Public Works Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Schedule 5 is “Consequential amendments to other legislation”, which I think you may have just said. I have a high-level question for the Minister for Land Information, and a more specific one. Can he direct us to any changes that are of a policy nature to these changes, or are they mainly what we’ve already been discussing—but made to work for the different provisions? Does my question make any sense there?

I see that there’s a lot in here about the Transpower exception coming through into the Resource Management Act. That’s on page 82 and it looks like most of the other changes are references—you’re just replacing a reference to one section that’s now been amended and popping in the new section. Not a policy issue; it’s merely technical. That’s one question if he wants to direct us anywhere—that it’s not merely technical.

Then at the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, it says to repeal Schedule 12. Schedule 12 of the Fast-track Approvals Act is “Modifications to process under Public Works Act 1981 to take or deal with land”. It’s quite short. There’s an interpretation, application of the section, and “Court must accept determination of panel about consideration of alternative sites, etc”. I’m just wondering why this needs to come out. I presume we had a discussion before in Part 1 about a fast track; a substantive application. Didn’t they have to be determined that it was just a substantive? If the Minister could comment on the relationship between that substantive application under the fast track now being provided for in this amendment bill, and if that is the reason for taking out Schedule 12 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, if they are like for like.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, I want to start with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 792, because in there, there are also added a couple of additional bits in Schedule 5 specifically relating to Land Information New Zealand (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2003. Now, just checking in terms of the explanatory note—there’s very little information that has been given for this bit in particular. I have two questions on this amendment specifically. One of them says, “In the Schedule, replace item 4(g) and (h) with:” I’m assuming different pricing. I haven’t had a chance to—because this Amendment Paper only was released on Wednesday. Will the Minister just let us know if this is two new items that are included or has simply the cost been adjusted? If the cost has been adjusted, what was the previous cost?

I also want to check—the next part, when it comes to fees and charges, again, if the Minister wouldn’t mind just elaborating on that. It says, “delete ‘to a local authority’ ”. Can I just check, does it mean that in this particular case, any sort of fees or charges—I guess, the revenue from fees and charges; I will double-check that particular section—cannot be paid to a local authority? I will double-check on that, but if the Minister has a response for it, that would be great.

I now want to move on to Schedule 5 in the main bill, noting that there are kind of two parts to this. I’ll start with the first part. What I haven’t seen, and I haven’t seen it in the Minister’s amendment as well, and I just want to double-check, is that it has been crossed-referenced in the Natural Environment Bill and also the Planning Bill with what we’re seeing here regarding the Resource Management Act (RMA).

💬 Hon Member: It’s out of scope.

Well, it’s not out of scope—for example, when this bill comes into effect, if the other two bills don’t include this particular amendment bill or amendment Act in their list, then does it mean that we have this weird anomaly where we have this bill that has a section on the RMA when the RMA no longer exists?

I would have assumed that the Amendment Paper 792 by the Minister, much like, I think, the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, would simply encapsulate—unless it’s in here somewhere; please correct me if it actually is in here, Minister—that when the two replacement bills, the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill, come into effect, it will supersede the Resource Management Act in this Act. It might actually be in here, potentially. Can I just—ah! Actually, on page 5—can I just check, then, with the Minister that page 5 captures what I’m referring to regarding the RMA changes? I think that would be helpful.

I’ll leave it for the time being, because there are quite a few questions there, but just thinking of you, Chair, I do have further questions on Part 2.

Committee of the whole House

Look, I’m working through, as I say, not having been on the select committee, a little bit flat-footed, but what are technical areas under Schedule 5 here, Part 1. Just to clarify the clarification from the Minister and to just have reassurance as to the meaning of it, “In section 186(1), replace ‘A network utility operator that is a requiring authority’ ”—that will be replaced with “A responsible network utility operator”. “Requiring authority” and “responsible”, in my layman’s kind of analysis, are two quite different overriding descriptives, so maybe the Minister can just give me a reassurance that what was a requiring authority as a network operator will still be effective in the same way as by being called “responsible”.

The next question I have here is on “After section 186(3), insert:”, and it’s an insertion that says, “The Minister for Land Information must be treated as having control of the project or work for the purposes of the definition of responsible Minister or local authority” under a section of the Public Works Act. Now, having control of the project, in my view, is different from having an approval for it to go ahead. “Having control of”, I would have thought, manages the project until completion. Well, that’s what I would say as a layperson if I was working on a project. Maybe the Minister can just explain what the significance is of the insertion of that in Schedule 5, because my experience as Minister for Land Information is that we don’t have huge resources at hand so, therefore, taking control of a project is quite a significant undertaking. Maybe the Minister can clarify for me.

