Fast-track Approvals Bill

on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Bill be now read a third time.

This is a speech that I will give with a level of seriousness because of the critical importance for the New Zealand public, to the affairs of this House, that this piece of legislation represents. This piece of legislation is built on an innovation that the Hon David Parker introduced during COVID, into this House, to fast track the consideration of proposals dedicated to boosting New Zealand’s resilience. Our party, lost in political wilderness for three years, did a great deal of work as to how David Parker’s efforts could be improved. With that recipe, we came forward and formed the Government, and that Government was formed with the party led by the Prime Minister, and the ACT Party.

A key feature of what our party negotiated was the inclusion into a parliamentary body of work called the “fast-track bill”. In some respects, it ought to have been called the “One-Stop Shop Bill”, because the most important development contained in this bill is the attempt that it makes to conflate multiple consents into a singular process so that those New Zealand investors, those investors who are coming from overseas can join us in our efforts to boost not only our wealth but our resilience and can have confidence that there will be an outcome within a short and reasonable period of time.

We now have, arguably, the most permissive regime to effect growth and development in Australasia. Perhaps, for some people in this Parliament, no higher praise could be recited other than the fact that President Trump in America, himself, has now promised to deliver a fast-track bill if you are willing to spend a billion dollars and turn around the greatest capitalist economy in the world. High praise that I will back myself.

I will now continue to acknowledge that a great deal of work was undertaken by the Civil Service. The Environment Committee put in a sterling effort. The people that submitted to the bill—they supported their democratic entitlements to make applications; to have, through the submission process, the bill changed. And changed it was—against what I campaigned for. The authority under this bill for applications to gain consents, to develop our resources, to build roads, to deliver energy will be made by an independent panel; an independent panel that I’m hopeful will have the quality of people that the independent assessment panel chaired by a well-known lawyer—David Tapsell—undertook the analysis to deliver us the 149 projects that are in the Schedule.

It was a very bleak day that, in a tawdry attempt to capture public attention, members on the other side of the House sought to stigmatise, demonise, and spread a whole host of mythology about applicants, including those who are going to improve the housing outcomes for New Zealand. On behalf of the sentient, respectful members of this House, I want to apologise to the people associated with projects on that list, including the Winton company, that they were dragged through muck, they were misrepresented, and they were subject to a host of demonising remarks that people who made those remarks will never mention such things outside of the House.

Of course, one of the problems with this bill is it has attracted a great deal of dangerous rhetoric from the other side of the House. Applicants on the Schedule within this bill are now receiving letters from the Māori Party. The Māori Party is promising to strip any applicant of their resource consent rights that they may achieve under this bill. Now we have the Venezuelan example here in New Zealand: that if you gave a legal, statutory consent, then you’re going to be stripped of it in the event that the Māori Party forms part of an alternative Government. I can assure you that they have nothing to worry about, because the Māori Party won’t be here at the next election. If the Serious Fraud Office doesn’t drive them out, the people who voted them in will turn their backs on them, because this bill actually embeds genuine statutory engagement and participation rights for Māoridom.

Of course, we will enrich our nation through the minerals sector. The minerals sector is about to get a great boost off the coast of Taranaki, as a consequence of this bill, where people will have a statutory entitlement to apply for a resource consent—something that has been denied them through mythology, cultural fabrications, but science—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No one supports you, Shane. No one supports seabed mining.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Ngarewa-Packer, there’s a difference between interjections and a continual commentary, and you’re certainly erring on the latter at the moment. Could you just tone it down a little bit, please.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there’s a line out of the Bible, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” As I was saying—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, there’s a line out of the Bible: don’t comment on what comes from the Chair—or some equivalent of—so just carry on, Mr Jones.

Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, yes. Far for me to give you deified status, but I will take on board what you’ve just said.

What have I covered off? I’ve covered off that this is pro-development; this is pro-growth. Why are we doing it? We’re doing it because the country needs an economic boost. It will achieve economic surplus, jobs that will attract New Zealanders back to the Land of the Long White Cloud, certainty for investors, and where there are opportunities for people to participate, it will be limited to those who actually need to participate.

Those who have, in the past, weaponised environmental law, sought to use it for irrelevant purposes such as creating indigenous sovereignty movements inversely related to the wellbeing of New Zealanders or our economy—they will be ruled completely out of court; they will be marginalised because their contribution will not enrich the country.

Now, on the question of “Where to from here?”: shortly, the apparatus will be in place for the fast-track bill to be operationalised. As we go forward over the next 12 to 15 months, where there may be examples that in the operationalisation, this majestic piece of legislation needs further refinement, those opportunities will be seized, but they’ll be driven by people who are investing their own time, their own money, and they have a desire to create wealth and an upgrade of the quality of life in New Zealand throughout the four winds.

I look forward to massive growth in the mining sector. In fact, it was only Friday that an additional $700 million is being invested into the mining sector, on the strength of this bill and, naturally, the quality of the mining Minister’s advocacy. But humility requires me to not say much more about that.

We’ll also see water storage. We’ll see the projects that have been hobbled, undermined, and marginalised through factors that don’t belong in resource management law. Sadly, that side of the House has sought to elevate factors that are inversely related to economic growth and economic development. We are going to see the expansion not only of irrigation and water—because unlike what blighted Hawke’s Bay water development options, this bill gives a level of certainty because decisions will be made on the basis of economic rationalism, scientific certainty, and not fabricating tikanga Māori that lessens the status of Māori culture because it becomes weaponised in the part of ideology that is actually alien and foreign to all Kiwis who want to create an opportunity to boost the economy. The economy boost is coming through fast track.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start what will be a serious speech about a very serious topic, which is the statement that the Government members make over and over again that this bill was based on David Parker’s fast track. Why I want to do that is to make the point to disagree with something that the Government members have been suggesting, which is that the Labour Party is anti-development and anti-housing. That is quite wrong—we are neither of those things. We had the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act, which included a fast track, which will remain on the books for some time. There is no need for this fast-track bill, which totally overrides all of our environmental protections, and that is a key component—a key difference—that I am going to talk about some more in a minute.

