Fast-track Approvals Bill

Good morning, members. The sitting is resumed. Members, the committee is currently considering the Fast-track Approvals Bill and the question we are now debating is on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. This is—

Tim van de Molen: Repetition.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’s only just opened his mouth. We’ll see if it’s repetition.

This is serious, this bill.

💬 Hon Member: It’s glorious.

This is not glorious whatsoever. This bill runs fast and loose. It runs fast and loose over our environment, over our climate, over our Te Tiriti obligations, and over our community engagement. This bill runs fast and loose over democracy, and I am concerned. We are in the committee stage of this, and my concern, as I’ll mention around the title, is the fact that it was less than 24 hours, the same day that we went into committee, that this huge Amendment Paper was dropped for us to deal with. There were three more amendments that were dropped as well from the Government, which is outrageous and wrong. Democracy is at stake in this bill.

💬 Hon Member: Title.

That’s what I just said. He just mentioned the title, and I mention I’m about to speak about the title, so I will. The fact of this bill is that it is outrageous, it is wrong, and we need to name it for what it is.

I want to support my colleague Arena Williams in terms of her amendment to change the title of this bill. I agree with her. I think that “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill 2024” is a better name for this bill. This bill runs roughshod over democracy and our responsibility in this House to the public good. This bill is about private benefit and we should name it for that, and therefore I support her amendment.

I’m going to speak shortly about my amendment, which is on the commencement, but I just want to reflect because as we consider what the title should be, I really want to bring in the voice of submitters from the select committee. The reason I want to do that is because when I say that democracy is at risk here, there have been so many spaces where this has been truncated and challenged, and the public have not been able to engage as they should—as a good democracy should. This bill is running fast and loose and it is wrong.

We had 27,000 submitters on this bill, and only a fraction of those were able to submit on this bill, and the majority of submitters were against this piece of legislation. I thought, if we’re talking about the title, why don’t we use some of the words from the public of New Zealand who actually spoke out against this legislation. There’s one I kind of like—it’s a bit outrageous—and it’s the “Cloak, Choke, and Destroy Bill”. I thought that was quite good, and quite thoughtful of that submitter, who is concerned about coalmines, is concerned about quarries, and is concerned about the challenge to our environment and our climate. The “Cloak, Choke, and Destroy Bill”—it could be that.

Another submitter spoke about the “Shortcut Bill”, because this is a shortcut for private entities to get things done as quickly as they can.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. The opportunity to debate the title clause is very much constrained to that title and potentially new amendments, and Speaker’s ruling 130/2 makes it clear that they must be serious or objective amendments, and the comments we’ve just heard from the member are far from that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I thank the member for the point of order, but debate on the title and commencement often does come up with some interesting names and I’ve heard it a lot in this House over my time. I’ll ask Glen Bennett to continue this call, but I will remind people—and this member has touched on the title, albeit that people don’t like the titles he’s suggesting—that we will keep it very focused on the title and commencement.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. The reason I am using these titles is because they are from members of the public who are speaking out and wanting to say, “How do we get democracy right?” In the select committee process, a lot of them spoke and felt like their voices were choked and they weren’t able to actually speak out about this bill.

The other title I want to mention, before I come to the commencement, is the “Backwards Off-track Bill”. Again, this was from another submitter who came to us and said, “Let’s look at this quite seriously.” People spoke during the select committee stage and said that this bill takes us backwards. Someone said this bill takes us back to the 19th century and that this is legislation that has never been seen before in this Parliament. We don’t want a repeat of the 19th century because of the outrageousness of what went on and the destruction to our environment, to democracy, and to land, quite frankly. I want to commend my colleague Arena Williams in terms of her amendment on the Table and would like us to consider calling this bill the “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill 2024.”

I want to come to the commencement date because I have an amendment on the Table that I want to talk about. Currently, it says, “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” My amendment is on the Table here.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 144 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Approvals” with “Public and Private Benefits” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Fast-track Decisions Act” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Fast-track Approvals Process Act” be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to insert new clause 2A set out on Amendment Paper 145 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Noes have it? The Noes have it.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Party vote, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Too late. I’ve declared. The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.

Now, if you can just give us a moment to put some new paperwork on the desk, because, as you imagine, there’s a lot of paperwork from that particular piece of legislation.