Again, we have kind of arrived at analysis of this bill with a little more suspicion than when we started out and when it was presented to us, and we supported this to select committee and through the select committee, but I don’t think any of us were on it. So I’m not being frivolous here. I am seeking some genuine clarification on some points that seem quite significant.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around the consequential amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Act (FTAA), Schedule 12 of the FTAA requires the Environment Court, when hearing an objection to the taking of land for a public work under the Public Works Act (PWA), to accept a determination made by a panel under the FTAA in respect of a designation that relates to the public work. New section 24B, I think that is, of the PWA has a similar effect as Schedule 12 of the FTAA and so makes the schedule unnecessary.

In regards to the member’s question around policy changes in Schedule 5, the policy changes relate to the application of the incentive payment where it’s empowered land to be acquired or compensated under the Public Works Act. Where landowners initiate proceedings for their land to be acquired by Environment Court order, they do not receive incentive payments—85, 185 or 198 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). If the regional council or territorial authority uses their power under section 86 to initiate acquisition by agreement, the incentive payment applies.

To the member Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding the Amendment Paper changes to Land Information fees and charges regulations, this just changes cross-references in the regulations. Fee amounts don’t change. No fees are added.

In answer to the member’s other question around changes to the RMA in Schedule 5, yes, the Order in Council in the Amendment Paper will align the new resource management legislation with the changes made to the RMA by Schedule 5 where applicable.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. That is really helpful. Can I just check—I just had a quick check in terms of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 792 around the Land Information New Zealand fees and charges. This is the top of page 7, the part about deleting “to a local authority”. Now, in the original part that it’s referring to, it says that this particular part is around an agreement under section 50 of the Public Works Act to transfer to a local authority all or part of an existing public work. I had a look at section 50 as well. Can I just check: is this simply the case of a duplication, or is it possible now to also transfer an agreement to someone other than a local authority? In this Amendment Paper 792, the “to a local authority” part has been deleted—so just if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that.

My next question—this is page 5, and I’ve just had a look. I do appreciate the Minister’s response around the changes we’re going to be seeing to the Resource Management Act and how that’s going to ensure consistency so that way we don’t have this weird kind of gap or anomaly here in the Public Works Amendment Bill. That’s really helpful. But in the new addition to the Minister’s—it’s mentioned here in terms of replacement sections 185(8) and (9). Can I just check, for subsection (8)(a)(ii), it talks about a critical infrastructure project that is not protected Māori land.

I want to check with the Minister the definition for “not protected Māori land”. Is that the same thing as a Māori freehold land? Throughout this entire bill, our two points of reference have been Māori freehold land and customary Māori land, but not necessarily protected Māori land or not protected Māori land. I just want to make sure that I’m clear on how some of that is consistent.

So, yeah, those two are my two questions.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to the member the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question around the significance of having control of the project and responsibility, this is to line section 186 with the combined project provisions under Part 1 of the bill, where “a responsible Minister” is defined as the Minister who is in control of a work.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve just got one more question that we’re waiting for the answer on.

In response to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around clarifying use of protected Māori land, “protected Māori land” is an umbrella term made up for a number of categories of land. Those categories are based on legal status or ownership arrangements. It includes Māori freehold land and land returned or purchased under Treaty settlements. It does not include wāhi tapu or sites of significance, unless otherwise protected Māori land. The Public Works Act uses the definition from the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020.

Committee of the whole House

A very short question—that’s really, really helpful; thank you, Minister. I was asking about the “not protected Māori land” part; what is “not protected land”? But I’m happy, Madam Chair, if it’s OK with you, if the Minister’s getting some advice, the Minister can answer that, or if we’re moving on to title and commencement, as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, no, that’s fine. Oh, here we go, the honourable Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. It just means any other land.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Just relating to the question on the controlling Minister and the question I asked before around—they were projects that could have a public objective but could possibly have a private component—does that mean that the Minister is still in control of what I put up as a likely scenario of a public works connected to a private project, and whether they are considered one or two projects, and whether the Minister would be in charge of both of those?

Committee of the whole House

The combined works are only for public works, not for private works.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 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 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 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.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 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.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 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.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 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.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate. Just before we do, I’d just like to acknowledge the changes that are currently going on with bills passing before other bills. Actually, I can still see there’s some frustration with the Opposition, but accepting that we couldn’t take that much further because we didn’t have a Minister here responsible—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: That frustration’s been here for three years, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I won’t solve that for you tonight, but I just wanted to appreciate the fact that there are lots of moving parts going on and it just wasn’t possible to answer all of the questions that you wanted the answers to.

The final debate now is on clauses 1 to 3. It’s the title, commencement, and principal Act.