Fast-track Approvals Bill

OK. So, members, we are back in committee stage for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, and the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I want to clarify a couple of things with you, Madam Chair, before we really get into this, and that is, of course, we’ve now had that ruling from the Speaker. Schedule 2 is in Part 1, so we will want to be discussing those projects, probably project by project, and we are also very interested in going through every clause of this bill. Now, of course, that Schedule 2, as we’ve just heard, has not gone to select committee. This is our only opportunity to scrutinise the projects contained in that, so we will want to spend some time going through it.

I do want to start on clause 3, before we get to the schedule, because clause 3 is the most important clause in this piece of legislation. It is the purpose clause, and why it’s so important is because of the mechanics of the rest of the bill, and particularly in the schedules further on that will be in the Part 2 debate. That is because when decision makers are making decisions on any approval, they have to give greatest weight to this purpose clause. It’s very important that we look at what the purpose clause says. That is that the “Act is to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.”

You will note that, unlike other resource management or conservation legislation, there is no reference to anything to do with the environment. There is no reference here to sustainable development. We know—we have the supplementary analysis—that, in fact, officials recommended that there should be such a reference. This goes to the heart of why we on this side thought that those private projects in Schedule 2 should have been ruled out, because this purpose is totally different from all the other environmental legislation and because this purpose has the greatest weight, that means that the projects listed get a benefit that normal applicants do not get. That benefit is to pollute, and it is a disgrace.

Now, my question to the Minister is if he will consider an amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 129, and that is that the purpose is amended and amended on a number of fronts, to read: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the delivery of public infrastructure, housing, or aquaculture with significant regional or national benefits while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources for current and future generations.” That change to the purpose does a number of things, and it was reflected in a number of submissions from people who think a lot about resource management and environmental legislation, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Rt Hon Simon Upton; such as the Environmental Defence Society; and many others.

That is to not only include that reference to sustainable management that would solve lots of the problems I’ve just addressed but also to constrain this fast-track bill to projects that are going to be helpful to the public: public infrastructure, also housing. We acknowledge that there are housing issues in New Zealand—nobody has an issue with that.

Hon Shane Jones: Well, what did you do about it?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m being asked what the previous Government did about housing. Of course, one of the things was a Spatial Planning Act that this Government repealed a year ago.

Hon Shane Jones: Kāinga Ora’s gone broke.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Medium density: something that the National Party agreed to and then reneged on.

The Minister heckling will be interested to know that I’ve also included aquaculture in here. There seems to be a lot of want for aquaculture, but, of course, I’m very open to other amendments where that may or may not be included. The point is that, for something to benefit from this bill, it should be in the public’s interest. There should be a public policy reason for doing it and it should not be for the private profit of individual companies being allowed to pollute.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. The first one is to clarify a recent change to committee stage rules that allowed for an Associate Minister who isn’t sitting at the Table to sit near the Table and make themselves available for questions. The question I have is: is the Hon Shane Jones—albeit in his normal seat—given his responsibility relevant to this bill, here in the committee available to answer questions? If he is, then he should not be allowed to heckle as the Minister in the chair isn’t allowed to heckle, otherwise they’re having a bob each way. I’ll come back to my second question if you wouldn’t mind responding to that.

OK. Thank you. Could we just clarify if Minister Jones is here in fact to answer questions?

No.

The answer I had is no, he’s not here to answer questions.

OK. Further to the point of order.

Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll tag team it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, you’re going to—

Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll tag team it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’re going to tag—

Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll alternate in and out.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’ll be sitting here when he answers questions?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, that raises claim to the rule that says you can’t change seats in order to heckle. If they’re going to be tag teaming in and out, then surely there must be a restriction.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I think it really is inappropriate if there’s a Minister who’s going to be sitting in this chair who will be heckling from the sidelines too, so that’s fair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The second question is much more substantial. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Can we have the point of order in silence, please.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: We’ve just had a ruling from the Speaker that is unprecedented. That was established, and I’m not doing a point of order to challenge that. There are other avenues in which for us to talk to the Speaker about that. However, by virtue of being unprecedented, we haven’t had it before, and so we don’t know what this means in terms of how the House runs. At the end of his ruling, the Speaker—this is the only point I’m going to focus on at this moment—indicated that due to the nature of this amendment and the nature of his unprecedented ruling, the House can expect an extended and broad-ranging debate on this matter. Now, we don’t have other rulings to rely on to give us clarity here, so I think it would be in the committee’s interest for you to clarify how that is going to be applied in practice during the remainder of this committee stage debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, in practice, if the questions that are being asked refer to parts of the bill and are not repetitive and asking genuine questions, not repetitive and exactly the same as any other committee stage, then there is the ability to ask those questions.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Further to this point of order. Exactly the same as any other committee stage doesn’t really sound consistent to me with—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, speaking to the member’s point of order, we’re under urgency, which is a feature in itself—that when we don’t have a select committee, we have the ability to ask more questions—

Hon Chris Bishop: This was at committee for six months.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —but it’s under urgency right now, and so we—yeah, sorry, it was at a select committee.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Not the schedule, though, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But the schedule has not been at select committee.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And that’s what the Speaker was ruling on.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The bill itself has been at select committee but the schedule has not been at select committee. All I’m saying to you is that if the questions are relevant and not repetitive and specific to the bill, then I welcome your questions.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: With the utmost respect, my only concern with that is that is no different to any other committee stage, and when the Speaker does a ruling of that nature and gives the House an undertaking that there will be a broad and ranging debate on the schedule—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On the schedule.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, I accept that. That’s my only point: it is on the schedule, which hasn’t been to select committee, and in the context of that, I was hoping for an undertaking from you for clarity to the committee how that would be applied. You’ve given that, but it is no different to how it would be applied in any other committee stage, and that, to me, seems an inconsistency.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. The answer to that is that it still cannot be repetitive but it was a warning to the Government that the committee stage would be longer than usual.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to deal with the couple of remarks made by the Hon Rachel Brooking. Firstly, on the purpose clause, clause 3: no, the Government won’t be adopting her amendment, for the simple reason that we are comfortable with the purpose clause as described, because it does what it says on the tin: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.” That is literally the reason why the fast-track bill is before Parliament and why the Government is attempting to pass it. We are comfortable with the purpose clause, and we won’t be amending it.

On the broader issue about the alleged difference between public infrastructure and private, the Opposition seems to be of the view that everything private: bad; everything public: good. As I pointed out in my remarks in the debate that we’ve just had, that ignores the fact that much infrastructure in New Zealand is privately owned—for example, wind farms and hydro stations up and down this country that are owned by Contact Energy, a private company. It can’t be the case that something is OK because it happens to be 51 percent owned by the Government and listed on the stock exchange, and not OK when it happens to be privately owned by a group of investors across New Zealand and Australia.

I would also point the committee to private housing developments. Now, Rachel Brooking makes the point that we need more housing. Well, most housing in New Zealand is not built by councils or the Government. If it was, we would be in some significant trouble. Most housing in New Zealand is built by the private sector. Do they do it for profit? Yes. Do they do it to make money? Yes. Do they do it to provide houses for people? Yes. Are there public benefits from the provision of widely accessible, affordable housing? Yes, of course there are, but the capital deployed to build that housing is not public capital. If the solution was Kāinga Ora, then we would have no housing crisis any more, because under the last Government, they had billions upon billions upon billions of debt given to them, or allowed to borrow, and billions of dollars of operating subsidies, and the public housing waiting list quadrupled. It can’t be the case that the solution is always public.

Here’s the reality that seems to have escaped the Labour Opposition: we live in a mixed economy. We live in an economy where public and private capital is deployed to create jobs and growth. Clearly, the Government has a really important role in doing that; equally, so does the private sector. The projects listed in this bill, and indeed the whole purpose of this bill, is to utilise public and private capital and reduce the red tape that allows that capital to build the type of prosperous New Zealand I think everyone in this House supports. There are public projects on this list. The New Zealand Transport Agency is listed on a range of the roads of national significance projects. There are council projects, which are clearly public in nature because they are council projects. There are private sector projects led here, but the point I’m making is that it is wrong to try and create a false distinction between the ownership of an entity doing a particular thing and separate that off from the benefits that accrue.

