comes to the nature of the bill around the breadth of the projects, and whilst it may be in relation to a similar type of question, actually, the projects themselves are very diverse and represent a significantly different range of considerations for each project, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What’s the point of order, Mr van de Molen?

Tim van de Molen: Well, my point of order is that Mr Hudson is asking the Minister about a different project, and whilst it relates in Part 2—that schedule, of course—it is an entirely different consideration, and so therefore the range of amendments should be debatable.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I disagree and I’ve already ruled on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My point of the question to the Minister is that I’m seeking to ascertain, given the position he’s taken so far on the restriction of projects to be included under Schedule 2, a clear sense of how the mechanisms of this bill would work. I’m giving a detailed example, for the benefit of the Minister in the Chamber, of a project that meets so many of the criteria set down for a potential application for referral. I’m very keen to understand from the Minister just how automatic it might be for a project that strongly meets those to actually make it through. Now, the project itself also unlocks housing developments—

The member’s time has expired.

Clause 19 of Part 2 does make it clear that in respect of the decision as to whether to refer projects through to the panel in addition to the listed ones, the general purpose of the legislation is to bring forward employment. But economic effects, the project’s effect on social and cultural wellbeing, whether the project would be likely to progress fast—there’s no sense putting something through this process if it was going to go through pretty quickly anyway through a council—whether the project can result in a public benefit of generation of employment, increasing housing supply, contributing to well-functioning urban environments, providing infrastructure in order to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, improving environmental outcomes that are listed, minimising waste, mitigating climate change, promoting historic heritage, strengthening economic, environmental, and social resilience—there’s a long list there, which does give a wide ambit of things to be taken into account by the Minister. The primary issue, though, still will be whether it will bring forward employment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am puzzled because of what I’m hearing from the National Opposition, with all of these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) seeking to put forward their particular pet projects. Then the bill sets out very clearly—as the Minister has enunciated—the criteria by which the Minister for the Environment will consider whether a project goes on the fast track. That is the process in the bill, which will become the law.

What the National members seem to be seeking with their questions is for the Minister to risk judicial review and predetermination by giving an answer now of which projects are likely to succeed against these criteria. I am puzzled, because all of the members should be in the House long enough to know that no Minister would risk that by saying, “Yes, I will approve. No, I won’t approve.” to particular projects that they are promoting. The Green Party will not be supporting any of National’s SOPs to add projects to the schedule, because the process is there, the criteria are there. If the projects come, they can be considered by the Minister against those criteria, or, alternatively, they can go through the usual process under the Resource Management Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wonder if the Minister might help us. I’ve had the opportunity to look through the numerous Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and they seem to fall into a number of categories. Some seem to be pretty run of the mill work, such as a college upgrade; others, a little more substantial, such as the busway and flyover that is in SOP 532. Some are sort of traffic upgrades, such as, I think, Nicky Wagner SOP’s here for a traffic lights and bridge upgrade in Marshland Road. I was just wondering if perhaps the Minister could just indicate that most of these SOPs would fit either into a referral or, indeed, under the existing works provision. Yet a third category would probably all manage to be addressed under the Resource Management Act’s ordinary provisions. It just strikes me that none of these really meet or come anywhere near the threshold of needing to be listed in the way that perhaps some of the members on the other side are suggesting.

I would agree. I think it’s good that the member refers to the permitted activity route here. I was talking to the KiwiRail chief executive, who thought that most of the jobs of this that will come through fastest are actually those which are permitted activities in existing rail lines and road lines of the New Zealand Transport Agency. There will be a myriad of smaller projects that are, by this legislation, made permitted activities. There are standards in the legislation that require dust, for example, to be mitigated, and prohibitions on going into the marine area, for example, on a permitted activity basis. But I think we’ve got the balance right between the listed projects, the referred projects, and the permitted activities.

Part 2 is all about fast tracking, and I will use my inside voice—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The microphone is working—the microphone’s working.

It is; it’s an open and live mike, yes—inside voice required. Part 2 is all about fast tracking, as I said, but you may not have heard that!

I want to focus specifically on clause 16(1), which is about referrals of a project requiring ministerial sign-off by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation. So I’m particularly interested—and we transgressed this in the committee stage, or the whole committee—because we’ve got a time frame on the panel, and it’s roughly about two months, give or take, that the panel has to make a decision.

There’s no time frame on Ministers. So you could end up in a situation where you have a Minister—let’s say the Minister currently in the chair from the Labour Party and the Minister of Conversation from the Green Party. Now, both of those Ministers may not necessarily agree to the specific project that’s being requested to be called in, and it relates to coastal marine area, this one. So what safeguards can the Minister or what reassurance can the Minister give the committee that there won’t be filibustering going on between one Minister, who might be from a different political party but still in Government, who requests more and more information from officials to slow down the process, when this whole bill is about fast tracking and securing jobs and growing our economy?

