Fast-track Approvals Bill

We are in committee stage. I’m just wondering, do we have a Minister? Thank you. Members, when the committee suspended at 1 p.m., we were debating Part 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. Part 2 is the debate on Clauses 14 to 33, “Fast-track approvals process”, and Schedules 3 and 4 to 13. The question is again that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am still on Part 2 and the clauses and have not yet reached any of the schedules. I want to start back on clause 24M, which is “Panel invites comments on substantive application”. We have Amendment Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan and that is to add a number of groups to the list, so I’ll explain what that means.

Clause 24M—we were talking a lot before about referrals. Now, these are things that have either been referred or that are on that list of 149 things in Schedule 2. The comments must—there’s a “must” here—be invited from local authorities, iwi authorities, and some others I’ve already listed in other contributions. Also, at paragraph (f), the owners of the land to which the substantive application relates and the land adjacent to that land—we’ve had some discussions about having to be adjacent to the land previously—occupiers of the lands, the Minister for the Environment and other relevant portfolio Ministers, relevant administrating agencies, and requiring authorities. That list is a very narrow list in terms of the size of these projects and who must be consulted, who must be invited for their comments.

Now, we’ve had some discussions about the COVID legislation, which was of course legislation in an emergency, and that legislation included a list of groups who were determined to be representative of some sort of both business, infrastructure, and environmental groups. This list is: Business New Zealand Inc.; Employers and Manufacturers Association—more than “Incorporated”; Environmental Defence Society Inc.; Generation Zero Inc.; Greenpeace New Zealand Inc.; Infrastructure New Zealand Inc; the New Zealand Fish & Game Council; the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission; Property Council; and Forest & Bird.

What this Amendment Paper 142 is suggesting is that, to make it more similar to the COVID legislation, which apparently this fast track is modelled on, those groups should be included at clause 24M. The result of including those groups at clause 24M would be that more people would have to be asked for comment on these very important, very large proposals, so it’s part of the “must”, not the “may”.

If we look down and we look at the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s amendments to clause 24M, at subclause (l), it’s any person or group specified by the Minister for Infrastructure under clause 23(3)(b)(iii). Clause 23(3), “Comments may be invited from any other person the panel considers appropriate.”, but of course, that’s a “may”, so it’s not compulsory for the panel to talk to groups such as those that I’ve listed. It’s not compulsory for the panel to talk to the people like the wedding venue near the proposed goldmine.

The list that I just read out in Amendment Paper 142 is very restricted, because at the moment, if you were doing a big application for a goldmine, it would be a fully notified resource consent. It wouldn’t be limited notified, which this group is like a limited notification. It would be a full public process.

Now, we understand that this is supposed to be a fast process and one of the ways to speed things up is not to open it up to everybody, not to be a fully publicly notified process. I know many people will think that it should be publicly notified, so this Amendment Paper 142 with those suggested groups taken from the COVID legislation is a big compromise, and so I would hope that the Minister would consider accepting that amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to get straight to picking up on a number of amendments in this contribution, and those are ones that cover Amendment Papers 155, 156, and 157. I want to pick up on those because this is about the referral applications and the information that is required under these applications.

The first part of my Amendment Paper 155 refers to clause 14, and this is in clause 14(3)(ba), where it currently talks about a description that is needed for the whole of the project area being detailed, and—oh, sorry, it currently says that it doesn’t have the detailed part. It talks about the project area, and what we’re proposing in this amendment is to insert the word “detailed” at page 21, line 20. This is to ensure that a very clear, comprehensive description of the whole project area is included. Now, this is really important because later in the bill it’s of serious implication for those landowners or individuals who are deemed to be affected or not by the impacts of the project, and it matters because some of the neighbouring properties will immediately be consulted and what not, but others may not be. That’s why the detail in this description actually really matters.

The second aspect of this—and this is in Amendment Paper 156—is that it’s replacing “identifies its boundaries in sufficient detail” with “clearly and comprehensively identifies its boundaries and the project area”. Now, again, this is about offering clarity. It’s about offering clarity not only to the applicant in terms of who they need to then contact and consult with about the impacts of their proposed activity, but it also provides certainty and clarity for those impacted parties in the neighbouring areas, about whether they are considered affected or not, instead of simply being left wondering.

The third aspect of what I’m proposing—which I’d like the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s thoughts on—is to do with clause 14(3)(e), and this is about, again, the information to be included in the referral application. Now, it currently talks about a description of the application only in a sufficient way that it outlines the anticipated and known adverse effects of the project on the environment. What we’re suggesting here, which I’d like the Minister’s thoughts on, is to actually insert a requirement for a detailed ecological assessment. The reason we want to do that is because it is virtually impossible for an applicant to understand what the anticipated and known adverse effects of the project on the environment may be unless they actually are getting advice on this, and if that is not known in the first instance, I’m unclear how the Minister for Infrastructure would then actually have an even very basic adequate amount of information to make a proper consideration as to whether they would refer the project on to the expert panel. I’d really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on those three amendments. Thank you.

I thank the member for those good questions, which I’m happy to address, although perhaps not to her satisfaction. I’m advised that maps will have to be of a sufficient level of detail, and some of this is a question about how much is in the primary legislation and how much is in the operational notice and the mechanics of it. My expectation is that an application form will include specific requirements, and that’s part of the detailed operation of the regime once we get under way.

I don’t think adding “clearly and completely”, which I think was one of her—I think it was Amendment Paper 156 that does that. I’m not sure we need that—that a lot turns on that. I’m advised that that is not necessary.

There’s an issue about how much detail is required at the referral phase, because it’s like a two-step process, right? There’s the referral, off to the expert panel, and then the expert panel works through and then the consenting. The Government’s view is that to require an ecological assessment at the referral stage would be not appropriate—it’s not necessary at that stage. Clearly, issues like that are going to be worked through as part of the expert panel process but not at the referral process.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: since he was last in the chair, there was an amendment that was tabled, which I know the Chair did allow us to speak on because no one else came in late—that’s correct, isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there a number or is—

Oh, yeah, sorry. It’s the—

💬 Hon Member: Say the time it was tabled.

It was tabled at 11.35 a.m. It was—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah, right. OK.

—on behalf of the Hon Chris Bishop. I just want to clarify with the Minister, in terms of finding that mistake. Obviously, there were too many zeroes. It was around OceanaGold and in terms of the hectares that they were allowed to use, potentially, in this process.

For myself, I know the Hon Rachel Brooking, I know Lan Pham, and those who came into the Environment Committee—we did our best to work through the legislation that we had. We didn’t see this. Could I ask the Minister to clarify, I guess, that we know that information in Schedule 2 has been double-checked, triple-checked in terms of there aren’t any more mistakes or concerns in this? I mean, I’m kind of glad that it’s a lesser number rather than a higher number, but is there any confirmation from your officials or yourself that we can actually be, I guess, clear and assured that everything in this schedule actually is accurate?

I’m advised by the officials that this was picked up on the triple-check, so it’s a good thing for the committee. I hope there are no other very, very small errors.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would remind the Minister responsible for RMA Reform of my questions about standing that he has not answered. It would be very good to have an answer on that.

I also asked questions earlier on about the new prioritisation process and why that was required and whether that is in part because the panel that decided on the 149 projects didn’t check for conflicts amongst them, all because of some of those projects not actually being ready yet. Comment on that would be interesting.

We also had a discussion on whether or not minerals should be able to be referred, and another Minister in the chair talked about minerals that weren’t coal. Would he consider excluding coal, then, for the referred matters? That’s a number of questions.

Then, going to new clause 24P, there is the hearing of a panel. This is for any project that gets this far, referred or listed, and “There is no requirement for a panel to hold a hearing”, and “no person has a right to be heard by a panel.” This is disappointing, given all that we have been discussing so far, which is that there are 149 projects, they have not gone through a select committee process, many of them give a private benefit to individual companies, and they are substantive. They have to be of regional or national significance, so they’re big projects.

We’ve just been talking about the number of zeros attached to a mining proposal in terms of area. These are big things that will have large environmental effects as well, and they would normally end up in an Environment Court—and I’ll talk about that in a minute as well. But here, there’s no hearing required. We have, in Glen Bennett’s name, Amendment Paper 134, and that is to change “Hearing not required” to “Hearing required” and to change the subsequent language in new clause 24P, and also in new clause 24Q. New clause 24Q is about what, if a hearing is held, would then happen, and we’ve, obviously, got amendments to make that consistent for the requiring of a hearing.

I saw that the Minister was about to get to his feet. I can leave that there and get an answer before moving on.

Madam Chair, thank you. No, we’re not excluding coal in the bill. Nice try, but no, we won’t be doing that.

In relation to the hearing, of course, I don’t need to talk to Jonesy about that one. The clause in relation to—it’s in 24P, “Hearing not required”. That just mirrors the COVID19 fast-track legislation. Of course, that didn’t require a hearing. It’s just to say that, if there’s no need for a hearing, you don’t need to have one. Clearly it is a range of projects on this list that are going to require a hearing—it will just depend on the panel. But complex projects will almost certainly require a hearing; if they don’t, then they’re not required.

To continue this line, again, going back to my earlier contribution about who can make comments on an application, and who has standing: I haven’t had an answer on that yet, and if he is just now reminding us about the COVID legislation, that didn’t require a hearing, for a much smaller range of projects that were much less controversial, and I’d remind the committee that that COVID legislation has 17 listed projects in it. They went to the Environment Committee—a very short select committee process—and 16 of those 17 involved a Government agency. One of them was about water supply in the Far North, and I have not delved into the ownership of that issue.

This legislation is very different. There are 149 projects listed, and many, many of them are entirely private; they are clearly private with a private benefit, and we’ve heard how they are going to make money. On the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s argument that because the COVID legislation didn’t require a hearing, it’s OK for this legislation, one or two things: one, the COVID legislation was much more restricted—or three things—there was an emergency, and all of those parties that I read out before had to be involved in the process. They’re not included in this process. I would like answers to those points, please. And I can continue?

Well, I mean, I’m not sure what’s to be gained. I mean, we can have a reasonable debate about whether or not the COVID fast track was the right thing to do. I mean, like a lot of things that happened during COVID which were justified under the guise of the emergency—it’s not clear to me why Parliament had to pass a piece of fast-track legislation for so-called shovel ready projects. There are shovel ready projects, some of which were funded under the shovel ready fund, that are yet to start! That funding also funded Lake Onslow, which was 2038. A lot of things were done under COVID; I’m not sure what, frankly, turns on that. This fast-track piece of legislation is different to the COVID fast tracks, no doubt about that. Everyone can see how: it’s more substantive, it’s more expensive, and it’s a one-stop shop.

The only point I was making is that the lack of requirement for the hearing was in that legislation, it’s also in this one. Some of the procedures are similar, although not the same. I have to be honest—my apologies, she may have raised these issues when I wasn’t here in the chair—but I’ve missed the question around comments. Perhaps if she can repeat exactly what she’s asking for there, I’m happy to come back and have a look.

As the member knows, I think there is a range of provisions in the legislation, from clause 24U onwards, around information requesting of commissioning of advice and things like that. If the member has a specific question about comments, I’m happy to address that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will look to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for guidance about what he missed or not. What I was talking about was the standing of different groups to be able to and that must—so there’s a “must” here—at new clause 24M—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, “M” or “N”?

It’s “M”—“M” for “Mickey Mouse”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): “M” for “mother”.

I prefer Mickey Mouse, but there we go. New clause 24M lists the groups that must be consulted or be invited to make comment on an application, and they are the local authorities, they are the landowners, they are adjoining landowners, and some iwi groups. They are not Business New Zealand, Infrastructure New Zealand, New Zealand Fish and Game Council, etc. We have an amendment—Amendment Paper 142—that would include all those groups that were in the COVID legislation. The COVID legislation specifically named these groups, and that’s why this amendment uses those groups. It’s not some new made-up list or anything, and, of course, we’re very happy for it to be updated if the Minister thought that that was required.

The point is that, if these processes were done under the Resource Management Act, they would be publicly notified and open to everyone. If they were done under the COVID legislation, they would not be publicly notified but they would have comments from the specified groups. Under this legislation, there’s no such requirement. The panel may ask and the Minister for Infrastructure may suggest some groups, but those are “mays”; they are not “musts”. What I am seeking is an amendment where these groups must be consulted, and, as I mentioned, if the Minister wants to engage in that process, we’re very happy to discuss what groups should be in and out of that list.

Thank you, I understand the point now—I’ve got it. Thank you very much—my apologies. We’re not supportive of that. I mean, it’s not an unreasonable suggestion; I just don’t think it’s necessary. The moment you start getting specific about particular interest groups like Business New Zealand, Infrastructure New Zealand—all good people; I’m not having a go at them—you start to limit discretion, and you make things more mandatory—potentially slows things down.

The other thing I would say is that, unlike the COVID-19 legislation, which was to do with the Resource Management Act, this is a one-stop shop. There’ll be a panoply of groups that have interests in different—it depends on the project, obviously. Members are smart enough to think of different interest groups across the spectrum that will have an interest in different parts of projects, and so you wouldn’t want to limit or fetter that discretion. There’ll be groups that are relevant to some but not to others, and, you know, Infrastructure New Zealand is a busy body; I don’t want to burden them with endless consultation. It’s a reasonable suggestion, but we’re not supportive of that, either.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m speaking to Part 2, Subpart 2, which is the approvals process and referrals of projects to fast-track approvals process.

In terms of the consultation requirements for referral applications, if you shift across to page 27, under the heading “What is needed to complete project”, new clause 22DA(4) and then clause 14(3)(r) and (s). Speaking to paragraph (s), under the heading “What is needed to complete project”, is “an outline of the types of consents, certificates, designations, concessions, and other legal authorisations (other than contractual authorisations or the proposed approvals) that the applicant considers are needed to authorise the project, including any that the applicant considers may be needed by someone other than the applicant:”.

My question and concern is that for an assessment to be made on the soundness of the information presented to those who are making a determination in that referral, surely there has to be a more independent perspective than simply what the applicant considers is needed to authorise the project? That’s my question.

My proposed amendment that I think would make it clearer in some degree—though there could be other ways of doing it. My proposed Amendment Paper 161 is that we delete, in new clause 14, the words “the applicant considers”, so that the sentence would then read “that are needed to authorise the project”. There are other ways you could do that, but that’s just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just wondering, could the member just speak into the microphone a little bit? I missed the last couple of sentences when you started talking about the Amendment Paper. Could you just repeat what you just said?

Like from 30 seconds ago?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Yes, pardon me.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

The Amendment Paper essentially deletes the words “the applicant considers” in new clause 14, on page 24, line 15.

There is another Amendment Paper which is on a different matter, in a sense, because my essential question around the applicant’s view of what is needed is a question of the problem of an applicant withholding information that may be important in the determination of the referral decision. How is it tested that the applicant has presented full and thorough information and has not withheld important information that those considering it might need to know, such as the failure to uphold previous consents by that given organisation or company?

Another suggestion is Amendment Paper 160, in the name of Lan Pham. In clause 14, at the beginning of that same section, the current wording is “an outline of the types of consents, certificates, designations”. The proposed amendment is that that word “outline” be deleted and replaced with the words “a detailed description” of the types of consents, certificates, and designations. Again, it’s about assuring a thorough depth of information is provided so that a decision can be determined. But, really, I’m keen to hear what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s views are on the earlier amendment as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going back to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s contribution and then your response, Minister. Just for clarity, I understand you’re talking about it getting bogged down and you’re not wanting to have lots of—you know, this is fast track, so we hear you. At the same time, I guess, in giving validity to this process, having a group like Business New Zealand—but again, there are tight parameters around the process. This is just as something to consider, in that actually it might give a bit more hope to the community and to business around this bill.

I want to come to—it was in the schedule, but it’s around the process of this, which is in terms of, I guess, the involvement of local government in the process. In Taranaki, where I am, we’ve got Stratford Park Ltd, which is a good project. As we’ve said on this side of the Chamber, we oppose the bill, but we don’t necessarily oppose all the projects, because some of them actually will have an impact, and this is one of those projects.

When I look through the legislation, and I’m looking at new clause 19(2B) on Amendment Paper 238, which says that “Without limiting subsection (1), a local authority must provide comments advising of—(a) any applications that have been lodged with the local authority that would be competing applications if a substantive application for the project were lodged;”, and it continues with part (b) of that. I guess in terms of this process of fast track, you have the projects in Schedule 2. Were they considered through this same lens or is this a new lens in terms of what we have in Part 2?

For example, Stratford Park—I think it’s got some real merits in terms of the possibility of what could actually be done regionally but also for the jurisdiction of Stratford District Council. But how does the process of Schedule 2 fit in with Part 2 in terms of whether this whole process was considered for all those 149 projects?

The member Glen Bennett might have to elucidate a bit more about what he’s saying. There’s, basically, two pathways to get to the expert panel: one, you can be listed in Schedule 2, which Parliament has agreed after some debate. Those projects are automatically—assuming the bill passes—deemed by Parliament to be through the gateway test of regional and national significance. They then can apply to the Environmental Protection Authority to go to the expert panel for consideration, and then a final determination. The other pathway is the more generic pathway, which is outlined—I don’t have the exact clauses in front of me—at various different stages, which is the referral.

The initial plan was for the three Ministers to do the joint referrals to expert panels, and then for the final consenting to be done by the troika. That’s no longer the case now. We’ve simplified and streamlined that into the Minister for Infrastructure, who does the referral—which is currently me, but it’s a portfolio thing rather than me—and—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: It doesn’t specify “Chris Bishop”?

Oh, there’s no bills of attainder in this Parliament.

💬 Hon Member: Not yet.

Not yet—no, we won’t do that, I hasten to add. It’s currently me. There’s a range of requirements that the Minister for Infrastructure is required to take into account and consultation requirements, and then that goes off to the expert panel. That’s the kind of basic thrust of it.

Look, we could have a debate about it, and, in fact, Rachel Brooking’s got some amendments around it and has made some suggestions. Reasonable people can disagree. None of the suggestions are without merit. The Government has come to a view that we think we’ve got the balance about right, but happy to have a discussion around it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hadn’t initially thought that I was going to ask a question, but the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s recent response, a couple of questions back, just made something that I thought was clarified a little less clear to me. I do want to go back.