Meridian Energy is publicly owned but creates benefits across the economy. Contact Energy is privately owned but creates benefits across the company. Lines companies in the electricity sector have a variety of ownership structures—Vector has some. Wellington Electricity is a privately owned company; most Wellingtonians probably think it’s owned by the council—it’s not, thank God. It is in fact owned by a private, foreign-owned company, and they deploy their capital and provide electricity to Wellingtonians.

We live in a mixed economy is my point, and just the ownership of a particular entity is irrelevant to the issue of benefits that accrue to the economy in a regional and national way, whether or not they’re jobs, whether or not they’re growth. That is why the Government took the position we did on the Amendment Paper. That is why we’re listing the projects in the first place. This false dichotomy that the Opposition seeks to draw between public and private benefit, as I’ve demonstrated through repeated examples, breaks down when you actually apply your mind for more than five seconds to the issue at hand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we do need to go through a number of the examples that are listed in the schedule in Part 1 of this bill, to see that we on the Opposition are not talking about false dichotomies; we understand the complexity of the interaction between public and private benefits. But what we have with some of the examples is actually the head-on collision of private benefit and why this bill did need to be examined in more detail around where those private benefits were accruing.

I want to talk about the Trans-Tasman Resources application that is listed in the schedule. There’s, of course, some potted history that some members of this House know very well—the history of this claim. It had been overturned by the High Court, had gone to the Supreme Court, and it had not been allowed. What we have is a listing of that project in the schedule of the bill. Sitting alongside that is that we have another form of private benefit leaving New Zealand, taking their capital in the form of an offshore wind development company, citing the inclusion in the schedule of this bill as one of the reasons why they are withdrawing their investment in New Zealand and taking it to jurisdictions where it is more welcome.

For the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to stand up and say that we just don’t see that there’s any place for private investment is naive; of course we do. We understand that private investment in infrastructure is absolutely necessary. The contention we have with this bill is the fact that we have such clear accrual of private benefit through the schedule, and sometimes meaning that they can leapfrog other private benefits—other people seeking to invest capital that will have public good for New Zealand in the form of more energy and electricity generation in the form of offshore wind. The Minister needs to actually grapple with the concepts that we’re talking about here, engage with them in a mature way, rather than just dismissive headlines that we saw in that last contribution, which, although I’m giving a very specific contribution in this call, I will note how broad the Minister just took the debate in that one contribution that he gave—an already broad stage of this bill got even broader with that Minister’s contribution.

The Minister has to explain to the committee why it is appropriate that we are here under urgency, legislating for the private benefit of a single entity that have been denied by the courts, over and above another form of private investment in the form of offshore wind, which has explicitly cited the inclusion of Trans-Tasman Resources’ application in this bill as a reason why they’re withdrawing their capital.

Now, one of the things that we’re making very explicit—and my colleague Rachel Brooking was at pains in her contribution, and always is at pains to emphasise—is that, obviously, in the Labour Party, we are not opposed to a process to expedite projects that we need to: infrastructure, housing. We put one in place when were in Government and we did it for a very good reason. We saw housing developments occur. We saw renewable energy projects go through. We saw a number of good infrastructure projects be progressed. But there is a fundamental difference with the bill that is on the Table today, which is contained in the purpose statement, and it is one of the most fundamental unbalancing of how we think about our environment and our economy in New Zealand in decades. I think we need to be very clear on what we’re doing there. We saw the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment say that this goes further than the notorious National Development Act 1979 in terms of that great unbalancing.

I would encourage the Minister in the chair to explain to this committee why it is that it is appropriate for this committee to be legislating and giving the regulation-making process, under 61B, which gives the power to grant exemptions from the Act—why it is, in Schedule 2, that Trans-Tasman Resources is listed. He can’t say it’s because we just don’t like any private benefit, because what we’re asking is: what about other private investors who are seeking to bring their capital to this country to invest in important infrastructure like offshore wind but have been driven out, in no small part, by the inclusion of a project that has been overturned in the courts time and time and time again? That is an example that we do need an explanation on.

Hon Member: Point of order. [Interruption]

Point of order over here from—[Interruption] Are we sure?

Hon David Parker: He wasn’t even calling.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He did call. Someone over here called a point of order, I believe it was—thank you. The Hon David Parker.

In regard to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop’s comments about public or private, can I refer him to the first listed project from the Amuri Irrigation Company, which is an application that’s described as being “to construct and operate a ring dam providing approximately 10 million cubic metres of water storage and to divert approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of water from the Hurunui River.” I don’t know how often—what the period is on that, whether that’s over a year or whether it’s per month, or per week, but how can the Minister justify that sort of application being included in Schedule 2, given that the provisions of the Act deliberately exclude the participation of any environmental interest?

I would have thought that the Minister, even if he wanted to push through developments, would want to hear an environmental perspective in respect of an application to store 10 million cubic metres of water, diverting 1.5 million cubic metres of water from the Hurunui River, given that that must, surely, have an environmental effect. Why is it that unlike the earlier version of fast track, where there were some listed environmental groups who could make a written submission to the decision-making panel, such as the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Greenpeace—Greenpeace didn’t actually often choose to do it, but EDS often did.

Steve Abel: We did.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Greenpeace did, often, thank you. How can the Minister justify that—that there is no environmental voice being listened to—whereas the development interests of the applicant in line with the purpose of the legislation is given such weight?

Secondly, in respect of that, am I correct in my understanding that even if that was found by the council to be in breach or found by people looking at the application to be in breach of the regional or district plan—either of them—does the panel have the right to override the plan and give them a consent anyway, notwithstanding the provisions of the Resource Management Act which are intended to protect the river ecosystem, and, if so, how can the Minister justify that, and how can he further justify that without an environmental lobby group having the ability to even make a written submission?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just briefly clarifying the comment made by the Hon David Parker: you’re right that Greenpeace did not commonly—

Hon Scott Simpson: Never.

STEVE ABEL: No, there’s not never. In fact, we’re part of Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine in opposing one of the projects on the fast track—that ended up going to court, but it was not often. That’s an important point to make—that, in fact, there is a challenge with the onerous burden of putting on a non-governmental organisation the expectation that they can scrutinise a multitude of applications. In the case of Greenpeace, which is the biggest environmental NGO in the country, it was even a challenge for the capacity of that organisation to take on that responsibility. There was only one primary piece of that fast track in the previous iteration challenged.

Now, I wanted to speak to the purpose clause, as Rachel Brooking had raised earlier on, and to the point of why is it so much of a revulsion, should we say, for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider the environment as part of that purpose clause? As the Hon David Parker rightly pointed out—he should know; he drafted the legislation—the previous version said that significant regional and national benefits “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” There is a very useful and important qualification to it simply being about things that are in the national interest, projects of regional and national significance.

The environment is the foundation upon which all of our endeavours are built. It is indeed the basis of life on earth—and I’m not trying to be dramatic about that; it is a scientific fact—and we came into existence through the thriving means of environmental ecological activity. Indeed, if we compromise it in such a manner as it is unable to provide us with those necessities of life, it is certainly not in the national or the regional interest—such as clean water, such as a stable atmosphere, such as fertile land, such as a healthy marine coastal environment. All of these things are serious and vital considerations, foundational considerations, in this century, in this era, when we know just how much harm we are capable of doing in the Anthropocene to that foundational cause of our existence—indeed, all our endeavours and activities as a species on this planet.

We have, in Part 1, clause 3, a very simple amendment that comes under my name. After “regional or national benefits”, page 6, line 11, it inserts “, in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.”—in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.