I have a real concern that you could have an example—and we saw it with different Ministers over the last 12, 18 months with the Waihī mine, where one Minister agreed and the other Minister didn’t. So I’m concerned that this clause here about referrals of projects, clause 16(1), where—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m really sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the dinner break. The House will continue this debate at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you’ve had a good dinner like I did with my lovely family. Anyway, now talking about this bill that we are debating this evening, which, to remind those listeners, is the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.

I had a question that I’d like to put to the Minister and I’ll just recap on that. He’s one of the brighter ones in Cabinet, so I’m sure he’s taken it down, but just in case he’s forgotten during the dinner break, it was around Part 2, clause 16(1), around whether, if there was a delay at all, hypothetically, between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation around, basically, getting agreement on a coastal marine area, what safeguards would the applicant—might be the council, might be a particular industry, private company—have that that process didn’t take forever and a day? And if one Minister—let’s take an example at the moment. We have a live example. Minister Sage is Minister of Conservation from the Green Party, and Minister Parker from the Labour Party—let’s say that they don’t agree. So I would be concerned and keen to hear from the Minister what safeguards would be in place to ensure that one Minister just didn’t continue to get more advice and more advice to slow down this process.

We’ve had an example of that occurring reasonably recently, where Ministers didn’t agree, and that was to do with the OceanaGold application to take over a farm—what’s commonly called the Waihī mine up North, where they wanted to put tailings on a particular farm, from my memory, and Ministers didn’t agree. So I’m keen to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker, what assurance he can give myself and others in the Parliament this evening that this fast-track bill won’t be delayed unnecessarily if one Minister doesn’t agree, continuing to go backwards and forwards to get more advice and, actually, slowing down what we all want, which is jobs in our communities on the back of COVID-19? Thank you.

Thank you. There is concurrence required between the Ministers of Conversation and for the Environment in respect of a proposal in the marine area. The member will be aware that there’s precedent for that, and he would have had experience from when he had fisheries responsibility in respect of various other things that have happened in the marine space that require concurrence between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation. But in respect of these, I don’t think many applications are actually going to be in the marine area, but some will be. The way in which—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: You could have a salmon farm one. That’s a live example—farm switch.

The way in which the Government is able to reach conclusions around those areas is actually illustrated in this very bill, where at page 38 there’s a map of one of the projects that’s in the listed projects, which is Picton Harbour, which includes areas in the marine area where parties in the Government have been able to agree that that’s an appropriate project for listing.

In respect of time lines more generally—sorry, so with—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: It was more about two Ministers not agreeing and one filibustering, taking forever, and seeking advice.

Well, with concurrence, it’s always possible for one Minister to withhold their agreement—it’s always been the case. So there is no time limit around that. But more generally, there’s a list of other Ministers that I, as Minister for the Environment, have to consult with, and they are listed—I just had it there but I’ve managed to turn the page—and there is a 10 working-day period. For the listeners, this is on page 17, in clause 21(6). It says I’ve got to consult with the various Ministers listed there, and they’ve got 10 working days to reply. If they don’t, I can proceed anyway. If they do so late, well, so long as I haven’t taken my decision, I can receive their input late, but if I’ve already made by decision, it’s too late.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask David Parker, the Minister in the chair, about a specific project in Schedule 2. I want to ask him about what happened to Ngāwhā. The reason I want to ask him what happened to this is because it goes to the Minister when he makes his decisions for referring projects down the line. I want to understand why it was that we ended up with a project in Schedule 2 in his bill that was purely for a hole to be dug in the ground for what he himself said earlier was a water storage project, but, in fact, it wasn’t, because it was just a hole in the ground. What I’m after is what went wrong—why was it that the Minister didn’t include the water or the water-take consents in that?

What I’m trying to understand is his thinking when it comes to referring projects down the line, because, no doubt, there will be water storage projects that will want to be referred. I know Dargaville is in a similar situation, and there will be other places around the country as well that will want to put projects to the Minister for him to refer, and I’m keen to get an understanding of what went wrong. We fixed it up in the Environment Committee. The National Party helped Jenny Marcroft with her amendment, because they didn’t have the support of the Greens, and we helped them get that through. It’s very, very important for the people of Kaikohe.

But what I’m trying to understand here is what happened? Why did the Minister leave out those consents and then change his mind at select committee? Like I said, I’m only trying to understand that so I can understand more about projects that get referred, and I’ve got some more questions.

I’m happy to answer that question. At the point that it went to select committee, we didn’t have agreement from the Green Party for the inclusion of water. The New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party thought water should be included, but at that stage, the Green Party weren’t convinced. They sought more information. We obtained an assessment of the environmental effects. On that basis, they thought it was appropriate that the Kaikohe water project be included, and therefore the select committee chose to do so, which is why it’s now listed in the schedule.

I think you can, then, understand our point, the point that Michael Woodhouse—not Michael Woodhouse, sorry—Nathan Guy was making before, which was about when there are going to be projects referred that include around the coastal marine area, there is going to be—[Interruption]—it’s late—potential conflicts between the two Ministers. As he mentioned, there can be delays, as we’ve already seen in the bill, so that’s what we’re concerned about. But I’ll carry on because I think I’ve made that point.

