Public Works Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and members of the committee. I’m pleased to be able to present the Public Works Amendment Bill for the committee of the whole House stage. I’d again like to thank everyone for their input in getting the bill to where it is now.

There is an Amendment Paper 792 that I’ve put on the Table, and I’d like to highlight one change that it would make to the bill. It includes a provision that allows consequential amendments to be made by Order in Council to the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill once enacted. Any Order in Council would follow the usual Cabinet and legislative processes. The provision could only be used for technical changes to update references and use consistent terminology between the Public Works Act and Resource Management Act replacement legislation. The provision will be automatically repealed six months after the bill is enacted. I look forward to the committee’s consideration of the bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of quite high level questions that I’d like to start with, before moving through the legislation. I’m sure colleagues have many specific questions. But my high level questions—well, one that’s just been stumping me as I’ve been looking through the legislation, is this relationship with critical infrastructure. We just heard in one of the second reading speeches from a National Party member that there’s been another piece of work on critical infrastructure. Then there is a definition somewhere in here that refers to a clause that I can’t find regarding the definition of critical infrastructure. So if the Minister, Hon Mike Butterick, could point me to where that is, if it is in there somewhere. I think it was a section 39AAB, and I can’t find 39AAB. Maybe it is already in some legislation, but if the Minister could tell us about critical infrastructure and how it relates to this Public Works Amendment Bill, that would be good. That’s one high level question.

Another high level question is about this legislation applying to public works. Obviously, I have the 1981 very, very amended copy—I don’t know when it was last updated—in front of me. But obviously public works and local works have been defined in the Public Works Act for a long time, and they have to be public. What I’m interested in is there seems to be some provisions in this bill for things that might not be public works, if they’re associated with a public work but they’re not—they’re a combined work. So I’m wondering if that is a fundamental shift or not.

Where this question is coming from is the bills that the Minister just referred to in his Amendment Paper, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, they shift—and I think the language and the terminology changes somewhat—who has the ability to make a notice of requirement. Where, in the olden days, the only people who could do designations or undertake notices of requirements were clearly public authorities—so State, central government, or local authorities—then in the Resource Management Act (RMA), there’s been this ability for notices of requirement and you can become a requiring authority if there’s a regulation that says that you’re a requiring authority. Some of those bodies can potentially be non-publicly owned bodies. Then in this next round of RMA reform, it takes it even further in terms of bodies that are not public entities but are providing infrastructure that is very widely defined, can then go on to do notices of requirement and designations.

So my question is—and it’s the high level question—all of those changes that widen up who can do designations, how does that flow through to this bill? And I’ve got specific questions as we go through, but at a high level, how does it relate? Regardless of changes in the RMA legislation, do the projects still have to be public? That is, owned by central government or local government, or is there a way in for these other projects to also be considered in this legislation? And why that is important is because, as we were just discussing in the second reading, this is a big deal when your land can be taken, and people can understand that if it is for a public good, a community good—of course you’ve got to balance it with appropriate compensation and fairness and everything else—that’s one argument. But for private companies who come in and make money out of something, that’s a totally different logic that we’d get to. So that’s why I’m interested in this designations.

And then my third high level question for the Minister is that there’s a special process in here for Transpower and he might want to talk to us about why that is. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 4, section 2 amended, around the interpretation. I’m particularly interested in the definition that we have given here for Māori freehold land. The reason I pick up on this is that according to the background material and policy information document, Land Information New Zealand considered the Public Works Act policy proposal to be consistent with upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlement obligations. I think that might be a key word in terms of that this would only apply—does it mean, first question, that this will only apply if land has been settled? Because we do know, for example, that a number of Māori land have not been settled.

Now, then, this brings me to the definition for Māori freehold land and to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act because in that Act, specifically section 129(2)(b) of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, it says that “land, the beneficial ownership of which has been determined by the Māori Land Court by freehold order, shall have the status of Māori freehold land”. So my first question, looking at the definition here, is how would Māori land that has yet to be settled—Māori land that still currently in dispute—be considered under this updated legislation? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few preliminary questions about the interpretation section in clause 4, to the definitions, because I’m aware that there were certain submitters who requested that there was deliberate working with the new resource management reform and the definitions that are in that. And particularly Water New Zealand noted this need, particularly when it comes to key water-related terms across the legislation. The only potential changes I could see were to network utility operator and network utility operation, and that was aligned with the Resource Management Act. Then there’s a definition of “regional council”.

But I couldn’t see, and I’m interested if the Minister is aware of whether there has been a response, I guess, and a deliberate eye put across this legislation and the resource management bills which we know are not yet final. They’re also coming back for third reading next week. But whether there has been a deliberate oversight across those definitions, and particularly when it comes to water-related definitions, whether those have been taken into account. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I guess to follow on from my colleague the Hon Rachel Booking, and to focus on questions around combined projects—because if I go back to my point around Transpower, and it might have seemed a little flippant, but the fact that we don’t know whether the Government is going to privatise any more State assets, and then the issue of what is a requiring authority, and then what is a combined project. Because the combined project, as defined here in Part 1, means the two or more public works authorised as a combined project under section 27(b)(2). The Minister can maybe just go through the process of authorisation and whether a requiring authority under the new Resource Management Act changes is an authorising agent and the possibility that that is in fact not the State or the Crown or a local authority; that is a designated private agency.

We have many fast track developments, and in fact the issues go back to infrastructure. So questions of the Minister is: does this facilitate or open the door for acquiring land for private or joint venture projects which are effectively offering private benefit, or is it, as was intended under the Public Works Act, solely for public benefit? Because it is a significant shift if, in streamlining, which is what we have assumed this bill is doing. But as you look in here and you put it alongside the possible changes not completed and not passed through Parliament yet through to the Resource Management Act two bills, then are we just allowing the acquisition under this new Public Works Amendment Bill of combined projects that are authorised possibly by our requiring authority that may in fact be a public entity?

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Or not?

Is that? Yeah, and I’ll leave it to my lawyer colleague here who’s far more tenacious and detailed than I am. I’m just a little kind of cynical because I kind of joined the dots here. There’s a lot of money gone to political donations for fast track and other developments. There is a lot of money, and I’m concerned that the assurances sought through Parliament were to ensure that we have a streamlined, à la fast track process for the development of infrastructure.

So those are the questions to the Minister. Can you reassure me that firstly, we’re not setting this up for approval for combined projects that are authorised, and the authority that authorises may in fact be a private entity?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. So at clause 20 there’s a new combined projects cross heading inserted, and it says new 39AAJA “combined projects”. This is at page 31. It says this part applies “to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” I guess this goes back to my first question about can the Minister enlighten us about critical infrastructure projects? But the question is, also: how big does the part have to be? What percentage of the part? And this goes to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s questions and my original questions: are we letting in a whole lot of private enterprise into what is the Public Works Act? That difference is important.