You could argue, as the Minister for Regional Development has just said, that this bill should have been called the “One-stop Shop Bill”, and that is a significant difference from David Parker’s fast-track bills. That is not the aspect of this bill that we have been so deeply opposed to. What we in the Labour Party are deeply opposed to is the overriding of our environmental protections for a select few that have got their names on a list, and it’s a disgrace. We have seen a terrible process with this bill. Yes, the bill did go to the select committee for six months, which is unusual for this Government, but then we came back and we reported back, and we didn’t have that list of 149 projects. The Environment Committee had never seen that.

We came back, and on the day—in the afternoon—that we were starting the committee debate on this bill, which is the debate where we get to ask serious questions and have, hopefully, useful commentary on the Hansard from the Ministers, that was the day that we saw a giant Amendment Paper, a Government Amendment Paper, on the bill. Many of the issues included in that giant amendment were never traversed by the Ministers in the chair. There were some specific questions that were answered, many specific questions were not, and there were no general statements on those changes. Then, when we were debating in the committee stage of the bill, the Minister had to put up a number of other amendments during the committee stage of the debate because that Amendment Paper 238, in Minister Bishop’s name, was big and significant and there had not been enough rigour applied to it, and that just goes to show what nincompoops this Government are.

There is no social licence for the projects included in this bill, which means that there is no certainty for them, and why there is no social licence is, as we’ve just heard Minister Jones say that people like members of the community, environmental groups, neighbours that aren’t adjoining, and iwi groups that don’t have Treaty settlements have no input into these processes. There’s that problem.

Then we know that the purpose of the bill doesn’t refer to the environment or terms like “sustainable management”, despite all the advice going to the Minister saying that that should be included. I’ve just heard from the Minister Jones how he was being modest, or saying something about being modest in the minerals sector. Well, I was reminded the other night that Straterra, the advocacy group for the minerals sector, submitted that they wanted an environmental clause included in that purpose of the bill. They don’t want this bill to override all of our environmental protections, because they know that when they go to their international investors and the like, and try and show that they have adhered to good environmental regulations, it will be impossible to do that under the fast track in that form, of course. They did also apply to be on that list of 149, which, in my view, is problematic.

Now, because there is no social licence, and because these projects are going across just because the Ministers agreed for them to be on the list, some of those projects will have large environmental effects and will really muck up the livelihoods of those around them. Not all of the projects—of course, this is a cynical Government that makes sure that it puts projects on the list that they know will be popular, like some housing projects and some renewable energy projects. But then there is the coalmine in the kiwi habitat, the housing on flood plains, and who knows what else will come to pass, because, of course, new projects can be added? There will be protests, and that will lead to uncertainty, and my advice to applicants is to not use this process.

Then, of course, we’ve had the debate—we had the Clerk rule and the Speaker overturn him—that those 149 projects listed in this bill are getting a private benefit. The Minister, or one of the Ministers, may say, “Well, they not getting consents and they can be declined.” That is true that they can be declined, but it’s very unlikely that they will be declined once they’re on this list because of how the bill is written—that is, the primary focus of decision makers has to be on that purpose, which is to facilitate the projects—and these applications can be for things that are prohibited under the Resource Management Act, which means that it is not possible to get a resource consent. An applicant can go from not being able to even get a consent because something is prohibited, to being able to get a consent, and that is a private gain. That is why these projects should have been included on private bills, and not in this Government’s piece of legislation.

We’ve heard a lot about the zombie projects, which are those projects that have already been declined, and the Minister might say, “Well, they can submit different proposals, proposals where the environmental effects have been modified.” I put up an amendment so that that could be the case, but, like with all my other amendments, of course the Government voted against it, and then, since we were in the committee stage last week, we have had the delivery of some of the information about those applications for the 149 listed projects and we can see from those that there is no change from what was applied for and what was declined in the past.

That is a very real private benefit to those companies on that list. Those companies that have already been declined consent could not go ahead with their projects. Now, they have the opportunity to do that and it’s highly likely that they will proceed in some form or other, and that is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace to our public law system that donors to the Government can get themselves on to a list, and, hopefully, everybody can realise why that is dangerous and why it is that we have these conventions that Government bills can specify different groups of people, but not individuals and not individual companies. It is a disgrace.

We of course—and I’ll talk about this in the next bill, as well—have made bipartisan offers to talk with the Government, and they’ve come to nothing. This is an extremely radical law. It’s good that the ministerial decision-making was changed, and I thank those people who protested against the fast-track bill when it was in that form, but this is still radical law. This is still law that changes our constitutional arrangements. It’s bad for New Zealand’s reputation. It’s bad for democracy. It creates uncertainty. Any future Government that might look to review these consents that are granted that are going to harm the environment—it’s not on them; it’s on this Government for producing such a horrendous Act that goes against so many of New Zealand’s norms of fairness and having the same rules apply to everyone.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s with a heavy heart and disappointment and genuine dismay that I speak here today on this complete abomination of a fast-track bill bulldozing its final way through Parliament. My dismay is ultimately because it sets up this new legal framework that specifically, and very definitively, creates this process where private profit of the few can so brazenly trump our people and te taiao—our environment.

It was summed up really eloquently by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in their submission on the fast-track bill, and they described it as having one set of rules for everyone and then another set through fast track for “the big end of town”. It feels genuinely like this Government is in some sort of alternate universe to be here in 2024, when all the weight of science, of research, of evidence, of mātauranga—our literal ways of knowing—tell us that we’re in trouble. It tells us that our environment is in trouble and we can’t keep taking it for granted and exploiting it. Yet this Government is here today passing this destructive fast-track bill. How can it be that they have the access to every piece of information and evidence and experience in our communities and in this building and yet understand so very little?

It’s been really clear from the start that the public didn’t want, and still don’t want, this bill. Only 0.6 percent of submitters actually supported this bill. Over 27,000 people actually submitted, and almost 55,000 if we include petitions. We’d had so many voices across the country saying they don’t want these projects, some of which have already been declined by the courts because of their significant harm to either communities or the environment. I just wanted to elevate a snapshot of just a few of those voices and their very accurate descriptions of the bill.