I want to go back to what the Minister said earlier about not wanting to choke the system, which goes a way to explaining, I guess, in the mind of the Minister, that he understands that there are a number of projects that could be put in Schedule 2, more than the 11 that were put there. I guess I want to ask him, if he knows that there were a number of projects that could be in Schedule 2, and if we are in such a dire economic state and we need to stimulate the economy and stimulate job growth—and he knows that there are a number of projects—why didn’t he, in that case, make extra capacity? Given that we’re in the worst economic situation of our lifetimes and he knows that there are lots of projects that could have been included but that he didn’t include because he said that he didn’t want to choke the system, why didn’t he just build extra capacity?

Then he went on to say that there are a number of panels that could have been convened. Well, if that’s the case, why not put more projects in?

What we’ve been saying the whole way along, Minister, is that this is a wasted opportunity. These 11 projects, they’re not terrible on their own; in fact, some of them are quite good. But they don’t offer any significant economic value down the track.

I mean, I asked him earlier, and he didn’t answer the question. We’ve got the northern sky path in there, which is a great project—happy with that. But when you put it up against something like a second Mount Victoria tunnel or a motorway extension, or something that’s going to offer significant economic value down the track and significant economic returns, other than just, you know, the SkyPath—which is good, and we’re all in favour of it, but as I think people have pointed out, it lets people of Takapuna get in their lycra and cycle across the bridge. Those two things aren’t—it’s difficult to see why he’s put in the Northern Pathway and not another project, which we’ve got many of on the Table, that would give us significant economic value.

The question I asked earlier—the question that he hasn’t answered—is how did he come to the decision on these 11 projects and not on some of these projects, which would deliver significant economic value and significantly more jobs? As the Minister mentioned earlier, all of these projects together are only 1,700 jobs. I know there are wider jobs that will be created, but it’s actually 1,700. That’s not that many. That’s fewer jobs than Air New Zealand has lost. So I’m really keen to get the Minister to answer how he came to those Schedule 2 projects, why they’re in there, and why some of these ones that have significant economic value and far more jobs weren’t included.

I am happy to say that the reason for that can be seen in the contrast between the discretion that the panel has in respect of listed projects compared with other projects. If members care to refer to clause 32 of Schedule 6 on page 95 of the bill, you’ll see that the panel can decline a listed project on only two grounds: one, which is at subclause (1)(a), says that “the panel considers that the granting of a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement, with our without conditions, would be inconsistent with any national policy statement, including a … coastal policy statement;” or “(b) … the panel considers that granting a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement, with or without conditions, would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement.” So those are the only two bases upon which a listed project can be turned down.

We were not and are not confident enough. We haven’t gone into each of these very worthy projects that might be put forward by way of list. We haven’t gone through them enough in this preliminary process to conclude that that should be the limits of the ability of the panel to turn them down.

We were satisfied in respect of those listed projects that are in Schedule 2, based on advice that we had from the ministry, that they were appropriate for that limited discretion to turn down, but that’s not true in respect of all of the other listed projects, and if the members in the committee—I think most members would agree that the panel needs more discretion than that. Otherwise, in effect, this bill would be consenting a whole raft of process without any adequate consideration of the environmental effects.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister for the Environment a question about clause 19, “Whether project helps to achieve purpose of Act”. Before I asked the Minister about how Part 2 of the Resource Management Act was being reflected in the decisions of the panel; this one is more at the upfront stage when the Minister is choosing to refer something up to a panel. The second line says, “the Minister may have regard to the following matters, assessed at whatever level of detail the Minister considers appropriate,” and then there’s a whole series of things there—which are great. But I just wanted ask about the effect of the word “may” as opposed to “must”—the level of discretion that the Minister has about whether or not to pay attention to those kinds of environmental and other considerations.

The Minister’s exercising a discretion as to whether to refer through Order in Council projects to the panel. That exercise of discretion isn’t the depth of inquiry that you would expect the panel would conduct when they receive a detailed application. Indeed, the level of application that will be before the Minister is a lot more superficial. None the less, you can envisage it being of interest to the Minister to have a decent summary of what’s being proposed and a range of factors that the Minister could take into account if the Minister thought them relevant. An example that I’ve previously given in the House is that if someone wanted to build a coal-fired power station I don’t think I’d be putting it through this process.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Then don’t. It’s not on the list.

No, but if it was a referred project I wouldn’t be putting it through this list—and the member’s question is about referred projects—because I have no discretion in respect of the Schedule 2 process because they’re put through by Parliament and not by the Minister and discretion.

In respect of the only mandatory considerations, they’re set out in clause 18(2)(a) and (b), which says, “The project must not include any of the following activities”: an activity that’s a prohibited activity under the Resource Management Act, regulations made under that Act, or a plan or proposed plan; an activity that would occur on land returned under a Treaty settlement where there hasn’t been an agreement by the relevant landowner; and then in subclause (c) an activity that would occur in the takutai moana Act and there hasn’t been agreement in writing. So those are the mandatory prohibitions, but otherwise it’s a matter of discretion, noting that the fact that I put it through there, if I was the Minister for the Environment at the time this was done, doesn’t mean that it would necessarily get an approval, although I suspect most of them will.