I do note at clause 15, this is about land required for combined projects, and at new section 27B is “Authorisation of combined project” and that talks about “A responsible Minister”—so a public person—“or local authority”—also public—“may agree with 1 or more other” of these public Ministers or local authorities “that 2 or more public works should be a combined project.” Is that the comfort we’re looking for when I read “whole or a part” over at new section 39AAJA? That is one of the concerns that I have. I can go back through as well, to some more specific questions, if that’s useful.

New question, unless the Minister wants to answer? He’s looking—yes? Then I’ll come back to my other—

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking about the relationship with critical infrastructure, critical infrastructure is defined in section 39AAB of the Public Works Act (PWA), and it is “a project listed in Schedule 2A” of the Public Works Act.

In answer to the member’s other question—why is Transpower in? Transpower has an ongoing need to acquire land and interests in land to maintain, upgrade, and expand the national grid. Part 2B, inserted by clause 23, gives Transpower direct access to the front end of the PWA process while retaining ministerial responsibility for compulsory acquisition. It replaces the need for Transpower to obtain preliminary approval under section 186 of the Resource Management Act, but otherwise this uses much of the ordinary PWA machinery, with modifications, to ensure that land is acquired, vested, held, and disposed of for Transpower works appropriately.

Under the bill, Transpower will be able to acquire land by agreement without needing ministerial approval first. This will give Transpower similar access as New Zealand Railways Corporation—another State-owned enterprise. Compulsory acquisition decisions will remain with the Minister for Land Information, and extending access to other network utility operators would go beyond the bill’s targeted scope and would require further consideration of appropriate oversight arrangements and different ownership models.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow-on from my previous question around clause 4—noting that we’re not quite there yet, to clause 20, but we are going to get there.

My first question for this call is on clause 8, with new section 4D. Now, considering that this is a new section, can I check that the standards and guidance that are issued by the chief executive, are they secondary legislation? Because I don’t see there being explicit statements saying that anything in the new subsection (1) and (2) would be considered secondary legislation. I do want to check that, because that then potentially has a different set of questions that I might have around standards.

I want to move on to clause 11. I want to start with section 18 replaced; I want to start with section 18(1) because it states over here that if land is required, whether it is the Minister or local authority. I want to check with the Minister for Land Information because we have heard, as a part of the select committee stage, concerns by local authorities around this particular bill and potential cost for local authorities. Can I just check with the Minister: what was the process for consultation? I know that my colleagues who are more well versed in local authorities may have other specific questions, but what was the consultation like? Because from what I see in the regulatory impact statement and the regulatory impact statement addendum, it seems like there was a panel that potentially has people with experience of local government, but I can’t see an explicit consultation with local authorities. I want to check with the Minister, now that I’m seeing this part in new section 18(1) around local authorities.

My last question for this this call is still clause 11, “Section 18 replaced”—section 18(4)(b)(i). I’m still waiting for the response around Māori freehold land. But over here it says the applicable period when it comes to the invitation to sell if the land is Māori freehold land that is “beneficially owned by more than 4 persons;”. That would assume to me both natural person but also a legal person. But I want to check: would that legal person be considered a particular person who is chief executive of a particular hapū or iwi corporation? Can that legal person or natural person be interpreted as a hapū or an iwi? I’m just trying to get some clarity around what that “4 persons” represents. Those are my three questions for the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to Lan Pham’s question around definition of Māori freehold land, the definition in the Public Works Act is as defined in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and the definition of protected Māori land is already in the Public Works Act, which includes land retained through settlements. That is not changed by this bill.

To the Hon Damien O’Connor about what is a combined project. The Minister for Land Information will authorise a combined project that may only be used by parties that have access to Public Works Act power under existing provisions. It does not expand the scope of parties with powers. This can include network utility operators that are requiring authorities under the Resource Management Act and have the approval of the Minister for Land Information.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. And thank you, Minister, for your reference to the definition in critical infrastructure that has been in a previous amendment to the Public Works Act. That is helpful. I’ve now looked at that schedule, which defines it project by project. I don’t know how the schedule gets amended, but all of the projects on it at the moment look to be public roading projects. I understand that, but just that last part of your answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question and my question about the parts of those critical infrastructure projects. I accept that they’re all roads, but the Minister for Land Information just said that it could be a requiring authority or network utility operator under the Resource Management Act. That does go beyond necessarily being public, but is he saying there’s another hook here to get into the Public Works Act that it has to be for a public work? If he can just clarify that the hook is still there—that it needs to meet the definition of a public work or a local work under the Public Works Act. I’m sorry, I’m a bit out of date with the Public Works Act legislation. The book here that I’ve got from the lobby is quite—I don’t think it’s been updated for some time. I’m back on my phone looking at that.

Second question. I’m interested in going now to clause 12, and this amends or replaces section 23, which is the notice of intention to take land. I haven’t gone back and compared it with the existing section 23, so this may not be a change. Before subsection (3), it’s “Considerations for whether taking is required”. The Minister for Land Information must have regard to—and I’m looking at page 14—“the objectives of the Minister or [their] local authority; and the … consideration [of] alternative sites … and”—and this is the important one at (c)—“whether, in the Minister’s or local authority’s opinion, it would be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary for achieving those objectives for the land to be taken.” That is a fairness test.

But then it goes to (4) and says, “however, you don’t have to look at that”—oh no, I think I’m wrong. I think you do still have to look at (3)(c) but you don’t have to look at (3)(b), which is the adequacy of alternative sites if there is already a designation. If there is already a designation, then you don’t have to consider the alternative sites, and I presume that is because the alternative sites process has already been gone through when you’re having a designation. But you do still have to look at that fairness test, which is in (3)(c), which is importantly not part of the designation process.

So in the designation process, you don’t have to look at fairness, but you do have to look at alternative sites, and this is saying for—so if you’ve already looked at those alternative sites because you’ve done a designation process, then you don’t have to redo it. If the Minister could just confirm that I’ve outlined that correctly.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around changes to requiring authorities and replacement Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation and expand who can use the Public Works Act powers, the ability to apply to have land acquired is limited as closely as possible to the same parties that can apply under the RMA.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around standards issued by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) secondary legislation, new section 4D, standards and guidance are not secondary legislation. This maintains flexibility and allows LINZ to update them as necessary. Another question from the member around consultation with local authorities: the expert advisory panel undertook targeted consultation with local government as part of their work in 2024.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Mine’s a really simple question, but it relates to clause 6. It’s the adoption of the wording “delivering, posting, or sending” instead of “delivering or posting”.

The “delivering or posting”—my guess is that what we were talking about there was the adoption of the postal rule, which means that when you post something, it’s deemed to have been delivered. But this difference, from “delivering, posting, or sending”, does seem to change the game a little bit, because “sending” is not deemed to be “delivering”, so it’s quite a different context. Was that the intention: that we move to a different standard where we just simply send something out and it doesn’t necessarily get delivered?