Now, why is that important? Because, in the words of the other interested Minister, Shane Jones, we have far-ranging projects here, across a multitude of regions, across a multitude of activities, across the country. It is important that we have some basic principles of environmental protection upheld and considered, as well as democratic processes, because, as in the case of the Waimate waste incinerator—and I just speak to that as an example—this is an instance where you have a community that has roundly expressed their opposition to this project. The local council has expressed opposition. Even the local member of Parliament has expressed opposition. On every count, if this project is to have any licence at a public level, at a democratic level, it should have to take into account the feeling at that local level.

Under the current iteration of the purpose of the bill, there would be no requirement, there would be no hint of a requirement, under principles of democratic participation for those making determinations on a given project—[Time expired] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel. It would be helpful if members that were speaking to amendments tonight would actually quote the number of the amendment, because there’s quite a number of them.

STEVE ABEL: It’s Amendment Paper 148; thank you, Madam Chair. It’s vital, in terms of any show of respect to principles of democratic participation, that those people in the region where the project is going to occur should have some right to have a say—by whatever means. There is an exclusion already, in the fast-track legislation, of public participation. The public will not be allowed to make submissions, but there must be a taking into account of that. That is what this amendment would facilitate. That after “regional or national benefits”, the Minister inserts the wording “, in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.”

This also clarifies that those pieces of legislation, or those processes under the existing Resource Management Act which set in place the conditions on which any project should proceed, are going to have a framework for their being applied to any given consent given through the fast track. The framework is facilitated by recognition of existing environmental protections, thereby a determining panel can search out the precedents set in previous consents by existing protections.

This is the sort of simple and principled amendment to the actual purpose of the bill, which takes us some little way towards making this a piece of legislation that is not merely a wrecking ball through the environment, an utter disregard for everything that has been established over the preceding decades in terms of our attitude towards protection of the environment, an utter disregard for all pieces of legislation that pertain to the environment. You are going to rule them out through this legislation, but this simple clause would allow there to be some recognition and some acknowledgment that existing environmental protections and democratic processes matter. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I’d just take the time to respond to a few of the questions and comments raised so far.

In terms of the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ comments around Trans-Tasman Resources, perhaps if I answer that particular project in the way that I’ll answer all of them, which is that the Government ran a robust process in order to select projects—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Your mates.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —for inclusion in the bill. You need to be careful about making comments like that, Ms Brooking. It’s the second Labour Party MP this week in Parliament to say scurrilous things.

Ministers deliberately insulated themselves from the advisory group process and we set up an advisory group made up of experts who then facilitated a process with the Ministry for the Environment to have a look at projects. It’s fair to say, we were inundated with applications—too many, if anything. There are even now people who are upset that they’re not listed in the fast track, which I think speaks to the wider issue about the stultification of our economy through red and green tape, but that’s why we’re here, for the fast track. The Trans-Tasman Resources project, like all of them that were listed in the schedule, were recommended by the panel and therefore it will go into the bill.

The second point to make is a really important one, which is the bill, as introduced, essentially expedited the granting of consents and allowed the troika, as we became known for some time—myself, the Hon Shane Jones, and Simeon Brown—to, essentially, decide the consents. It’s fair to say that that was a bold call. That was pushing the boat out, so to speak, through the hydro dam. The Government decided, after listening to comments, including from the Opposition and others in civil society, that instead we would revert back to a model similar to the Labour Government’s COVID19 fast track, where the panels made the decisions.

This bill does not grant consent for projects and there has been this constant call from some that sort of fast track is automatic consent. It doesn’t do that. In relation to the 149 listed projects, it will allow those project sponsors to apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for referral to the expert panels and it sets up a more generic pathway for other projects and other project sponsors to apply. It doesn’t grant consent.

In response to the Hon David Parker’s issues, there is the ability for environmental NGOs to be involved. I’m advised that the Minister may direct parties to be consulted. The panel has discretion to invite people. In response to some of his points around conservation, it is true in the bill that relevant statutory bodies can be invited to comment on conservation appeals—for example, New Zealand Fish & Game Council, conservation boards, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and the New Zealand Game Animal Council.

In response to Mr Abel’s point around the Waimate waste-to-energy project, he seems very worked up that the local council is opposed to it. Well, the local council, as per the bill, must be invited to comment on the bill. This idea that’s sort of been put about that there is no ability for anyone to be involved and there’s no ability for the council, no ability for the public is just not accurate. It is true that there are fewer participation rights and less ability than in the past as per the Resource Management Act, for example, but that is precisely the point. That is one of the purposes of the bill. That is why the bill has been drafted the way it is. Members can oppose that, but the Government stands firm in our proposition that this will make it easier to build things.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, I just say at this stage, I’ve been listening to the debate from the start. I say this every time we come into this, but if members are prepared to ask questions and the Minister answers them, then I’m happy to stick with a line of questioning and then move to someone else. You also heard the Speaker say there’s going to be plenty of time in this debate. Everyone will get that opportunity, I can assure you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take you up on that kind offer, sir, and see if the Minister is of a mind to follow that approach as well. I am still on clause 3, the purpose clause, and that is because the Minister has rejected my Amendment Paper 129 and gave some speeches about the imaginary difference between private and public projects in his mind.

My question to that point is: does he consider that that whole point would be fixed—any distinctions wouldn’t have to be made—if, of course, there was no Schedule 2 and no listed projects, as suggested by the Hon David Parker in the debate at the outset about whether or not the amendment bill should be set aside or not?

Well, of course that is true, but the Government wants there to be a schedule. That’s why we’ve moved the schedule and that’s why we’ve listed the projects. Of course, that point is true, but it doesn’t take you very far, because we don’t agree with that proposition.

Thank you. Still on the purpose clause, has the Minister considered the submissions of Straterra and the advice of officials that there should be in a clause, a subclause, referring to the environment—in my amendment, I’ve called it “sustainable management”; it could be something else—and the submission that without such a reference and because of the mechanisms of the Act that I’ve already talked about, that this will enable cowboys?

Well, “cowboys” is a pejorative term; so, no, I don’t accept that. I’m not even sure what the member means by that.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: The member calls them friends.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: So, no. Well, again, you know that former Minister needs to be careful about the language she uses around that.

As I’ve already said, we’re sort of re-litigating the point around the purpose clause. It’s not our intention to add a reference to sustainable management, as the member suggests, to the purpose clause. We’re comfortable with the purpose clause as it is because it does what it says on the tin, which is to “facilitate the delivery of … projects [of] significant regional [and] national [significance].”

It’s not to say that the environment is not important—it is important—and there’s a variety of mechanisms that are scattered throughout the bill in order to give effect to environmental considerations; make sure that the conditions upon which the projects we are talking about will be done in an environmentally friendly way, or at least a way that takes account of the environmental effects of particular projects. That would vary, obviously, depending on the particular project being talked about, but the Government has worked hard to make sure that all of those considerations are factored into the decision-making process throughout the bill.

Of course, what the Minister just talked about I will want to ask questions on when we get to Part 2 and, particularly, the schedules, where I very strongly disagree with the Minister when he says that there are environmental protections there when this purpose is given the greatest weight.

Now, I have a further question for the Minister to consider, and then I’ll be done on this particular point. We’ve heard a lot from the Prime Minister—and we heard it in question time again—that the Opposition should be supporting this bill because it’s going to be good for climate change, because it’s going to enable renewable generation, and, of course, he then doesn’t mention any of the other projects. Given that great commitment to renewable energy generation and given the difficulties that the Minister has referred to already about the ownership models of many of our generators—some Government-owned, some part Government-owned, some private-owned, some council-owned—would he consider putting in a specific reference just to fast tracking renewable electricity generation, rather than specifically naming them project by project, and being clear about that in the purpose clause?

No. The projects listed in the schedule are renewable projects. There’s a whole mixture of solar; from memory, there’s some wind; and there’s a whole variety of different projects which are really, really important. Without relitigating the point, we’ve an energy shortage in this country, and anyone who knows anything about the energy industry will tell you that one of the reasons why it’s so difficult to fill that gap, or that shortage, is resource consenting. It takes for ever to get consents.