The first one: “It prioritises corporate interests over environmental and human protection.” Too right it does, and yet somehow the Environment Committee actually strengthened, not weakened, this aspect in directing that decisions are made giving the greatest weight—the greatest weight—in the bill to the purpose of development at all costs now being made a reality today. Here’s another submitter: “It dismantles decades of environmental safeguards, posing a grave risk to both people and the economy.” Again, it is completely accurate, in that this is a bill that relegates what we did once consider—you know, our already pitiful state of environmental protections are now relegated to mere considerations under this bill and directed to be overridden by development.

It’s an unexpected and unwanted merry Christmas to Aotearoa where what were our environmental protections are now virtually non-existent. You could describe them as a threatened species on the verge of extinction, and that is unacceptable in 2024. Even in the committee of the whole House, the Minister wouldn’t address the question of where environmental outcomes actually sit in this bill. There’s no answer to that because no one wants to be put on the record in 2024 to admit that the environment is actually at the bottom.

Te Tai Kaha Māori collective, among so many others who submitted, brought up this bill’s regard for Te Tiriti when they said “Development can be done sustainably and sound environmental management is good for economic development. The bill just does not provide a framework to strike the right balance. It disproportionately prioritises development over te taiao.” Again, they’re spot on. This bill violates Māori rights and Te Tiriti in failing to provide for the unique role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki. It completely fails to safeguard their ability to meaningfully and substantively engage in the exercise of tino rangatiratanga and mana whakahaere in their rohe.

It’s really hard to gauge from the select committee process and in this Chamber who from the Government side is actually listening or paying attention. I keep thinking if they knew what was really in this bill, if they knew the places and communities that would be put at serious risk by these projects, they would not be passing this bill.

I wanted to touch really briefly on two of these projects just to highlight why. Now, the first glaring example is the Waimate waste incineration plant. It’s a disaster waiting to happen in terms of highlighting how serious these impacts on people and te taiao are. These plants overseas, where they’ve been in operation for a number of years, have been proven to be so harmful to people and the environment that a number of countries, particularly across the EU, are now decommissioning or banning them. Fonterra actually opposed a similar plant being proposed in Te Awamutu, due to staff welfare concerns. The council don’t want it, Waihao rūnaka don’t want it, the school doesn’t want it, the local GP doesn’t want it, the neighbouring farmers don’t want it, and yet under fast track, here is a pathway to allow this project to happen.

We’ve got the Bendigo-Ophir open-cast goldmine by Santana, and this breaches the outstanding landscape provisions in the district plan. It crosses numerous conservation covenants. It threatens not only the water supply but the burgeoning wine industry that has taken hold not only in the valley but the wider Central Otago region. It’s all at stake. It’s all up for sale when we allow these pathways for private companies to benefit and override the good and wellbeing of everyone else.

Now, in both of these cases, the local council and mayor have made clear that they don’t want these projects in their areas. How can this Government go on trumpeting about localism and then pass this bill that so comprehensively discards the wishes of community and their democratic rights in forming their district and regional plans? I am still yet to hear any rationale about why prohibited activities should still be eligible for approval under this bill.

This is the level of recklessness in this bill. It’s been unprecedented in the way it’s actually threatened the integrity of this Parliament in going against the advice of the Clerks and the majority of our Speakers in this House. We want to make it really clear when it comes to Te Pāti Kakariki that we will not let this happen. We want every company and every individual and every shareholder to know that, yes, this process is risky—it risks all of our environment; it risks all of our local voice—and we believe companies and shareholders that try to get approvals under this bill should bear that risk, not our communities.

We absolutely commit to reviewing and potentially revoking every consent rammed through under this fast-track bill, because if these companies want to come and give so little disregard to Te Tiriti, to our democratic process, and to our environmental protections, then there is no security for them in that and they have no future here in Aotearoa—and we make absolutely no apology for that. Fast track deserves to be consigned to the ashes of history, and Te Pāti Kakariki oppose it every single step of the way.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Fast-track Approvals Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Growing productivity in this country is an important part of what this Government is trying to achieve so that we can get our country in a state of affairs economically where we can afford to pay for the “nice-to-haves”.

We also want to be able to build stuff, and after the nincompoops on the other side created an obstruction economy, it’s getting ever-harder to do that. We spend, according to the Infrastructure Commission, over $1.3 billion a year on consenting. That is a sunk cost that we cannot afford in a housing crisis, in a massive infrastructure deficit, and in a country where we are signing up to ambitious climate change targets.

This bill will be a one-stop shop to bring 10 Acts of Parliament into one to make it easier to consent, and I commend it to the House.

Just before we take the next speaker, I’d invite the member—there isn’t a list of terms you can use to call the Opposition, but I just wonder whether it reflects well on him, some of the terms that he does use, but I’ll leave that with him.

Cameron Luxton: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, no; it’s just an observation, but I’ll leave it to him to reflect on that himself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a great bill, and this will get our infrastructure and our economy back on track. I’m thrilled to commend it to the House. [Disturbance in public gallery]

Leave the House! Leave! No, no, don’t do that, members—don’t interfere. [Disturbance in public gallery continues] Leave the House! All right. Thank you, House, for maintaining your composure. That was appreciated. No one here will have known that was going to happen. It doesn’t do anyone any good when that happens. Thank you, we’ll carry on. Who was the next speaker? It is Te Pāti Māori—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I guess they are part of the 83 percent that oppose this bill. This is what we need to remind ourselves: that that type of behaviour is felt very strongly in the communities that I represent and move along, because the fast-track bill, no matter how you want to call it—I heard the Minister say, “Oh, we should call it the ‘One-stop Shop’.” Oh hell, no! This is what we would call the “Ram Raid Bill”. It’s a ram raid bill; it’s going to bulldoze itself through our environments, bulldoze through the communities, bulldoze over those who passionately—passionately—don’t want to see things happen in their communities.