I know that you have answered some previous questions about clause 14AAA in terms of the process of consultation, but the one that I was thinking about in particular was that I know the Department of Corrections put in a fast-track application for Auckland Prison. When I was looking, as I just happened to be, at the prison network assessment for capacity expansion that was done earlier in the year—and you’ll be familiar as a Minister that a lot of that information is presented as a bit of a traffic light. Auckland Prison itself, under the three criteria, the strategic requirement to add capacity was certainly green, but the ability to commence construction quickly and the site configuration costs to develop new capacity had previously been rated red, because there’s a cap of 610 prisoners.

The application to fast track that, to essentially double the number of prisoners, I can see why the Department of Corrections would have put that application in; it takes away what was previously rated red flags, that would have been the process under the Resource Management Act, and essentially means that they can go through that expansion process. They have said: subsequent to getting approval through the fast-track process, but they don’t actually have any concrete plans to do so at the moment—but if they need to, or should they need to in a hurry. I do note that quite frequently in this House we are discussing Government policy which does automatically involve the increase of prison numbers, and we know that, worst case scenario, those prison beds run out at around about June next year—best case scenario, we’ve got another couple of years up our sleeves.

It did make your previous answer in relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question about not being more open to having “must” and being more facilitative in that consultation period, because this will be a consultation that is not straightforward, and it’s not something a panel could simply pay lip service to. We don’t have that many prisons in New Zealand; they are quite unique facilities. The surrounding areas and the environments in which they find themselves require in-depth consultation, and I see that the Minister, Minister Mitchell, has assured the public in public statements that any future expansion would involve full public consultation.

I’m just wondering if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop, given that this particular application did cause some consternation and ruffle a few feathers—certainly, Auckland Council expressed some surprise that it was not only applied for but also granted, and the community has certainly expressed some concerns about it as well. Given your hesitancy to sort of favour those amendments that have been proposed on this side of the Chamber, can you give me some reassurances or talk me through what that consultation process might look like for a project like this?

Well, I don’t want to comment specifically on the prison project, mainly because I’m not super familiar with it, to be honest.

The member can probably imagine the sort of consultation that would take place for the community over the expansion of the prison. It would largely depend on where the site is located and who might be affected by it. And, look, people who are involved in large-scale projects in New Zealand are very familiar with the idea of community consultation. I would draw a distinction between legally mandated consultation and consultation that project sponsors do because it is clearly in their commercial interests or public interest to do so, because no one wants to build something in a place where it’s not wanted, or at least where there is broad scale community opposition. People tend to find that doesn’t create a particularly hospitable environment. Anyway, there’s a range of consultation requirements at clause 14AAA, as the member well knows.

The other point I would say is to draw a distinction between consenting and funding. Yes, it’s true that that project that has been applied for has been listed as consented. Listing for consent is not funded, and that is actually partly by design choice through the bill. What we are trying to do is build up a pipeline of projects that may have consent or at least are in the pipeline for consent that don’t necessarily have funding attached. But that’s actually part of the problem with the way we do things in New Zealand: we get the money together and then we go off and get consent, and it takes five years. In the meantime, the costs have gone up, and we have to rescope and reprice things. Transmission Gully is a classic example of that, where Transmission Gully was—you know, a deal was signed and then, I mean, without getting too much into the weeds of it—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: That was a shocker.

—they spent—well, the problem was they spent 2½ years getting the resource consents to the regional—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: You mucked it up.

No, no, actually. This is completely—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re talking process here; we’re not going to start blaming each other. Just be very clear on—we’re talking process.

I’m not—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’m not pointing the finger at any specific person—

Yeah, I’m just making a point: Transmission Gully is a perfect demonstration of it, because a deal was signed and then the consents took three years, and the consent conditions were so onerous that that drove the cost up. It’s exactly what happened. The regional council consents took forever, and there might have been good reason for that—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: What are you saying about iReX?

—but that is part of the—well, we’re not; that is completely outside the realm of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, out of scope.

If you want to have a fight about that, we can do that through general debate or question time.

💬 Hon Member: We will—we will.

I’ll look forward to it. I’m not the Minister responsible, so you can have fun with that.

Anyway, what we’re trying to do is reverse this. I’ll give a simpler example that’s less controversial: when I first became an MP, there was a lot of talk about the Haywards Hill interchange—State Highway 2 connects State Highway 58—and that project was built in 16 months, in 2015. The reason why it was built is this: NZTA got to the end of the financial year and had $50 million lying around and, like all Government departments and Crown agencies, they went “Right, what can we spend some money on before the financial year runs out, before the Treasury comes calling and takes it back to the centre?”

People who’ve been Ministers before know exactly how that process works. They looked around for a project that had consent, because you can’t build anything without a consent, and so they looked around and lying on their books was the Haywards interchange project, which some planner in NZTA had had the far-sighted decision to go and get a consent for, I don’t know, seven or eight years before. It was consented; they had the funding, it was ready to go, there was basically nothing else that could be funded and that was consented, so off it went, and it got built and now it’s there.

That has always struck me as just a great way of doing things: you might have a massive pipeline of consented projects that funding is not yet attached for, but the point is that when the funding becomes available or the economics work or the business case is approved or whatever the case may be—it will differ depending on public and private sector—you can go and do it. It completely inverts what we normally do in this country, which is that we get all the funding together and then we spend years and years and years arguing about whether or not we can have consent. In the meantime, the project economics change.

It’s actually a deliberate design choice to try and invert that situation. There’s quite a lot of people out there saying, “Oh, well, you know, you’re going to consent this project but it has no funding”. Well, yeah, that’s true; we have limited funding. Everyone knows that the Crown doesn’t have limitless resources and there’s a debate between both sides of the House about trade-offs. But can we all agree that there are trade-offs, that money is not unlimited, that you have to make choices and—

💬 Tim Costley: It makes sense to me.

Well, thank you very much, Mr Costley; that’s good—you’re on my side of it. I’d be worrying if it didn’t. With that, I’ll finish my contribution.

Given the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s last contribution, I am wondering if he has heard of designations and notices of requirement, which are, of course, good long-term planning tools. I suspect his road might have been part of one of those—used one of those tools.

Look, I want to go back to new clause 24AF, “Ministerial powers”, which says that the “Minister may determine that project is priority”. This is a new clause that is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 238, and I have already spoken on it when a different Minister was in the chair, but I just raise it because it would be interesting to know how it relates to the discussion that the Minister was just having; if it fits into that discourse about wanting a pipeline of projects on that list of 149, because that question was not answered. It would be good to have the Minister answer that question.

Two things related to that: one is that there are numerous changes in this Amendment Paper that the Minister hasn’t touched on at all, and it would be good to know if any are substantive or not. I asked another Minister in the chair the same question. I accept that there will be bits that are moved around for various different reasons, but if there are substantive changes and if this project is a priority, is a substantive one, if it’s—what’s the meaning of it, it would be useful to know that.

Also, I’m interested in how that pipeline of work works for private projects and how that works with a priori, because the Minister’s examples that he was just talking about were to do with Government projects and Government budgets and coming to year-end and wanting to spend things and having to make a decision to fund something before you can consent it if you don’t have a designation for it. I understand that point, but how, then, does that same logic flow through to the many projects on the 149 list to do with private projects that aren’t to do with Government funding at all?

Now, going back to where I was at in the bill, I’ve just flicked back there. When we were talking about standing before and who has standing, and we were talking about groups such as BusinessNZ and Infrastructure New Zealand, the Minister quipped that the Infrastructure Commission was very busy and they shouldn’t have to be consulted on all of these applications. Of course, the way the COVID legislation worked—which is what I modelled the amendment on that I was speaking to—is that they were invited to comment. There was no compulsion that they had to comment, but they had the option to comment, and we heard the Hon David Parker in the House earlier note that Greenpeace, in particular, was invited—I hope it was Greenpeace; apologies to Greenpeace if I misheard what David Parker was saying—but that they chose not to comment. It’s a choice for those organisations to comment or not. They probably would see what other organisations were commenting or not. It would not be an unnecessary burden on groups like the Infrastructure Commission.

Now, moving on to new clause 24WB and amendments on this. We had an Amendment Paper pretty much to delete new clause 24WB, which is, “Conditions must be no more onerous than—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What’s the amendment number?

Thank you. Amendment Paper 133, and this is the name of Dr Duncan Webb. New clause 24WB has been amended a little bit by the Minister’s amendment, the big Amendment Paper, and now this is what it reads: “When exercising the discretion to set a condition under this Act, the panel must not set a condition that is more onerous than necessary to address the reason for which it is set in accordance with the provision of this Act that confers this discretion.” That seems to be quite a confusing provision, and I’m not sure that it’s necessary given normal environmental laws that set out that you can’t have a condition that undermines the granting of the consent in the first place. I’m wondering if the Minister wants to comment on that.

Then, if we move to new clause 24WD on the same Amendment Paper 133, we have some changes to that—that’s “When panel must or may decline approvals”. I mentioned at the outset that I was very interested in the difference between these two words, “may” and “must”, and so in the Minister’s amendment, it’s all been changed quite a lot.

I won’t talk in detail about the changes suggested in Amendment Paper 133, but I will talk at a higher level about it, because the point was that what this clause 24WD does is say that some things are so bad they must be declined—an ineligible activity: that “must” be declined—but there are other things that are not so bad, so they “may” be declined. There’s a discretion there. Some of those things that would be discretionary, under “may”, include: “the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have 1 or more adverse impacts; and (b) those adverse impacts … outweigh the purpose of this Act even after any conditions that the panel may set in relation to those impacts are taken into account.” We’re trying to get what was, too, the “may” into a “must” there. That sounds like a very bad outcome that should be declined. It “must” be declined rather than and “may” be declined. I would ask the Minister to consider that, noting that he’s slightly reworked the section in his amendment.

Then I also want to ask: in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, at new clause 24WD(3), there appears to be a new section, but again, there’s no numbers that give you clues about how it relates to the former version. It says: “To avoid doubt, a panel may not form the view that an adverse impact meets the threshold in subsection (2)(b) solely on the basis that the adverse impact is inconsistent with or contrary to a provision of a specified Act or any other document that a panel must take into account or otherwise consider in complying with section 24W(2).” I really want to know what this clause means and why the Minister wants it in there. It does look like, at first reading, it’s trying to constrain the issues and the adverse effects, the bad things, that a panel is allowed to decline on.

If the Minister could comment on that change and also my proposals in the Amendment Paper of the change from the “may” to a “must”. Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Just for clarity—oh, I’ll come back to that once the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is paying attention.

I have an amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 134, which amends new clauses 24P and 24Q around the hearing of the panel, and I understand—we get it. We get what you’re wanting to do. We don’t agree with it, but we get what you’re trying to do, but the question we would have is: is there some way of having some checks and balances in place for this?

To new clause 24P, “Hearing not required”: during the select committee process, there was huge interest or huge concern about the fact that someone living next door to a major infrastructure project has no ability to engage, and so my proposal is to replace the current sentence with “There is a requirement for a panel to hold a hearing in respect of a substantive application and all persons listed in section 24M have a right to be heard by a panel.”

Now, I kind of feel I know what your answer will be, but hear us out because, surely, there is a way to do this where it can be short and sharp. Surely, if you aren’t willing to actually have serious engagement with community, with stakeholders, with those who are affected by major infrastructure, major substantive applications, then surely, by changing this clause, you could actually have a subclause below that which has it time-bound, or has in terms of geography and connection those impacted and affected. It actually wouldn’t slow the process down. It would actually just ensure—I talk a lot about social licence, but it is one of those things that I think is really important for us as a community.

In particular, I remember listening during the submission process to Firstgas, who actually spoke cautiously in favour of this legislation, and their caution was around social licence, Minister, because it was the fact that they have pipes on private land. They have to negotiate and work with landowners every day to ensure that the infrastructure they have is looked after. Their concern was the fact that there has to be buy-in and there has to be actual engagement from locals or those who are impacted. That’s my suggestion: to amend new clause 24P and change that.

The next part is new clause 24Q, “Procedure if hearing is held”. Now, in this instance, what I’m proposing to do here is replace “if hearing is held” with “for hearing”, and then, in new clause 24Q(1), replace “If, in its discretion, a panel considers it is appropriate to hold a hearing on a substantive application (or any other part of a substantive application) it may hear from”. Then it goes on also with amending—and I quote—“A panel holding a hearing on a substantive application must invite to a hearing”. Again, it’s around including some of those key people who are connected.

I just think there is an opportunity here to allow this, because we’d love for people to cross the floor and come on to our side, but we get that, potentially, this will pass. But if it is going to, why not work on it so that, actually, people in the electorates that the people in Government represent actually feel like they’ve been heard and are part of it. It doesn’t have to be long—it could be something short and sharp—but at least someone has actually been included, and that is often a part of that social licence that companies like Firstgas talk about. So there are those are two amendments that I have, and I’ve got a couple more to come.

Let me just deal with these briefly. Clause 24AF, from Rachel Brooking—this is a new clause—“Minister may determine that project is priority”. Basically, what we’re trying to do there is—if that clause wasn’t there, it would just be first in, first served. It would just be whoever—because that’s the basic, underlying principle of the Resource Management Act. It’s just first in, and things get processed depending on when stuff gets in. That will generally be the case, but it will also provide for the Minister to determine that a project is a priority and it will allow the Minister for Infrastructure to rearrange the order in which the project is considered. That, essentially, gives the Minister greater discretion around things. That’s what we’re doing there.

In relation to the question around what it is—she quoted the phrase, “To avoid doubt”, etc. I won’t quote the rest of the words. She said, “Well, what does that mean?” What that means in plain English is that it makes it clear that just because an effect or part of a project may be inconsistent with national direction or part of a particular plan, that is not grounds in and of itself to turn a project down. It needs to meet the test for decline, which is laid out in the other parts of the bill.

In relation to Glen Bennett’s proposal, I mean, we’re covering ground that’s already been trod over here, which is that we’re just replicating in the bill the section from the COVID19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act about lack of a hearing if we were going to require a hearing. His suggestions might have some merit, but we’re not.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to really specifically home in on clause 15, which we haven’t yet discussed and which I have Amendment Paper 163 on, and that I would like to speak to and hear the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s views on. Firstly, clause 15 is a really key one in that it’s about the responsibilities of what’s deemed the responsible agency in their decisions about whether referral applications are actually complete and within scope, and so, initially, I just have some questions about whether that responsible agency is always the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) or whether there are times where it might be the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Conservation.

Now, why I’m interested in this is because we know that all three agencies have been subjected to quite serious cuts to their funding and that’s resulted in some really significant changes within their staffing and personnel. For example, MfE has a 39 percent budget cut, which has implications across their business. Now, I don’t doubt that MfE will find it within their limited resources to actually prioritise staff members to do this job, but what I’m concerned about with clause 14 is the fact that they have 10 working days to decide whether a referral application actually complies, after receiving it. There’s quite a high burden on them to actually be assessing these applications—and this could be hundreds of applications—so it is a really intense administrative task.

What my amendment refers to is clause 15(1A)(b), and it says, “(1A) A referral application complies with this subsection if—… (b) the responsible agency considers that”—and I’m glad that the amendment has suggested deleting “on the face of the application,”, because at least that suggests some level of detail of scrutiny of the actual application. What’s concerning about it is that it goes on to say, “the project—…”—and this is paragraph (b)(ii)—“(ii) does not appear to involve an ineligible activity;”. Now, what I’m suggesting in this Amendment Paper is to actually delete the “appear to”, because that seems to constitute a very cursory responsibility on the responsible agency to check these very significant and serious criteria about what makes a project eligible or ineligible. I would really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The other questions I have are: what happens in a situation when an applicant’s referral application does not comply with the requirements repeatedly? Will applicants be able to basically continually lodge applications—and as many as they like—until the responsible agency is actually happy that they are compliant with the requirements of 15(1A)(b)(i) and (ii)? I would really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts about these, because they seem of significant implication.

Thank you to Lan Pham for that excellent question. I’m advised that the responsible agency at the referral stage is the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). The responsible agency at the substantive stage is the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

In relation to her concerns about costs being cut at MfE and the EPA, the salient point is this: this whole regime is going to operate on a cost recovery basis. I’ve made that really clear. There’s a whole separate process around application costs and referral fees and all the rest of it, but the point is it’s going to be neutral. It’ll be complicated, but the salient point is this: applicants who are going to use the fast track will be charged at various different points and the referral costs, the administration, and all the sort of administration around all of that stuff throughout the process will be cost recovered from them, and so the staff and the various resources required—over time it’ll be neutral for the Crown, so we’re not subsidising through the administration of the applications.

Thank you for that response from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. What I’m really interested in is the policy rationale for clause 15(1A)(b)(ii), where it is explicitly saying that it, “does not appear to involve an ineligible activity;”. My concern is the cursory nature of that and I would like some assurance from the Minister that that is not, essentially, a get out of jail card for the responsible agency when it’s such a clear and important bar that these applicants are asked to meet and should be meeting if they are to move through to the next stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was going to go back and note—and I’ll note for the officials—that my questions around clause 24C I don’t think have been answered, and that is the new additions in this Amendment Paper 238—the large Amendment Paper, the Government Amendment Paper. If it has increased what can be approved or not, that would be very useful to have an answer to. I thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his response about clause 24AF in terms of priorities.

I move now through to “Miscellaneous provisions”. I’m now on Subpart 3 of Part 2 but have not yet touched on the many schedules that are an important part of this bill, and I note that members opposite have been jumping up for closure motions, which I think is a very poor form. Clause 26 is “Appeal against decisions only on question of law”, and that has been in the bill for some time, as reported back, but there is a change in this Amendment Paper 238—this large amendment paper that was only tabled yesterday afternoon and has not been through select committee. At paragraph (aa), there’s this new insertion: “the applicant (or, if the substantive application was lodged by more than 1 authorised person, the person who has proposed to hold the approval)”. It has been included rather than “the authorised person whose substantive application sought the approval”. Why has that change been made? That’s my first question.