Because what I understand the overall purpose of this legislation is—and a good one—is that we are improving and modernising, and we are actually making sure that we are doubling down on the kinds of plain empowerment of people in this Act in terms of what they receive. But if, in fact, documents get sent and not received because they haven’t been picked up, for example, in an email, that undermines that principle. So it’s a genuine question. I never really understood why the postal rule was adopted in the first place, because delivery seemed to me the most important thing, and “posted”, even, has always gone astray and is not necessarily—it seemed to be a 19th century decision, rather than a sensible one. But modernisation would, for me, seem to be that we would focus on delivery, that we would ensure delivery, rather than adopting a much lower standard of sending and posting.

Posting, by the way, at the moment, is atrociously unreliable in a way it never was seen as being. A lot of post is returned now. For example, if you have a postal box, even if you go to the right address, it will be returned to sender and it will not be received at all. Would that count in the present circumstance if, in fact, good faith, you sent it to the address that you’re talking about, and the post service refused to deliver it and it came back? Is that enough? So it’s a very practical question, in some ways, about the nature of a modernising and where that fits with the purpose of the legislation. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

I’d like to follow on from my colleagues on clause 6 and explore this issue of “the last known electronic address”.

Now, I don’t know about other members in this Chamber, but some of us have several email addresses. Some of them are very old, and I hate to think how the mailboxes are. I’m just interested that sending it to the last known electronic address might not be enough. Will there be account taken if it bounces back? Will there be account taken—is it going to be sent with a “require delivery” receipt?

The overall aim of modernising and allowing email to be used as a mechanism, I think, is admirable. But I do think that the checks and balances about actually how that is managed and how we—think of who here might have had a Paradise account once upon a time. There’s a whole lot of complete email domain names that are not extant anymore.

I think there should be a slightly tougher requirement on the agencies that use electronic addresses to make sure that they’re valid. The question is, also, do they send it to the email address and post it, or is it binary, you do one or you do the other? So if you could address that area please, Minister, I would appreciate it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m actually rising to question about clause 7. Clause 7 is about replacing section 4C, which is “Delegation of Minister’s powers”.

The way that it is inserted here was not amended by the select committee. It states that this is about bringing it in alignment with Public Service Act 2020. My main question is, is this allowing for additional delegations or not from the Minister for Land Information to be able to delegate to chief executives of Crown entities? Or was section 7 simply catching up on the changes to the Public Service Act 2020 and only bringing it in line with that? That’s my question.

Committee of the whole House

Just going back to this conversation I’ve been having with the Minister—and thank you for engaging, Minister—this is my concern: that non-public works will be able to take people’s private property. The Minister said in reply to my question, “Well, it’s not changing the Resource Management (RMA), who can be the network utility operators.” That doesn’t give me the comfort I’m looking for. I’m just asking if there’s a hook, that to be able to take land, you still have to be doing a public work, rather than something that has got a notice of requirement under the Resource Management Act or its replacements—that it still has to be a public work or not. If he could just explain that, that would be useful.

Maybe why I’m asking this is if we look at—I’m not actually sure what clause it is—clause 15, over a couple of pages on page 24 and new section 27F, “Acquisition or taking of land required to relocate infrastructure”, it says at (2), “If the public work is a Government work,—(a) the Minister may acquire … the land”. But then it says “if the infrastructure is owned by a local authority”—this is at (b). So new section 27F(2)(b), “if the infrastructure is owned by a local authority or a responsible network utility operator,”—which is defined above—“the land acquired or taken for that purpose vests in the local authority or responsible network utility operator instead of the Crown.”

I’m just interested in who that “responsible network utility operator” can be and if it has to be public or not; and what the assessment is of the changes in the resource management legislation; and if there’s a widening of who can be a responsible network utility operator; and, if that goes to them being private operators, how does that work with something that is called the Public Works Act? That’s what I really just want to make sure that we’re not going somehow much further outside of that public works sphere. That’s my concern.

Going to a similar question, then, at clause 17, and this is the replacement of section 39AAH, which is the notice of intention to take land. The notice of intention to take land is an important step. What I’m interested in is that at subsection (2), it says, “The Minister or local authority must also not do anything referred to … unless 1 or more of the following apply:”—and this “unless” is important—“the project is allowed under the Resource Management Act”, so it’s permitted; or “there is a designation for the project:”; or there’s “a notice of requirement” under the RMA. What I’m interested in here is paragraph (d): “a substantive application has been lodged under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 for a designation or an alteration to an … designation”—so the “unless” applies.

Now, noting that “a substantive application has been lodged” is different from there being a designation under the Fast-track Approvals Act—the substantive application has to be in that fast-track process, so it has to have been referred or be on Schedule 2 of that Act. But it’s still in the process. Is the rationale for (d) and the process still being ongoing because it’s in some way analogous to (c), “a notice of requirement for the project”—that that might be the reason? I presume that is why there’s also that reference in (e). So a notice of requirement not being the full designation, but the process starting.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s earlier question about considerations when land has a designation, I confirm the member is correct. If land is subject to a designation, the court will no longer be required to inquire into the adequacy of consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving the objective. This is because the statutory process to assess and determine the appropriate route has already been completed under resource management legislation.

In regards to Helen White’s question about delivering, posting, or sending and sending to a last known electronic address, “sending” refers to the electronic transfer to enable emails to be sent. It does not change the legal requirements around posting. Operationally, this is intended to apply where a landowner has already provided an email address.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around local authority costs, funding arrangements for infrastructure sit outside the scope of the Public Works Act. The panel appointed for this review consulted local government representative groups.

Committee of the whole House

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. He pātai tāku.

[I have a question.]

I’m wanting to take the Minister to page 9. It’s clause 8, new section 4D; clause 39, amending section—there’s a whole heap to it, but it’s about the responsibility of the chief executive to issue standards and guidance.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What page was that again, sorry?

HŪHANA LYNDON: That was page 9, and it’s around the chief executive’s ability to issue new standards and guidance. I’m noting that many submitters did support the idea of new regulatory tools in the bill. There was still room for improvement. Considering what Te Matapihi, the Law Association of New Zealand, and others spoke to—the need for an independent oversight—while the chief executive may be empowered in this space, is there consideration around independent oversight and also the reporting, like inserting a mandatory reporting function? Ngāti Raukawa iwi, they spoke about the need for us to really consider the issue of standards and guidance in this part, in particular being explicit around Treaty obligations, Treaty settlements, iwi and hapū engagement, and whenua Māori. I’m wanting to understand what that looks like and in particular reflecting on the voice of Ngāti Raukawa and their concerns around being more explicit around Treaty compliance.

The other part that I’d like to ask questions on as well, while I’ve got the floor, is in relation to clause 12—I’ll flip over. Oh, no, it’s right there. It’s on the same page. Yeah, it’s being replaced. It’s clause 12 of the bill, inserting new section 23B; clause 11, replacing section 18. This one speaks about the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, around the compulsory acquisition of whenua Māori. I want to thank colleagues who have asked further around the definition of what whenua Māori is but also those which are designated, so Treaty settlement versus Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

I’m wanting to understand the clear decision-making criteria. What is the Treaty compliance test in terms of what is the baseline whenua Māori landowner engagement requirement? What is that test? Is there a measure? Is there a model or a framework? And then, like, how do you know that you have landowner consent? Is it as my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan has talked about—is it via a CEO of a land trust or an iwi grouping? What if the land is not managed, doesn’t have a management structure, whether it’s an ahu whenua trust, a whenua tōpū trust, a kaitiaki trust, an incorporation, or anything? If it is unstructured and unmanaged, what is the baseline requirement for use of the public works amendment legislation on these landowners in order to get the whakaae [consent] to take the land, to compulsorily acquire?