Thank you. Then a follow-up question, because in clause 21(6) there’s a list of Ministers who the Minister for the Environment has to consult with—either “must” or “may” consult with. So I just wanted to get a sense of, given the level of information that you would expect to receive about an application for referral, recognising that it’s going to be thinner than the eventual actual application to the panel, would the Minister—or is the construct or the effect of the legislation to then have those Ministers act as a sort of a, you know, safeguard or a way of sort of providing the Minister for the Environment with information that would be pertinent to those considerations that they may consider under clause 19?

Yes, those Ministers that are listed at clause 21(6) would have 10 working days to give me their views. Some will, on occasions, be positive; some will be negative. If you take the first one, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, in respect of an application for a motorway that was going to adversely affect some historic heritage, might say, “Oh, I’m not sure about this.” or “Please be careful that you work round this with conditions.” Or the Minister of Housing might come back and say, “Yeah, this is great. We need more houses. Push this one through.” So they would give their opinions to me and I take their opinions into account, but it’s my decision in the end, as Minister for the Environment, as to whether to refer more projects.

Oh thank you, Madam Chair.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: This will be a great call.

Yeah. So I just have a question for the Minister, a clarification really, because he made several statements earlier in this debate which don’t seem to line up, as far as I can see. The first statement that the Minister made was in reference to a question that I had posed to him around his estimation of the number of projects that would approach for referral into the fast-track process. The Minister, in answer to several questions, said it was, effectively—and forgive me if I paraphrase, Minister, but I think the answer, essentially, was that it is hard to tell; there are a number of tracks that consent applications can go down, but it, essentially, is hard to tell the number of applications that might come to the panel for referral. As part of that answer, the Minister said that the chair of the panel always has the opportunity to increase the number of panels to hear applications, which is logical, and, yes indeed, it’s in the bill.

Then, in terms of Part 2, there was a conversation, quite a lengthy conversation, around referred projects, and members, I hope, throughout the House have a number of Supplementary Order Papers tabled, and also not tabled, where they are proposing a number of projects to be inserted into the bill into Schedule 2. One of the comments the Minister made at that time with regards to those referred projects and why he didn’t feel he could support them—paraphrasing again, Minister; forgive me if I haven’t got it quite right. But the comment he made at that time was “We don’t want to overrun the system.” So my question is: which is it to be? Is the system being geared up to deal with all-comers, or is there going to be some other filter residing in the Minister’s office that we are unaware of?

It is a bit of both. I don’t want to clog the system up at the start while we get it up and running. I’ve got great confidence in Judge Newhook to run an efficient ship. He’s done it very well as the head Environment Court Judge for the last few years, and he’s going to be setting this up. But I do want it to get a way on rather than trying to manage too many things at the start. But there are other complications in some of these projects. You know, some of these roading projects that I don’t know the detail of, they’ll involve the acquisition of land that’s not owned by the roading authority, and that, in the end, will probably be the cause of delay, not planning issues. Now, this doesn’t change the Public Works Act, so there would be little point putting things on a fast track through the fast-track Resource Management Act processes here if they didn’t have the land on which to do it. So, you know, there are those sorts of complications that we want to have a check on as projects come into the system.

I think I’ve referred pretty well to the roading projects and bridges and other transport projects, but I don’t feel I have addressed Jami-Lee Ross’s amendment in respect of Auckland water, and I do want to take some time to explain why the Labour Party will not be voting for that Supplementary Order Paper. Now, the issues in respect of Auckland’s water are serious. They have had a large application for 200 million litres per day extra out of the Waikato River. They already take 150 million litres a day. They’ve, in addition to that, recently had a consent for 25 million litres per day for winter water, when the flow in the river is higher, and they’re midway through and just about completed a transfer of 25 million litres per day summer water—it’s not quite summer water; it’s additional water at lower flows—as a transfer from the Hamilton District Council.

Once they get that water, they will have as much water as they can use for the next year or so. Indeed, they haven’t completed yet the upgrade to their pumping infrastructure out of the Waikato River to use that full 25 million litres per day. When they do, that will enable them to reduce the draw-down of their reservoirs, reserving more of their reservoirs for next year.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What’s the cost of that, Minister, that water?

The cost of that water is nil in terms of the water. The cost of pumping it and treating it makes it the most expensive water that Auckland already uses; a multiple of times more expensive than the water they draw from the reservoirs. That was a point made by Mayor Goff at a meeting I was at yesterday.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Is there a payment to iwi?

No, there is not a payment of iwi for the water—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Of any kind?

Of no kind. The Waikato River Authority eschewed the idea of paying for the water, although there is an acknowledgment that if Auckland’s taking from the Waikato region, they should contribute something back to the environmental projects in the area, which is likely to come to the Waikato River Authority and be matched one for one by extra spending on environmental outcomes by the Waikato River Authority.