The Government has chosen to ignore them, using the terminology of economic development. Do not insult our intelligence. Do not insult those communities that live there and know their communities better than the Government ever will that this is what this bill is about. It is a shortcut. That’s the concern that we can see out in the community: that there is a shortcut. It gives no effect to our role and our rights as tangata whenua and mana whenua. It gives no effect to Te Tiriti. It gives no effect to those who are here intergenerationally looking after our communities.

In fact, what we’ve seen unleashed is scathing attacks from the very Minister that started the kōrero today: “Pixie-like hapū, we’re going to milk mother Earth of everything she has.” The arrogance that has come out of this Government in thinking that there would be no consequences. I think there was another terminology—and, again, it’s not lost on any of us—“excessive wokeness”. Well, isn’t that interesting? There was never any excessive wokeness when we saw quarry connections to the Ministers and donors, because that is what this is. It is not lost on us what this is about. It is not lost on us that this has been directed very, very clearly by those who actually have an atlas to be able to show their way forward in Aotearoa’s economy. The atlas has shown everyone really what it is that’s at stake here. The arrogance in this bill has been unprecedented.

The flaws—and we’ve seen this. I want to really talk about a couple of the other projects, because I’m not here with a full 10 minutes, like those who actually only spoke for a minute. What we have here is a Government that has been allowed to bring back to life, to resurrect, to bring zombie projects back that every court in Aotearoa had said were not good enough—their practices were not good enough. They could not meet the threshold that we require in our highest environmental threshold. Again, I talk about Trans-Tasman Resources, who promised to bring $1 billion to Aotearoa’s economy and, in fact, their promises were so bad, they had to do a formal retraction to the Australian Stock Exchange. What the heck is that economic strategy? Four judges agreed—four judges agreed—on New Zealand’s legal obligation in this threshold not only to Te Tiriti but to the international ocean law.

What we have here is a Government that’s ignored it. They do not care that we are allowing seabed mining into our oceans. They do not care that the rest of the world is sitting there, shunning seabed mining. They do not care that no one in the communities—including their own voters; including those who voted for the general seats in Whanganui, who have been sitting there, making that MP know very strongly what they think about it. We’ve got Ministers with no experience prepared to gamble the safety of our ocean with an experimental sector that failed to meet any environmental thresholds—again, I’ll repeat—not just in one court, not in two courts, not in three courts; in four courts. And we’ve been expected to believe this Government’s whole agenda is economic development. Rubbish!

What we have here, sadly—and I’m going to say this again—when we had a Minister say only a small group in Taranaki are against Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining, that could not be more further from the truth. That is the arrogance that has been fabricated that we’re all prepared to have to listen to. This whole analogy of economic anaemia—economic anaemia. Well, what we’ve seen is bloated greed—bloated greed—at the expense of our environments and then bloated greed at the expense of our communities, who they will never ever bother to go and see.

I think what we’ve got to remember is that the saddest part about this bill—it’s the darkest part about this bill—is that there is absolutely no accountability to the 83 percent who voted against it; to the communities in Taranaki that, through their own hard efforts, funded numerous courts, right up until the Supreme Court, who ruled against Trans-Tasman Resources’ ability to be able to safely mine. They ruled, in effect, for the rule of caution for all generations of Aotearoa. This bill is a shameful disgrace and a slight on this Government, unsurprisingly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Across this country today, in multiple regions, there’ll be people who care about the environment, people who care about the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and people who care about democracy who will be lamenting, who will be thinking, “Coming to my area soon is a rushed and fast-tracked project”—without the licence, without the consent of the local people; in fact, explicitly overriding the will and the wishes of the local people. That’s what this fast-track bill does.

From Trans-Tasman Resources in Taranaki, where the extraordinarily destructive seabed mining is scheduled to occur—the people have resisted for over a decade. The local community, the local iwi, and the fishing industry themselves have resisted, and non-Government organisations. It has been kicked back by the Supreme Court. It has been kicked back by every consideration body in the country.

The Tukituki water project, the Ruataniwha Dam—back from the dead—the zombie project that the people of the Hawke’s Bay stood up and resisted and opposed and that had no credibility; Bathurst coal extension on the West Coast of the South Island. The Waitaha Hydro Project, in the magnificent river of the West Coast of the South Island, was found to be so destructive and harmful for the environment that it was turned down and turned back. The significant impacts on the natural character of the area made it not worth it.

The OceanaGold project by Macraes in Otago, establishing a huge open-pit mine with a byproduct of cyanide tailings dams and a byproduct of arsenic contamination for generations to come—because goldmining leaves a legacy for decades, in fact centuries, after the Aussie goldminers have packed up and gone home. You could call this the “Aussie Mining Fast-track Bill”, because you think about Trans-Tasman Resources, you think about all these gold miners, you think about the Bathurst coalminers—what this really does for Aotearoa New Zealand is override the principle that we care about the environment here, and it overrides the principle that the local people should have a say as to what happens in their area.

And the poor people of Glenavy, in Waimate District, who overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to the waste incineration plant there—overwhelmingly—even the local council has expressed their opposition, and this Government approved the overseas sale. Minister Penk approved that, along with Minister Seymour, to be given to this company, which misled on what it was capable of doing, in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to landfill. It was absolute bunkum what they pitched.

Time and again in these projects, the Government has accepted the companies at their word and has permitted them into these projects without thorough evaluation. People throughout this country are lamenting today, and what a backwards step is represented by this fast-track legislation.

The Prime Minister wants to tell us that we should be supporting it because of the renewable energy projects, because of the housing projects. If this was a bill that sought to find a means to fast-track renewable energy projects or housing projects and took into account Te Tiriti o Waitangi and took into account the environment and the climate, the conversation would be very different. It would be a very different conversation, but this is an everything soup of whoever’s next mate wanted to have a crack at doing some project that had been sent to bed and put down and said no to decades ago, years ago.