I’m not as worried about that, though, as I am about paragraph (e) of clause 26(1), which has been deleted, and this was “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public.” This is a substantive change because, already, appeal rights are constrained to questions of law, so there is no appeal on the merits. If you’re in the Environment Court—normal resource management procedures—you may well have an option to do a full de novo hearing on appeal on all the merits; a merits-based appeal and everyone hears all the evidence and everything again. That is not an option in this case, because the appeals are only on questions of law, so they are already confined to the appeals. Normally in resource management and conservation legislation, “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public”—that’s a fairly normal phrase—has the ability to appeal. That has been removed at the 11th hour and there has been no discussion about this proactively from the Minister. I would like to hear about that and, of course, suggest that that deletion of clause 26(1)(e) be undeleted, that the line is not struck through.

I would then move to “Judicial review”, and this is a new clause, clause 27AAB, inserted by Amendment Paper 238. Again, it looks to be included just now in this amendment from the Minister. It’s saying that “(1) An application for review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016”—blah, blah, blah—“that relates to a decision on a referral application or an approval sort and a substantive application must be filed with the High Court—(a) no later than 20 working days after,—” the decision is made, and so it goes. My first point is there’s this 20 - working-day period—that appears to be quite short; I think, sometimes, it can be up to three months for a judicial review. Also, it seems new that there is this time frame put into the bill for judicial reviews. Then, at subclause (4), there’s a new—well it’s all new—underline: “Except as provided in this section, nothing in this Act limits or affects any right of judicial review a person may have in respect of any matter in which this Act applies.” Presumably, all that this new clause 27AAB is really applying to, given subclause (4), is that time limit of the 20 working days. I’d like, from the Minister, some explanation of that new clause.

Whilst we wait for an answer, I’ll move on, then, to clause 27A, which is “Interpretation”. I have here a note that we have an amendment on Amendment Paper 135, which is for the old clause 27A, which was “Cost recovery”, which has been deleted, but I presume it’s been put somewhere else. Again, this is just a huge frustration that we have had no Minister in the chair explain to us why all these changes have been made and where we can go about finding the different provisions, and of course we haven’t had the time to do that work ourselves. Clause 27A which is now deleted, the cost recovery provisions, says what the Minister was talking about before, that the idea is that these proposals are fully cost recoverable—except for those iwi authorities or other groups similar to an iwi authority, Māori groups; there doesn’t seem to be any ability for them to cost recover. There might be a change now in new clause 27B, inserted by Amendment Paper 238.

My Amendment Paper 135 that has been tabled since early November—well, not mine, it was in the name of the Hon Peeni Henare—was to include in clause 27A, at subclause (3A): “An iwi authority or anyone who is invited to make comment under ‘section 24M(b) to (ea)’ ”—so that’s the range of different groups—“may recover from the applicant the actual and reasonable cost incurred from participation in relation to the relevant substantive application.” Why we have included that in an amendment is because whilst these iwi and other groups have to be—customary rights holders; those sorts of groups—consulted with, that always comes at a cost to those groups. It’s a time cost, and they might need to involve professional people that they have to hire as well. It seems the bill as it was reported back from the Environment Committee—that there was no way for those groups to recover costs; maybe similar arguments for how much local government can get as well. I’m interested in the Minister’s comments on our Amendment Paper 135, and what thought has been given to cost recovery for those Māori organisations that will be involved in the process.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of what has already been mentioned but also to examine and ask some more questions in relation to clause 14AA-ish, and also going over to clause 15, where I have questions in relation to engagement with Māori and trying to unpack and understand the intentions of the amendments made that we have before us—as we have had limited time to review what’s in front of us.

Earlier in the piece, we discussed Part 2, clause 14AAA around consultation and engagement with Māori groups, and I have an Amendment Paper for clause 14. It’s Amendment Paper 159 that I’d like to speak to in relation to clause 14(3)(ha)—we’re going to go over it? Yes, we are. Yep, there we go. I can see it in the papers here. It’s page 24, to guide my colleagues in my discussion.

What we have right now is that my Amendment Paper seeks to amend and change some of the subparagraphs provided, and it’s around iwi authorities and it’s around hapū and Treaty settlement entities—the post-settlement governance entities that I’ve spoken to previously—and recognising iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū that are parties to relevant Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, or joint management agreements. It’s broadening it a bit there—this is my amendment and my proposal—but also going to our customary fisheries space, including taiāpure and mātaitai reserves, to be clear and explicit in terms of the voice of iwi kāinga who can input into applications.

For these provisions here, they support those of us who are impacted as Māori groups through the projects that we have before us, going back to Whangārei Harbour, such as the McCallum Brothers mining our sand out at Ruakākā, at Poupouwhenua, and also Northport, with their desire to go and dredge our papamoana in Whangarei-te-rerenga-parāoa. By having the ability for us to utilise this amendment, it ensures that those of us who have got customary rights recognised through taiāpure and mātaitai get a say, because under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, we have yet to achieve a decision in the High Court in that space.

Further, speaking in support of what has been put forward by the Hon Peeni Henare, in terms of reasonable cost recovery, that is an issue, and it came through strongly in submissions through whānau, hapū, and iwi. The worry is that they will not be able to gear themselves up and have the relevant technicians on hand to support them. For some of these applications, even if you are a part of the notified group, it’s substantial. We’re guessing it’s going to be a big application with a lot of technical detail, so the ability for hapū iwi groups to be able to access technicians and to be able to pay for them and then recover the costs are not clear. We acknowledge that this amendment here from Peeni Henare seeks to ensure that reasonable costs from participants are able to be achieved.

Local government are locked in on the legislation. The hapū iwi voice was really strong in the submissions, and kore taea te kite ki roto tēnei ture [unable to find where this is within this bill]—we’re unable to find where we landed on that, in terms of hapū iwi. We have many within the Whangārei district—e hanga kārangirangi ana [it seems to be unsettling]. You can ask our Minister what “kārangirangi” means, but it means that you’re in a bit of a panic. You’re panicking because it’s coming. We’ve got six in Whangārei Harbour, and how are they going to pay for the technicians, even if they get notified and included in the process?

One final question I’d like to ask in relation to clause 15, which is the responsible agencies and whether to defer. In understanding the intentions of the process, who are the relevant Government departments that are going to do the referrals?

Then, getting over to page 31, where we are at clause 19(2A), where the Minister, once they’ve received the information and the panel has done their assessment—it is my understanding from what we read before us that the Minister is to call for comment from Māori groups identified in the list provided to the Minister, and then the Māori land owners in the project area, and “Before the Minister invites comments under subsection (1), the responsible agency must provide the Minister with a list of the Māori groups referred to”.

For this area here, the question is the agency itself, the responsible agency—sometimes they don’t get it right. Sometimes our agencies don’t get it right, or they don’t know who’s in the whare or who’s in the mara or who’s in the harbour, so how do we ensure that our agencies themselves are geared up and prepared and understand the lie of the land whereby they are operating? Are they going to be working with their regional officers to be able to get a good list of the Māori who the Minister for Infrastructure will need to invite comments from?

Further, in terms of the Māori land owners of the project area, who defines what the project area is—that is a question for the Minister—and then who determines who the land owners are? In the Whangārei Harbour, for instance, we have very few whenua Māori land blocks on the harbour today, and that’s because of the acts and omissions of the Crown in terms of alienation of our whenua, but that doesn’t mean that the hapū and the iwi kāinga of those spaces should not be considered in terms of inviting this comment from the Minister.

That’s a question in terms of landlessness and who the Māori land owners in the project area are, and who determines all of this. Does it all come from the ministry and their Crown officials, and how big is the footprint of impact? When you think of Northport and you think of their footprint of impact, it’s quite substantial. It’s not just on the Ruakākā, Poupouwhenua side; it’s across the harbour. There’s many of us, and, as we might recall, the tribes of Whangārei are currently in mediation with Northport because we’ve been quite successful in pushing back on the proposal.

These are some of my pātai to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the officials. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the officials are here, Ministers are changing, and it would, of course, be lovely to have some answers to the questions that I was making on the miscellaneous provisions, and prior to them. But now I’m going to move to Schedule 3.

This is the schedule about the expert panel. There’s been a change in the Government Amendment Paper at clause 2, and this is the appointment of a panel convener. I’ve got some changes to who should be on the panel in the first place, but there are going to be a lot of the panels—there are 149 projects. I realise not all of them will happen at once; there’s just not that many people available. But they have to be chosen—these expert panels—by someone. The question is: who is that person that chooses the expert panels? It was going to be: “(1) The Minister must, after consulting the other relevant portfolio Ministers, appoint a former (including retired) Environment Judge or High Court Judge to be the panel convener”.

A former or current Environment Judge or High Court Judge is somebody who will know a lot about process and will know a lot about environmental laws. That is a high bar. You don’t get judges all the time, but these are not the people who have to be on the panels; this is just the person appointing the panels. Now, I see in this amendment that it’s changed, so that subclause (1) is that the Minister, after consultation, can appoint the Environment Judge, the High Court Judge, or—and this is new—“a senior lawyer with expertise in resource management.” That is quite a dramatic change. I would like to ask for the justification of that, given that this is just one person—it is just one position. There is one convener—it’s a panel convener. Why does this need to be widened to senior lawyers?

Then, if we go further through, I note that there’s clause 2A—this looks to be new as well—the “Associate panel conveners”. Again, these can be a senior lawyer with expertise in resource management. Then, at clause 3, there is the “Membership of panels”. These panels can be up to four people who make up the panel. We’re very interested in the membership of these panels. We have an Amendment Paper, No. 136, in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. That is around who can chair the panels, which is at clause 4. I’m sure there are some other submissions, some other amendments as well, about the make-up of those panels and what the knowledge has to be that’s included in clause 3.

At clause 4, there is a bit about who the chairperson of the panel is. This is very important, because 149 projects have to be of regional or national significance. They are big projects—we’ve seen that in the schedule, and other members may want to talk some more about those projects in Schedule 2. These are big things that would normally go to an Environment Court process or a direct referral process. But here, in clause 4, the chairperson of a panel may be a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law to be the chairperson of a panel. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a senior lawyer or a retired judge to be the chairperson of a panel; you can be a planner. And all my aroha to planners, who are wonderful, wonderful people. They are not the same as a very senior lawyer, and they are not the same as a judge.

That is why we have that amendment to make that change. These are big, serious applications that are going to affect various companies a lot with the decisions. There’s going to be big private gain from those, and there could be very significant environmental effects that would not otherwise be allowed under existing law, and the decision makers can be chaired by a planner rather than a lawyer or judge.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Earlier, I’ve been engaged with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in terms of some of the work in terms of clause 19. I want to sort of jump into, I guess, the schedule of projects, because it talks about—and I’d ask the Minister in terms of some comment or reflection. The Minister invites comments in clause 19(2B), “a local authority must provide comments advising … applications that have been lodged with the local authority that would be competing applications”, etc., and it goes on.

As we look through Schedule 2, we see that there is a huge number of projects that are not only private but there are a lot of council projects. I’ve got a few questions around this, because I do see that Auckland Transport is in there and there are several—in fact, there are three that I can see from Auckland Transport. There’s the airport to Botany bus rapid transit; there’s the Auckland level crossings removals—that’s a shame; and there’s the Papakura to Pukekohe route protection for track, which had been mentioned. Obviously, this Government has announced some changes in Auckland in terms of Auckland Transport and how it will be managed. I just wonder if there are any implications, in terms of Schedule 2, with Auckland Transport around the announcements that I think were made last week. Are there any issues with that?

Secondly, I just want to look—for example, Ashburton District Council has an application and, as we move our way through, there are a number of local authorities that are here, like the Far North District Council. They’ve got plans in terms of the Kaikohe waste-water treatment plant renewal. When we look at this, in terms of the process which we have here, how does the council offer comment when its projects that actually they are the stakeholders in or projects that they are supportive of? In many ways, is there conflict there? We understand that and we’re grateful that local authorities can participate—one of the few that can—but how does that work?

So, firstly, around Auckland Transport, does it change anything with the announcement the Government has made around Auckland Transport in their management or leadership system? Secondly, in terms of local authorities which are in here, is there a conflict that they’re actually having to provide advice to the Minister in this space? I’ve got more to come, but those are a couple of questions just at the moment.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just wait for my mike—thank you. I would like to focus in on what was clause 16, and this was about consultation requirements, but it’s more an explanation about the changes between the bill as we knew it as of yesterday and then the Government’s Amendment Paper 238, which, essentially, deletes consultation requirements for referral applications. Now, I assume that these are covered elsewhere, but I have a number of questions about them. I’m really keen to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform what has happened to this clause, so I can better direct the rest of my questions on that. Thank you.

I share my colleague’s frustration that we are not getting any answers from Ministers. I’d remind you—and I will go back to them if I need to—of my questions on new clause 24C: what does it mean; is it opening things up—my questions around appeals—who has standing to make an appeal; the time provisions around judicial review; the hearing panel issues that were raising costs for iwi and other groups. These are all things that have not been answered, by my count.

Now I will move to Schedule 4 and clause 12, which is “Criteria and other matters for assessment of consent application”. If we look at Schedule 4—we were looking at Schedule 3 before which was about those panels—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Which schedule?

I’m sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Schedule 4.

Schedule 4, yes. Schedule 4 is “Approvals relating to Resource Management Act 1991”. There’s a number of schedules here, and they relate to the different specified Acts; they relate to the different pieces of legislation which this bill, as a one-stop shop, can give approvals for. They are all important, but this one is in relation to the Resource Management Act, and at clause 12—it’s a very important clause for a number of reasons, because it starts with and it relates back to section 24W—“when considering a consent application, including conditions … the panel must take into account, giving the greatest weight to paragraph (a)”.

Now, what is that greatest weight? Oh, “the purpose of this Act” is the greatest weight. So I have an Amendment Paper in my name, No. 137, to change that “must take into account, giving the greatest weight to paragraph (a)” by deleting “giving the greatest weight”. It fixes a major problem with the bill if you get rid of giving the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act, because as we’ve already traversed in Part 1, the purpose of this Act doesn’t mention the environment. Therefore, the purpose of this fast-track bill is in direct conflict with the purpose of the Resource Management Act, which is for sustainable management. The Minister has already refused an amendment to clause 3 to include sustainable management, so that’s not in there. My question is, then, would the Minister responsible for RMA Reform consider removing “giving the greatest weight” in clause 12, as suggested by my Amendment Paper 137?

Then, interestingly, clause 12 goes on to the provisions of Parts 2, 3, 6, and 8 to 10 of the Resource Management Act, and the relevant provisions of any other legislation. It doesn’t include everything in the Resource Management Act. It does include Part 2; Part 2 of the Resource Management Act is the purpose clause. Now there’s been an insertion in this Government Amendment Paper—the big Amendment Paper No. 238—to add Part 3. That seems like a good idea. I would ask the Minister why Part 3 has been added, why it wasn’t there before, and why it’s not all of the provisions of the Resource Management Act that are included in clause 12(1)(b).

Then there is an “to avoid doubt” provision at clause 12(2)(c), which is new, and it says, “to avoid doubt, for the purposes of subclause (1)(b), when taking into account section 104(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act … any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe or joint management agreement that is relevant to the approval is a relevant matter.” I presume that that is a clarification, but I want to know why it’s needed—why is that specific reference needed? Why did officials feel that that was needed in this change, and what else is missing from the Resource Management Act in clause 12? Those are some questions on Schedule 4.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Apologies for the swap-over with Minister Grigg earlier on. As we know, this kaupapa, this proposed legislation, is all around ensuring the expedited delivery of projects of national and regional importance.

Just in response to various questions that have been proffered by my erudite colleagues throughout the Chamber: yes, in relation to a senior lawyer being able to be the convener, we are cognisant of the width and depth of people who are equipped with the procedural expertise and the skills and the knowledge to conduct panels for these projects of national and regional significance. As a result, the proposed amendment will encompass a broader and wider group of individuals with that relevant expertise to conduct a panel of these matters of consequence. There are resourcing constraints across the motu in relation to panels of this nature and of this consequence—hence why we’ve brought in that group by way of the amendment.

In relation to those that may be able to contribute to the panel’s consideration of a variety of applications that will present themselves, yes, the panel does have some discretion to ask organisations, people, NGOs, Infrastructure New Zealand, and a wide range of organisations with relevant insights and expertise to better inform the panel of their decision making and inform the panel as to what considerations—and perhaps even the appropriate conditions—in the decision-making process, knowing, of course, that many of the challenges that will be presented to the panel will be different in nature to many of the various applications submitted by way of the previous fast-track consenting arrangements that were launched and led out by the then Minister Parker.

To the questions around iwi and hapū participation, it’s my great privilege to hear that hanga kārangirangi [provoking] comment. That actually went down really well, especially at this time of the day. We are very aware of the need to ensure Treaty settlements are upheld and the obligations and commitments that go with that. I look forward to a report, in due course, around the extent and the breadth and depth of those settlements that are held by many agencies throughout the country.

The other item I’d like to just acknowledge is that my understanding and, certainly, expectation is the relevant agencies that will be assisting panels and Ministers will contribute to clarity of identification of the iwi and hapū groups and any other authorities and organisations that should be engaged by way of clause 14AAA. To the question from my colleague Ms Lyndon, I expect that there’ll be quite extensive engagement through the agencies to the referring Minister about the appropriate groups, entities, and organisations that should be part and parcel of that process, which ultimately will result in a report that is considered by the Minister for Māori Crown Relations and the Minister for Māori Development, whoever he or she may be at the time.

In relation to clause 16, essentially the effect or the intent of that by way of Parliamentary Counsel Office redrafting is that that provision has been channelled to clauses 14AAA and 14AAB.

There was a question in relation to Auckland Transport and wonderful places, especially if you’re trying to catch the bus on time from Ōrākau to town. The councils that will be experiencing separation between functions, ultimately, will work out—and the expectation is that they will work out and manage any separations themselves. We’ll leave them to their devices.

There are a couple of other items that were raised and, again, excuse me because I just arrived while some of the questions were being asked. Just going through this—oh, that’s right, Schedule 2. It’s wonderful to see the amount of iwi-led and partnered projects. Certainly, my take on those projects that are currently on that relevant schedule is that there are over 20 projects within the 149 identified on the documents today that are either iwi or Māori-led or partnered. That to me really underpins the support from many iwi and Māori organisations to participate in the fast-track process and to actually expedite their economic aspirations, which consequentially will contribute to the social emancipation of many of their own iwi members and onus.