If I come back to the issue of the 200 million litres per day consent, in our view that’s not something that should be listed. That’s, essentially, forced through as a listed project for a number of reasons. One is it’s actually not clear that it’s the right outcome. In fact, I think the likely outcome for Auckland is that they will get the extra 25 million litres per day all year round. They’ll probably get another amount between 50 million and 100 million litres extra per day of winter water when the flow is higher. But the question as to whether they should get that amount additional in respect of when the river flows are lower is a difficult question, because it comes at the cost of the people in the Waikato catchment, comes at the cost of farmers, comes at the cost of other commercial users. And in respect of farmers, it disproportionately comes at the cost of Māori owners of underdeveloped Māori land in the Waikato catchment. I think it would be unwise of this House to push that consent through this route. It is complex. That’s why I’ve called that particular application in and put it to a called-in panel, board of inquiry, through the Environmental Protection Authority, and Auckland Council is happy with that outcome; so are the Waikato Regional Council and so are iwi.

There is a further complication in respect of that relating to Treaty issues, because, of course, the Waikato River Authority was set up as a consequence of various Treaty claims by iwi that have been settled on different parts of the river—initially Waikato-Tainui and then other tribes with relationships to the river, higher in the river—and there would be a danger of creating a real hurt amongst the Treaty partner if we were to rush and override their interests here. So that’s why we won’t be supporting that particular SOP, even though we agree that it is important to get extra water for Auckland. I make the final point again that even if we did that, we actually wouldn’t be giving them additional water that they could use, because they haven’t got the infrastructure to use more than the 25 million litres per day extra that is coming to them.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Madam Chair?

I’ll allow Jami-Lee Ross.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are three issues there which I hope I may be able to respond to the Minister on: firstly, whether it’s the appropriate mechanism—I can ask questions to get it in line, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can ask questions, yes. The Minister’s in the chair.

You lost my train of thought. The questions I’d like to put to the Minister on the three issues he raised were whether this is the appropriate process, whether Auckland should take as much as they’re asking for, and also whether the Treaty issues can be overcome in this particular legislation.

I guess the first question to the Minister, on whether this is the appropriate process or not and why he came to the view that he did, is around the certainty that the different processes provide. Unless I’ve got this absolutely wrong, my understanding—the Minister can answer for me—is that this bill gives far greater certainty to any applicants or local authorities that are included in this legislation, because the streamlining process, which is all designed around ensuring there’s greater economic opportunity and greater job creation, gives far greater certainty of outcome than the call-in process. Am I wrong in thinking that the call-in process still has far more checks and balances and far more hoops that applicants have to jump through when it comes to applying for things, and therefore this process does give the Auckland Council more certainty? That’s the very reason why Mayor Goff made the submission that he did to the Environment Committee in the first place.

The second point, or question, I want to ask is around the actual—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we have them one at a time?

Do I get more opportunities?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, you will.

OK. Great.

Well, I suppose, again, it’s not a cut and dry answer for that, because page 95 of the bill, at clause 32 of Schedule 6, says that a panel may decline a consent application or a notice of requirement for a listed project if the panel considers the granting of a consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement. That issue would still have been before this panel, so it could have turned it down. So there wouldn’t have been absolute certainty. But the member is right that Resource Management Act Part 2 considerations about what is the right balance outside of Treaty considerations would have been beyond the purview of the panel, and I don’t think that would be right in respect of this particular application.

I think what Auckland needs is security of the water it needs for the facility that it’s expanding at the moment, which can pump 25 million litres per day extra, which they’re going to get. They may need some other winter water for next year, by which time they may have invested in more water infrastructure, and it’s likely that they’ll have the consent for that, without me calling it in and without this panel hearing it, within the next two weeks, which is faster than this would handle it. In respect of the summer water over and above that, that’s a very contentious issue, and it shouldn’t be dealt with via this process.

I realise that the capacity and how much Auckland needs is a contentious issue that he raises, but I say to him—I ask the Minister—why is he, effectively, criticising the Auckland Council for requesting 200 million litres of water a day when we say to local authorities all the time, “Forward plan. Go and make sure you’ve got your plans ready for future growth and future capacity.”? Let’s bear in mind that Watercare applied for this seven years ago. Seven years ago they were projecting their long-term need was going to be 200 million litres a day. They’ve fronted up seven years later to the select committee and said, “We need 200 million litres. Put this in the fast-track consenting bill so we can actually get the opportunity.”

Why now do we question whether the Auckland Council is doing what probably is normally the appropriate thing in forward planning over the amount of water that they need? It seems like it’s far too picky and criticising the council unnecessarily when they’re actually putting their hands up and saying, “Our city is growing. Our infrastructure is not up to scratch. We need to do something about it. We want to put in a consent for 200 million litres.” Because the problem they may have is that, if they get their extra 25 or extra 50 and then in five or 10 years’ time they come back and go, “Ah, we need more again.”, we have to wait another seven years or hope that a Minister calls it in. Why is he now criticising the Auckland Council for trying to do the right thing and forward plan?