But then, also, with the ahu whenua trust, the incorporation, the whenua tōpū, whatever management group that might be in place, how do you test that that group has shareholder agreement? It’s one thing for trustees to agree to something; it’s another to know that the landowners actually agree. Those of us who operate in whenua Māori might understand that, because you don’t want an occupational protest on you when you go to actually start the work because the whenua trust signed off but actually the shareholders were unaware of what was to come.

I think about whenua that could have been impacted by the Marsden Point rail spur and the way that that trust had a decade of public works hanging over their heads. Tribute to Mere Kepa as chair out on that whenua in Ruakākā and the way that they advocated for the voice, the concern, and how to utilise whenua Māori without that noose of public works on their heads.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are specifically around clauses 11 and 12, noting that these are, like, extremely significant powers that the Ministers hold with these bills. My understanding of the Ministers who can make decisions under this is either the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations. The powers go from everything to attempt to acquire land, the notice of intention to take land, but it’s only, from what I can see, in new section 23B, which is actually the change in clause 12 on page 15, where the Minister for Māori Crown Relations is actually named, versus the other instances of “Minister”. What I’m interested in is: is the reference to “Minister” with these powers specifically related to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, and the Māori development aspect is only where the Māori development Minister is referenced here, or when “the Minister” is used, is that actually interchangeable?

The reason why I’m particularly interested in that is that in theory, in an ideal world, obviously, the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations would be on the same page, but it’s not a given, particularly when a lot of these projects, particularly when it comes to compulsory acquisition and serving notice and whatnot—there may be very different opinions. So is that simply resting with the Government about who that Minister is, or is there actually an ability for both Ministers to be involved in these decisions, or is it simply a delegation? I raise that because a lot of the submitters thought that these provisions absolutely did not go far enough when it comes to protecting Māori land, and we had a number of really strong voices on that. So I’m interested in what the delegations of the Ministers are and whether it is specific to where particularly the Māori-Crown relations or Māori development Minister are specifically referenced.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the question from Julie Anne Genter around “Why does clause 7 replace the delegations provision in the Public Works Act?”, it aligns delegations with the standard process in the Public Service Act; it does not change who the Minister can delegate to.

In answer to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around the scope of the network utility access to Public Works Act powers, under section 186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), a network utility operator that is a requiring authority may apply to the Minister for Land Information for any project or work as if it were a Government work. Changes to resource management legislation may mean a broader group of entities may be able to apply, but the Minister for Land Information must still agree.

And then to the member’s further question around clause 17, replacement section 39AAH(2)(d), “Why are substantive applications in the Fast-track Approvals Act included here?”, it is because it is analogous to a notice of requirement under the RMA.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for Land Information for the answers to question so far. I also had a question with an element on clause 12. Clause 12 is pretty substantive, and I know some of my colleagues have spoken to it, but my specific concern is around this replacement section 23(3) and (4), particularly (4), and how, when a Minister is going to serve notice to acquire land, and they’re making their opinion, the Minister or the local authority must have regard to “the adequacy of the consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving those objectives;”. This is on page 14. Now there’s a new subsection (4) that a “Minister or local authority must not have regard to [that] matter … if, and to the extent that, “(a) there is a designation for the part of the public work for which the land is proposed to be taken; and (b) the land is subject to the designation.”

The reason I’m asking about this is that in the explanatory note of the bill as it was introduced, it mentioned that, in a way, it was making it easier to acquire land when there is a designation on the land. I’m aware of a case regarding Mt Messenger, where a landowner who was born on the land really objected to the land being taken and had significant concerns as to whether the transport agency had considered effective alternatives to taking the land and running a new highway through his land. He has challenged the transport agency over and over again over many years, and I think he’s incredibly brave and right to do so. In the case of the Mt Messenger project, the transport agency actually went ahead and started construction and formed an alliance and started doing work before they had fully gotten consent for the project.

I guess, I’m trying to understand how these changes in clause 12, inserting new section 23, are not going to allow someone to challenge their land being taken if there’s a designation, and whether the designation process, which is going to be entirely under this new resource management reform—or is it through the current Resource Management Act? I guess, my question is: the designation. It’s the designation process that therefore would have to take into account—so at the point that something was designated, a landowner wouldn’t necessarily be following that. Are they going to be required to be notified when the designation process is going through, and to what extent is there a requirement to consider alternatives before placing a designation?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I do go back to the points that the Hon Rachel Brooking has raised, because it goes to the heart of, actually, Labour’s support for this legislation thus far. She has raised a couple of points that connect back to the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), which, as was explained by the Minister, are quite relevant.

I then go to the other point that we have, of course, in the wings, proposals around local government amalgamation or changes. One of the points raised with me was around council-owned assets, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) having control over infrastructure assets. If they are forced to be sold or, for some reason, transferred through the amalgamation process, does the right to apply through this Public Works Amendment Bill apply to the private owners of that public infrastructure—or once was public infrastructure? I think the intent of the Public Works Act was clearly to facilitate infrastructure development through our country, and we have to acknowledge our ancestors and the people who gave up land, got compensation, but it was none the less, as Julie Anne Genter pointed out, a very difficult process for many.

In supporting this piece of legislation, at the same time we are facing local government amalgamation, so those structures may change; forcing, possibly, the sell-off of CCOs; and then we have changes to the RMA which, as has been identified, you have designated authorities—is that what the term is?—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Requiring authorities

—requiring authorities; can’t keep up with all these terms—then they can apply, then I don’t think that Labour could support this bill on the basis that this is supporting public infrastructure for public purposes, because it’s now coming into, as we see stated here in reference to the fast-track process. I’m just thinking through a scenario down in Otago where a public road that the councillors controlled and, as possibly part of a big mining project, there’s been an agreement to hand over the road at this point.

Now, the issue of consultation is one that council is obliged to go through, but then if you go to the next step around relinquishing that land for a so-called public purpose or for a fast-track process, we need to look more carefully. I haven’t had any assurances or any comfort from what the Minister for Land Information has said that says this bill is for public infrastructure for public purposes. I suspect that we’re handing over a fast-track process through this Public Works Amendment Bill to a whole lot of private development, because my reading of the reference to the fast track here doesn’t differentiate between fast-track projects for public purposes or those for housing development, let’s say. Maybe the Minister can give us reassurance, if he can, but it does go to the heart of, actually, in my view, whether Labour should support this bill any further.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to the question from Hūhana Lyndon about any consideration of independent oversight and “Could this look at Treaty compliance?” The bill does not change the basic structure of the Public Works Act (PWA). The policy intent of the bill is not to provide a new oversight body. The bill’s new annual reporting requirement is intended to support greater monitoring of the PWA so that more public information can be provided about its use.