Whether or not that’s the Rangitopuni project out there beyond the rohe of my whanaunga, Mr Halbert, beyond Riverhead there, or the Hananui aquaculture project down at the bottom of Te Wai Pounamu, or even the Arahura papakāinga project in the beautiful Tai Poutini, on the West Coast, adjacent to the Arahura Marae, what we see is that there is an absolute intention from iwi and Māori organisations to participate in the fast-track process and to continue to support for that channel to be open to them to participate—and, might I add, the Ruakura Tuumata project, which is a residential and commercial development laid out by the phenomenal Tainui Group Holdings.

There certainly is an intention to ensure that there is a one-stop shop for projects of national and regional significance, and so much so that the iwi and Māori organisations involved in applying for this process and through this process are right behind us.

Finally, there is a final comment—actually, I think I’ll just take a break for now, Mr Chair.

It’s wonderful to hear from the Minister of Conservation and some of his whakaaro in reply to some of our contributions. I’m wanting to explore a little bit about what has been shared thus far, considering the reporting on Treaty settlements and other obligations in clause 19A. It’s great to see a comprehensive list of what would be included in the report. It’s good to see that a range of Crown legislation, of different provisions in relation to Treaty settlements—hey, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act is mentioned in there again, but, of course, very few of us may ever achieve that goal. But then you’ve got rohe moana, you’ve got also the provisions for those with Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.

I’m wondering, though, in terms of reporting, because this is for Te Arawhiti Māori Development and those decision-making Ministers: will there be any provision to provide a cultural landscape report in terms of these projects and the rohe that they are coming into? I ask that because there’s a story in each of the areas that the projects will land, and if they have public good or a public outcome, if they are something of regional and national significance, would it not be good for the Government, for the agencies themselves, to have an understanding of the layers of interest, but also in terms of some of the acts and omissions of the Crown that led to alienation in those spaces?

We cannot think that the iwi kāinga in those areas, just because they might have signed a settlement, have not had an element of loss. What is the documenting around that space, but also what is the contemporary layering of interests? I use the words “layers” of interest, because the Minister is here with us now; he knows that there are layers of interest amongst iwi Māori, amongst hapū, and amongst tribes.

Going again to those who have not settled, those tribes who have maybe had Waitangi Tribunal reports that have been produced—and I’m going to the North, the Great North, Whangārei. Mapping out again: we’ve got six projects out of the 11 in Tai Tokerau in Whangārei Harbour. We have one tribe which is settled in that area, which is Ngāti Pūkenga, Pakikaikutu. We have two Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, Patuharakeke and Te Parawhau. We have no customary marine title, marine and coastal area (takutai moana) rights that have been proved, because we’ve just finished two rounds of hearings and we might have to go back to the High Court again. We have rohe moana also in the area.

It’s great to hear the emphasis on settlement, but when there are no settlements in the rohe, will the report reflect on the large database of evidence that the Waitangi Tribunal Te Paparahi o Te Raki has compiled on the story of the Whangārei Harbour? I can even provide some references to quite a few reports, actually, on Whangārei Harbour. There’s an opportunity there to really understand the nature of the space where the project will be located, but also some of the impacts to date. To the deciding Minister: will those reports, knowing that it will be beyond just Treaty settlements and all of those compliance issues, also go into the background of the proposals, because some of these proposals that will come up might have already been through processes in the past? Will it reflect on Environment Court hearings, on commissioner hearings? Will it provide a whakapapa of the company or the agency or the group that is the applicant, and provide full expression of the journey travelled for that project? I think, in terms of the general public of New Zealand, it would be great for us to review these reports, but also for the deciding Ministers to have all the information in front of them.

Let’s go to McCallum Bros, for instance—you know, talk about the uncles. They have been in Pākiri for nearly 80 years, sandmining there, and they just recently lost this year in the Environment Court, so they’ve turned their attention to the Bream Bay area. Will the report that comes before the deciding Ministers look at the whakapapa of the entity, of the company that is applying for the consent, for the projects, and then also look at their track record in terms of environmental impact? You don’t get declined in the Environment Court for no reason. Those are just some questions I’d like to ask. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to remind the Minister of Conservation of some unanswered questions—one’s going back to clause 24C and the amendments on Amendment Paper 238 and whether that widens up who can be applicants, really. Also, to the appeal provisions, I don’t think I heard in his last contribution any reference to that strikeout of clause 26(1)(e) and the time limits to judicial review. I don’t think I’ve heard anything, either, on costs being recouped by the various different Māori organisations that we were just hearing about in that last contribution.

Continuing on to Schedule 4, there’s more changes on this Amendment Paper that have quite a lot to do with freshwater fisheries activities, and I was wondering why those changes are made, and they come up in another schedule, as well. That would be a useful thing to know.

Again, noting my amendment on Amendment Paper 137, in clause 16 of Schedule 4—clause 16 is the “Panel to make aquaculture decision”. It says, again, that we’ve got this hierarchy, at subclause (3): “In making an aquaculture decision, the panel must—… take into account, giving the greatest weight to subparagraph (i), [which is] the purpose of this Act; and [then] sections 8 to 10 and 186GB(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act”. Again, it’s trying to change that and giving the greatest weight to the purpose to this Act being to facilitate projects.

Then, a similar change is recommended in Schedule 5 on Amendment Paper 238. Schedule 5 moves on from the Resource Management Act, which was Schedule 4, and goes into approvals relating to the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act. There is a change here in this big Government Amendment Paper to include the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act in the heading to Schedule 5. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us why that is and how it has repercussions for the rest of the bill, as well; that would be useful.

Then, again, going back to my Amendment Paper 137, it again goes to this greatest weight clause. At clause 5, “Criteria for assessment of application for concession”, again, it says that the greatest weight must go to “the purpose of this Act”. That, of course, is very different from the purpose of the Conservation Act, which is all about conservation, and is really in direct conflict. Then we see, in those criteria, reference to the Wildlife Act have been included by Amendment Paper 238, and the National Parks Act as well. That would be useful to have more information on why these changes have been made and what they mean.

At clause 5(1)(a)(x) of Schedule 5—that has been deleted by Amendment Paper 137, which is interesting. We have an Amendment Paper 143, in the name of Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and that was to add an amendment after subparagraph (x), which was really to give weight to management plans and reserve management plans and to change the weighting of those important plans that are very important under this underlying legislation, to be a must, so they “must” be considered rather than “may” be considered. At the moment, they fall under paragraph (b) rather than paragraph (e). This seems to be a strangeness, given the importance in those legislative regimes of those planning documents—that they’d just be a “may” consideration, rather than a “must” consideration. There is an amendment in Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s name there at Amendment Paper 143 for that change, as well. I will sit down now.

Thank you, Mr Chair, it’s actually my first opportunity to contribute to this Fast-track Approvals Bill debate, although I have been following along for the contributions that others have made. I just wanted to ask some questions of the Minister of Conservation; I won’t take too long. I wanted to go to Schedule 4, and wanted to ask a few different questions in this schedule and I’ll let you know the numbers of the specific clauses, and I’d be grateful if the Minister could answer them in due course.

The first question I have is really in relation to Schedule 4, clause 4 when it looks at the environmental effects, and there’s a number of things listed there. The question I had was in relation to clause 4(f), the unreasonable emission of noise. I wondered if the Minister had a barometer for what that would include and whether he would consider any noise to be covered within environmental effects as an alternative, because, of course, reasonableness, as a question of policy, a question of opinion—and it would seem to me that just including the emission of noise would be a better way of ensuring that environmental impacts were fully considered. That’s my first question: whether the Minister would consider looking at that or has considered it.

The next question I have is in relation to Schedule 4, clause 6(2), and that goes through the required documents that are necessary for that particular clause, for the information required in application for a certificate of compliance. It’s quite an interesting list, there, of the documents that are required and I just wanted to know whether any other documents could perhaps be necessary in relation to that particular provision, whether he thought any other helpful documents could be included that could provide more information when they are looking for a certificate of compliance, because they do seem quite specific, but also not entirely fulsome.

The next question I have is in relation to clause 10, still in Schedule 4, which looks at the chief executive in relation to an aquaculture decision, and appreciate the comments made by my colleague Rachel Brooking when she talked about some of the important determinations that are needed when looking at aquaculture decisions. The question I had, really, was a process question around the chief executive’s actions in relation to when they receive information, specifically in relation to clause 10, the requirement to do that within five working days.

If we then move to clause 11, it’s a very complicated process that the chief executive has to go to in order to prioritise the different decisions that they have. First of all, it states that they have to be made in the order that they are received and that seems relatively reasonable, but then, if there’s more than one on the same day, it has to be determined which was first in that day, and that also seems reasonable. Then, in subclauses (3) and (4), there are additional determinations that need to be made by the chief executive in relation to the priorities.

That seems to be, if the chief executive was to receive a number of recommendations on the same day, not a very fast process to go through, which seemed to be quite contrary to the purpose of the bill which I have looked at. I did look at the Environment Committee report, and I did look at the fact that the speed was of the essence, really, with this bill, and the comments made by the other select committee members that said maybe the environmental considerations should be placed higher within the purpose were not agreed by the Environment Committee as a majority.

Obviously that’s not necessarily the main objective here but I just wondered whether clause 11 is really the most efficient way to draft a procedure that the chief executive will have to follow, because it seems to me to be quite arduous. Of course, that’s not the end of the story and I’m sure other members will have contributions to make in relation to the further procedures relating to the aquaculture decision-making process. I know there’s further decisions that have to be made in relation to clause 16 and also in Schedule 4 that make it further complicated. However, I’ll leave my questions there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, it’s absolutely wonderful to see the genuine interest in the catalysing and accelerating of Māori economic development by way of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I look at the applicants like Te Aupōuri Fisheries team way up there in the far Far North—not the far middle north, which sometimes I frequent, but the far Far North—and their intention to create aquaculture employment, small to medium enterprise, and other opportunities not only for their people but actually for all the people of the Far North, that great place which I hope to visit later on this week.

There is an extensive opportunity for a very concise report by the responsible agency. This exemplifies, in my view, the commitment, ultimately, of the team behind the legislation to ensure that the settlement obligations and settlement commitments of Treaty bodies but also those other matters from other organisations, as set out in clause 19A(2)(i), where it is noted “any other Māori groups with relevant interests:”—whilst there has been an inquiry around the need for something of the nature of a cultural impact analysis or cultural impact assessment and the layers of interest that might go with any specific area, the subject of an application through this process, we can note that a cultural impact assessment is not a requirement. There may be applicants and project owners who want to undertake that by way of their own engagement with the local communities, and in some ways, in some people’s minds, the mana whenua, but I often refer to that as the tangata whenua.

These projects that are led and partnered with Māori, they too might go through their own internal assessment of cultural impacts and cultural relevancies, but I expect that many of those will be hardwired into the planning that they undertake for their own projects and to the design and other features that might be accommodated within their applications—for example, urban design that may be led out through the Mana Ahuriri Trust project around the Ahuriri Station, the Tauhara North No.2 Trust Solar Farm down there near Rotokawa, and a project like the Tara Road housing project out there near Mr Rutherford, out there by Pāpāmoa and Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore.

My expectation is that there will be different horses for courses around how an applicant or a project owner may engage with the relevant post-settlement governance entities, but also any other groups, and they may be hapū or they may be incorporations and trusts. They may even be at whānau level, but there’s provision for that, not only to engage but also to ensure that there is a very concise and deliberate report prepared by the responsible agency for the consideration of the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, whoever she or he may be.

In reference to previous compliance history—that’s clause 24C on Amendment Paper 238—yes, the previous compliance history and also herstory of the relevant applicant and project owner is considered.

💬 Costs: there’s been a lot of observation around costs and they do sometimes mount up in these sorts of processes. There are provisions in clauses 27F and 27H on Amendment Paper 238 to ensure that there will be a set cost contribution for groups. Some of those, I expect, will be around the engagement set out and throughout the proposed legislation with iwi. That cost contribution will be organised through the Environmental Protection Authority.

There were comments around the freshwater fisheries and the standard fisheries proposals, of course, part of the resource consent, but projects like dams that need a freshwater fisheries approval outside of the one-stop shop would cut against the grain of the intention of this Act, which is a one-stop shop. The upside is, of course, that the Director-General of Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation, will be expected to provide a report to the panel to help.

There is a variety of comments around the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act being in the title of Schedule 5. Of course, the Wildlife Act, which generally comes within the purview of the Minister of Conservation, a quiet figure in the coalition Government, is to ensure that concessions can be given for wildlife refuges and wildlife management reserves. Certainly, there are some exclusions across the conservation estate that will be ineligible to be used as land for these types of projects, and those are well set out. The National Parks Act, of course, is in the title of Schedule 5 on Amendment Paper 238 to allow concessions for the limited electricity projects of clause 22DA.

There was a question about clause 6(2) in Schedule 4 that was removed, but it’s covered off, in our view, by clause 6(1)(g)—“g” for “goat”, and there’s a lot of them on the conservation estate; please knock them off if you see them—and, of course, the aquaculture decision process mirrors the existing MBC process, considering all the relevant interests. Happy to take some more questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some specific questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, around the panel convener and setting up the panels, which is clause 24GAA of Part 2 of this bill. Of course, Schedule 3 of the bill goes into far more detail around the membership of the panels and the way in which these are set up.

In particular, in Schedule 3, I have some questions around clause 3(1A), which specifies: “Before appointing the members of a panel, the panel convener may, but need not, consult—(a) the Minister”, and then, “(b) if the panel is set up for a substantive application that seeks an approval described in section 24C(3)(h) (marine consent), the EPA.” My question for the Minister is: this requirement to the—well, it’s not a requirement, before appointing the members of the panel, the convener “may, but need not, consult—the Minister”. My question for the Minister is: what is the purpose of this? Obviously, this is not an area where the Minister is going to have decision-making power specified under the legislation, because “may, but need not” is also included in there. I’m interested to hear from the Minister in the chair what the thinking is behind that.

Also, to get some clarity from the Minister in the chair, what happens if the panel chair comes and says, “We’re going to appoint X, Y, and Z people to this panel.” and the Minister does have an issue with some of those appointments? What is the thinking that Ministers, where they’ve been going through doing policy development—what will be the consequence of a Minister raising some flags to officials, and what weight will that carry? Will that be documented? Will that be communicated? If so, how and where? Just really looking to get some understanding of the purpose of why that is there.

I’ll come back with some more questions around panels, but I am looking for some clarity on those.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister of Conservation to turn his attention to page 114 in the Amendment Paper, the first item at the top of the page—the project name’s “Auckland level crossings removals project”. That’s been sponsored by Auckland Transport. The Minister may be aware that because of the City Rail Link increasing the frequency of services across the network so significantly—something I think we all celebrate in this House—one of the flow-on consequences is that it has implications for a number of communities around the network, because our old-fashioned rail network often has pedestrian crossings, often unsupported by safety enhancements like automated gates. This project is to, basically, in stages, remove and grade approximately 42 of those level crossings.

I’m interested in what advice the Minister has had in relation to this particular project in terms of the decision making and the implementation once this is passed into law and this project, effectively, gets its planning permission as a result of the fast track, because we recently had an experience in Swanson in my electorate in West Auckland, where Auckland Transport had been planning the closure of a pedestrian rail crossing really for the last two years as part of this very programme of closing crossings for safety reasons on the grounds that the increased frequency of train services would have exacerbated the safety risk. The community resisted vigorously because it would have, effectively, severed the community and made it significantly less walkable. A very large neighbourhood of people would have had to walk 45 minutes to get to the school and the shops on the other side of the railway line, instead of a 10-minute walk.

Now, the reason I raise this and ask this is that it’s often the consenting process—when you get a notified consent—it’s often only at that stage that the community becomes fully aware of a given project and has the time to digest the consequences that are a result of this project. They get into gear, they start to ask questions, they start to engage with the institution that’s responsible—in this case, Auckland Transport—and that’s when the rubber often hits the road. The local project in my electorate that I was just talking about is, in fact, part of this programme of 42 level crossings. As a result of a pretty stout local community campaign over nearly two years, Auckland Transport, to their credit, finally reviewed the project and said, “We got it wrong. We’re going to listen to the community. We don’t think that the marginal increase in train frequencies as a result of the City Rail Link is sufficient to justify closing this crossing.”

In this case, it didn’t have to get to a consenting process because there’s a very good local MP and very good local councillors who took it up and advocated and supported the local community, but in many cases it actually is the consenting process. When you’ve got a notified consent, that’s when this process actually happens and projects get contested and interrogated by the community and their advocates and often their elected members. My question for the Minister is: in this instance, when is that going to happen? Because the community will no longer have a notified consent process where they get the opportunity to question and interrogate. The example that I’ve been telling you about is a great example of the fact that organisations like Auckland Transport often get it wrong. These things are laden with judgment and subjectivity and shifting assumptions and variables, and it is often the rigour and the transparency that a notified consent process brings that actually allows much better decisions to be made. I ask the Minister to respond to that.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I very much agree with the contribution from the previous member the Hon Phil Twyford.

I wanted to take this call to talk to my Amendment Paper 179, which proposes to move the following amendment to clause 22B. Currently, in clause 22B(2)(a), subparagraph (vii) refers to the criteria for assessing referral applications. In that clause 22B(2)(vii), it refers to “[supporting] climate change mitigation, including the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions:”. That is no doubt an incredibly relevant thing to be considered. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform should consider whether the project will support climate change mitigation.

Given the urgency of the climate crisis and a huge cross-party commitment we have in this Parliament to effective action on climate change, to meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement, and to the zero carbon Act, I’ve got an Amendment Paper that would add “insert [subparagraph] (viia)”, saying it “is consistent with New Zealand’s emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change Response Act”.

Now, I think that’s the absolute minimum that we should be considering, because it’s not sufficient to consider whether or not it mitigates emissions in this process. We need to have, like, a specific commitment in the legislation for the Minister to assess whether it is consistent with the emissions reduction targets, because it could reduce emissions and it could not increase emissions. The way it’s worded currently in the bill, and I believe in the amendment—although I have to say I have to check the Government’s Amendment Paper, because it’s as big as the bill—all that needs to be considered is what impact it would have, whether it would have an impact on mitigating emissions, but it’s another step entirely to say that it is actually going to be consistent with our commitments for reducing emissions.