Well, I haven’t criticised them; I’m just saying that they’re not necessarily right to get it all from this source. I think that there’s been great progress made in the last couple of weeks, maybe in part because of the pressure that was brought upon the system by Mayor Goff’s application through this process, that’s true—that that’s sort of triggered a conversation. It’s also had a bit of pushback, which has triggered some other conversations which needed to be had. I think we’re on the way to solving these issues, to the extent that they can be solved, and I make the point again that Auckland this summer will have no more capacity to pump than the 25 million litres per day extra that they already have in respect of winter and will get for summer.

The final point that the member made is that they might come back for more and say they need more in the future. Well, that’s possible, but every additional amount that they take from the river, assuming that the current minimum flow regime is proper—and we’re in no position to judge that here—comes at the cost of someone else who wants that water. There is a feeling within the Waikato region that, although they want to help Auckland, they don’t want to go so far as to prejudice either the river or their own commercial or municipal interests long term. I think it’s very interesting that this conversation has opened up the reality that already the water that they take from the Waikato River includes treated waste water from the Hamilton and other towns that lie along the banks of the Waikato River. Therefore, effectively, the water that Auckland is taking at the bottom of the river and treating, once it’s pumped to Auckland, includes treated waste water.

I think, once people think about that, they might actually be able to contemplate that they need to do more with the large amount of waste water that is already treated in Auckland and discharged to the Manukau but could be treated to a higher standard and recycled. I suspect that’s part of the answer long term for Auckland, and I don’t think, within the 10- to 15-day period for submissions that would have been enabled if that was a listed project under this particular piece of legislation, those very complex issues could have been properly sorted through.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The final question and point that arose out of the Minister’s first response is around the way in which this bill treats the Treaty requirements in the Treaty clause. I realise the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which was part of Part 1, also has an interaction with Part 2. The reason I’m raising that now, under Part 2, is because Schedule 6, clause 42 is around appeal rights. Paragraph 42(1)(e) provides that “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public.”—meaning that, if there was an SOP that went in around the Auckland water issue or other water-related projects that might be referred by the Minister or might already be in the Schedule, how does the Minister see this particular part of the Schedule interacting with the previous decision of the committee around the Treaty clause, whereby, effectively, now the committee has set up, by including the stringent Treaty clause, where decisions must be consistent with principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has opened up, under Schedule 6, clause 42, the ability for an iwi, say, that has a greater interest in a project over and above members of the public, to in fact challenge these consents and hold them up by doing a point of law appeal because they’re of the view that a panel made a decision that was not consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi?

So my question to the Minister is: why has he chosen this series of appeal rights and this series of decisions around the Treaty clause when I’m sure, given his extensive legal knowledge, particularly as Attorney-General, he will know that these clauses, the way they will interact, will, in fact, open up the door for appeals against these projects which is over and above what the Resource Management Act (RMA) already allows? Why has he said, effectively, here’s the set of projects—here’s this legislation that we think is important and it’s going to fast track things—but, by the way, we’re going to put some extra clauses in there which means they could, ultimately, be challenges and slowed down more than they otherwise would, because now this law will have more stringent RMA Treaty provisions than the normal RMA does? How does he see that interacting in the future?

In respect of the Auckland water project, well, I don’t think it will have any effect. We have been working through those issues over recent months with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, and others. But, in respect of the broader point—because they won’t be listed in the Act; assuming that the Supplementary Order Paper isn’t voted up, which is a choice for the committee, not for me—with respect, the member is incorrect that appeal rights are going to be broader than they would be under the existing legislative framework, because, under the existing legislative framework, you have an appeal on the facts; here there are appeals limited to points of law and/or judicial review. If you wish to bring judicial review as well as an appeal on the point of law, you have to go to the court, and unless the court allows you to argue those separately, which I don’t think they normally would, they have to be heard together. So it’s an appeal on points of law and judicial review.

Can the Minister clarify, irrespective of clause 6 of this bill, whether in the case of the Waikato River and any take from the Waikato River, its own Waikato River Treaty settlement has clause provisions which would need any other regions, such as Auckland, for example, to take account of Te Ture Whaimana?

Also, can the Minister clarify in relation to the conversations between regions around the recycled use of waste water what types of conversations would need to take place between Māori and the council, for example, around those types of issues, and are you aware of any positive conversation in that respect?

Perhaps also, Minister, could you clarify, in terms of the seasonal winter take being made available immediately, whether that improves the resilience of Auckland’s water needs in the next summer months as it seeks to increase the dam capacity that is available to Auckland?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think the Minister could answer the first and the third, but I think the second question is far beyond the scope of Part 2.

In respect of the last point, yes, I confirm. We’ve recently had a discussion about those additional consents for water to get Auckland through the forthcoming summer and perhaps the summer after through additional water, particularly in winter months.