In response to the question from Julie Anne Genter around considerations when land has a delegation: as I’ve previously answered, if land is subject to a designation, the court will no longer be required to inquire into the adequacy of consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving the objective. This is because the statutory process to assess and determine the appropriate route has already been completed under resource management legislation.

To Lan Pham, regarding the question around the consent of the relevant Māori portfolio Minister, the Minister who must give consent for the compulsory acquisition of Māori land is determined by the portfolio that oversees that category of land. It is either the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. For example, Māori freehold land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, which is administered by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Development portfolio.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister for Land Information regarding clause 11, new section 18C. This is on the top of page 13, “When compliance with section 18 is not required”. This is an important section because it is, essentially, stating when we don’t need to actually comply with section 18(1) to (3).

Just a couple of questions regarding some of the definitions here, so that way we can have on record, for law students and future lawyers as well. Subsection (1)(a) states that after reasonable inquiry, if they cannot find the owner, either as an existing process or a new process or a standard or guidelines—would the Minister be able to speak to what is considered “reasonable” when you’re trying to find the owner of a land and it cannot be found, and therefore you are overriding section 18?

With new section 18C(1)(b), inserted by clause 11—noting that new section 18C(1)(a) does specify areas around a period, etc.—I do want to get a little bit more detail from the Minister regarding “reasonable inquiry”. For new section 18C(1)(b), this is the part which talks about the application to the Māori Land Court, if an order has not been made within six months. I do want to check with the Minister, in those kinds of instances, how often has this happened before, where an application has been made to the Māori Land Court and no order has been made within six months? How common is it? I’m trying to figure out if this is something that happens quite frequently or infrequently, because I personally don’t have a point of reference regarding the prevalence of the complexities around Māori land disputes.

My final question is around new section 18C(1)(c) and (d), inserted by clause 11. I want to check with the Minister under what circumstances would the owner of the land have no power to sell the land. Also in paragraph (d) is a term that I cannot actually find a succinct definition to, which is what is considered “legal disability”. The closest thing I could find is if a legal person is not of sound mind or is under age, etc. Is that what is the definition for “legal disability”? It would be good, first, to know the definition, and then I potentially have more questions from there. But just to signal to you, Mr Chair, that those are my questions for clause 11. I’m going to move on to subsequent clauses.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on clause 12 and clause 13, but particularly, firstly, clause 13 when it comes to the objection to be heard by the Environment Court. The reason why I’m particularly interested in this is that the role of the Environment Court is absolutely critical in these circumstances, particularly where there is an objection to land acquisition. There was a really strong view amongst submitters that were in opposition to these changes, because they made it really clear that this was a narrowing of the scope of the Environment Court and the extent to which they can actually consider objections, particularly where there’s a designation in place and there’s compensation disputes about the acquiring of the land.

What I’m interested in, when it comes to this Environment Court process, is there were submitters who talked about how critical it was that the earlier consideration of alternatives in the Resource Management Act that would have had to take place is not really at all a replacement for the landowner’s right to seek independent assurance that all reasonable alternatives have actually genuinely been explored. I think what’s really clear is in some of these instances they need this right—it is absolutely critical to natural justice principles in this space. I understand that the Law Association was really strong in this and recognised that designations can sometimes be quite broad and they held this view that this was a really important part to make sure the integrity of natural justice is upheld.

So I’m interested to hear from the Minister for Land Information, because I’m noting that there’s been a few changes when it comes to the redraft of the bill, but is he comfortable with where these provisions have landed in terms of natural justice, in terms of the Environment Court consideration being narrowed, because of the significance of these parts and how clear submitters were in expressing their concerns? Really keen to hear that response, thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to invite the Minister for Land Information to join me on pages 22 to 23, looking at new sections 27B, and—oh no, page 21 as well—27A, please, inserted by clause 15, looking at “Land required for combined projects”. Just reviewing this section, I’m wanting to ask the Minister around certainty—certainty in terms of who is the acquiring authority. So if we’ve got a project that’s combined through a variety of agencies for public works purposes—it might be a bit of local government; it might be Transpower, all sorts—sometimes it can be not clear. Submitters also voiced, both as individuals as well as groups such as Upper Hutt City Council, about how the combined project parts of the legislation could raise uncertainties as to who is the acquiring authority. So in not being clear on who the acquiring authority is, would this open up the Minister to challenge in terms of the acquisition itself from impacted landowners?

Land Information New Zealand provided feedback where they said, “Any uncertainty around this acquiring authority would be addressed through information requirements that would be provided to the landowner in accordance with replacement section 18(2), inserted by clause 11.” But I guess that’s the clarity.

And I’m just really mindful of optics, as well as putting the Minister at risk—that when you combine projects and you have multiple agencies coming at landowners, how are they going to be compelled to speak with one voice when engaging with the landowner? Or is there going to be one lead agency that will be the voice on behalf of the collective when there is a combined project coming at a landowner? I raise this from a whenua Māori perspective, I raise it also from an individual general title landowner perspective, because when you have a knowledge of a combined project coming on to your whenua with the prospect of taking your land, with the incentives to sell or to have the compulsory acquisition, how does the landowner know who is the acquiring body, and does the Minister have enough protections in place to protect the Minister and who the agency is who will ultimately seek to acquire this land?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s questions earlier about powers of entities if local government assets are privatised, CCOs or council-controlled organisations or other asset owners would need to meet the definition of “local authority” in the Public Works Act. This bill does not expand who can use public works powers.

To the member’s other question, do the changes mean land can be acquired for a non-public purpose? No. The Public Works Act (PWA) continues to only apply to the Minister or the local authority. There is the ability for network utility operators to ask the Minister to use the PWA on their behalf on a case by case basis.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question earlier around replacement section 18(1), inserted by clause 11, when compliance with section 18 is not required, these sections have not changed and are replicated from the existing Resource Management Act. Whether an owner be found is assessed on a case by case basis. Efforts to locate must be reasonable and the ordinary and standard meaning would apply: a fair and sensible effort to locate. In making changes to modernise the acquisition process, the opportunity has been taken to update sections 18 to 23 with modern drafting.

To the member Lan Pham’s question around whether the Environment Court considerations have been narrowed in a way that is appropriate, yes, the bill does not prevent the decision maker or the Environment Court from considering whether the design of the infrastructure could be amended to better meet the requirement that the taking of the land is fair, sound, or reasonably necessary.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you for those clarifications, but the question is around if you were to have a major fast-track application for a housing development and the council then has to expand the roading network, the question might be is the roading network development and the acquisition of land to service that new subdivision—is it for public or private purposes? So the council, I presume, under your explanation, has the right to apply and acquire under the special legislation, as laid out in the clauses here, land for the council’s infrastructure, because of the private sector development. Is that correct?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to that in the Minister for Land Information’s answer just before about network utility operators, he started by saying that you still have to be a public work to be able to use this. That is good. But then he said that there is this route for network utility operators to utilise the Public Works Act. I think this is what he said. He’s very welcome to correct me. However, for a network utility operator to use this legislation, it has to be signed off by the Minister for Land Information.