That’s not to say, by the way, that renewable projects are in and of themselves extremely popular. For example, there are plenty of people up and down the country who are opposed to solar farms, including the Environmental Defence Society, which used as a paradigmatic example of why this bill was, apparently, a bad idea that it might fast track a solar development down South. There are plenty of developments over the years, without relitigating all of them, that members in this House—including two former energy Ministers who are in the House—know have been held up for years, and they’re renewable. Actually, in a funny sort of way, for quite a long time it was probably easier to get a consent for a coal-fired power station or a gas station than it has been for wind farms—or geothermal, in particular, which is one that has really struggled to get consent.

Anyway, without relitigating the point, the answer is, no, we’re not going to do that. One of the reasons why we’re trying to get on the fast track is to get these projects away so we can get on and fill this energy shortage.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. A question for the Minister in the chair: he said one of the problems that New Zealand’s energy sector faces that this bill is seeking to rectify is the fact that it takes so long to get a consent for a renewable energy project. Could the Minister, please, tell the committee how many megawatts of consented but unbuilt renewable energy projects there are in New Zealand?

Well, it’s nothing to do with the bill, but I’m happy to answer it. As the member Megan Woods knows, there are thousands of megawatts that are consented but unbuilt, but, as she and I have had discussions about before, (a) some of those projects will likely never be built, because they’re not economic in the current form they are in, or the consents have expired or they are very old conditions—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, they’re currently consented.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: They are currently consented, but just because something is consented, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it gets built. The point is—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, but it’s not the consent that’s the problem.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, but as I’ve just said, the conditions on the consent may render the project so uneconomic that it may never be built. The point is you need a massive pipeline of thousands of megawatts of consented pathways into the future. It is impossible to build that pipeline under our current Resource Management Act (RMA) settings.

It’s not just me who thinks this, by the way. In fact, under the previous Government, the Infrastructure Commission commissioned a report, done by Sense Partners, from memory—I think it was 2022—which makes the point that under our current environmental resource consent settings, it is impossible to meet the electrification pathway that we could otherwise be on as a country, in which we transform the economy through mass electrification of industrial heat and transport and all of the things that we all want to do in this Parliament. It is impossible to do that with the current RMA. There is widespread consensus around that. The answer is to fix the RMA. I agree with you; fast-track is an important part of that. It’s not the only answer, but it’s an important part of that.

Of course, the Labour Party fully acknowledges the importance of having renewable electricity projects in fast-track legislation. In fact, I think we put through our fast-track legislation more than the equivalent of two Clyde Dams’ worth of renewable energy projects. My question for the Minister in the chair is: how many of the consented but not built renewable energy projects fall under the umbrella of “unlikely to be built”?

We fully acknowledge the need to have a large pipeline of projects that come through and to be continually filling up that pipeline. That is exactly why we set up our COVID fast-track legislation to be able to do that. But it is possible, as we demonstrated, to not completely ignore the environment when you’re doing this—to have proper environmental protections in there. The Minister is claiming that one of the reasons we need to do this is to keep filling the pipeline, because there are so many consents that are there that can’t be built, because they may be out of date, or whatever—what is the number of that? What is the problem that he is working to rectify?

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s been some time since I’ve been seeking to take a call on this, and I want to speak to the purpose clause. As we’ve discussed earlier, we have had an unprecedented decision here, with the Clerk’s Office and the Chair previously ruling the Government’s Amendment Paper out of order, and then it was back in order.

What we have here is a clause in Part 1 that certainly is presenting some problems and some challenges to us, as we’ve heard, and I think can do with some improvement. I think I have a solution for the Minister because we do want to give assurance to the community that if we are going to have to live with this dog-awful legislation, we can at least make some improvements to it and make it something that will deliver some benefit to the communities.

I’ll refer back to the Minister’s claim that the Waimate incineration plant, the council which opposes it can simply be invited to discuss this with the fast-track committee. In fact, the council, iwi, the school, and the local community have asked it to be removed from the fast-track legislation because this is clearly a case of direct private benefits in a public bill. The council recognises that and they want it taken out; so do iwi. This is just one example—one example—and there are so, so many more examples.

I have an amendment, Amendment Paper 146, which proposes that “In clause 3, after ‘delivery of’ (page 6, line 10), insert ‘public’.” This Amendment Paper amends the Fast-track Approvals Bill to ensure that only public infrastructure that has a public good—not private development—is included in the purpose of the bill.

It’s like a “get out of jail free” card for the Minister. Instead of brassing off regional Aotearoa, rural communities; instead of dumping waste to toxin plants in out-of-the-way places; instead of digging up our natural resources, our coal, our parks, our conservation estate, the Minister could look to the public benefit. And this is what this amendment proposes.

It’s a really simple amendment, but it gives the Minister a “get out of jail free” card. I’d invite the Minister to consider it and make some hay with this. Let’s at least improve what is a really awful bill with something good to make sure that we get some public benefit out of this. Certainly I do want to see more State control in renewable electricity generation and I do want to see more State control of our assets like bridges and like ports. I want to see public good. I want to see them delivering for our communities.

This gives us the opportunity, and it gives the Minister the opportunity that he wants the same thing. It gives the Minister a way of saying, “I’m not just here to provide for my donors or the private interest; I’m here to provide for the community.”, and that’s the invitation that I’d put to the Minister. There is a really clear amendment here. It is Amendment Paper 146 and it asks the Minister to insert “public” in clause 3 after “delivery of” to ensure that we are building public benefit infrastructure that has a public good, not private development—and it’s public infrastructure. I’d like the Minister to respond. Thank you.

Well, firstly, I’ve given about 10 minutes about the illusory distinction between public and private. The member should have listened, so I don’t intend to relitigate that, because I’ve dealt with that issue at length.

Secondly, I won’t repeat what the member said in his speech, but it is against the Standing Orders to imply, directly or otherwise, that a member is doing something influenced by donors or other outside interests. I know the member is new, but he shouldn’t do that, and I take offence at that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, also, I remind the Minister in the chair that that’s a job for the Chair, and was noting that—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s a good point, sir. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Sorry, my apologies.

The Hon—

Duncan Webb, mate!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —Duncan Webb. And it’s only 9 o’clock!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kia ora. I’m interested that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform chose to stand up and make that statement, given that the media is full on with statements about donors in this bill. It’s in the public domain. I’ve spoken about it in this Chamber before, and so we should. But I have two questions—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just warn members to be very careful about going towards individuals—it is where you will start to get some kickback from the Chair.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Unrelated to that point—not for the Minister to tell us what our debates are—is two distinct points. One is: do we know who the people on this fast-track list are, and, in particular, who the ultimate owners of the private entities are? There are three ways in which I’d like to know this. I’d really like to know that the Government has done its due diligence and know who actually owns these projects. Firstly, there are a number of limited companies, and that’s really normal; nothing concerning about that, in and of itself. What I want to know is: has the Government gone through and tracked back to find out who the owners are, to make sure that there’s transparency there?

Which brings me to my second point. There are numerous limited partnerships on this fast-track list—Beachlands South Ltd Partnership, to name one; Blackmans Creek Holdings Ltd No. 1 Limited Partnership. Now, one of the troubling aspects of limited partnerships in New Zealand is that general partners are secret—that there is no public register of the general partners in an unlimited partnership. What I want to know is: in respect of each of the limited partnerships there, has the Government required transparency so that we know who is actually getting on the list? Who are the parties not only who, on this side of the committee, we argue, are getting a private benefit from this legislation, but also who are expected to complete this project—whatever it may be—in a responsible and compliant manner? That’s just good due diligence.

I also note there’s one there in respect of a development in Rangiora, a residential development of 780 dwellings, and it’s just Ben Dormer. Now, it may be that Ben Dormer is actually the person, but he’s listed as an authorised person, and it’s not clear to me—and the Minister may be able to clarify—whether that means he is the owner of the development itself; I mean the owner, in law, of the property. That’s my first point: transparency.