In respect of the need to take into account the plan that underlies the Waikato River Authority, the member is correct that that would be required to be taken into account. It’s interesting, you know—I think members would be interested to know—that that is such a central thing for members of the iwi that are in the Waikato River Authority, that Parliament agreed that they would have a right of representation in respective panels that are set up to call in consents that affect the Waikato River. So the call-in process that I exercised earlier in the week requires the Government or the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—I’m not sure whether it’s the EPA now or the Government; one of us—to accept a nomination to that board of three or five. We’ve got a choice. If it’s a board of three, one of them is a nominee of the Waikato River Authority, and if it’s a board of five, two of them are.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Previously, Minister Parker reiterated the criteria for the selection of some of these projects, and I’m just concerned that there may be something missing in those criteria which he identified. I particularly want to comment on his last statement that his number one criteria for project selection was bringing forward employment. I want to give a few examples of projects that may miss out on that, and then seek some explanation why and if it’s actually taken into account, because I don’t see it, actually, in the criteria he gave.

Now, these are all projects in Whangarei that came to me already pre-screened by Whangarei District Council and commissioners. So, you know, we could talk about our favourite projects; I support them in the first instance because they come to me at the request of the community, and I use them by way of example to then point out the particular hole which I don’t think the Minister has addressed. The construction of a marina is a key factor for Whangarei District Council. We have Hurupaki School which is needing an upgrade, and Green Bay School which is needing an upgrade. We have the Springs Flat roundabout that needs to be done. It’s quite different to some of the other things we’ve talked about tonight, but it was already agreed by the New Zealand Transport Agency. As the Minister said, the land is already purchased; it’s just the consenting, which this bill is to help. Green Bay High School also has an upgrade, and there are some of the roading changes in Whangarei which are conducive to bringing traffic towards the Hundertwasser Wairau Māori Art Centre, which is a project that both this Government and the previous have worked very hard on.

Now, here’s the hole that I’m concerned about. I look at the criteria that the Minister listed, and I look at these projects put forward for Whangarei, and I say, “But what is our current unemployment rate?”, because the Minister has said that his number one agenda is to bring forward employment. I’m seeking to ask whether he will take into account the fact that while everyone is all very worried about double-digit unemployment, Whangarei hit that months ago. We tend to go down fast and rise slowly, so the dreaded double-digit unemployment is already with us. We lead the regions, unfortunately, in that race to the bottom; it’s the nature of our economy, tourism particularly being hit. So I’m asking him: with these projects that I’ve highlighted here that are important to the Whangarei economy—and the Northland economy, I would add—I did not see in the criteria that he mentioned any context of the level of unemployment in the particular regions that the projects may be positioned towards. So I’m seeking some reassurance from him: are these projects within the scope of the criteria, or not?

In respect of the school upgrades, I’d be very surprised if they need a resource consent. I would have thought the designation that already applied to an existing school site would allow modifications to a building without a new resource consent. On occasions, that might be different. If that was the case, and it wasn’t going to just sail through—I suspect it would sail through, normally, very cheaply and quickly, without recourse to this sort of legislation. I would be surprised if those projects actually need a resource consent. They’ll need a building consent, but they won’t need a resource consent, in a lot of cases.

In respect of roundabouts, if members wish to look at the list of permitted activities, this is the third track. This is works that have been permitted in rail and road lines owned by the rail or road operator—the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail. Permitted activities include, at clause 11(2) of Schedule 4, safety upgrades of level crossings, roundabouts, and the like. So it may well be that that’s already a permitted activity. If it’s not a permitted activity, then it may well be that under the relevant district plan it’s already something that’s easily allowed. If it’s neither of those things, then application could be made to the Government for progressing that as a preferred project by Order in Council.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The three projects that are the subject of tabled amendments in my name would require a resource consent. Before I ask the Minister in the chair, David Parker, to comment on the merits of those as listed projects, I just want to check something that he said in response to the Hon Jacqui Dean about why there were only 11 listed projects in Schedule 2. In his answer, he referred to clause 32 on page 95, in the sense that there are very narrow grounds for declining them and therefore the Government had to be cautious in the projects that it put in. I’m paraphrasing; I don’t want to misunderstand him—

💬 Hon David Parker: Yeah, that’s fair enough—yeah.

The Minister’s acknowledging that I’ve got that right. Well, it strikes me that that’s a circular argument, because the very criteria that are grounds for the declining of a consent application are also set by this legislation and by the Government. So, therefore, in order to broaden the number of projects that could come into the schedule, the Government was free to broaden the criteria for declining. Now, I completely understand why one would need to be cautious about that, but if I could also ask this question: it strikes me that these listed projects are likely to tick the boxes when it comes to clauses 32(1)(a) and (b). I doubt that the Government would’ve put any of the projects in if they were subject to Treaty claims, or inconsistent with settlements, rather, or if they were in conflict with a national policy statement. Would that also be true?

If it were obviously so, we would not have put them in, but it is also true that we haven’t gone into these in the detail that a panel will once they receive a full application. So it remains possible that notwithstanding that we don’t have that understanding of them at the moment, there are aspects of them that could infringe those provisions and therefore, on that basis, could and should be turned down—but not so far as I’m aware, based on my current knowledge.