This is a very sad day, and that Macraes, that OceanaGold in Waihī project—this is the Freddy the Frog killer project. This is the one that will impact Archey’s frog. Well, the people of this country are going to resist these projects in their areas, and we will stand with them in that resistance. We will stand with them, and the worst of these projects, as my colleague has said, shall be subject to re-evaluation in a new Government. We reserve the right to revoke and rescind the permits issued for them, because it is utterly inappropriate and undemocratic and unconstitutional the way that this fast-track bill is pushing through and forcing these projects through against the will and the interests of all New Zealanders.

I stand in support of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, a bill which says yes to jobs, yes to opportunities, yes to energy security, yes to building the roads that are needed to unlock economic growth and opportunity, yes to houses, and yes to making sure that this country can actually deliver the opportunities which keep our children here in New Zealand. On the other side of the House, we see the people who say “No, no, no” to all of those things, and the people of New Zealand will say no to them at the 2026 election.

We heard it again at question time today, where the Government tried to masquerade this fast-track legislation behind the merits of the earlier versions. We’ve had two prior versions of fast track. The first was the COVID response fast-track, and the second was embedded, on a permanent basis, through the Natural and Built Environment Act, which repealed the Resource Management Act and carried fast track for ever, but there are major differences between those forms of fast track and this one that is in this legislation. Some members have already covered it, but I’m going to reiterate what I think are the important differences.

The Opposition parties, including the Labour Party, have long acknowledged that there is a problem with excessive costs for consenting mid-size infrastructure, particularly—not so much the larger infrastructure, but the mid-size and smaller infrastructure projects in New Zealand.

Hon Simeon Brown: Why did you say no to the Waitaha dam?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost and delay of consenting has been excessive, and we in Government proved it through the Infrastructure Commission that we set up, and we remedied it, Mr Simeon Brown, through the legislation that we passed. More than 90 percent of the projects that went through that fast track were eventually consented. Less than 10 percent were declined, and they were declined for good reasons. That was achieved by focusing on the speed of the process, not by overriding the laws which govern the balance between development and environmental harm.

There was no need to override the Resource Management Act. We, in our version of fast track, consented wind farms, solar farms—the biggest solar farms ever to be built in New Zealand were consented under our fast track. We consented roads; we consented geothermal. In the next version, renewals of hydro were also able to be fast tracked, but not new hydro projects which for ever alter the environment of a river system that is dammed and inundated. We consented whole new towns. We consented thousands of building opportunities—high rise, some new subdivisions. We consented factories. I think, for Simeon Brown, he’ll also be aware that we consented roads. Not once did we have to override the Conservation Act or the Wildlife Act or the Resource Management Act or the historic places legislation, all of which are necessary.

Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, a former National Party Minister for the Environment, who has held the highest ever office of a New Zealander in an environmental role overseas in that he was head of the OECD environment division, came to the Environment Committee and said that this legislation is worse than the National Development Act—1979, I think it was—passed by Muldoon, and removed by the following Labour Government because it went too far.

He said that legislation had more checks and balances than this, because that legislation meant that you had, for a large project, a thorough process that people could participate in. The contentious issues could be critiqued, they could be worked through, and a consent was either approved or declined at the end of it. Under this legislation, there is no environmental test to speak of, because the rules in the Conservation Act can be overridden and the Wildlife Act and the historic places legislation and the Resource Management Act, and that means that the environmental outcomes can be worse.

What does this mean in practice? We’ve heard from other members that it means that things that couldn’t be consented under the old regime now will be. What are they? They are things that will make New Zealand a worse place to be in. They will extend the life and extent of coalmines. Do many people in this House think that’s a good idea that you should fast track more greenhouse gas emissions? The outgoing chair of the emissions agency, Rod Carr, said digging up more fossil fuels is a crime against humanity. Those are pretty strong words from the leader of our response on climate change, and he was right. That’s what this bill does. It enables more fossil fuel extraction.

Hon Simeon Brown: The ban on oil and gas has crashed the energy market.

Hon DAVID PARKER: While we hear Simeon Brown—look, he’s even worse on energy than he is on roads. This is the man that would double New Zealand’s electricity price by importing liquefied natural gas (LNG). That was his response to a dry year this year—a complete overreaction, just like we had with Nicola Willis on the ferries; head in the sand as to what are the long-term solutions to energy challenges, which involve backing up our intermittent renewables in a dry year. They do not involve importing LNG, which would double the price of electricity in a dry year.

Now, he’s learnt that since, because he shut up on that particular dumb idea that he took to the country just months ago, because he was so embarrassed when he actually saw the advice as to what would be the effect on electricity prices. Those sorts of projects, dumb though they are, could be fast tracked under this legislation.

What else can be overridden? Do you know, we haven’t got many rivers protected in New Zealand under water conservation orders, but every one of those water conservation orders is at risk now under this Government, because they would give themselves the right to override a water conservation order protecting an outstanding river, and they have to be an outstanding river to be protected in that way.

What’s going to happen to some of the council costs? Under our fast track, we didn’t override a plan. If a plan said you shouldn’t subdivide in that particular area, you had to go through a plan change. You couldn’t override it through a consent with the approval of a Minister saying, “Oh, we know better. We’re going to force those infrastructure costs upon a council by having an out-of-order subdivision over there, even though there are no libraries and pools and we’re going to have to put in more libraries and pools and there aren’t decent roads and there’s no public transport for people to use. We’re going to override that and we’re going to have a subdivision over there.” It’s quite unprincipled and wrong and unnecessary, as we proved with our version of fast track, because plenty of subdivision opportunities were created under that legislation.

This legislation is based on a false dichotomy. It says that you cannot have environmental protection and a clean environment. It’s just wrong. If you do it right, you can have both, but you don’t achieve that by having a development-only test in the legislation, enabling Ministers to override other legislation. You don’t achieve that if the only people who can appear as of right are the people who are the applicant and the adjoining landowner. Under our legislation, Business New Zealand could appear, but so could the Environmental Defence Society, and, as a consequence, important information would be put before a decision-making panel before that decision was made. None of that information can be guaranteed to be required now and there is no environmental voice that is required by this legislation.