The second point, which is quite distinct and it occurred to me as the Hon David Parker spoke, is that this bill has a number of projects in the South Island. I’ve read it before, and I was reading again the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act goes through and recognises grievances and sets out protections. Two struck me, in particular. It lists significant rivers—rivers of significance; that is to say rivers of significance to Ngāi Tahu, and te Hurunui River is one of them. The other thing it does—and it does many, many more things, but just by way of example—it identifies taonga species; species which are at risk and are of special value to Ngāi Tahu. In respect of both of those things, as part of their settlement, Ngāi Tahu were given particular rights to be consulted in things like these projects. Now, I can understand the Minister might say, “Well, we are still able to do that.”, but the contract in the settlement bill was that you’re obliged to do it.

My question is this: whether it is consistent with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill, not only with its words but also with the good-faith obligation of the Crown to now not be obliged to consult on rivers of significance and on the impact on taonga species. I’d really appreciate it if you could answer those two themed questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some very specific questions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, so I’ll just wait till he’s finished his advice. Thank you.

You’re welcome to wait while the Minister is listening.

LAN PHAM: Thank you. Thank you for allowing us to step very carefully and deliberately through the bill, because that is of utmost importance. I’m going to get really specifically to my amendment, which is Amendment Paper 147. I want to ask the Minister and hear from the Minister about where environmental outcomes actually sit within the purpose clause of the bill. It’s a really genuine question, because this amendment proposes that after regional or national benefits—and this is page 6, line 11 of the bill—we actually insert a part of the clause that says, “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”

I’m interested in the Minister’s consideration of this, because this is not a high bar. This is not talking about explicit protection of all environments everywhere. We’ve seen that with the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’ve seen that the evidence, time and time again, in every domain report that the Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand are putting out across air, ocean, fresh water, biodiversity, is that our environment is in decline. That is an undisputable fact, so why is it seen as such an unimaginable thing that we have a very basic reference to the natural environment in the purpose clause, again, given the RMA has still been enabling development and, essentially, the decline of the environment? Is it that the Minister has such a low expectation of the operations of these companies and the activities that they will carry out, if ultimately approved under fast track, that he thinks that they cannot meet very basic bars of environmental enhancement, of environmental protection of some form within their development?

I wanted to vocalise one of the submissions that we heard at the Environment Committee. It was from a housing developer in Selwyn who had been working over many years very closely with Ngāi Tahu and the Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury to get houses built very efficiently and effectively in Selwyn while not destroying the environment. He talked about how it’s been really simple. It’s been good processes. What is wrong with having a very basic reference in the purpose clause that actually does, in some very basic way, provide for environmental considerations?

I’ll just deal with Dr Duncan Webb’s issues. I’m advised that the legislation does not override the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, so the Treaty obligations as per that Act remain extant. In relation to his—I found it a somewhat confusing point, but I think he is, basically, making a point around how do we know who the people are. I’m advised by the officials that all of the companies or people listed in Schedule 2 are either the owner of the project or have an access arrangement for it, so then it deals with his point.

The more substantive contribution was made by Lan Pham. I won’t relitigate what I’ve said; the Government is not going to change the purpose clause, for the reasons that I’ve already given. I was intrigued by her remarks that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is an enabling piece of legislation. That was the view when it was passed in 1991. I think, actually—and I don’t think I’m going too far as to say this—the RMA has been one of the biggest public policy failures in New Zealand history, because the RMA is almost directly responsible for the fact that over the last 20 years we have had the fastest house price growth in the OECD.

The Infrastructure Commission, again, has done really interesting research on this that shows that since the inception of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, which layered on zoning and introduced the modern-day form of zoning in town and country planning—the clue’s in the name. Then, accelerated by the RMA in 1991, we have endured—I was going to say enjoyed—extremely high house price growth, rental price growth, and have now the affliction of a housing crisis that, in a country that has a landmass the size of the United Kingdom but yet only 5 million people in it, it should not have to endure. It is one of the great tragedies of New Zealand history over the last 30 years that kids live in cars and motels, and students and young families pay exorbitant rents, and people can’t get their feet on to the property ladder, because we have not zoned enough land—in a country the size of the UK. I’m intrigued by the idea—what’s that?

Steve Abel: You brought the RMA back.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, while we fix it fundamentally and we change the fast track. The Natural and Built Environment Act would have been way, way, way worse. That’s why we got rid of it: because it was a 10-year transition window and everyone was going to have to start getting on with it. The member knows exactly why.

I’m intrigued by the comment that the RMA has been enabling. Actually, the RMA has helped directly contribute to the infrastructure crisis. Again, research shows over a billion dollars spent per year on consenting costs for infrastructure. It’s the $785 million of road cones—that’s the health and safety stuff. It’s the same when it comes to resource consenting: endless time and money for Bell Gully and Russell McVeagh and Buddle Findlay and all of the top-tier law firms to spend time arguing, up and down the country in councils and the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal and beyond—2½ years to find a Supreme Court decision about whether or not the East West Link can go ahead. Endless arcane arguments about what the word “avoid” means. We’ve spent 20 years of jurisprudence on the word “avoid”, in the coastal policy statement on King Salmon, and all that other malarkey.

Part of the problem with this country is a myopic focus on the environment at the expense of nearly everything else. We are humans; we live in an environment. We need houses, we need roads, we need rail, we need public transport, we need renewable energy, we need mines, and we need quarries. It is nearly impossible to consent a quarry. We have a shortage of aggregate—you can’t consent a quarry. The further a quarry is from a road you try and build, the costs go up astronomically. This idea that the RMA has been enabling—I’m sorry, that idea is fanciful. The RMA is a straitjacket on the growth of this economy, which could be so much wealthier, so much more prosperous, and so much more renewable and clean and green, if we could only untrammel ourselves from the straitjacket of dumb planning laws that have a myopic focus on environmental effects above all else.

We are humans; we live in an environment. We should take advantage of it and protect it, but it does not mean we need to have a myopic focus on every single environmental effect.

I guess that’s the end of my quick question, quick answer attempt, but I will warn the Minister: doing a general debate speech as part of a committee stage does open lots of areas for questioning. But be it on his own head.

Thank you for the call, Mr Chairman. I will endeavour to cover a number of points that I’d like to hear the Minister respond to. Can I for a start say that I agree with much of what he said in the last speech, but not everything, and I agree that one of the reasons house prices went so high was having too strict rules around land markets. We addressed that as a Government in part, with the cooperation of that member—initially, without that member—through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and then, through the mixed-use zone introduced by an amendment to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and through our version of fast track, which consented thousands of houses. We don’t disagree with that; we’re just saying that in respect of this, you’re going a step too far by excluding environmental concerns to the extent that you are.

In respect of the points the Minister made in an earlier contribution in respect of geothermal—with respect, that’s a wee bit cute, because the longest period for those geothermal consents relate to renewals, and they were appallingly long. Some renewals took seven years, but once you applied for a renewal, your old consent kept running anyway, and so there was no incentive on either the applicant or the council to get on with it. In truth, since the central North Island came up with rules relating to field pressure, it has been relatively easy to consent geothermal, and I don’t think we’ve had a problem consenting geothermal.

My first question relates to the pass rate, if you like, under the existing fast track, which didn’t override the RMA, the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, etc., but, despite that, 95 percent of the applications were granted approvals. In fact, the last time I counted, about a hundred approvals had been given, and other people have recounted the breadth of those. I would have thought having five being turned down is not too bad. My understanding was that one of the ones turned down was a wind farm that the consent panel—and, I think, rightly—said was in the wrong place.

In respect of the aquaculture one that was turned down, did the Minister consider whether a spatial planning approach would have been preferable there to dealing with these on a consent by consent basis? We have had a problem consenting aquaculture in New Zealand, and there is room for it in some places; we just don’t seem to get approval to put it anywhere because everyone gets turned down. That’s my second question.