I’m interested in hearing from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, if he’s able to comment on this, whether there’s a reason why the wording isn’t more specifically linking the consideration of our targets. Obviously, if the Government is interested in achieving emissions reduction targets, then a whole lot of things need to line up. We know that the carbon price in the emissions trading scheme alone is not sufficient to reduce emissions, that a number of infrastructure projects that are included in Schedule 2 will either have the potential to increase or to reduce emissions. If it is the case that there’s no requirement to consider whether or not it’s consistent with emissions reduction targets, then what is the process for ensuring that we’re actually going to be consenting a bunch of projects that will actually reduce emissions and help us reach our targets as opposed to increase them?

Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation again to stand and convey some responses and reflections on the various questions asked. I, of course, refer to the pātai around the panel convener may not need to consult the Minister for Infrastructure, and what if the Minister has issues? It’s like Paddy Gower Has Issues.

The first thing is that, originally, that was “must” consult the Minister, and now there’s a bit of optionality that’s been built into the proposed wording to “may”. Of course, the panel chairs—well articulated by the member—may have some issues with the proposed appointments to a panel, and it’s pretty clear that the panel convener has a discretion to appoint members of the panel or otherwise.

I appreciate that comment that came from Te Atatū Peninsula in relation to the Auckland light rail project—thank you for that query. This legislation is different from the Resource Management Act in that it front-loads a lot of the info requirements to enable the applications to be processed a bit more quickly, without delays commonly experienced under the resource management legislation while further information is gathered or parties are involved, and, certainly, my experience of the Auckland train network is one that the types of projects that the member observed and mentioned often attract a lot of public interest. In that regard, the panel, I’m sure, will not see itself as an omnipotent or an omniscient being, but, rather, one that considers many opinions. It can, of course, call a hearing if it chooses to do so, and also invite comments from many varied groups. It is one-stop shop legislation—that’s what we are absolutely committed to—but it’s good to hear of those previous experiences that the member has of democracy in action.

In relation to the climate change matter, it’s a critical, very important kaupapa that’s confronting the entire globe, including this little part of paradise here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That’s why we’re so enthusiastic and energetic, not just over the jet planes in that box back there, but energetic around expediting renewable energy projects. Whether or not they’re Māori-led—Tauhara North No.2 solar farm, for example, but also—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: What about the coalmines?

—well, I’m not going to talk about all the coal imported from Indonesia right now—there are even the solar farms in Bunnythorpe. I don’t know if any of you have been to Bunnythorpe lately, but it’s got the most unusual railway crossing that goes straight on to a roundabout. There is no crossing like Bunnythorpe. If those were in Auckland, I say to the member for Te Atatū, they would cause absolute chaos. There is a substation down there in Bunnythorpe, and I imagine that the solar farm down there will link into that substation quite nicely—along with one of my home digs, Marton, which will also have the more southern links of Mōkai Pātea, which, as Mr Halbert knows, is also going to have a solar farm.

Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. I look forward to reconvening with you and others this evening at 10.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Minister Potaka, who was in the chair, for partially answering my questions around the membership of panels, which is covered off in Schedule 3 of this bill. I think that the Minister who answered from the chair gave us cause for more questions. He said that at the Environment Committee, it was changed from the panel convener “must”—“must”—consult with the Minister for Infrastructure around decisions of who’s going to be appointed to panels, and that this was changed at select committee to “may”, but need not, consult.

I want to understand from the Minister of Conservation how they see that as being an important part of how these panels are going to operate and these decisions are going to be. I’m still waiting to understand what happens, given the way the clause is now currently worded in the schedule, if a Minister does have some issues with the panel members who are being appointed. That’s a question that is still outstanding that the Minister in the chair didn’t address. What will happen with that information? Will it be made public anywhere? What is the purpose of it is really what we’re trying to understand.

What I also want to move on to, then, is some of the provisions around memberships of panels, particularly as it relates to local authorities, and there’s a lot of detail in Schedule 3 about how it is and when it is and who it is that local bodies get to appoint to these panels. In clause 3, it says that “The membership of a panel must include 1 person nominated by the relevant local [authority].”, “The person nominated by the relevant local authorities may, but need not, be an elected member of any of the local authorities.”, and “If the relevant local authorities nominate more than 1 person for appointment as a panel member, the panel convener must decide which … of [these] nominees is to be appointed as a panel member.” We can see that there’s a lot going on in terms of selection around that. If it is not an elected member of a local authority, then who? Who is it that the Government is envisioning that local authorities will be appointing to these panels who are making some really important decisions? Just to get some clarity from the Minister there.

Then, in clause 3(6)(a) through to clause 3(6)(e), it goes through what happens: “Despite the limit specified on the membership by subclause (1), that number may be exceeded (including by the appointment of more than 1 person … at the discretion of the panel convener, if warranted by, or required to accommodate,—” and there’s a very subjective set of criteria area around when it is that that limit can be exceeded. One of the things that it goes through is “the circumstances unique to a particular district or region; … the number of applications that have to be considered in that particular district or region; … the nature and scale of the application under consideration; … matters unique to any relevant iwi participation legislation; … the collective knowledge and experience needed under clause 7(1A).”

One of the things that we’re really interested to know from a process point of view is whether or not there is an application that has previously been turned down by the Environment Court, the High Court, or, indeed, the Supreme Court—that these are applications that have already been overturned and have really only had life breathed into by virtue of being included in the schedule of this bill. Is that something that the Minister is envisioning might require more people from the local authority, and therefore the local community, to have input into those decisions where it is seeking to overturn what have already been quite longstanding decisions and the communities have been heavily involved often in the coming to that decision and some of the activism that led them to that?

I think that’s an important point for the Minister to answer to us on the make-up of those panels, added to the outstanding questions around the interaction between the Minister for Infrastructure and the convener of the panel, the chair of the panel, and whether that’s a two-way street—something I didn’t ask before. Does the Minister and, therefore, the Government have the ability to put up names to the convener of the panel in terms of people that they would like appointed to it, or is it that the convener of the panel must go to the Minister with a completed list of names? These are all things that are important for us to understand.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to specifically ask some questions of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about a project in Lower Hutt which he’ll be familiar with, considering he’s the local MP there. It’s one very close to my home and to where my children have grown up. It’s the proposal for Winstone Aggregates, a division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure, to be able to establish a new overburden disposal area adjacent to the existing quarry to enable the extraction of approximately 20 million cubic metres of aggregate, including land exchange with the Department of Conservation, earthworks, and establishing new access roads.

I would particularly like to understand—the local Hill Road Community Group would also like to know—what impacts that would have on the Belmont Stream, which is a tributary to the Hutt River in which kids swim—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member—we’re on Part 2, around process, so if these questions are around the process of what happens with the project, it’s OK to use the project for an example, but I’d like you to stick to what is around the process.

Community consultation is what I was asking. What engagement, I would like to know from the Minister, has he undertaken or proposes to undertake to inform a community that this will directly impact on?

We have a natural environment here that is going to be substantially impacted by 20 million cubic metres of aggregate being extracted. From what I have understood in my communications since seeing this, there’s been no engagement with community groups and also those groups that are very active in terms of conservation in the area. There are many people tuning in who would really like to understand: what is the process for informing the community? What is the process for assessing the risks to their natural environment? What is the process for assessing the impacts on the natural environment?

In particular, what is the land exchange with the Department of Conservation that has occurred? That is of particular concern to the community, because they have not been informed at all about the land exchange that has occurred with the Department of Conservation, and it would be very interesting to understand what other correspondence or process has gone on for public notification for Department of Conservation land to be used to extract approximately 20 million cubic metres of aggregate from in and around that area.

I would just like to ask further, if there has been no process of community engagement to date, if the Minister could tell us what his process is to inform the community of this fast-tracked process, and what ability they have to be able to have some say in a significant local project which they have previously had absolutely no knowledge of.

I’m going to take a call from the Hon Rachel Brooking, but I also do want to note that we’ve had lots of questions around consultation with communities. I want new and specific things. For example, some of the clauses that have been referred to in the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ questions have been relative to the parts of the bill. Before I take the next call, I just want to see that we are in Part 2; we are referring to questions. We’re not solely talking about projects; we are solely asking about the processes and the parts in Part 2 here. It doesn’t preclude talking about a project as an example.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, I think, part-answered my question that I’ve asked a couple of times now about clause 24C. There’s a number of amendments in the Minister’s Amendment Paper to clause 24C. Clause 24C is the “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. The Minister in the chair mentioned something about looking at, I think he said, previous behaviour, but that is not my question about clause 24C.

My question about clause 24C is: under subclause (3), it says “A substantive application may seek 1 or more of the following matters (the approvals):”, and then there’s a list of things, but the list has been extended by this Amendment Paper. There’s a number of things. There’s a new clause 24AAA and there’s a new clause 24D, but there is a clause crossed out as well. There’s a new clause 24GA and there’s a new clause 24K. My question, which I have now asked a few times, is: is the intent of these changes to clause 24C to widen up who can make applications for these approvals? Is that what these changes are doing? That’s clause 24C.

I appreciate that some of the other questions were answered, so I’m now going to go back to Schedule 5 and note again the criteria for the panel in Schedule 5, which is the schedule for the wildlife conservation—oh, I might have said that one already, sorry. That was that the panel gives the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act at clause 17D.

Would the Minister responsible for RMA Reform consider my amendment to delete “giving the greatest weight”? Same at Schedule 5, later on at clause 26, which is the “Criteria for assessment of application for amendment or revocation of conservation covenant”. Again, at subclause (1), it says to give the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act. I have Amendment Paper 137 to delete “the greatest weight”; same in Schedule 6, “Approvals relating to Wildlife Act” at clause 1C and—I will go through this quickly—in Schedule 7 at clause 2C(1).

Then I come to Schedule 8, which is “Approvals relating to complex freshwater fisheries activities”. This all seems to be new. It’s a new schedule. It’s all underlined in the Minister’s amendment. Where has this come from? Why is it all underlined? Has it been moved from somewhere else or is it a new thing? If it’s new, why? Again, at clause 5, would he consider removing “giving the greatest weight”?

Skipping on to Schedule 9, that same point can be made at clause 9. Again, Schedule 10 is Crown Minerals Act, and we have my Amendment Paper 137 applying to clause 3A(1) and 4A(1). Then, later on in Schedule 10, in Part 2, we have “Mining permits”. Again—this is all underlined—it has the greatest weight clause at 14(1). Again, is this all new or has it been moved from some other part of the bill relating to these mining permits? If the Minister could answer that.

Then, finally in this contribution, I would like to touch on Schedule 11, which is “Modifications to process under Public Works Act 1981 to take or deal with land”. There were some changes made in the select committee around clause 3, which I have in Amendment Paper 138—or we have an amendment—whose name is it in? Let me look. I think it is in my name, No. 138, and that is to change the wording of the title and the substance of clause 3, so that where it says the court “must” accept the determination of a panel about consideration of alternative sites, that changes to “may” in both the title and in clause 3(1). That is because it seems that these changes to Schedule 1, which are different from the bill as introduced, are really taking away the rights of people that they would normally have under the Public Works Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair; ngā mihi. With the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in the chair, this is a great opportunity for me to ask some detailed questions in relation to the process after Ministers receive referral applications.

I’d like to point to my Amendment Paper 166, where it talks to clause 18A, which is found on page 30. What we have right now is the process for receiving a referral application and then how the Minister for Infrastructure and the agency responsible will consider the application. It is my proposal in my Amendment Paper that clause 18A is changed, where we insert paragraph (aa): “consider the outcomes of any consultation undertaken with affected parties; and”. The considering of the consultation with affected parties and the outcomes of it really points to the fact that the hui is really important, as are the contents of the hui and the discussions undertaken within that space by the responsible agency or whoever, whoever the responsible people are—for the Minister to know the content of those discussions to inform decision making.

Further, I want to pull back a little bit around this because the previous Minister that we had in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, spoke to the fact that there was no CVA, or cultural values assessment, really compulsory within the fast track. That might be an optional extra, but for tangata whenua at place, those types of reports are really important to show the decision makers, which would be the Minister making the decisions on these things, around the cultural effects and the cultural impacts at place. They are very important to the iwi kāinga to tell the story around what are the cultural values of the site of the proposed activity at the location, and potential impacts on the cultural values for the peoples of the land.

It is through my amendment that we propose to make the change to have a fulsome discussion so that all the information can be presented. We’ve heard tonight that it is the Environmental Protection Authority who will have responsibility even around cost recovery, which is really good to hear. All of these things are really wrapped up in terms of the story that our Minister needs to hear in terms of receiving those referral applications and the fulsome reporting that would be needed.

One further question I’d like to ask the Minister is in terms of readiness for implementation in relation to the receiving of the applications—our ministries, whichever group or agency is responsible at place for the application. Will they have the necessary teams established and ready to go in terms of capacity and then also the technical capability? Will there be technical leads in terms of iwi Māori engagement established within the teams in order to report back to the Minister in the referral application process so that the reporting can be as broad and as fulsome as possible? I raise this because good decision-making requires a full examination of the information at hand, and without the relevant reports like a CVA, a cultural values assessment, or a CIA, a cultural impact assessment, how does the Minister truly know what is important to the people of the land or the people of the sea, the people of that space which we call the hau kāinga?

That is one proposition that we would like to ask in terms of the amendment that I’ve proposed, but also, what is the capacity, the capability, the readiness of each of our agencies to step up into this space knowing that it’s going to come at pace, and the ability for them to be able to lead and guide and provide the information relevant, particularly around iwi Māori, and grab—or, well, facilitate; yeah, facilitate the necessary reports to be able to provide that fulsome picture to the deciding Ministers in terms of the applications? Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll very briefly deal with a few of the issues raised in the last few contributions. In terms of the Hon Megan Woods’ question around ministerial involvement in the appointment of panels, the Minister for Infrastructure doesn’t appoint the panel members; the panel convener appoints the members of the panel. The Minister appoints the panel convener, but the panel convener appoints the panel members, and there’s a range of criteria under the bill to consider.

Secondly, in relation to the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question around Winstone Aggregates’ proposal, I’m just going to maintain the stance I’ve taken throughout the bill so far, which is declining to comment on individual projects, because we went through an advisory group process to determine the projects that would make their way into the initial tranche of projects which is in the schedule, and Ministers were insulated from that process.

What I can say in a general sense is that it is very difficult to consent quarries in New Zealand. One of the drivers, I’m advised, of our large escalation in infrastructure, particularly roading infrastructure, over the last few years is the inability to source aggregate. The facts are really clear, which is that the further away a source of aggregate is from where it is used, the cost rises exponentially as a result of that. There’s no doubt that it needs to be easier to get quarries built in New Zealand. Clearly, any application will go through a full panel process, and some of the conditions and issues that the member raises will be considered as part of that. It’s worth noting there’s a quarry there already, in Belmont, and it actually provides much of the aggregate for many of the roading projects around the region. I can tell you those projects would be a lot more expensive without that quarry there. That deals with that issue.

In relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s point, I mean, I think what she was trying to say is: are we prepared to consider the changes around the “greatest weight”, which is listed throughout the bill, and the answer is no, we’re not prepared to do that.

In response to Hūhana Lyndon’s point, I mean, I think all I can do is point her to the process laid out at clauses 18A through 22B, which set out what the Minister has to do after receiving a referral application. It’s pretty simple. They have to consider the application, give any Treaty settlement or other specified obligation effect, invite comments from specified persons or groups, and then decide on the application. I think it’s a pretty straightforward process. It’s been well laid out in the bill.

In relation to her question around whether there is the capacity inside the Government to deal with this from the various different agencies, the answer is yes. Quite a lot of time has been spent actually working our way through, from an official level, how that will work when it comes to involvement from groups like Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri and things like that. The answer is yes.

I’m going to give a call to the Hon Kieran McAnulty, but before I do that, the Hon Dr Megan Woods had a comment about a question that you asked that you thought was misunderstood, about the “may” and the “must”. Can I just get that question clarified first?

Thank you. I appreciate that the questions were put at the transition of Ministers in the chair. I absolutely understand that it is the role of the chairperson to appoint the panel. It’s really around the change that was made.

The previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, talked about that being changed at the Environment Committee. The panel convener—sorry, I’m just finding the bit now. I’ve moved on to other questions, but it’s around the fact that they may consult the Minister; they don’t have to. the question is: why was that change made? What is the policy thinking behind making that change, and what occurs in the instance that a Minister does raise concerns, given that they don’t have to consult and there is no onus for anything to necessarily be done as a result of that consultation? What thinking has been given if the Minister or Ministers do raise concerns about particular panellists that have been put there?

The other thing that I asked is whether or not this consultation was a two-way process where the Ministers were able to suggest panellists, given there may be consultation between the chair of the panel and the Minister or Ministers, and whether that was a two-way street.

Then the other questions, in clause 3 in Schedule 3, were around the very subjective criteria around exceeding the limit of number of people from a local authority to sit on a panel and what the grounds were—they’re very vague, as listed in the schedule—and asking whether or not one of the grounds might be a project that had previously been ruled out by the Environment Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court—it had clearly been a project that only breathed life by virtue of being covered through this fast-track process—and whether the Minister envisioned that that would be a case where locals would have more representation through their territorial local authority representatives on that panel.

I thank the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods for the clarification of the question.

In relation to why the change was made to allow the panel convener to potentially consult with the Minister, the reasoning there is—I actually think it’s a helpful change, which is to make sure that you get the right expertise on the panel. You can envisage scenarios—I’m not necessarily saying this will happen—in which there may be novel or interesting applications that the panel convener might say, “I’m thinking of the following group of people for this”. But there may be factors relating to a particular project that, for example—I mean, to take Hūhana Lyndon’s point, it may be a project that requires real iwi involvement; you may well want mana whenua of the area to have real input and advice given as part of that process. Or it may be that there may be particular niche projects that require real technical expertise, for example. It’s really just a bit of a safety valve to make sure that you get the right people on the right projects. I actually see it as quite an advance.

In relation to the second question around “Is it a two-way street?”, no, it’s not. In relation to local input, we’re comfortable with the way the clause is drafted currently around local input. When you look at clause 7 of Schedule 3, around the membership of panels and the conduct of hearings, I think it’s a pretty good approach, which is “The members of a panel—(a) must, collectively, have—knowledge, skills, and expertise relevant to the approvals sought in the substantive application … expertise in environmental matters; and (b) must include at least 1 member who [has an understanding of te ao Māori and Māori development]”. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly who, but I think it’s a pretty good approach.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Bit late to the point, but I did say I was going to call you.