I think the former Minister for the Environment the Hon Simon Upton was right when he said that, if you’re going to have these extraordinary override powers, you should reserve them for projects that are of a public benefit. Now, I agree with Chris Bishop that not all projects with a public benefit are necessarily owned by the Government or local government. I agree with that, but that’s not what he was saying; he was saying that if there’s a project for a public benefit, you should have these override powers on rare occasions. You do occasionally need them. Legislation already allows for them.

National direction that is meant to protect the environment already has very wide exemptions for infrastructure, so you can put a road where necessary through a wetland or through an area which is a bird habitat if that’s the only place that the road can go. There are already exceptions provided for that, similarly, in respect of other infrastructure. If the Government really thought we had a problem with being able to consent infrastructure under the existing regime, they should say “projects with a public benefit”, as opposed to a private benefit like a private subdivision or a mine—that you should reserve it for those public infrastructure projects rather than conferring these overrides of environmental legislation to the private sector. That’s what he thought. He didn’t like this legislation, but he said, “If you’re going to have those override powers, limit their application.”

The other thing is there are some projects that are just so big and contentious that the public will never be satisfied if there isn’t a process that allows their voice to be heard, and there are sometimes contentious projects that none the less ought to be consented. You’ll never settle down public disquiet if you exclude the people from the process, and that’s one of the things that the other fast-track thing didn’t do. It didn’t impose the will of Government in respect of those serious issues where there should be some public process prior to decisions being taken. This is far worse and different to the earlier versions of fast track.

It is great to be able to stand here for the third reading of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I’d like to start by saying thank you to the vast army of officials across the Public Service who have moved at pace over the last year or so to pull this together.

The genesis of this bill has been traversed by the Hon Shane Jones in moving the third reading of this bill. It comes from the desire of the New Zealand First Party to build upon the framework left by the Hon David Parker. I accept that he dislikes the comparison between the COVID-19 fast-track legislation, but it is true in the most obvious sense that the COVID-19 fast-track legislation is the building block for this legislation. It is more expansive, it is more ambitious, the tests are different, some of the machinery is different—that is true—but the framework, the architecture is similar.

New Zealand First came to us after the election and said, “We’ve campaigned on this thing called a one-stop shop fast track. How do you feel about it?” The National Party in coalition negotiations signed up to that. I was tasked, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and as infrastructure Minister, with shepherding it into law, alongside my friend and colleague the Hon Shane Jones. It has been a herculean task. It has been a mammoth undertaking, and a horde of officials from across the Public Service have worked on this: the Ministry for the Environment; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Department of Conservation; the Infrastructure Commission; Crown Law; and the Ministry for Primary Industries.

At one point, when we were having these late-evening meetings in my office, we had to go out and go to all the other offices on the sixth floor and pull together more chairs for the officials. Then it turned out there were more officials sitting on Zoom in the corner of the room overseeing everything on the TV screen. I have somewhat happy memories of those meetings. They were enjoyable meetings on one level, and there’s been an enormous amount of work from across the Public Service, pulling this together. I want to start by saying thank you.

It is trite to say, but I’ll say it anyway, that we have a problem in this country with how difficult it is to do things. I actually think there’s broad consensus around the Parliament across that—and that, at least, is progress, because, for quite a long time, that was denied. I actually think there’s broad consensus that it’s too hard to build houses, it’s too hard to build renewable energy, it’s too hard to get a mine consented, and it’s too hard to get a quarry consented in this country—and quarries are critical to the future of construction and infrastructure. It’s too hard to get roads done. It’s too hard to do almost anything. I actually think that the public understand that, and that’s why it’s critical that over the next two years and beyond, we nail resource management reform.

If you go back, the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 has been a wrecking ball through the New Zealand economy, and you can directly trace the onset of our housing affordability crisis to the RMA 1991. It actually goes all the way back to the Town and Country Planning Act, but it was supercharged by the RMA 1991. There’s a lot of extensive research about this now. Overly burdensome planning regulations have driven up the cost of land and driven up the cost of housing. You can trace our infrastructure cost overruns and blowouts—which actually is occurring under this Government and occurred under the last Government and the Government before that—to the RMA 1991 because of overly punitive conditions, overly litigious court processes, endless debate about the word “avoid”, endless hours and days and hundreds of millions of dollars spent in court debating singular words, and overly complex and elaborate tests that go all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond, to just build stuff.

The East-West Link project, which members will have different views about, has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond and is coming all the way back down again. It took 10 years to re-consent an existing geothermal power station that got built in the 1950s.

Hon David Parker: That’s decades ago, and their consent did not expire.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, it’s only 15 years ago. Anyway, I’m making a point about the consensus that is now there around difficulty.

Fast track is a way of cutting through this and it is needed more than ever before because today, HYEFU—the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—revealed just how parlous the state of this country’s economy is: anaemic levels of economic growth, a country that has been in recession, a country that is staring mountains and mountains of red ink in the face. Again, members will have a debate about who’s responsible for that, but can we at least acknowledge the reality, which is that so much of our problems as a country could be addressed through economic growth: better health, better education, a better standard of living, better wages, inequality.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Regulations for renewable energy. You could have spent 100 days on that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mrs Ngarewa-Packer is ranting away, as she always does, but just not listening to the facts, which is that so many issues that she purports to care about could be solved through economic growth. That is the missing gap in the New Zealand economic story over the last 20 years. That is why we are 30 percent poorer than Australia, because for 30 years we have grown, on average, at a lower rate than they have. Productivity is part of that, and the RMA feeds into that. Fast track is about getting going on these projects and building a pipeline of projects.

Can I deal with this public-private distinction? It was really good to hear the Hon David Parker make a point about that. My argument right through the ongoing debate last week about whether there were private benefits in this bill was that the whole debate was facile and actually ridiculous, because we live in a mixed economy. There are public and private electricity generators; there are private deliverers of infrastructure. Many of our airports are privately owned, or some combination of private and public ownership. In the case of mixed-ownership companies, they’re literally listed, and the Government owns 51 percent of them. The Wellington Electricity network is privately owned, for example; people think it’s owned by the council, but it’s not. It’s owned by a foreign company based out of Hong Kong, from memory.