My next question relates to the exclusion of people having a right of participation, and their proxies, on the environmental front, and I want to read an email here that I have in respect of the application which I think is listed in Schedule 2, on page 123, relating to Matakanui Gold Ltd. It’s the Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project to “Establish, operate, and remediate an open pit and underground gold mine”.

Now, for the benefit of members, I want to put this in context. The Macraes Mine is the second-largest hard rock goldmine in Australasia, and Australasia has some big mines. This proposed goldmine in Central Otago, which is called Santana, even though the application here is by Matakanui Gold Ltd—it must be one of their companies—is bigger. It’s bigger. This is the—sorry, my laptop has just closed. If the—sorry, I—

Hon Chris Bishop: The password is “Labour”—no?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s right! I had this letter come in from a Hayden Johnston—and he’s happy for me to read it out—from Tarras Vineyards Ltd. He’s on the Bendigo Loop Road, and you’ll see that Bendigo is one of the areas that’s listed in the schedule: “The reason for this email is I hold a resource consent hard fought for at the Environment Court to operate The Canyon”—which is a wedding venue—“at Tarras Vineyards, located 5 kilometres from the proposed new greenfields opencast goldmine listed in Schedule 2. Even the talk of a mine next door has resulted in lost venue bookings, and I just lost $800,000 from an investor, with the sale and purchase agreement falling over at due diligence, directly because of fears about the effects of the goldmine. I’m very concerned the expert panel will fail to identify and consider the effects on my business and the local community because my title isn’t immediately adjacent to the mine site.”

I suggest to the Minister that this is an example of how there are interests to be balanced here. In respect of projects like this mine, which would be bigger than Macraes, which is already the second-biggest hard rock mine in Australasia, how can it be justified that that application for something that vast could proceed without public input from the likes of that person there, who says he’s already suffered an $800,000 loss?

Well, I think the Hon David Parker makes a good point. The laptop issue distracted me, but I think I heard him say that he was an adjoining landowner. Adjoining landowners are—

Hon David Parker: No, he’s not; he’s 5 kilometres.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. Well, there is the ability for people affected by projects like that to be part of the expert panel process.

Hon David Parker: They’ve got no right to.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It would be my expectation that someone in that situation would be involved in that process.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Amendment Paper 130 in name of the Hon Peeni Henare. The Minister will have had a chance to consider this. It’s about clause 3, which is the purpose clause, which Opposition members are still on, because, as the Hon Rachel Brooking pointed out at the beginning of this debate, the purpose clause is in fact the part which Labour members have raised real concerns about as being a real departure in this legislation from other empowering provisions like it in the past. New clause 3A, proposed by Amendment Paper 130, is to bring this in line with other empowering environmental legislation, to introduce the requirement for people exercising public power under this bill to do so with recognition to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is a power that is well understood. The first provisions like this were introduced in 1975 and 1986 in legislation before the House. They are well understood in our law and in practice.

My questions to the Minister—there are four. The first is in relation to: given that there is not a provision like this already in the bill, what considerations have the Minister and other Ministers responsible for this legislation given to the Cabinet Manual 2017 guidelines on how our Cabinet Ministers should give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? I’ll read him the part that I want his response to. The Cabinet Manual 2017 says, “The law may sometimes accord a special recognition [for] Māori rights and interests such as those covered by Article 2 of the Treaty. And in many other cases the law and its processes should be determined by the general recognition in Article 3 of the Treaty that Māori belong, as citizens, to the whole community. In some situations, autonomous Māori institutions have a role within the wider constitutional political system. In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty of Waitangi, of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another, is appropriate.”

My question is about what consideration he gave to his role as a Minister, when that is a well-established constitutional convention of the excise of public power, and why new clause 3A, as I have proposed it, does not exist in the legislation already, given what the Cabinet Manual says. My next question will be about the Cabinet Office circular with guidance on these clauses—it was in 2017. The question after that will be on the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee’s advice and guidelines—those are the guidelines from 2021. The fourth question is around his obligations under the Public Service Act 2020.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions for the Minister, and also some well-crafted amendments, which I’m sure you’ll appreciate.

The first thing is that there is a real concern about the destruction and the reputational damage that this bill is proposing to do to our region. You will be aware of our views in Taranaki regarding seabed mining and the inclusion of Trans-Tasman Resources, who have lost, as you’ve heard and I’m sure you’re aware, in the High Court; they have lost in the Court of Appeal, they have lost in the Supreme Court—pretty much lost in every court that exists in Aotearoa—because they could not prove without doubt the damage that the discharge that they would do from a marine consent would create to our environment and, indeed, our moana. We are living with the fact that they’ve been given this reincarnation through this bill.

I guess some of the questions that we have for you are that that decision was mooted on the basis that they would bring billions of dollars to the New Zealand economy. We’ve recently seen Trans-Tasman Resources backtrack on that statement—in fact, backtrack so badly that they had to do a formal retraction to the Australian Stock Exchange. That is extremely concerning for us, especially given that you have also endorsed them coming in. Again, I respect what you’re saying. There’s a process that they’re meant to go through, and I will pick that up. We have lost the sight of windfarms and sustainable renewable energy which would have been much better supported and welcomed by the Taranaki community—people who have decided to take their investment elsewhere.

We’ve seen a company that lost in every court and that is unwanted by locals—in fact, so bad that they decided not to go through the decision-making committee (DMC) process that the court had proposed they could and instead ducked through this bill. One of the couple of questions we have for the Minister is: what is New Zealand’s experience in seabed mining? What is the cost that the new expert panel will be bearing and what will taxpayers expect to bear, given they already have three or four court cases, three DMCs, two Environmental Protection Authority meetings? What is the experience of New Zealand Government officials—in fact, Ministry for the Environment—in dealing with 30 years of discharge of sediment from 50 million tonnes of seabed mining for 30 years consecutively?

In the court case, there were two rulings particularly that I would like to ask the Minister about. The exclusive economic zone legislation, which is, effectively, the Resource Management Act on water, which your Government endorsed in 2013-17, and then also section 10(1)(b), which talks about the marine discharge—that that would need to be monitored, because that is, effectively, what seabed mining’s destroying. It’s not the mining so much as the discharge created by the mining. The Supreme Court particularly made a ruling on section 12(c), which refers to Treaty of Waitangi and the principles which must be given effect to. How are you going to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is given effect to in this decision to bring Trans-Tasman Resources and, in fact, keep the confidence of the multiple iwi and sectors, including fishing, that will continue to take this to court? I guess the amendments that we’ve had, in conclusion for just this part—I haven’t gotten past the title and clause 1.

For your benefit, we ran a poll and asked rangatahi what they would like to call this bill, and we would like to replace, in clause 1, “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Environmental Ram Raid Act”. I think they were extremely ingenious in how they came up with that name. We’ve also got another amendment, and, sorry, through the Chair, it hasn’t got a number, but it is on the Table. It has been tabled. In clause 3, we have asked for an amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Bill that aligns with the bill’s purpose and the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We’re asking, for clause 3, after “national benefits”, to insert “while upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, safeguarding Māori social, cultural, and environmental”—[Time expired] Mr Chair, I’d like to carry on, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—and can I just, before you do: avoid the use of the word “you”. It means that we are actually keeping it on the bill rather than the personal.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Ka pai. We would like to, in clause 3—I’ll just take it a little bit slower. In clause 3, we’ve made an amendment. Just to remind people, clause 1—to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Environmental Ram Raid Act”. And, in clause 3, after “national benefits”, insert “while upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and safeguarding Māori social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing”.

This amendment has been tabled—again, to state it aligns the bill’s purpose with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and acknowledges the importance of considering Māori interests alongside development goals. Emphasising these values ensures long-term cultural and environmental sustainability. Now, the Minister will know from all experience that the amendments will align with, as I said earlier, section 12(c) that was ruled by not only the Court of Appeal but also the Supreme Court, which acknowledged the role of tangata whenua and mana whenua when there is activity done within our moana. These are settled iwi that certainly the Minister has stated they want to abide by.