You did. Well, the Hon Dr Megan Woods had some follow-ups, so I thought I’d let it go. Then I saw you look over there, and I thought, “Shivers, I’d better get up!” So I did, and I’m pleased about that. Thank you for the call, Madam Chair.

Look, I’m not sure if members are aware, but the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s just very recently put down another Amendment Paper (AP). It’s quite extraordinary, really. I don’t know, what; about a quarter of the way through the debate, the Minister comes in and drops in another Amendment Paper. This is a proposed amendment to AP 238. What’s extraordinary is that this is actually the third Amendment Paper that the Minister has dropped today. I think what this demonstrates is that this has not been the ideal process—I’m being generous here—for a bill that the Government is expecting this committee to consider, for the Minister then to come in and drop another amendment.

Now, I would have expected that if this had come in roughly about half an hour, possibly slightly more, ago, the Minister might wish to speak to this and explain to the committee what it is that he is wishing to amend. That would have been, I think, the courteous thing to do. That certainly would have assisted the committee’s understanding. We’ve got one, two, three, four, five elements to this amendment, essentially, replacing provisions related to expiries with a 30 working-days’ time limit. Now, the committee deserves to know what the rationale behind this is, and why, so late in the piece, this has come about now.

If you look at the first proposal of this amendment—the first of five—it looks to replace “after any rights of appeal under section 26 that relate to the concession are exhausted or have expired” in new clause 6C inserted by Amendment Paper 238 with “and a period of 30 working days has expired after the decision document for the concession was issued under section 24Y(1)”. What does this mean? Where the original proposal was that any rights of appeal conclude when things have exhausted and expired, that makes sense. But now there’s this proposal, right in the piece, of 30 working days—but not after an expiry has happened; it’s after a decision document for the concession was issued.

Perhaps the Minister might want to explain: is it possible, if this goes through, for there to be a period of time when the concession isn’t exhausted or hasn’t expired, but because it’s after 30 days they can’t do anything? It’s a potential, if you look at this, that there’s a window there which wouldn’t have been there and now is there—that people could get caught out—and it’s a similar theme right across all five elements to this amendment. I think the committee deserves an explanation as to why it was so late and what it is that the Minister’s trying to achieve.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get very specifically to clause 19B, and that is on page 33. Now, this is about the reporting requirements in relation to use of public conservation land in terms of the processes after Ministers receive referral applications. I want to pick up on this aspect in particular, because it’s a part that is of fundamental importance to the Minister’s decision making. It outlines that if a project area includes public conservation land, the Minister for Infrastructure must, for the referral application, obtain and consider a report that the Department of Conservation (DOC) pulls together, and it outlines what the report must set out, in clause 19B(4)(a), (b), and (c).

What is missing from this report—and which I’m interested in the rationale as to why it is missing—is an actual assessment of the ecological impacts of the project. Now, why this is so important is because this Minister will need to actually have some form of evidence that robustly informs them about the actual nature of the ecological impacts. I’m not sure why this wouldn’t be a reporting requirement by the department and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s rationale as to why it’s not.

If we’re going to call on DOC—and you’d think this would just be a bit of a no-brainer—to lend their expertise to each application, to inform the Minister, then you’d think we would actually make use of their expertise and require them to undertake a scientific assessment of any arrangements that may relate to the use of that conservation land. Considering there are land exchange provisions in the bill for conservation land, I’m interested in what kinds of activities the Minister expects would be carried out on public conservation land that would require some sort of access arrangement under this part.

For example, we know that there are at least seven entities currently listed in the Fast-track Approvals Bill that have known compliance issues with DOC, two of which are to be investigated further. Will reporting requirements on arrangements for public conservation land include any history of non-compliance, specifically with DOC? I know that in the application process these companies or individuals are meant to put forward any history of non-compliance and what not, but what about when it comes to DOC? I’m aware of particularly one company where they have outstanding concession fees and haven’t been paying their concession fees to DOC. What justification is there for these companies still remaining eligible for these public conservation land arrangements? Now, I specifically have an Amendment Paper 169.

💬 Glen Bennett: Great amendment.

Thank you; it is a great amendment and it would be very helpful for ensuring the Minister actually makes a wise decision with these. It’s simply to include, in 19B(2) after paragraph (a), to include an assessment of the ecological impacts of the project which, again, seems like a very simple ask, considering that the department—Department of Conservation, in this case—will be looking at the project, will be considering it, but aren’t specifically requested to put forward their expertise and knowledge about the site, about the project, about the ecological impacts, and we’d like to know why.

I’d like to thank the honourable member Lan Pham for that question. Of course, I’d direct the committee’s attention to clause 19B(4), inserted by Amendment Paper 238. I’d remind everyone that this pertains to the assignment of certain rights to use part of the estate under the administration of the Minister of Conservation or the delegated individuals. There is a host of other provisions that deal with the impact or the effects of an activity. For those reasons, the attention is dedicated to: does a potential assignment create a liability for the Crown? If I take the member to clause 19B(4), there is more than enough scope there for advice to be tendered as to what does this assignment represent in relation to a liability or a risk. Matters pertaining to the externalities associated with the activity are picked up in other parts of the statute.

Thank you. Mr Chair. I’m interested in looking at new clause 31AAA of Part 2, before we get into the schedules. This is a new provision that’s been introduced in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s large amendment, as I’ll call it—238—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Page?

—and the page is—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is that Amendment Paper 238?

Yes, the Minister’s large Amendment Paper is Amendment Paper 238, and the page is page 108. That is new clause 31AAA, “Order in Council to amend authorised person in Schedule 2”, on Amendment Paper 238.

Now, as we know, Schedule 2 contains the 149 projects that the Clerk recommended be ruled out because many of them are for a private benefit. That is relevant to the insertion of this new clause, because what it does is say that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, change the person who is the authorised person on the listed project. Of course, if these were all public projects, then they would not, I presume, need this new clause to enable the Governor-General to change who is the authorised person. If we go to Schedule 2, you will see the various different columns. It starts with authorised person, then the project name, then the project description, and then the approximate geographical location.

Why, I assume, new clause 31AAA is being inserted—and I would like the Minister’s confirmation for this—is because many of these projects are private entities. If we look at the second project on page 113—that’s in Schedule 2—the “authorised person” is listed as Andrew William Simpson and Karen Frances Simpson. They sound to me like a couple of farmers who, I think, may have even appeared in front of the Environment Committee and who want to build a solar array at Lake Tekapō. Very clearly, this is a private interest that those two people have, and should they want to sell their farm, should they want to sell their solar array, when it happens, then the Governor-General—well, before the consent is issued—will have to make an Order in Council to change their names on the schedule.

However, if we look down to the next authorised person, that is the Ashburton District Council. I acknowledge that from time to time councils do change their arrangements, and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, will know more about this than me, I’m sure. Normally, that has to be done by a statute, by another piece of legislation. Something like a local government reorganisation Act would make a change that would amend this schedule itself if the Ashburton District Council suddenly changed, if it suddenly became a unitary authority—I’ve got the member shaking his head across from me.

💬 James Meager: No, keep going on the unitary stuff. What’s that about?

I’m not suggesting anything should change about the Ashburton District Council at all, but should the Ashburton District Council have a change of name or have a change of relationship with other councils, that would be a change made by statute in this Parliament, and there would be no need for an Order in Council like that specified in new clause 31AAA, because the legislation doing that would amend Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act as well. I’d like confirmation from the Minister that the point of this addition—new clause 31AAA in this Amendment Paper—is because there are so many private projects listed in Schedule 2 and, being private projects, they may change hands.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Before the dinner break, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was asked by the Hon Kieran McAnulty about Amendment Paper 238, which was only tabled in this Chamber less than an hour before the dinner break. I think it was a fair question, and I believe it would be helpful for the Minister to answer our questions in terms of what this is and why it is important.

As we’ve gone through today, there’s been three amendments tabled by the Minister in charge of this bill—three—not to mention the large Amendment Paper 238, which we only got yesterday, wasn’t it, which has obviously been for us to work through very quickly. I feel like the request from the Hon Kieran McAnulty is justified, to ask around what this piece in Schedule 5, new clause 6C, is all about, just so that we can understand. It just surprises me that we’re in this position where this is happening not once, not twice, but three times already, and we don’t know; maybe it will happen more.

The other concern I have, which I need to raise, is because two of the proposed amendments—238 and, sorry, I can’t see the number there—are actually changing; the two previous ones are actually to do with mistakes made in terms of Schedule 2. One was an incorrect number in terms of the area mass being used; the second was around the amount of cubic metres of water. The reason we need justification is because we don’t want fast and loose law. This is, obviously, the fast track they’re talking about—everything’s going to go speedily! But, if we don’t get it right, here—which, I mean, it would be wonderful if it didn’t progress; if it does have to pass, then let’s at least get it right. I would really respect, on behalf of my colleague, an answer around the proposal that was dropped just before the dinner break, around Schedule 5.

I’d like to thank the honourable member for that question. We’re referring to Amendment Paper 238. This actually preserves appeal rights. The appeal rights are structured, in the context of this amendment, within a 30-day period, then the appellant has an option not only to administratively lay down an appeal but also to secure an estoppel, essentially, to freeze the consent within 30 days. The alternative would have been to disenable the recipient of the approval until all of the appeals had been expired or all of the appeals had been exhausted. This defines within a 30-day period and provides an opportunity for the appellant to seek such an estoppel without creating a situation that the law could be weaponised and, for a long period of time, appeals would drift on and the recipient of an approval would be prevented from operationalising it.

It’s a balance between maintaining what the law already enables and at the same time giving some confidence to the people who have sought an approval that, within a defined period of time, an actual decision pertaining to stopping the operationalisation of the consent has to be made. That’s all it does. It does not create any additional appeal rights, it does not strike appeal rights out, but it tightens the period of time that an applicant has to make an application to the judge and an active decision has to be made on the merits of the application—as opposed to an assumption that a disenablement of the consent would drift on and on and on, for however long an appeal may take.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, e mihi atu ana ki a koe mō tēnei wāhi kōrero.

Tēnā koe, Matua Shane, ka hari taku ngākau ki te kite i a koe ki roto i te tūru, kia whai wāhi tēnei mokopuna o te Tai Tokerau ki te patapatai ki a koe e pā ana ki te poari whiriwhiri.

Me huri au ki roto i te reo Pākehā ināianei.

[Greetings, Mr Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Greetings, Matua Shane, my heart is happy to see you in the chair, so that this grandchild of Northland has the opportunity to ask you a few questions about this discussion panel.

I have to switch to English now.]

Matua Shane—aroha mai. E te Minita, e te Minita, I’d like to ask a question in relation to Schedule 3 and the expert panel and, in particular, draw our attention to Part 7 around the skills and experience of panel members. I have an Amendment Paper which I’d like us to review, which is Amendment Paper 207, relating to this part of Schedule 3, clause 7(1A)—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Was that Amendment Paper 247?

HŪHANA LYNDON: —Amendment Paper 207, sorry; 207—and I’m wanting to draw us as members to the opportunity to have ao Māori perspective on the review panels.

We’ve discussed this a few times, e te Minita, around the ability for a Māori to be appointed. This Māori, and tēnei mana nui [this very powerful person], will be on the poari whiriwhiri, te poari whakatau [discussion panel, the decision-making board], and it says that the emphasis here in clause 7(1A)(b) is that at least one member needs to have an understanding of te ao Māori and Māori development. Now, my Amendment Paper, which I think is a nice complement to what the intention is of this part of the legislation, really enables us to look at the broader mātauranga, the broader pūkenga that we would want at the table for us being the one Māori on the panel.

This is an inclusion of somebody with an understanding of tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori. He mea nui tērā ki te Māori, kia kitea tētahi Māori e tino mōhio ki te iwi kāinga, e mōhio ana ki ngā tikanga, e mōhio ana ki te taiao hoki. [That is a big thing for Māori, that a Māori can be seen that really knows the home people, knows tikanga, and also knows the environment.]

Māori development is one thing in te ao Māori, but with my amendment, which I think is a great middle ground for us, it is a “plus, plus”. It enables us to look at the broader Māori cultural values of the application, bring in additional skills when we think about our reo, our tikanga, and an understanding of mahi i te kāinga, but also knowing that when you have just the Māori development focus and a bit of an ao Māori focus, you might have the commercial Māori that comes to the tēpu, who may not have the aronga Māori. It’s an “and, and”, e te Minita—I keep wanting to call you Matua Shane because you’re my matua. Minister, I propose that my Amendment Paper is just such a beautiful thing for us to look at, because in clause 7(1A) and (2), I want to acknowledge there’s an improvement here. It’s not all bad—most of it is quite bad, but this isn’t too bad.

💬 Steve Abel: It’s terrible!

HŪHANA LYNDON: Ha, ha! What’s good about it is that a person is not ineligible for appointment to the panel by reason of whakapapa—by reason of tribal affiliation. Now, oftentimes in the Environment Court, we have our own uri who cannot sit on our own panels because they have a whakapapa to the iwi or hapū at place. Now, one good thing I’ve seen is that an uri who has affiliation to that place could actually sit on the panel. Nō reira he mea pai tērā, he mea nui. [So that is a good thing, and an important thing.]

What I’m proposing in my amendment is an opportunity to both look at the Māori commercial world and all those pūkenga, all those skills that come with it. There’s a tirohanga Māori, an ao Māori thing there, but we need to strengthen it—strengthen it with our reo, strengthen it with taiao, with mātauranga, and the ability for us to look at—you know, some Māori are quite good in the planning space, good in terms of ture, but also in terms of tikanga. I have a working knowledge in seeing this in practice, whereby we have the ability to bring people on with these added additional skills. I have a concern, and I want to signal to the Chair that I want a little bit extra time to talk to this, because there’s an opportunity for us to do better in this space.

For the Fast-track Approvals Bill, Schedule 3, here at clause 7, I’d like us to really look at broadening the ability for us to add tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori into these key competencies. I don’t know whether the members of the Government may appreciate the ability for Māori to freely express themselves on these committees, these panels, because having Māori development, ao Māori, is great, but—

💬 Dan Bidois: Repetitive.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no, no, no—let me finish.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: This is sounding like a job application.

HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no, no, no—I don’t want to be on these panels, thank you. But in recent times, I have seen an Environment Court hearing whereby we had a whanaunga of a distant nature who came in with very strong mātauranga Māori but also ngā mōhioranga o te ture [knowledge of legislation], and we saw that person come in and play the middle ground and provide the balance for the perspective of the panel—this is in an Environment Court hearing.

What I’m sharing here is by adding tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori into the kete pūkenga for ao Māori and Māori development, all it does is strengthen the opportunity for the Crown to show that they are opening up the opportunity for all of the skills that we have in te ao Māori. Again, I mihi to the fact that if you have whakapapa to that place, if you are of the hapū and iwi, that is a good thing that we are not ineligible to sit on these panels. Nō reira koia taku tono ki te Minita, otirā mō tō tātou iwi Māori. Kia ora tātou. [So that is my request to the Minister, indeed for our Māori people. Thanks everyone.]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita. Ko tēnei taku wā tuatahi ki tēnei o ngā pire. Me pono aku kōrero, i te wā i kite au i a koe i tērā tūru, i kōrero atu au ki a Mariameno Kapa-Kingi me taku kī, “Me tino koi aku whakaaro ināianei nā te mea kua tae mai te matua.” Me mātua aku koi ki tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed thank you, Minister. This is my first time on this particular bill. I must speak honestly, when I saw you in that chair, I said to Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, “My thoughts have to be intelligent now because the master has arrived.” My intellect must be foremost concerning this bill.]

Engari ko taku pātai [But my question]: I just want to come to Part 2 and the process around clause 19A, “Report on Treaty settlements and other obligations”, particularly pertaining to—this is in Part 1, at clause 7. I’m just referring to it; I’m not talking on behalf of it. Just in Part 1, at clause 7, it says that “(3) In this section, ‘Te Ture Whaimana’ means the vision and strategy set out in—(a) Schedule 2 of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010;”.

Now, I guess the Minister will be well aware of the blanket approach, and I guess—kāre au e tino mōhio ki te kupu engari [I don’t really know the word, but], the settlement that we have—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Taea te reo Māori te kupu.

[You can use the Māori word.]

Oh, OK. Ka pai. It is the settlement that we have within my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, and that’s mainly coming to my pātai around the projects that some of the projects in the 19 approved projects in Waikato are pertaining to the mining and quarry projects. These affect our taonga and our pepeha within our electorate such as the Rotowaro Mine Continuation Project, the Waihī North Project, the Pit 1 Mining Project, and I guess my pātai is around—we know that there’s already going to be consultation with post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), with iwi entities, the Tainui Group Holdings, but my pātai is: are there going to be consultations with the hapū and mana whenua of those mining quarry projects?

For example, I’m not an expert in this field such as Whaea Debbie, but I do know in my electorate, in the Rotowaro, that stream goes down to the Waahi Paa lake, which me and my siblings consistently swim in over the summer and they will be in preparation for Waka Ama. I know that is how it translates into my electorate and as rangatahi Māori, and that would be the same in some of these other mining projects within Waikato such as Taharoa, such as Waihī.

I guess, yes, there’s obviously going to be consultation with Waikato-Tainui raupatu claims in the settlements we have here and the PSGEs and iwi entities, but I guess my question is: will there be consultation and what will that consultation look like with mana whenua and hapū—like, I guess you don’t need to talk to every single person in Waahi Pa, but—making sure that there’s consultation with the areas that particularly affect these mining and quarry projects within the Waikato?