He also said, in an earlier answer to me, that the changes to the Resource Management Act legislation mean that network utility operators have expanded and there are more entities that could become network utility operators. In his answer to me, the Minister used “may” a lot. There are a whole lot of discretionary endpoints here, but it would be very useful for the Minister to clarify that network utility operators, if the Minister approves it, can get access to the Public Works Act, or can they only access the Public Works Act if they are also a public work? That’s the first question. I think he said they can still access it.

Then the second question is can he expand on what the expansion of network utility operators is under the RMA replacement bill? We know that he has some tabled amendments to link in to the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—the Planning Bill is the most relevant here—and that that Planning Bill widens who can use these types of provisions. It’s much wider than what has historically been allowed. If he could comment on that, because I know that’s in a different bill, but he’s made an amendment that now links to the other pieces of legislation. He has given this answer that it is expanded. Then we know what we’re talking about. How many different types of projects might be able to use the powers in the Public Works Act that enable them to take private property? I would think that the ACT Party would be much more interested in this. Maybe I’m overreaching and those network utility operators have to be doing a public work and so it’s not an expansion. But the earlier answer from the Minister sounded like it very much was an expansion. That’s the nub of the issue that I’m interested in. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question around if you have a fast-track application and a roading development was required to make roads, can the council use the Public Works Act (PWA) to buy the land for roads? The answer is yes.

To Hūhana Lyndon’s question around how the bill applies to decision making for Māori land, “agreement” under PWA refers to a person with authority to enter into an agreement. The bill does not change this. How shareholder agreement is required or reached for types of Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is covered by that Act. The bill recognises that protected Māori land may have legal or practical constraints, so it allows the discretion to make incentive payments even if early agreement can’t be reached.

To the member’s other question, in combined projects, how does the landowner know who is acquiring the land? The information requirements in the bill will ensure landowners know who is acquiring their land in a combined project. This information must identify the project, the acquiring authority, and why the land is needed. When the Minister authorises a combined project, they must publicly notify that it is a combined project.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed on the Public Works Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break, we were debating Part 1, which is clauses 4 to 45, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedules 1 to 4. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before the break, the Hon Rachel Brooking asked about network utility operator access to Public Works Act (PWA) powers. This is an existing mechanism under section 186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). That’s been in place since 1991. This bill makes consequential amendments to that section to provide for combined projects. These consequential amendments do not change the scope of who can apply under the RMA. Who can apply under those provisions in the Planning Bill is for that bill, not the Public Works Act. As I’ve repeatedly said, this bill is not changing who can access the PWA.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, the Hon Rachel Brooking. Can you start off by just telling me where you think you’re at in the process?

💬 Hon Member: Just at clause 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know she’s not there, because it’s all marked off on here.

Committee of the whole House

I am at Amendment Paper (AP) 792, in the Minister’s name, and at—who knows what it is, but it’s at page 4—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Page 4 is close enough.

It’s in a box, new clause 13, and it says, “Order in Council may make certain consequential amendments”.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—found it.

This says “This clause applies if the 54th Parliament”—that’s the one we’re in for another couple of days—“enacts 1 or more Acts to replace the RMA (an RMA replacement Act).” And then it goes on about how “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, amend one or more RMA replacement Acts”, and this includes “to provide for the definitions of network utility operator, network utility operation, and requiring authority in section 2 of this Act to be replaced with the definitions of the corresponding terms in an”—because there’s two of them—“RMA replacement Act:” [Phone rings]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s a fine!

Ha, ha! So this is relevant to the answer that the Minister just gave because it’s the link in to the change. So he’s just told us RMA section 186 already says that if you can get to be a requiring authority under the RMA, then you can get into the Public Works Act process. However, what we’re seeing here at this new clause 13 on the Order in Council is that the RMA replacements—it will be called the Planning Act—is going to be able to change definitions in this legislation to match that legislation. We haven’t yet passed it in its third reading, but if we get to do that by next Wednesday, then it will apply.

And we’ve heard from the Minister in an earlier contribution that the Planning Act, which is a mysterious RMA replacement Act, in fact enables many more different types of companies and entities to become network utility operators and get into what would be the section 186 process under the RMA. I think I see the officials talking there. That is our concern: that, whilst the Minister can say, “Oh, well this Act isn’t the RMA and this Act isn’t the RMA replacement so we’re not going to talk about the changes that will be coming through those RMA replacements, through that Planning Act”—as it is likely to become—“we’re not going to talk about it.”

That’s not useful, because I’m really worried—and my whole Labour caucus is really worried—about the changes that are being made in this bill that, on the face of it, look like a nice bill that’s trying to make the process easier and fairer for those who are having their land taken for public works. But what we’re finding out now, and with this AP, is that it’s going to be—or I think it’s going to be—a whole lot more entities that will be able to use the Public Works Act provisions, which means that they can be non-public entities taking private land for a project that might be there to benefit shareholders. And that is not the historic scheme of the Public Works Act. You could argue that maybe there’s been one or two instances where things that were Crown entities and turned into State-owned enterprises and might have part ownership became requiring authorities for some projects—and I’m thinking, in particular, Meridian Energy would have done this for Project Aqua—that didn’t go ahead—in Canterbury, where I know the Minister grew up.

So this is really fundamental. Like, please can the Minister tell us what are the other types of projects that will be able to get through because of this replacement resource management (RM) legislation that he’s mentioned in his Amendment Paper.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The difficulty we have here is that we have—

Madam Speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m speaking. The difficulty that we have here is that this Minister is not the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act. While I can understand the questions that the member is asking, we probably have a limited opportunity for this Minister to satisfyingly answer the questions that you’re asking. Maybe after the committee stage. You’re probably one of the most well-versed people in the House in terms of some of the committee stage legislation on that Resource Management Act, but I don’t think it’s fair—for this Minister, he can only answer it to the extent that he can, because he’s not the Minister responsible.

Thank you. I do understand those points and that we have spent some time in our last urgency on the RM replacement bills where we didn’t actually touch hardly at all on these types of provisions. I’m happy to take responsibility for that, in part.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The point I was making is that the member was well-versed in that committee stage. We just can’t put that expectation on this Minister.

And I take that point. I wasn’t taking it in a bad way at all.

But the Minister did say earlier in this—and I’m not sure if you were in the Chair then or not, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not on this bill.

This Minister on this bill said earlier that the RMA replacement bills do widen the criteria and so it may be—and I’m paraphrasing; I don’t have the Hansard in front of me—that other things, not the word the Minister used, could come into the process if the Minister allows it. So maybe I’m just asking—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): For clarification.