The question in that final aspect is: what is the Minister going to do to ensure the obligations as determined in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui and Te Korowai o Ngāruahine are respected and upheld, and how is the Minister going to ensure that the confidence and the reputational damage that has come from allowing this type of activity, or the reliving of Trans-Tasman Resources to be able to come back to fruition—particularly as we stated the huge disappointment that we have had to see wind turbines and wind companies leave, who actually were proposing to bring economic development to the region. They have not had to stand up in front of the Australian Stock Exchange and retract promises that they would make, and they have not had to renege on making promises to bring in a billion dollars to the New Zealand economy.

There’s quite a lot to that contribution. I can’t comment on the comments around the stock exchange. I end where the member ended, which is in relation to offshore wind. I think it’s worth noting that there is great potential for offshore wind in New Zealand, but there isn’t even a regulatory regime in place yet. The best estimates that I’ve seen are that 2035, maybe a bit later, we could see the development of it. It would be subject to the economics of it. Actually, we’ve got plenty of cheap energy in this country; it’s just that the Resource Management Act makes it very difficult to get access to that cheap energy. I won’t relitigate my long rant from 15 minutes ago.

In relation to the Treaty, I would encourage the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to actually read the bill. Clause 6, which is the Treaty settlements clause: “All persons performing and exercising functions [and] powers, and duties … must act in a manner … consistent with … the obligations arising under existing Treaty settlements; … customary rights”, and a variety of different protections around that, including Te Ture Whaimana, in clause 7. I’d also encourage the member to read clause 4A around ineligible activities, and there’s a variety of provisions there around Māori customary land. I’d also encourage the member—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: That’s what my amendment is: 4A.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member needs to actually get familiar with the bill. I’d also encourage her to read clauses 18B, 19A, and 24WA, which impose a variety of obligations on decision makers and panels when it comes to the effect of Treaty settlements. I think we actually spent quite a considerable amount of time—between myself; the Hon Shane Jones; the Minister for Māori Development, who’s in the House, the Hon Tama Potaka—working our way through some of the complex questions that the member raises. I think we’ve done a really good job balancing the right interests.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to add my comment in support of those who have already spoken in relation to the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how it’s missing from this legislation.

It’s disappointing to hear the focus on settled iwi and post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), knowing that Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations are beyond an entity and beyond a settlement. It is all-encompassing for all of our obligations for the betterment of New Zealand society and te iwi Māori as we’re trying to move forward kia kotahi ai tātou. [so that we may be united.]

When I hear the emphasis on post-settlement governance entities leaving hapū out, leaving marae voice out, and leaving whenua Māori voice out, I start to worry, because the amendments proposed by my learned colleagues from Te Pāti Māori and Labour are quite common sense. What we’re seeking to do in these amendments, really, for anyone who’s operating within this fast-track space is to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is in Amendment Paper 130 by Peeni Henare. Then we have Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment, where she is also suggesting that we should uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and safeguard Māori social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing. That’s all common sense, really, you would think, in a Te Tiriti - based society.

Then, referring to my proposed amendment on Amendment Paper 152—which is aligned in the same way as my whanaunga, my tungāne Peeni Henare—it is about saying that anybody who is operating in this space needs to give effect to Te Tiriti. That protects all of us, and, in particular, those who are without Treaty settlements, those who may not have a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement, or those that may not have a marine and coastal area (MACA) takutai moana settlement. There are many Māori that need protection from fast track, and that’s well beyond having a settled iwi framework.

In relation to what’s being said, it’s lovely that there’s been consideration for our iwi entities—absolutely. They have negotiated a settlement, which is important for their people, but there are many that are impacted in this space, and whenua Māori, in particular, need to add that, considering that public, community, and Māori in general are being blocked from the process of having their voice being heard.

These projects are happening in our kāinga—these projects are happening in our kāinga. You can’t say to te iwi Māori who are looking over the fence when you’re digging up the papa moana to take the sand from out of our moana, or you’re reigniting Northport, “Oh no. No, no, you’re not a settled iwi. Sorry, we can’t talk to you. You’re not allowed to be a part of the process.”, because doesn’t that undermine our fundamental agreement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whereby we are meant to have participation, whereby our rights are meant to be protected, and whereby, as the indigenous people of that specific whenua, we cannot be blocked out of this process?

I contest anything that says that Te Tiriti o Waitangi should not be included, but also you limit and narrow the voice of Māori down to PSGEs—those who have endorsement from the Crown—and don’t worry about the rest of us, eh? We only signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we’re only uri of the signatories of He Whakaputanga; no, we don’t get any rights because we haven’t signed a settlement with the Crown!

Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is limiting. Takutai moana—oh, well, you know, you’re repealing it. How many of us Māori are going to have to go back to the High Court? And then, you turn around and say, “Oh no, it’s only those that have negotiated a settlement.” Well, kei hea te hapū rangatiratanga mō tēnā? [where is hapū sovereignty for that?]

What’s the point in having the stage 1 report of Te Paparahi o Te Raki, whereby our tūpuna said, “We did not cede our sovereignty as the tribes of Ngāpuhi.”, and then we come here and then we see Te Tiriti o Waitangi being thrown out across legislation?

Aroha mai, Mr Chair. I am taking a bit of a liberty because it’s quite a passionate issue, Te Tiriti. I don’t know whether you’ve noticed that, but we had a hīkoi a couple of weeks ago and quite a few people are pukuriri.

We are giving voice to the centrality of Te Tiriti. It does need to broaden beyond post-settlement governance entities and those with the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe but also those with MACA takutai moana rights. Oh, it’s pretty small in terms of those who have gotten through that Crown-mandated pathway. Plenty of us aren’t in that pathway, so where is our voice protected? Where is our voice, as marae and hapū and those who are iwi mana whenua, whenua Māori? [iwi that have authority over land, Māori land?] Kia ora.

Look, I will just remind members that having a different member saying the same thing is still repetition. I’m also saying that general debate speeches on both sides of the House are not helpful, because it means that we can broaden the debate out further.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of short questions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, but I’m just going to say them all at once, knees and all that, and then I want to ask him some questions about his Amendment Paper and how we work through that. I might seek your guidance on that as well, Mr Chair, noting that I’m still not on clause 4A, which is ineligible activities, and nowhere near Schedule 2, which I want to talk about and have amendments on. In that general debate, or long rant, depending on if it’s the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, did you say you are on 4A, or you’re not on 4A?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, not yet—not on 4A yet. I was just saying about the long rant, as the Minister called it. I want to ask a number of questions about that discussion on the Resource Management Act (RMA), and one is: does he acknowledge that this bill doesn’t fix the fundamental timing and cost problem with the RMA, which is that when you compare the consenting time frames and cost to developers, which are far too high, the problem when you compare it internationally is with those smaller and medium sized projects, which, of course, are not covered by this bill because this is for large projects? That’s the first question.

What are his views on infrastructure funding in terms of slowing down housing development in this country? The Minister made the point that we are the same land size or bigger than Great Britain, we only have 5 million people, but we still have a housing problem. I do not disagree with that, but one of the main problems for putting more houses anywhere, even in increasing density, is the infrastructure funding, and I cannot see anything in this bill that addresses that problem.

Third question, then, is: given this housing problem, why has his party reneged on the medium-density rules, and would that not help and wasn’t it helping already?

Now, those are three questions, but now I’m moving on to clause 4, which is the interpretation section, and the Minister’s Amendment Paper, which is 238—it’s very large. It is the whole bill, though, and it has a number of tracked changes from the version as reported back by the Environment Committee, which is helpful. It was tabled this afternoon, so we have not had long with it. Of course, we have known about some of those projects in Schedule 2—not to go on to the select committee, but I wanted to ask the chair and the Minister for some guidance on how to deal with these substantial Government amendments, because it might be simplest just to move through the bill as per the Amendment Paper.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, we’ll just have a debate part by part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Sorry? No, part by—sorry, I’m now having a conversation with the Minister. No, of course we want to move through part by part, but are we discussing the Minister’s Amendment Paper now—

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —as we go through? I’m getting a nod. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, the schedule is in this part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah, but, of course, it’s not just the schedule that’s in the Amendment Paper; the Amendment Paper amends many, many, many clauses of the bill. It does not amend clause 3, which we’ve been talking about to now, but it does amend many others.