The whole debate is facile, because what we are doing is recognising that, for infrastructure projects and projects of regional national significance, the ownership is, essentially, irrelevant to the question of the public benefit test. So, we are fast-tracking projects that have an ownership structure that is private. I was really disappointed to hear the defamatory remarks of Arena Williams during the debate on the committee stage—remarks, I note, that she has not been prepared to repeat outside Parliament, which I think says it all, and remarks that were grossly disorderly in the sense that she was casting about allegations that I think she will regret in time.

It is true that there are private development projects fast tracked through this bill, and the reason for doing so is because of the public benefits that they accrue to the country. We need more houses. Most houses in New Zealand are built by the private sector; they are not built by the Government. We need more renewable energy. Some projects will be built by Meridian, but others will be built by the private sector. We need more mines in this country. Now, we used to own a State-owned coalmining company; we don’t any more—didn’t work out that well. Most projects will be delivered by the private sector. We need more agriculture projects. We need more agriculture in this country, and there are a whole range of iwi projects involved in aquaculture, some of which are listed in the bill.

I point out again, as I did during the last debate, that in the COVID-19 fast-track piece of legislation, most of them were public projects, but a couple of them were private projects. We’ve had this debate in the past. Can I finally finish with the disgraceful comments from the Māori Party—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Te Pāti Māori.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —Te Pāti Māori—essentially, trying to make New Zealand into a banana republic. This idea that the Māori Party or Te Pāti Māori would—I mean, firstly, the idea they’d ever receive ministerial warrants is frankly fanciful, and we should all make sure that day never happens, because the idea of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer running anything in this Government fills me with dread. The idea that they will get into Government and cancel consents lawfully granted is, frankly, disgraceful, and I call upon the Labour Opposition to rule out such constitutional stupidity.

The member’s time has expired.

The Hon Shane Jones used his speech, on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, in this debate, to allege that I have dragged the name of Winton Land company through the muck, and so I would ask him and his ministerial colleagues in this last opportunity that they have before this bill passes to clarify for the House: how many millions will the Winton Land company make when this bill passes? What is the value of Winton’s land before these projects made their way on to the 149-project list, compared to later in this week when this bill becomes law? What is the value of the land when the New Zealand Transport Agency will be required to buy land for a road—land that was not valuable, rural land before this project was mooted, but the project has now been set down in legislation, and public money will go to buy that road—land which was not valuable before but is valuable now?

The Ministers who have alleged that those comments are defamatory owe the House an explanation about what is untrue; about the value of private benefit that is going to this company because of this legislation, not only from the value of uplifts of the options that they own on the land but also from the public purse, going straight into the hands of developers who only owned an option on this land and don’t in fact own the land at all. This is a disgrace. This is law that moves private benefit into private hands in a way which has never been done in New Zealand’s legislative process. It should be struck out at this stage.

Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s a constitutional embarrassment.

ARENA WILLIAMS: None of these amendments should be allowed. It is a constitutional embarrassment, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has said. This is not how we should be making law in New Zealand, and this is not something that we should ever tolerate again in this way.

The Government has used the legislative process to force private development through with none of the normal checks and balances to ensure the public’s interests are properly represented in this. People who live near these developments get to have a say, normally, in the way that these projects are rolled out, and I’ll speak more generally to this: the Government is trying, here, to change our planning laws for the better but this is not how other countries we like to compare ourselves to do these kinds of changes.

In the last 10 years, we’ve seen politicians and senior leaders take more accountability for the infrastructure projects that they are championing. Politicians in Australia, in the state of Victoria, getting out in front of their infrastructure projects, leading people along with them, winning the argument in people’s hearts, convincing people that these are important projects and they should happen. This goes in the face of that; this is the opposite to that. This is about ramming through pet projects that people cannot possibly have faith in because they’re a list of 149 projects that people don’t get a look at. Not only was there no public scrutiny in these but this is to the benefit of some developers over others.

I want to speak directly to supporters of the ACT Party, here: if you’re not on this list, you have lost out. This is not liberalising planning laws, this is not about red-zoning everything for development, this is not about allowing mining everywhere that it could be done; this is about allowing some projects at the expense of others. Small-business owners and medium-sized business owners are losing out because of these projects where someone has more access than those supporters do.

This recognises that there are limitations on the kinds of developments that we can do in New Zealand but has prioritised people with the most political access over everybody else who wants to make some money and do some public good. If the Government was serious about this, they would have given serious consideration to exactly those projects where land for roads, land for schools, is now seriously valuable to those people on this list, and money will be changing hands from the public purse directly to private benefit as well. Those projects, above all, should have been struck out.

I want to also say very briefly, since the Minister has thanked the public officials who have worked on this—they have done a huge and gargantuan task, and it must feel good to get that off the plate before Christmas—this bill tries to require the Public Service act in contravention of the Cabinet Manual, the Public Service Act, and their own procurement processes. We are telling Waka Kotaki and New Zealand Transport Agency officials that they must acquire land from a specific developer who has now benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for the project that they were going to do at a much cheaper rate. Shame—shame—on asking public servants to spend New Zealand public money on schools, on roads which they would not have to have done, and should not have had to have done. This is a disgrace.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill is a crucial step in unlocking New Zealand’s potential. Whether it’s housing or renewable energy or aquaculture, this bill aims to streamline the approval process for infrastructure and development projects which are of significant regional and national benefit. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Democracy takes time. We heard in the select committee process, from not one but many submitters, that democracy takes time. This legislation, as we have heard, as we have seen, as we continue to see just runs roughshod over our democracy. It does so many disservices to not only our democracy but to our environment, to our obligations and our responsibilities to Te Tiriti, to our engagement with local communities, right through to the court processes. We’ve heard already this afternoon, in this debate, about zombie projects—about projects that have been rejected, that suddenly, magically, who knows how, end up in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

Now, more than 27,000 people submitted on this piece of legislation. Not all of them had the opportunity to speak to their submissions to the Environment Committee, which is, again, a shame and a challenge to our democracy. I want to quote from one of our submitters who made a very poignant statement around our democracy and the importance of it—to ensure that as we move different laws and legislation through this House, we do right by people and we do right by our democracy. Ngā Rangahautira in their submission said, “Democracy is not exercised once every three years. A healthy democratic society allows for the frequent exercise of democratic rights when decisions are being made that affect the public, particularly in their own communities. This bill erases those opportunities for democratic consultation.”