—for confirmation again of that statement—that I’m right—that what we’ve got coming through is we’ve had that RMA replacement, and those RMA replacements are now going to be put into this legislation through his AP, and that will widen the number of things that can then use the Public Works Act provisions, subject to the Minister approving it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the same vein, I guess, because there have been so many moving parts to this challenge—to what we understood to be a well-intentioned modernisation. And now we’ve got, as I say, changes to the RMA, we’ve got the fast-track process, and we’ve got local government amalgamation and what might come from that.

So if I come back to clause 20 and its relation to section 39AAJA, “Combined projects”, “Sections 27A to 27D apply to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” Now, the point that we asked prior to dinner was the one of private benefit. A critical infrastructure project can be public and private, and a combined project is defined as one that has some public work in it, so it basically pretty much opens it up to anything, if you consider a public component. In which case, even private projects have a public benefit to them. We acknowledge that, but the intent of this is for public not for private.

The questions to the Minister for Land Information is just to go through that. So section 39AAJA(2), inserted by clause 20, says, “For the purposes of subsection (1), the public work, together with 1 or more other public works,”—right, so there might be a few involved—“may be authorised as a combined project in accordance with section 27B regardless of whether the other public works—(a) are part of the same critical infrastructure project:”, or whether the whole or a part of a different critical infrastructure project.

So it kind of opens it up to anything, and maybe the Minister can define the parameters that ensure or reassure us that what we’re passing here is fast track—that is, the right to impose over someone’s private property rights the acquisition of their land for a public purpose. What makes me even more wary is that the ACT Party is enthusiastic about this. It’s the first time I’ve seen the ACT Party enthusiastic about imposing on private property rights, so it makes me very, very wary. They may have concluded, as I’m starting to conclude, that the imposition or the acquisition of private property rights, which is what this does, for compensation—I’m not saying it’s without compensation, but something that if someone’s to say no, which they have done, this overrides that right. But ACT thinks that’s OK.

Well, I kind of struggle with their philosophy. It’s a consistent philosophy, I have to say, that private property rights are absolute. Unless they see that the private property rights and benefits accrue through this process, where a combined project, which is clause 20, where there’ll be a small component of a public project or public work, as it is defined—there’s a small component—but a large component of private, but this would be allowed under my reading of clause 20, Part 2. It even says where it may be authorised for the purposes of that public work—a combined project might be authorised if “(c): are not the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.”

Now, the Minister’s had some advice and I look forward to getting that because it is important.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think the Minister for Land Information can answer in his role as a Minister on behalf of the Government, for this piece of legislation, but no expectation that he can answer on behalf of the ACT Party or anything.

No, I appreciate that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Hon Damien O’Connor, to his question around whether critical infrastructure combined projects expand to private works: no. Critical infrastructure projects are a refined list of fast-track projects and roads in Schedule 2A of the Public Works Act. These are public works being undertaken by the Crown or a local authority.

Committee of the whole House

I appreciate that, and that’s a nice bureaucratic answer, but if it’s combined—so you have a housing project that actually just happens to need some roads to go to it. So the roads are part of the combined project that will service the private project. My question is: if the council says, “Well, we have to widen the road and so we will acquire the land to widen the road because there will be another 1,000 people living somewhere and we need to have infrastructure.”, that is a public infrastructure. I accept that, but the combined project is one of the housing developments, serviced by a public infrastructure which is the roading or it might be the electricity. That’s the point I’m trying to make. I’m not sure that the Minister’s clarified that answer for me.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Land Information, just noting that we are progressing through this bill. I want to touch on something the Minister said before regarding clause 13, section 24 amended, around the Environment Court. Now, I just want to get some clarification from the Minister. In the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 201 to 224, pages 58 to 65, it talks about possibilities or considerations around objection. The recommendation and the preferred option by the ministry here is around having refined ground for objection in the Public Works Act, but what the panel has suggested, which has a negative mark next to it, is option C3, which is “No right to object if RMA designation [is] approved”.

Can I just check, with clause 13, inserting section 24(8): “the Environment Court must not undertake the inquiry under subsection (7)(b) … —(a) there is a designation for the part of the public work for which the land is proposed to be taken;”—if that is option C3 or option C2 of the regulatory impact statement, because that is an important one to make. If it is indeed option C3, then how would the Minister rationalise the fact that in the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 223 on page 64, it says that the risk of adopting option C3, which is having no RMA designation process, “would inadvertently slow down the designation process by including the consideration of land acquisition matters”. So I want to check that clarification with the Minister.

Can I also just check, further on to what the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, and I’m looking at clause 15, inserting new section 27D(3)—I asked the Minister previously around local government consultation, and one of the things we heard in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that local governments worry about the cost that this would incur. We just heard, previously, from the Hon Damien O’Connor that if there is a possibility that combined projects could be public and private, then here, in section 27D(3), local government then is the one that has to get accrued to them around “All costs and expenses incurred … in respect of actions taken” by combined projects.

Are we then asking for local authorities to compensate for what potentially could be public combined projects undertaken by private companies, which then would be—I think from a ratepayer’s perspective, maybe that’s not something they had in mind, or even for this Government what they had in mind, when talking about prioritising expenditure for local government. I want to check that clarity with the Minister—so this is section 27D(3). I’ll leave you with those two and I will move on to subsequent sections.

Committee of the whole House

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister, in relation to representation of certain owners for the purposes of replacement section 18, inserted by clause 11. It’s a clause that I just spotted, which I’m a bit nervous about, in terms of representation. Representation of land owners, an individual or a group, has been used as a tool for alienation in the past. Now, submitters did raise the point that these agents who are appointed to represent land owners, a concern that, as an administrative process, having this agent appointed could actually accelerate the land loss and alienation of the group being represented.

In the clause we’re it talks about also the Māori Land Court being able to deal with it through their own processes, they’re the actual agents that I’m concerned about, and I want to invite the Minister to provide comfort that somehow, magically, the Māori Land Court has improved its processes and magically will see some form of tighter reins on agents being approached and appointed to represent land owners. Because for freehold Māori land owners, often these agents are appointed representing a small number of the land owners, not the actual collective interests of those who whakapapa to the block. While I know officials said, “Oh, it’s been a mechanism used for a long time in the Māori Land Court.”, e hoa, it’s a tool of alienation and we have to be really cautious with that.

So I’m just wanting to seek some surety from the Minister that maybe there have been some improvements in the Māori Land Court, that the Māori Land Court will have capacity and capability to appoint agents who have enough of a tight leash on them to be accountable to said land owners.

Further on this section here, talking about the Public Trust being authorised to represent an owner for this purpose too, there’s a range of compliances put in place for the Public Trust to represent a land owner, and, again, there’s nervousness in these agents being appointed because, for instance, the land owner hasn’t engaged in some of a six-month period [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office].

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just say that this particular Minister is not responsible for those appointments. So what is the question that relates to this piece of legislation that you’re wanting to ask this Minister?