The reason why I’m so heavy on this kaupapa is because when you’re in a Māori seat, that’s seven for my electorate—there’s seven general seats and one Māori seat. All 19 projects in Waikato do sit within our responsibility, and I just want to make sure that I’ve got it on the record; it’s on the Hansard that we’re asking these questions around making sure that there’s iwi consultation, which is a given because we are a post-settlement iwi coming up to our 30th year next year. Making sure that there’s also another layer under that, which is talking to mana whenua, talking to the relating different hapū, marae, iwi. It might vary for each project. It might look different for each rohe, iwi, and seat. Arā taku pātai. [That’s my question.] Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e kō mō tēnā pātai. Tino mārama. Me titiro tātou ki te whārangi 32, me heke atu tātou ki te mutunga o te whārangi. Ko te ūpoko 19(2)(h), kei konā te kupu “hapū”. Pēnā he rōpū kua whakaarangia hei whakaputa hei whakakanohi i ngā pānga o te hapū i roto i tēnei ture, e kore e taea te whakataha i a rātou.

Nā mō te wāhanga mō te pātai mai i te mema o Te Rōpū Kakariki, ko tēnei kupu ko “te ao Māori” kei roto kē i tētahi ture kē atu ko te ingoa o tērā ture ko te Law Commission Act. Nā ētahi mātanga ka hia noa atu te teitei o ērā tāngata pērā me David Baragwanath nā rātou tēnā rōpū i hautū i tō rātou wā. Kua takoto kē te kupu “te ao Māori” i roto i te ture. Kei roto i te ao Māori ngā āhuatanga pēnei me te mātauranga, te ritenga te tikanga. Take tēnā o mātou i āmine ai me waiho ko te ao Māori kia rite ai ki tētahi kākahu ka horapa ki runga ki te katoa ko ngā āhutanga Māori. Take tēnā mātou i tuhituhi ai kia pēnei te takoto mō ngā pūkenga e tika ana kia tīkina atu e tētahi tangata hei noho ki runga i te paepae tuku raihana.

[Thank you for that question, madam. Very clear. Let us review page 32, at the bottom of the page, at clause 19(2)(h), there is the word “hapū”. If there is a group that is represented within this statute, they cannot be revoked.

Now, for the question in regards to given by the member of the Green Party, this word “te ao Māori” is in another law, the name of that law is the Law Commission Act. Now, there are experts in this field such as David Baragwanath, who led that group in those times. The word “ao Māori” has already been set down in that law. Within the Māori world are things such as knowledge, principles, and protocols. That’s the reason why we gave our approval, so that the Māori world can cloak everyone with its culture. Hence why we wrote it this way for the correct experts, so that a person is able to sit on the panel and give out licences.]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I have some questions to the Minister for Regional Development specifically related to Schedule 11 of what my learned colleague called the large amendment—I think that’s its new name, but it’s Amendment Paper 238, just for the record. Under Schedule 11, which is on page 234, so the second to last page, there are some amendments here around the relationship with the Public Works Act. I have an example that I do want to bring to the table that I did raise earlier with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jone, this morning, I believe, that I didn’t receive an answer on. I think, actually, when you look at it in the context of the schedule, it becomes kind of a relevant point.

Just looking at clause 2(c), the application of the schedule applies if a person has objected to the taking of the land under section 23 of the Public Works Act 1981. I raised this, this morning, in the context of one of the projects in my electorate, the Hope Bypass, which you can find in Schedule 2 on page 126, and, in that, it talks specifically about additional land acquisition outside of the designation for the road.

The reason I raise this is the Minister will be aware of the case with Wakatu Incorporation of the Nelson Tenths in Te Tau Ihu, which is a significant case matter that predates Te Tiriti. What has occurred with that case currently being before the courts is we have had situations in Nelson and across Te Tau Ihu where small parcels of land may be being acquired or may be being changed between one Government department to another or potentially sold, and, actually, some of those matters have been held up because of the potential litigation from that case.

There’s an example literally around the corner from where the Hope Bypass is currently due to go through where, in order to build a roundabout, a small parcel of Crown land needed to be transferred from the polytechnic to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) in order to have enough room to build the roundabout, but because of the risk of litigation due to the current case that is still live before the courts with Wakatu, in the end the decision was made not to do the transfer of the land parcel and to come up with a different outcome.

Now, the reason I’m raising this, in terms of its relevance, is that if you look in Schedule 2, it specifically talks about land acquisition, and it’s likely for the Hope Bypass that there will be land acquisition in order to build it. The question I’ve got around Schedule 11 is that it actually changes the approach in terms of how an appeal can occur under the Public Works Act. If you look at clause 3, it says “Court must accept determination of panel about consideration of alternative sites, etc.”. It’s not really clear to me what would happen in a situation if, for example, under the Public Works Act, the NZTA decide they’re going to acquire some land in order to build the Hope Bypass and that then potentially leads to litigation risk from Wakatu who are looking for parcels of land that they can acquire in order to achieve the outcomes they wish to under the Tenths case.

I know it might feel like a complex piece of law to kind of look through, but these are the types of questions that we have and that I have, because there are two risks that occur through this. One is that you have a risk of undermining that court process, which is going through the courts. I think a lot of us, despite the fact that it’s going through the courts, know there needs to be a resolution. Secondly, it actually has the potential to, if it leads to further litigation, actually undermine the ability to build that new road.

I’m just keen to understand from the Minister a bit more about how that Schedule 11 will work in terms of the Public Works Act. I don’t have the expertise in the Act as my learned colleague Rachel Brooking does. I understand she has mentioned this briefly but may have some further questions on this schedule, because it actually is quite an important one for us to understand in terms of the introduction of this legislation. That’s my question. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There has been very, very little improvement in this bill throughout the whole of the select committee process that I’ve been part of, but I’m really pleased to talk and ask questions about this one part that has just arrived in the substantive Amendment Paper that the Government has made, which does seem to suddenly have realised the thing that we’ve been asking about and proposing amendments to, about protecting the rights of existing consent holders, which was completely absent from the bill previously but has now turned up in some form in the Amendment Paper.

I want to ask about new clause 24AAB, which has turned up in this Amendment Paper, and it’s page 44. What was really concerning previously, when there were seemingly no protections at all or even the obligation for fast-track projects who were seeking to have access to resources—and, particularly, it was so clear in the case of limited resources, like our precious wai, our precious water, particularly in areas of the country like where I’ve been hanging out for the last few decades, in Waitaha Canterbury, where there’s significant issues with overallocation. This is across the country as well.

This clause appears to go some way to at least identifying any existing resource consents, but it’s saying “for the same activity”. Again, this is good, particularly in the water space, where it’s a constrained resource, but what I’m interested in understanding is—it goes on to say where this section applies. This is 24AAB(1): “This section applies if”—blah-blah-blah—“(a)”. But what I’m interested in is about (b): “the authorised person for the project does not hold an existing resource consent for the same activity using some or all of the same natural resource.”

Now, personally, I’m not quite following that, so I’d love some clarity from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, as to what is intended there. For a layperson reading this, it sounds like it’s saying, “if that person does hold a consent”. Does that, therefore, mean that these seemingly very basic, you wouldn’t call them, protections but at least notifications of existing consent holders using that resource or having access to that resource, and the councils having to be notified that this application is actually going through—does it mean this doesn’t apply?

What’s interesting about this is that—is this in a way opening up a new pathway for where there are constrained resources that fast track will allow, for example, the allocation of water above which currently would be considered overallocated limits?

Now, it goes on further to say—sorry, this is now at clause 24AAB(4)(b)(ii)—“if the existing resource consent relates to a listed project or referred project for which a substantive application has not been lodged, lodge a substantive application that seeks an approval described in section 24C”—which is, essentially, about having a resource consent—“for the same activity as is authorised by the existing resource consent.” I am really keen to understand the implications of these clauses and whether they actually do afford protections, or not, for existing consent holders.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Right, where to start? Maybe I’ll start where my colleague Rachel Boyack left off. That was with Schedule 11, and we were talking about the issues of the Tenths Trust but with particular interest in what happens when somebody’s land is being acquired and then in that interaction between the Public Works Act and this approval process and what happens at the Environment Court, because there’s a change in the bill, from as it was introduced, so that now the “Court must accept determination of panel about consideration of alternative sites”. On the face of that, it appears to be a watering-down of your normal rights under the Public Works Act, and he might want to comment on that.

Also, I’d note that I still am waiting for an answer about clause 31AAA and the requirements for an Order in Council for the change of those private names. If that’s because there’s such a big difference between those private entities and the public entities, that wouldn’t need such a clause. That’s two things.

Going to Schedule 1, I have a short comment on this. This is “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”, and the main change in this large Amendment Paper is that what were going to be the repealed provisions that were in the Natural and Built Environment Act that weren’t repealed and that have been in transition are now, I think, going to become the interim fast-track consenting Act. Just a small question on the Schedule 1: am I right in saying that what was going to be repealed is now going to remain and that that’s because there might be some projects that are going through that process, but they might not?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just note that Schedule 1 is in Part 1.

Oh, I apologise for that. I will move to somewhere else. I will go back to some questions that I’ve asked before in Part 2 and that have not been answered, and I appreciate that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, has been answering some of these questions.

At Subpart 3, clause 26, on page 95 of the Government’s amendment, Amendment Paper 238, the Government is amending the ability to appeal on a question of law—and the Minister will be well aware that there’s no merits-based appeals here; they are restricted to questions of law. But the Government has in this Amendment Paper deleted clause 26(1)(e): “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public.” My question is: why has that happened? I’ve not had an answer to that yet, and I, of course, think that that deletion should be reversed.

Then I was also asking questions about clause 27AAB, “Judicial review”. This is new as well in the Amendment Paper from the Government, and it gives it a 20 - working-day time frame for judicial review. The question there is: with all that that clause is doing, is it just about that time frame? My question there is: what analysis has there been on the 20 days, compared with other legislation?

Then going back, I’ve asked this a couple of times, and I have not got an answer, and I’m concerned about clause 24C—specifically, on page 53, of the large amendment. Clause 24C is “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. There have been a number of amendments in the Government’s Amendment Paper, and particularly the cause of the concern is at subclause (3), which is “A substantive application may seek 1 or more of the following matters (the approvals):”. Then there is a list, and it’s got some changes. There is a new paragraph (aaa), “a change or cancellation of a resource consent condition”. There’s a new paragraph (ga), and, most interestingly, given this Minister in the chair, there is a new paragraph (k), “a mining permit that would otherwise be applied for under section 23A of the Crown Minerals Act”.

My question is: is this an expansion of the bill and what can be applied for than what—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you. The point, really, was that it would be good to have that question answered because as we know, this Amendment Paper 238 came in yesterday afternoon and we have been debating this bill in committee stage since yesterday afternoon after question time. That one has still not got an answer.

Another question I’ve asked previously is about new clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing referral application”. A different Minister in the chair answered some of my questions around this, but I did suggest that the Government could include adding supporting green infrastructure to the list of criteria that the Minister for Infrastructure may consider as positives. I’ve got an amendment that says that, but it’s really nature-based solutions. Wouldn’t it be good if this bill is, as the Prime Minister says, to encourage environmental goodness? We would want nature-based solutions to be a consideration, and that would be a very easy, good-faith amendment for this Government to make.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak also to Part 2. We’re looking at the “Minister’s decision on referral application”, clause 22A. One thing that is of interest is in terms of reasons to decline a referral application, which is 22A(5)(a): “Reasons to decline a referral application under subsection (4) include, without limitation, the following: … the project would be inconsistent with any of the following:”, and then there’s a list. I will not read it out to you; you can read it yourselves. One thing that was of particular interest was paragraph (d), which was that the Minister could decline a referral on the grounds of “the applicant … has a poor compliance history under a specified Act that relates to any of the proposed approvals”. Now, this is a very real problem.

In the case of Bathurst Resources, it was recently outlined that, in their experience at Canterbury Coal, the company had breached its runoff consent 28 times, and then after applying to extend the mine, it was found to be in breach of its entire consent. It was found that it was mining five times the amount of coal that it had consent for and, as a result, it had breached dust, light, traffic, and other consents. Bathurst refused to hand over requested information to Environment Canterbury (ECan) and ended up closing the mine. Instead of having to argue over the breached consents, after ECan came up with a rehabilitation plan, Bathurst is now appealing that to the Environment Court. That would be a pretty glaring example, you might suggest, of an applicant that has a poor compliance history under a specified Act.

Now, my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, is: how is it that the Minister is best able to evaluate that compliance history? What are the mechanisms by which the Minister can avail themselves of independent analysis and information about the applicant? In the referral process, if you look back to page 27, the applicant is required to avail in their application for a referral “the types of consents, certificates, designations, concessions, and other legal authorisations (other than contractual authorisations or the proposed approvals) that the applicant considers are needed to authorise the project”, but it would not be in the applicant’s interest to fess up about their poor consent record. How is it that the Minister will independently assess the track record of a given company or individual applying for a referral motion?

I also have an amendment that specifically relates to this clause, in Part 2, Amendment Paper 168: in clause 19A(2)(k), replace “should” with “must”. It changes the current reason to decline, under clause 22A(5), into “additional reasons the referral application must be declined” under clause 22A. That is what I am proposing: an amendment that would strengthen what is otherwise a pretty useful list of reasons for declining an application. I’d appreciate hearing the Minister’s take on that. Thank you.

There’s a number of items that I’d like to cover off. Obviously, the rights of appeal in respect of this statute are tightly defined. There has been no attempt at all to obfuscate the fact that this legislation is designed to restrict matters to the black letter, meaning of the black-letter law, significance. That’s the first thing. To go much further than that, I think, quite frankly, is to use valuable time of the committee upon something that is patently obvious.

In respect to the Whakatū land litigation—because I have to be mindful that litigation that’s before the courts, we have to respect the principle of comity—there’s no doubt in my mind that that process will wend its way through the various corridors of the judiciary and solutions can be arrived at irrespective of what projects may be funded or what projects may be granted an approval.

Now, in relation to how and why a project should be declined, I use the member’s own words: “The Minister will be furnished with information. The Minister will be able to check the veracity of that information.” The Minister, quite frankly, in clause 22A(3), already is under a compulsory duty to decline in the absence of subsection (1) not being complied with. The Minister has to be of a view that the proposed project “involves an ineligible activity”, and that “the Minister considers that they do not have adequate information to inform the decision under this section.” Such a catch-all phrase would enable the Minister to ensure that they have comprehensive understanding of the spotty history that the member refers to.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, for his responses just now.

I had a series of related questions that are to do with “Criteria for assessing referral application”—specifically, clause 22B(1)(a), “significant regional or national benefits;”, and also subclause 2(a)(iv), “deliver significant economic benefits:”. Really, the question is about how Ministers and the Government can be assured that they’re receiving the right standard of information to assess those benefits—whether the benefits need to outweigh the cost of the project. Is that the assumption? Is that the test? As far as I can tell, reading the Amendment Paper, there’s no definition—and here I mean the Amendment Paper from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, which is Amendment Paper 238—of what significant national or regional benefits are. I guess there’s just the question of whether the economic benefits—how that will be assessed. If we look at a number of the projects in Schedule 2, especially those from the New Zealand Transport Agency, for some of the projects listed that have had public information about costs and benefits the economic benefits have been less than the cost—the benefit-cost ratio, in other words, has been under one.

One suggestion made earlier—I know my colleague Scott Willis has an Amendment Paper that would specify a little bit more information under clause 18, and we have discussed that previously. I think, actually, it probably should go further because—I guess my question to the Minister is: do we think that the economic benefits need to be assessed in a standardised way so we know that we’re comparing apples with apples in different projects? Do the benefits need to outweigh the costs for it to be considered significant benefits and for it to be considered that’s it delivering significant economic benefits? Will there be an objective test of how those economic benefits are calculated?

I had one further question: will the Government decline projects that are not able to demonstrate significant economic benefits, or is that just one aspect? Would this be judicially reviewable if, for example, a project is referred, it is approved, but subsequently people say, “Well, actually, the information is not there to establish genuine economic benefits to the country because the economic benefits are outweighed by the cost of the project.”? Could that be a reason for either the consent to be declined or for it to be judicially reviewed if it was given? I ask this because previously under resource management law, under the board of inquiry process, for example, consent authorities, board of inquiries, and the Environment Court have said it’s not up to them to determine whether the economic benefits are there or not; they’re there to determine whether the effects can be mitigated sufficiently.

That’s what previous Resource Management Act law was, but with this fast-track thing and the fact that significant economic benefits are one of the key reasons for this process, does that mean then that, actually, the consent authority, the panels and those who might be reviewing the decision—I guess it can’t be reviewed—will be able to look at the evidence around whether or not there is economic benefit and use that as a reason to determine that the project should not go ahead?

I have no doubt in my mind that, after this bill passes, there will be no shortage of people seeking crevices and avenues upon which to litigate. That, sadly, is just a part of the system. Hopefully, this bill will reduce such weaponisation.

Can I direct the honourable former Minister, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, to clause 22B(2), which is a long schedule, and, against my better judgment, it talks too much about climate change, but that’s another matter. You will see there is a reference not only to significant economic benefits but to addressing significant environmental issues. Obviously, these matters will become justiciable. By that, I mean they will provide an opportunity for people who want to chance their arm on the question of law—not of values, not of normative assertions.

I think that if we study it carefully, that particular provision—the content of paragraph (a) right through to subparagraph (x), before it goes to “(b) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.”—answers the question for the honourable member.

Members, before I take the next call, can I get members to focus on bringing new material and new questions, and I appreciate that some members might not appreciate how the answers are addressed, but it is important that we cut down on the repetition.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will be addressing an area that I don’t think has been raised in debate, and that is, in Schedule 3, the process for appointment of the chair. Now—

💬 Hon Members: We’ve been through that.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ve covered that.

Well, there is a question about why the phrase “in consultation with the Minister” has been removed, and whether it is the same reason that the power of the triumvirate of Ministers in making decisions about projects was removed, or if there was another reason for its removal.

The second part about the chair of the panel is, rather than a rather unspecified level of expertise that a planner might have—I mean, when you say, “with experience in relevant law”, maybe they once put in two paragraphs in a resource consent application. I would urge, and I would like to know why the chair, at least, should not be someone with more than just a planning degree, but be an Environment Court judge or, potentially, a retired Environment Court judge. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I’ve been waiting to take this call, because my last call was regarding the amendment that was dropped just before dinnertime by the Hon Chris Bishop—and it was a good answer, thank you, Minister. You talked about what this is about. You gave us a good, clear message around Schedule 5, around the whole thing of litigation and the right of appeal, etc. You gave us the “what it is”, but the “why it’s been dropped so late”—I’m really interested to know why it’s actually taken so long to get that in there. That’s my first question.