That’s why this bill concerns me—because it’s not only running roughshod over lots of pieces of legislation and laws; but this comes into the very heart of democracy itself. Who is affected most when there is a new road, where there is a new energy project, when there is a new coalmine?

Joseph Mooney: How are commissioners making a decision better?

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

GLEN BENNETT: It is those people who are closest to it that are the most affected. I’m not sure why that’s funny—why we should laugh about the fact that those are affected, but they are. This piece of legislation is going to run roughshod over them. That is the challenge. In the previous fast-track legislation that the Hon David Parker had, there were checks and balances in place, and the environment, of course, was part—was part—of the purpose, so that had to be taken in consideration.

Now, I won’t be able to quote every single Act of Parliament that is actually being ignored or run over the top of, but I can name a few for you this afternoon. We’ve got the Crown Minerals Act 1991. We’ve got the Wildlife Act 1953. We’ve got the Reserves Act 1977. We’ve got the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. We’ve got the Fisheries Act 1996. We’ve got the Resource Management Act 1991. We’ve got the Conservation Act 1987. We’ve got the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983. We’ve got the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Of course, we’ve got the Public Works Act 1981, and then there’s the Treaty itself—yeah, there’s bits of it that it mentions in there, but it very much runs roughshod over that. Those are just some of the statutes that are being run over the top of in this space.

I am concerned that not only is it about the challenge to our democracy, not only is it a challenge to our environment, but it is a challenge to Te Tiriti itself. As a Te Tiriti partner, my responsibility is to stand up for the sake of my role and my responsibility as an ancestor who came here on the premise of what Te Tiriti offered to my people.

I continue on with another submission that was made. They said—and I quote—“By bypassing proper consultation processes and disregarding the protections guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it undermines the rights and interests of Māori and the conservation of sacred lands, including wāhi tapu in public conservation areas.” Now, that should alarm the House, the fact that a submitter has considered and looked, and as we talked of in terms of when we were in select committee and then through the committee of the whole House—the fact that this legislation, that this bill, I assume, unless those on the Government side want to cross the floor with us this afternoon and vote it down, has the potential to run roughshod over our responsibilities to our democracy, to Te Tiriti, but also to sacred spaces, but also to our urupās—

Joseph Mooney: Have you read the bill?

GLEN BENNETT: —to our wāhi tapu sites, to all those kind of spaces. Mr Mooney, I have read the bill. I’ve been on the committee for the past six months, so I know it very well and know the fact that you can—sorry, you do not need to in terms of there’s some responsibilities, but there’s some “mays”: they may have to do this; they may have to do that. We cannot support this bill. We are concerned.

I also want to raise—again, through our select committee process that we went through—another organisation’s submission, and that was from the Insurance Council of New Zealand. The Insurance Council of New Zealand, in their written submission, made it very clear that—and I quote—“it is paramount that the Bill does not inadvertently provide a pathway for projects which expose communities to excessive financial and physical risk[s] of natural hazards.” And this bill does.

They go on to talk about “Decision-makers should take a long term view that supports the broad availability of insurance by avoiding new development in high risk areas.” And what does this bill do? What do some of those 149 projects do? They are definitely spaces where we probably should not be building new houses and new subdivisions. They go on and talk about—this is the Insurance Council of New Zealand—the Auckland Anniversary weekend weather event, they talk about Cyclone Gabrielle and the challenge that they had with 110,000 claims from those two events, with an estimated cost of $3.75 billion.

Now, the reason I bring up that number in their submission is because the events that they spoke to us about highlight that we must have a stronger focus on our land use, the development. As we look at the climate change adaptation—the challenges that we have faced—we are going to be responsible for more and more of this kind of activity, where houses and where properties are built in places that they should never be built in the first place, but this fast-track bill allows for them not to consider some of those spaces and to move on and allow those terrible things to happen.

Our world is burning, and this Government is just throwing more fuel on that fire. Whether it’s this legislation, whether it’s the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and other legislation that they are trying to get through at pace, this is not good, not only for us today but for those into the future.

I want to reflect on what this means when we talk about zombie projects that have been brought back to life in this bill, when we talk about projects that the courts have rejected for the environmental challenges. My colleague and friend from Taranaki Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has also spoken about Trans-Tasman Resources and the challenge that there’s a private company in this bill and all they’re going to do is dig up and suck up all the sand off the bottom of our beautiful Taranaki ocean, and then the profits go over to Australia, where the company’s from, and they jeopardise the fact that offshore wind is viable. But no—no—let’s just throw them in the list. Let’s just make sure that they’re there so that they can—they’ve had their day in court, it hasn’t gone well, and now we just throw this zombie project back on the list. To me, it’s just despicable and terrible.

As has been said, there’s renewable energy projects in this bill, but it is just smoke and mirrors—it is just smoke and mirrors—in terms of what they are wanting to achieve.

In closing, I want to remember the 30,000-plus people that walked down Queen Street back in June, who walked to protest against this bill and what it was going to do—for the sake of nature, for the sake of our climate, and for the sake of democracy. We don’t want to be fossil fools on this side of the House. We want a fast track, not like the trash that they talk about on the other side of the House—nature doesn’t need a speeding ticket. The final thing I would like to say is one of those billboards on that march was “Make Aotearoa Green Again”.

Do you know what is truly despicable? It’s that members opposite talked about respecting Te Tiriti, but guess what! Last week, there was an Amendment Paper put forward to remove Mana Ahuriri from this bill. Mana Ahuriri, for those that don’t know, are a Napier post-Treaty settlement group who want to develop their ancestral land for affordable housing, a business park, recreational ground, historical education, and the members opposite wanted to remove it. How is that for progress? Look, at the end of the day, this bill is progress for everybody. That is what we are doing. With that, I commend this bill to the House.