HŪHANA LYNDON: The issue is that when we’re referring to different mechanisms to manage land interests and representation that this refers to, because it’s ture whenua Māori—so this is Māori freehold land being impacted—and then Crown officials are saying, “Oh, the Māori Land Court have got it sorted. They’ve been doing this for years.” This bill in particular has direct impact on Māori land owners, as Māori freehold land. So what improvements have we seen? Because this will require the Māori Land Court to act in a manner to appoint these people. Have there been improvements? Is there additional resource? Because this Act is coming through that the Māori Land Court will finally have some capacity and capability to appoint people who will have the relevant safeguards in place. I think it’s very relevant to the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a relevant question to the wider picture, but I think in terms of this Minister’s responsibility, he can answer for himself, but the Māori Land Court is not his responsibility.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Then that’s one of the issues.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s about to give an answer, but I think this is getting too broad.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the member’s question, the appointment of an agent or Public Trust in new section 18B, inserted by clause 11 of the bill, is an existing provision in the Public Works Act. It’s reproduced in the bill as the structure of the provision has been updated for modern drafting. The operation of the Māori Land Court is outside my portfolio.

There was also a question earlier from Lawrence Xu-Nan around the regulatory impact statement, 201 to 224. It is not the panel’s option, in clause 13. An objection is still able to be made if there is an investigation. The bill refines the grounds for an objection.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Rachel Brooking—I’m going to ask the member to see if there’s any outstanding areas that she hasn’t been to, to her mind. But what I’ve done is read through all of the questions that were asked prior to the dinner break, and I’m finding this whole debate either repetitive or out of the responsibility of the Minister. So I want the questions to be absolutely precisely to the Minister, excepting that some of the answers that the questioners are wanting answers to are probably not going to be what they’re wanting to hear. OK?

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you for that. I did ask for the Minister for Land Information just to clarify the answer that he had given earlier and in relation to his Amendment Paper 792.

So I’m still waiting for that, but I do have a precise question, and if you can just bear with me on the wording here. So, again, it’s new clause 13 in the Amendment Paper. It’s just at (2)—this is just a wording issue; it’s not a policy issue.

💬 Hon Mike Butterick: Where is she, sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): 13.

At clause 13(2): “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, amend 1 or more RMA replacement Acts”—I understand that, and the Planning Act, as it will be, or the Natural Environment Act—“for all or any of the following purposes:”.

It might be my reading of it. This legislation is saying that that new legislation that’s not here yet can be amended to provide for the following references in this Act to be amended. I just don’t understand what’s being amended there, because it says—wouldn’t it be the following references, and it’s so that they refer to the corresponding provisions in an RMA replacement Act? I’m just confused or not certain about which piece of legislation is being amended to reflect which other piece of legislation. Is it that, say, the Planning Act is being amended to incorporate the wordings that we find in this Act, or is it the other way around, that this legislation is being amended to reflect the new terms that will be in the other Acts?

I mean, amend the Planning Act to provide for the following references in the Public Works amendment to be amended so that they refer to the corresponding provisions in the Planning Act. I’m finding that very circular and so I’m just asking the Minister if he can explain what is meant by that. Again, as I’m saying, it’s not a policy one. I understand that there are different terms in the different pieces of legislation and you want to reflect it, and my concern that I’ve already articulated is that the widening of what can be a network utility or what can be designated under the RMA replacement Acts is going to lead to significant consequences in the Public Works Act. But I have asked that question.

Then just going back to clause 20, which is this combined projects, and it is a question that’s been asked before, but it would be useful for the Minister to just focus on that word “part”, because new section 39AAJA, “Combined projects”, says that the sections “apply to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” So the concern is about the part. So if you have a public work that could now be something that’s imported from section 186 of the RMA Planning Act extension into being a public work where this Act requires, and it’s related to a critical infrastructure project, how much does that part have to be? Is it that the combined project is substantively the critical infrastructure project—so those roads that are defined in Schedule 2A, I think, of the Public Works Act?

The message that I’m concerned about is that the critical infrastructure project—so the road—could be a very small part, and then it imports all these other things to become a public work. So if the Minister wants to comment on that word or “a part”, that would be a useful specific contribution. Thank you. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (19:28): Just one moment. We’re just waiting for an answer.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Madam Chair. As promised, I am going to move along from the previous sections. I am currently on clause 23. It is a big bit, so just bear with me. I’m looking at new Part 2C, new section 39L, inserted by clause 23. The question I have for this is, in the event of an emergency, if there can be a secondary legislation made on the recommendation of the Minister for Land Information that this part is applicable for the restoration of public works following an emergency, can I just check, is there any potential that this then becomes a “Henry VIII” clause, where it will make changes to the primary legislation as a result of that secondary legislation? I note that new sections 39M to 39Y, state some of the specificities around the taking of land in the event of emergency recovery. But I do want to just check if that’s going to be a “Henry VIII” clause.

I want to move on to clause 25, and I’ll leave it at clause 25 for this contribution. This is the part that says compensation in relation to Māori freehold land will be assessed as general land. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the regulatory impact statement, page 40, paragraphs 131 to 134. This has to do with Māori interests, because my understanding is that currently Māori freehold land is not compensated at the same rate as general land. I’m assuming that this part is taking up the recommendation where now they are being paid for by the same rate. But what I’m not seeing in this part, and the Minister may be able to point me to the correct section, is that in paragraph 133 it says “The PWA does not recognise that multiple dwellings on Māori land can be separately owned. This means that where there are several dwellings, such as for papakāinga, only one home-loss payment can be paid under the status quo.” And the recommendation is to be able to split some of that up under this bill. Would the Minister just be able to point to me on which clause in this bill allows the splitting of some of that payment, which can’t be done under the existing legislation? Those are my two questions for now.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve just got some answers here from the Minister when he’s ready.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s earlier question about local government worries about the costs that could be incurred and the possibility that Crown projects are public and private. Combined works can only be public works. A private project cannot combine with the public work using the combined works provisions.

Clarification for the Hon Rachel Brooking in regards to new clause 13 of Schedule 1AA, added in Amendment Paper 792. The Planning Bill already includes consequential amendments that it will make to the Public Works Act. New clause 13 allows those consequential amendments to be updated.

An earlier question from Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding Order in Council and emergency recovery. New section 39L: Order in Council does not change primary legislation. H switches on the provisions in the primary Act for emergency recovery for the specific works listed in the Order.

Again for the member, section 72B, amended by clause 29, is the new provision for home loss payments on Māori freehold land.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 46

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 48.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 792 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 46

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you clarify your number that you voted in Labour?

💬 Shanan Halbert: Toru tekau—30.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a question as to whether you had voted 32 in the previous vote, and is 32 correct for the previous vote and 30 correct for—

💬 Shanan Halbert: If we could correct that at 30, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. You need to seek leave.

💬 Shanan Halbert: I seek leave to make a correction.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

💬 Shanan Halbert: To correct that vote at 30.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. The record will be corrected accordingly.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 46

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other legislation, and Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clause 46—“Consequential amendments to other legislation”—and Schedule 5. The question is that Part 2 stand part.