I’m happy if you want to answer me now, or I can move on to my second question, which is—and it would be wrong of me not to ask this question, because it was from a submitter to the Environment Committee, and if I didn’t bring this up, I know that they probably would have words with us, because they made it very clear that it is important for us to consider this. One of the submitters was a member of the guardians of Fiordland. There’s an actual Act of Parliament from back in 2005 which was the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005.

The concern this submitter has is around when you look at this legislation and we look at the start of Part 2, new clause 14AAA, it talks about the Fisheries Act 1996. It talks about responsibilities to tangata whenua, to hapū, and as we go through it—and I’ve got some other bits here. There is clarity around some of the aquaculture, some of the marine responsibilities. It goes on to talk in clause 19A about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The question this submitter made to us—and that’s why we want to bring it up, so that we can get clarity—is: where does a piece of legislation like the Fiordland marine management Act fit in?

The concern from the submitter was, firstly—and I quote the thing they said—“This process disturbs me.” That was their quote in terms of this piece of legislation. They had worked hard not only as a group of volunteers but as people passionate about Fiordland and the protection of that space. To you, Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that clause again? Was it clause 19A?

Yeah—well, I guess I was giving examples; I apologise. What I mean is that clause 14AAA talks about different fisheries and marine areas. Clause 18B also does. Clause 19A mentions—and the reason I’m being, I guess, vague in many ways is because the question from the submitter was: “Where does this fit in?” Is this Act of Parliament that is nowhere in this legislation—does that mean that puts it at risk in terms of what is able to be done? If there is work down in Fiordland, if there is a future fast-track project, the question is: will that put other legislation at risk?

There are two parts to that question. Obviously, the catch-all provision that I’ve already referred to in terms of the Minister considering applications on the list, I’m not aware which current applications might have a spillover effect on the Fiordland environment, but there is a catch-all phrase there, and it says what “matters the Minister considers [important].”

Secondly, on the question of why this particular amendment was moved, obviously it’s to ensure that there’s clarity and giving security to appellants that their rights to appeal are protected, and, at the same time, within a time frame, requiring applicants to secure a distinctive decision from the court: is the proposed activity covered in the proposal stayed or can it continue? It gives certainty to the ability of an appellant to go and test their case, but within a reasonable time frame.

Mr Chair, I listened intently to your ruling before, about new material. Of course, I note that many of my questions remain unanswered—not that I’m disappointed with the answer; just that they are unanswered, unaddressed, not addressed.

I’ve got three things to talk about in this contribution. I do note that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, did answer one of my questions, and that was on the deletion of appeal rights for people with greater than the public interest. He seemed to say that it was reckless of me to even bring it up in the committee and that it was a waste of the committee’s time. That is an outrageous statement for the Minister to make, particularly when this came in an amendment that we received yesterday.

My question is: is that the Minister’s attitude to all of these new changes, that we shouldn’t even be discussing them in the committee? Because, Minister, the Ministers that have been in the chair—nobody has proactively offered advice about what the changes are in all of these amendments. That includes the ones tabled just before dinner time. You’ve addressed that now, but there has been no proactive advice. It was not proactive; that was in answer to a question about what these changes are, and there are many, many of them. It is a very frustrating and terrible way to make laws. That’s that question.

The second question is on clause 27A, or around cost recovery, really. At new clause 24ZA, inserted by Amendment Paper 238, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is able to request information from relevant administering agencies and local authorities. The local authority has to provide information to the EPA if the EPA asks for it. That makes some sense.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that clause again?

Yes, sorry—I’m working off the Government’s amendment. At page 90, new clause 24ZA says, “EPA may request information from relevant administering agencies and local authorities”. We don’t need to look at the detail of that—it makes some sense—but what I’m interested in is the cost-recovery provision.

If you turn over to page 101, you will see that there is a cost recovery provision at new clause 27B, and it talks about how an agency may recover the costs. Then, if you look back on the page before, at page 100, there’s an interpretation section at new clause 27A: “An agency means the EPA, the responsible agency, an administering agency, or a relevant local authority”. I want to make sure that the intention here is that local authorities required to give information to the EPA under new clause 24ZA are going to be enabled to cost recover under new clause 27B. That’s one question.

Then, going back to where I was getting to in my last contribution, before I was told that Schedule 1—wasn’t quite correctly told that it was in Part 1. I’ll go to clause 33, which is at page 110, which is in Part 2. Here, the clause is deleted, and it was a repeal clause, which is “Clauses 4 to 9 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 are repealed.” It would be useful, again, for the Minister to explain why there has been this change of heart, where that natural and built environments fast-tracking was going to be repealed by this bill; it’s no longer being repealed. Why is that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to again get very specifically to a proposed amendment in relation to clause 22B. This is on page 36, in Part 2. Currently, this is about criteria for assessing referral applications, and it allows the Minister to consider whether the project does a number of things—for example, whether it will deliver regionally and nationally significant infrastructure and other things. The part that I would like the Minister to consider changing is subparagraph (ix) on the following page, where it says whether the project “will address significant environmental issues”.

Now, what I’m proposing in this amendment is to replace that with specifically saying “will avoid, remedy, or mitigate significant environmental issues.” The reason I’m suggesting that is that is a well-documented and well-tested way—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you tell us the Amendment Paper number?

Sorry, Amendment Paper 178. In Amendment Paper 178, I’m proposing the words “will avoid, remedy, or mitigate significant environmental issues.”

This is because this is a documented and well-tested way of actually avoiding, remedying, or mitigating significant environmental issues. As the clause currently stands, “will address significant environmental issues” gives uncertainty, it’s not clear how you actually address them, and it’s really open to a lot of discretion and it’s very unspecific. I would really like to know whether the Minister would consider actually using the well-tested “avoid, remedy, or mitigate” as a really clear way to provide applicants and anyone who is impacted by these projects more certainty about how environmental impacts are actually managed under the bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora tātou, e te Māngai, e mihi ana ki a koe me tō tātou Minita ki roto i te tūru, Matua Shane. Ēnei kōrero he wāhi tāpaetanga kōrero i taku nama rua rau mā waru. Nō reira me tirohia tātou ki waku tono kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei ture whakahohoro o tātou. Tēnei wāhanga nama whā waeture toru—

[Greetings all, the Speaker, and also greetings to our Minister in the chair, Matua Shane, I would like to speak to Amendment Paper 208. And so let’s look to what I have to say about this fast-track bill of ours. This Schedule 4, clause 3—]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Rua rau mā waru? [Two hundred and eight?]

HŪHANA LYNDON: Rua rau mā waru. Pai te noho ki roto i te reo. Me whakapākeha ahau? [Amendment Paper 208. Is it fine to speak in te reo? Or should I speak English?]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): E ai ki te tikanga kua hoki ērā tāngata whakapākehā kōrero heoi anō taihoa.

[According to tikanga, those interpreters have returned to interpret. However, hold on.]

HŪHANA LYNDON: Nō reira me whakapākehā ahau kia māma te haere nē. [Perhaps I should speak English and so simplify my speech.] OK. I’ll change into reo Pākehā mō tātou katoa.

💬 Hon Karen Chhour: Point of order, Mr Chair. If we are unable to understand the debate that’s going on in this Chamber, how are we supposed to debate properly?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The interpreters were with us; we’re just trying to find out why the technology isn’t working.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Hei whakautu i tērā, ko te reo Māori te reo matua o tēnei whenua. [To answer that, Māori language is the main language of this land.]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s coming through now. If you want an interpretation, it is coming through. Taea koe te kōrero Māori tonu. [You are able to speak Māori still.]

HŪHANA LYNDON: OK. Kia ora tātou, tērā pea me reo rua ahau kia ngāwari te haere o te pō nei. Ahakoa te roa o te noho.

[Greetings all, perhaps I should speak in both languages to simplify my speech this evening. Despite the lengthy sitting.]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Kua hoki mai rātou. [They have returned.]

HŪHANA LYNDON: Kua hoki mai? [Have they returned?]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Āe.

HŪHANA LYNDON: OK, ka pai. Nō reira ko aku kōrero e pā ana ki ngā tāpaetanga kōrero hou a Huhana mō te rua rau mā waru e pā ana ki te wāhanga whā, waeture toru. Ki runga i te whārangi kotahi rau rima tekau mā waru nei. Nō reira ko tāku kōrero e pā ana ki ngā taka kino. Te takahitanga o te taiao me taku hiahia kia tāpiri wētahi atu kōrero pā ana ki tēnei waiture nama toru nei.

Tērā pea me huri ahau ki roto i te reo Pākehā kia mārama katoa tātou. Kia kuhu mai te katoa.

[So what I am saying about Huhana’s contribution on Amendment Paper 208 amending Schedule 4, clause 3, on page 158—so my speech is about the disadvantages. The disadvantages to the environment and my want to add my contributions towards this clause 3.

Perhaps I should turn to the English language so that we all understand. So that we can all be included.]

I won’t translate what I just said in the reo, but I do want to talk to the Amendment Paper that I have in front of me, which is Amendment Paper 208. It’s an opportunity for us to really look at Schedule 4, going into clause 3(a), on page 158 of Amendment Paper 238.

Nō reira ko tāku e kī nei [So what I am saying is that it says], “an assessment of the actual or potential effects on the environment:”. My amendment goes to the heart of looking at ētahi takahitanga o te taiao [adverse effects on the environment], so that when there are any significant or adverse impacts or effects on the environment, there is an opportunity within the application to look at alternative locations. Ētahi atu wāhi mahi nei me kī te tirohia haere tērā pea ka taea te mahi ki wāhi kē—so you can look at alternative locations, but also maybe some of the mahi could be done in a different way.

This isn’t something in terms of the limitation of paragraph (a) that we have in front of us; it’s just examining the actual and potential effects on the environment. This is just an expansion of it to require the applicant to examine the impacts on the environment—and for the panel and the Ministers—and then look at alternative locations and methods for undertaking the activity and raise that, because in some of these projects, it might be found that the methods being undertaken by the applicant may be harmful for the taiao for that particular purpose. There might be other ways of executing the mahi.

This amendment is quite, I think, just user-friendly and is just providing a bit more expansion on the opportunity for us to include the provision for alternative locations and also other methods to be considered, and these are safeguards for the environment. These are safeguards also for the developers to have a little bit more space to look at ways in which they might be able to carry out their activities, but it is also for the community, for the hau kāinga, to be able to raise their voice through the process.

Nō reira koia waku tāpaetanga kōrero ināianei, ka heke iho. Kia ora. [So that is what I’d like to add at this stage. Thank you.]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Just before I take the next call, I am looking for new material and new arguments, and new debates as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of points I would like the Minister in the chair’s, the Hon Shane Jones’, clarification on, but I want to start in terms of two of the amendments. This is in terms of Amendment Paper 190 and Amendment Paper 191 and this is specifically around the steps by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) after substantive application lodged.

I think one of the first points I would like to make—and I would like to ask the Minister’s consideration on these two Amendment Papers—is the time frame that has been given to the EPA when they are receiving such a substantive application. Now, both of the Amendment Papers—and this amendment is to clause 24F(1) and the second one is around clause 24FB(2). Again, these, for you, Mr Chair, are Amendment Papers 190 and 191.

I think the main issue here is, considering some of the examples that we’re seeing within the 149 projects that are currently in Schedule 2, but also considering that in Schedule 1, we’re talking about opening some of the applications and the referral applications, and potentially later on substantive applications, I am concerned that the EPA may not have the capacity to be able to respond within such a short period of time.

For both of the Amendment Papers, one of the things we’re looking at is extending the 15 working days and the 10 working days respectively to 20 working days. It wouldn’t be a massive extension by any means, but, hopefully, there is something for the Minister to consider and just to alleviate some of those issues and some of those concerns that the EPA may not respond in time.

One of the other points I would like to mention as well—and I would like the Minister’s clarification on—is actually around clause 31, and particularly around secondary legislation and, in this case, regulation. Now, I want to specifically home in on clause 31(1)(b)(ii), and this is around how the Governor-General can make recommendations “specifying requirements for a referral application [on] a substantive application, including—information that must be included in the application:”.

The clarification I would like from the Minister is about clause 14(3) and clause 14AAA, both of which are exhaustive lists of information that must be included as part of the referral application. But, if we are allowing, by Order in Council, secondary legislation to be made that changes or alters the information that must be included in the application, would it be considered that that this is a “Henry VIII” clause that we’re looking at? And how would that be in terms of amending primary legislation? If not, I would like the Minister’s clarification on what is meant by specifying requirements. Are we looking at more information being added or less information being added as part of that exhaustive list in clause 14(3) and clause 14AAA?

Again, if this is something that is considered a “Henry VIII” clause, I think that is a serious consideration for this committee. If it’s not, then also what are some of the considerations the Minister for Infrastructure will have that we’re not going to be looking at the case of ultra vires when the sort of Order in Council is being made for that particular secondary legislation? Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I wanted to bring up Amendment Paper 186, which refers to clause 24. In clause 24(3), it lays out the criteria that the Minister for Infrastructure is required to set out if they do “accept the referral application and refer a project, the notice”. This is about the notice of Minister’s decision on referral application. If the referral application is accepted, there’s certain things the notice must say. One thing that is not included between (a) and (f) is setting out any areas where the application conflicts with any relevant criteria in the Act.

This is an Amendment Paper in the name of Scott Willis, my colleague. “In clause 24(3), after paragraph (ba) (page 41, after line 24), insert: (bb) set out any areas where the application conflicts with any relevant criteria in this Act;”.

Just to make it very, very clear that the notice of the Minister’s decision should set out how the application conflicts if it is accepted for any reason. I’m hoping that the Minister and the Government would consider this amendment and wanted to raise that in this debate.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The next contribution must be new and it must contain new material.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, like I’ve been doing the entire time: getting straight to the amendment, talking about the issue, and asking questions of the Minister for Regional Development and whether he’d consider them. So this Amendment Paper 183, this refers to clause 23. Now, these are the circumstances under which a Minister specifies matters for an accepted referral application. It’s really simple, suggesting: “In clause 23, after subclause (3) (page 40, after line 14), insert: (4) The Minister must specify that the project be publicly notified, and that the notice invite interested persons or groups to make a submission to the panel.”

This is a really simple amendment that I would like the Minister to consider, because we hear time and time again and we’ve seen now from the projects that are listed in the schedules, which will be going straight through to the expert panel, that these are projects of a significant scale. Many of them have significant environmental adverse effects, and some will have benefits. It’s important—like we’ve seen time and time again—where experts, community, a whole range of individuals actually have the opportunity to input into making the projects and the conditions on the projects fair, robust, and comprehensive, that’s when you get the best outcomes for everyone. The scale and significance of these projects absolutely warrants public notification. We heard that time and time again through the select committee where we heard about this, and I would like the Minister’s consideration.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This question, not unlike others, centres on a key tenet of this legislation: that those who have an entitlement to be integrally involved in the consideration of the panel in granting approval of those that are most affected by the approval, it is not a wide, vague description of who may or may not feel that they are affected by what externalities might flow from the project. This is the whole key point of the bill. For those reasons, obviously we are not going to accept that submission or that proposed amendment. This bill will allow the people to be consulted, providing they represent that circle of interests that are genuinely and most impacted by the decision.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to replace subclause (1) in clause 14 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s remaining tabled amendments to subclause (3) in clause 14 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 14(2)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 153 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 14(3) set out on Amendment Paper 154 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ba) set out on Amendment Paper 155 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ba) set out on Amendment Paper 156 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(e) set out on Amendment Paper 157 be agreed to.

Glen Bennett’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 141 are out of order as not being consistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to replace clause 14(3)(ha)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 158 be agreed to.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to replace clause 14(3)(ha)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 159 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ha) set out on Amendment Paper 131 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(s) set out on Amendment Paper 160 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 14(3)(s) set out on Amendment Paper 161 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 162 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 15(1A)(b)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 163 be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Amendment Paper 164 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to insert subclause (2) in clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 165 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clause 16 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to insert paragraph (aa) in clause 18A set out on Amendment Paper 166 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 19(1) set out on Amendment Paper 167 be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s amendment clauses 19A and 22A set out on Amendment Paper 168 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clause 19A be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 19B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 169 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 22A set out on Amendment Paper 170 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22A(3)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 171 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22A(5) set out on Amendment Paper 172 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 22B set out on Amendment Paper 132 be agreed to.

The question is—[Interruption] Can we have quiet during voting, please.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 22B to insert new paragraphs (c) and (d) be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 22B(1) set out on Amendment Paper 173 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 174 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendments to clause 22B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 176 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a)(v) set out on Amendment Paper 177 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a)(vi) set out on Amendment Paper 180 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 179 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 178 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(4) set out on Amendment Paper 181 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 22B(4) set out on Amendment Paper 182 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 23 set out on Amendment Paper 183 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 24 set out on Amendment Paper 184 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24(2) set out on Amendment Paper 185 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24(3) set out on Amendment Paper 186 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 187 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 24D(4) set out on Amendment Paper 188 be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24E(1) set out on Amendment Paper 189 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24F(1) set out on Amendment Paper 190 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24FB(2) set out on Amendment Paper 191 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24G(2) set out on Amendment Paper 192 be agreed to.

Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24G(3) set out on Amendment Paper 193 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24M(2) set out on Amendment Paper 194 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment to clause 24M(2) set out on Amendment Paper 142 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24O(2) set out on Amendment Paper 195 be agreed to.

Glen Bennett’s amendment to delete subclause (2) in clause 24Q set out on Amendment Paper 134 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s remaining amendments to replace clause 24P and amend clause 24Q set out on Amendment Paper 134 be agreed to.

The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 24Q(1) set out on Amendment Paper 196 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24Q(4) set out on Amendment Paper 197 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24Q(4)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 198 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24UA(1) set out on Amendment Paper 199 be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendments to delete clause 24WB and amend clause 24WD set out on Amendment Paper 133 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee

Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24WD set out on Amendment Paper 202 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24X(1)(a)(iv) set out on Amendment Paper 203 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 24X set out on Amendment Paper 204 be agreed to.

Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24X(4) set out on Amendment Paper 205 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Peeni Henare’s amendment to clause 27A set out on Amendment Paper 135 is out of order as not being consistent with a previous decision of the committee.