I have a question, and the Minister might want to make a general comment on clause 4, which is the interpretation clause. There are a lot of changes in his Amendment Paper to clause 4, and one of them is a competing application. This is a new definition, and it’s talking about substantive applications, and it seems to be when there is a conflict between two different applications. I would like to know if that is a correct interpretation of that new competing application definition, and I would also like to know how this worked in the process that the Minister set up and says is robust. I, of course, question how robust it was, given we’ve had reports in the media about this very short time that that group considered any applications and, very importantly, that they did not consider environmental considerations. Did that group not check between the different items on the schedule to see if they were in conflict with each other?

That’s the question relating to competing application, and I’d be interested if the Minister wants to explain why there are so many new definitions in clause 4.

I’m happy to deal with most of the questions from the member. Firstly, does this fix the underlying problems of the Resource Management Act (RMA)? No, of course it doesn’t. That’s why we have an RMA bill—bill one has already passed; bill two got introduced yesterday and will have its first reading next week; RMA phase three is under way. Of course that is true. Does it deal with infrastructure funding? No, it doesn’t. Of course she is right that that is a significant issue. The Government has a substantial policy programme under way around that. It’s one thing to unlock the land, but you need the infrastructure funding and financing tools. I’ve made public comments around our work programme to that extent.

Thirdly, on the medium-density residential zones—well, they haven’t actually been repealed yet, by the way. They’re still the law; heaps of councils are still doing them, for better or worse. Our view is that greater flexibility around zoning, but with a greater intensity around public transport corridors, rapid transit, and strategic bus corridors, allied with easier access to greenfield housing will make much more of a substantive difference. Our policy is Phil Twyford’s original 2017 housing policy, except we’re going to make it work. I’d encourage the member to read the New Zealand Initiative speech Phil Twyford gave in 2019, in which he outlined an extensive programme of competitive land market reforms. It was a great policy—it’s a shame that he got into Government and firstly he was saddled with the disaster that was KiwiBuild, and then Jacinda Ardern actually took the portfolio off him and gave it to Megan Woods—and New Zealand would be a better place—

Camilla Belich: Not relevant.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, exactly, it is irrelevant, but Rachel Brooking brought up infrastructure funding, which has got nothing to do with this bill. Clause 4 on competing applications—I’m advised that deals with the “first in, first served” nature, so the bill doesn’t affect the way that’s dealt with under the RMA, which is basically “first in, first served”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll ask the Minister the last three of my four questions to him. My question is about the Cabinet sector in 2017 and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s (LDAC) advice around clauses like the one I’ve proposed at 3A is simply that: is the provisions that he has relied on in his answer to me at clause 6 and clause 7—those are about existing settlements and about ineligible Māori land—is that enough, in his view, to satisfy what are essentially constitutional conventions here?

The question that LDAC asks Ministers to propose themselves and the Public Service is: does the proposed legislation affect, or have the potential to affect, the rights or interests of Māori under the Treaty? Not whether their settlements that have been passed through legislation are affected or whether Māori land as constituted under te ture o Māori Act 1994 or the definition that he’s added to the legal definition of “Māori land” in clause 4A constitute that. If that is the case, why is he ignoring the constitutional conventions outlined in the Cabinet Manual 2017, that circular, and LDAC’s advice? And what advice did the Minister have from LDAC about the effect of the way that this legislation has been drafted on those longstanding constitutional conventions? That’s my question to him.

I also have a specific question on the new definition of “Māori land”. At clause 4(1)(h) on page 9, the Minister has included “other land held by or on behalf of an iwi or hapū if the land was transferred from the Crown [or] a Crown body … [for] the intention of returning the land to … holders of mana whenua”. For many of the Treaty settlements, that will be affected by many, many, many of these projects that are listed in the 149 in the schedule today. Treaty settlement rights will be run roughshod over by this legislation because they are rights in future; they are rights of first refusal in collective agreements.

Say, for example, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, which legislates for the collective redress of the 19 iwi with an interest in Auckland. There is a right of first refusal that is collectively shared between three carousels of the iwi that are represented in three different parts of Auckland with different interests. Those carousels are offered rights to buy land which is sold by Government or Crown departments. When transfer occurs—that might be between, say, the transfer of a court building to Police—it is the intention of the 2014 Act that that offer would be made to iwi. We have caught in this definition every single piece of Crown land in Auckland.

Is the intention here of the Minister that every single piece of Crown land should be deemed Māori land? Or would it not be simpler to remove the provision there to include every single piece of Crown land and to simply make it explicit that decision makers under this bill—like the panel and like Ministers who make decisions about public land—should give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That is less burdensome on New Zealanders, that is simpler, that is well understood in our jurisprudence. It’s been an established piece of our law since 1975.

Look, I don’t want to relitigate past ground, because we’ve gone through this at quite some length in response to Hūhana Lyndon’s contribution but also Ms Packer’s contribution. There are extensive provisions throughout the legislation, including in Part 1, which we’re meant to be talking about, for the protection of Māori land. Nothing can happen in a substantive sense on Māori customary land, without the permission of the landowner, and there are protections for existing Treaty settlements through there. Yes, officials and the Government did take advice from a variety of bodies throughout the development of the bill, which has been under way for the better part of a year now, and we’re very confident that we have given effect to Cabinet circulars and various Cabinet Manual requirements.

The member’s suggestion that we should just create a carte blanche “The bill must give effect to the Treaty” would be a licence, with respect, for utter legal chaos. The Government is not willing to do that. What we have tried to do in a very precise legal way is uphold and protect Treaty settlements—everyone acknowledges that that is very important—and the bill does that, and we are very confident the bill does that; and protect Māori land, and the bill does that. This sort of idea that we’ll have an untrammelled right to give effect to the Treaty would be a recipe for legal chaos and would be contrary to what the Government is intending to do.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Through the Chair, point of order, please. I’d like to have it corrected on record, please—it’s taken me a very long time to hold the name “Ngarewa”—my surname is Ngarewa-Packer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My apologies. It’s very late. My apologies.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s interesting to be able to take a call this evening on this piece of legislation. Listening to what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has just been saying in his last two contributions, I guess my caution is that several learned lawyers during the select committee space—one challenged this Government about this bill having the potential to be this Government’s KiwiBuild disaster, and you just spoke about that. Just so you know, there are some very learned members. The second part in that last contribution that he’s made is the fact that other lawyers—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No one will say the members are asleep at 10 o’clock at night!

GLEN BENNETT: The other lawyers spoke about, basically, the truck you could drive through this legislation in terms of the fact that litigation with this legislation would be massive. I just thought I’d raise that.

I know there’s been a lot of discussion this evening about the purpose of the bill, and I’ve heard the hard and fast answer that you’re not going to change that, but the challenge is, for me, as I listen, we can’t take this in isolation this evening. We’ve got to look at the previous months in terms of the process that we’ve been through, and the challenge of democracy within that, but also the challenge—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We can, actually, Mr Bennett—at this stage of night, we could stick to fairly narrow. We’ve probably had a few general debate speeches.

GLEN BENNETT: I’m going to go for five minutes past 10, Mr Chair. What I really briefly want to say is we don’t disagree with the fact that a one-stop shop—we don’t disagree with the fact that the Resource Management Act has been clunky. We’ve spoken about that already. But what is this Government afraid of in terms of considering the environment as part of that? What is this Government afraid of in terms of maybe ensuring that the systems are better set up, that funding is in place to ensure that we can move things on far quicker? My question is: why is the Minister afraid of including the environment in the purpose of the bill?

The time has come to suspend this debate. It will be resumed at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Goodnight, everyone.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)