Thank you, Minister. I would then make the point that there is an opportunity here. So, firstly, not all 11 necessarily could get through the process as set out in the bill when it becomes law, and therefore there is an opportunity to expand the number of projects, comfortable that even if they’re on the schedule, they may not get through, but if they’re not on the schedule, they’ll never get through as listed projects. Indeed, to be able to do that, we would need to come back to the House and amend primary legislation in order to add to the list. Now, the National Party believes this process has merit. We have passed legislation ourselves that provides for a fast-track consenting process through things like special housing areas and so on. So we’re not averse to the process, but I’m just surprised that it’s so narrow.

Now, I want to come to the three projects—and test the merits or otherwise of that with the Minister—that are subject to tabled amendments in my name. The Minister quite rightly refers to clauses 19 and 20, I believe—no. What was it, Minister, in terms of the criteria for getting through? Oh, yes, it was, clauses 19 and 20 on pages 14 and 15. I simply ask the Minister whether, in his view, the Dunedin Hospital redevelopment project, which has been the subject of a painfully slow development process—the indicative business case was approved by the previous Government in April 2017, and three years and two months later, we still haven’t had any word that the detailed business case has even gone to Cabinet, much less approved. I would believe that, actually, that project ticked many of the boxes that are laid out in clauses 19 and 20 in terms of the social and cultural wellbeing of the community that it will serve. I just wonder if the Minister could comment on why, if that is the case, such an amendment lacks merit for inclusion in Schedule 2.

In respect of the Dunedin Hospital project, that certainly could be considered as a referred project. I’m not sure they’ve done all their land acquisition yet. In fact, I think—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: They’re nearly done. I think there’s one more title to go—one to go.

They’re nearly done. So maybe that’s the answer: once they’ve done their land acquisition and they know where they can build the hospital, they can—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s not a reason not to put it on the schedule, though.

Well, yes, it is. It is a reason not to put it on the schedule, with respect, because until you know what land you’re going to build it on, you can’t apply for a resource consent to build it on your land.

I’ll just finish on that point, then. This does somewhat undermine the utility of this legislation when it’s passed, if indeed absolutely everything has to be wrapped up in a bow before it goes through a fast-track consenting process. The train is on the track, and what the Minister has just said is that absolutely all of the carriage needs to be hooked up, all of the coal is in the boiler and we’re ready to go, the passengers are on the train, and only then are we going to set off. This, if I use that metaphor, strikes me as an opportunity to put those projects into the schedule, such as the very worthy Dunedin Hospital project, which runs the risk of a longstanding delay if it cannot be subject to some kind of efficient process for consenting. Yet what the Minister has just said is everything, lock, stock, and barrel, needs to be completed before it comes on the schedule. That rather undermines, I think, the benefit of this and reinforces the point that National Party members are, through their tabled amendments, making: that, actually, not only is this good for now but it could be an enduring practice in a post-COVID world to get some of these stimulus projects up and going.

Well, I’m pleased to inform members that staged projects are actually permitted through this. You can apply for stages of a project. So if the applicant in that case wanted to bring forward an interim application in respect of the parcels of land that they already had control of but didn’t have it all under control and weren’t sure where they wanted to put the later stages, they could come and seek, through the Order in Council process, for that to go to panels in stages. Again, I’m not sure in that case how difficult it’s going to be to consent that hospital. I know that area well; it’s on the old Cadbury’s site, most of it, and that’s already got a big building on it. It may well be that they don’t need a resource consent like this because it’s something that’ll fly through council in no time flat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Pleasure to just make a quick comment, if I may, just noting the various Supplementary Order Papers from the National members opposite, wanting to add in projects to Schedule 2. I’d just really like to let the Chamber know that the Government and New Zealand First, part of that Government, will not be supporting these. We think they’ll clog up the system, and that they might be worthy projects to go through the fast-track process, but not being listed in the bill, and we just feel that this bill is not the place to do this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to draw attention to clause 23, what will become section 23, particularly clause 23(2), which states “The Minister may decline an application for any other reason, whether or not the project meets the referral criteria.” Now, accepting the fact that if the project traverses one of the mandatory declination criteria it can’t be approved, but setting that aside as a given, this clause gives near absolute discretion to the Minister to decline an application, even if that application were to tick every box—and I mean every single criteria under clause 19. So I’d like to hear from the Minister, well, one, does he agree that the wording, as it stands, does confer that near absolute discretion? Secondly, what justification—does he believe that this is reasonable in a bill of this nature? And thirdly, just because it’s so related, does that, therefore, mean that the criteria in clause 19, because they’re not determinative of a decision, are actually not necessary in primary legislation anyway? Because if meeting them doesn’t mandate a positive decision, why have them in there?

The discretion to put things through to a panel or not is a broad one. The consequences of the Government of the day, through their Minister for the Environment, making unwise decisions so that we get held to account through this place, through hearings that we have at select committee, and through the media—that’s the effect of it. The other way that you could do it is just say wave everything through—didn’t think that was the right answer—or have a very rigid set of criteria, which we didn’t think the right answer because they might be wrong and too rigid.

I move, That the question be now put.