Fast-track Approvals Bill

Members, when we suspended last night, we were debating Part 1. Part 1—this is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedules 1, 2, and 3A. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m now moving to clause 4A—so, still in Part 1. I remind the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that when we were discussing the bill last night, I did think he wanted to take up the opportunity to discuss his changes in his Amendment Paper about the interpretation clause, clause 4. The same goes for clause 4A, because there are some changes in his Amendment Paper—Amendment Paper 238; it’s a big one—to clause 4A as well.

What I want to talk about is clause 4A, “Meaning of ineligible activity”. This is a really fundamental clause. It’s not as important as the purpose clause, but it’s very fundamental to how the whole scheme of the bill acts, and that is because if something fits in the definition of “ineligible activity”, then the approvals under the bill can’t be granted. There are a number of activities that are excluded, and they are listed in clause 4A.

My questions to the Minister are related to Amendment Paper 141 in the name of Glen Bennett. The first part of the Amendment Paper amends clause 4A by replacing paragraphs (m) and (n) with “(m) an activity that is a prohibited activity under the Resource Management Act 1991: (n) an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991: (o) an application for an activity that is substantially the same as an application under a specified Act previously made and declined by a tribunal or court.”

These are three particular additions that we think should be included in “ineligible activities”. I want to outline those reasons now. The first is about prohibited activities. It’s very difficult for a council to make a prohibited activity in a plan. There are certain thresholds that have to be met to make a prohibited activity, and most prohibited activities in council plans are things like building on flood plains or building nuclear power plants—it’s a very high bar to make something a prohibited activity. What it means is that when something is prohibited, you cannot apply for a consent for that activity. Councils are nervous about making a prohibited activity, because they know that they are likely to be appealed if there is a landowner who doesn’t want that activity to be prohibited.

Will the Minister consider including prohibited activities as ineligible activities? There has been no other fast-track legislation or similar legislation that has ever allowed for permissions to be granted to prohibited activities. What analysis has been undertaken about the prohibited activities that could be overruled by this bill? I cannot recall seeing any of that. Those are the questions on the prohibited activities. They are very serious. An activity has to be very bad and very inconsistent with the plan made by the council, made with the community, for it to be prohibited, so overruling it is a fundamental affront to all those processes.

The next activity that we think should be included in the list of ineligible activities is an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act. Water conservation orders are referred to often as the national parks of water bodies. They are very significant water bodies and there is a very long process for communities and environmental groups to go through to apply for a water conservation order. Depending on when it was made, there’s a panel process or a court process required. There are, in fact, only 16 water conservation orders in New Zealand.

Again, there have been enormous public processes to protect these 16 water bodies. We’ve heard particularly about the springs in Nelson. We’re very worried and concerned that there could be projects that would override their recent water conservation order. I’m sure other members will want to speak about that specific example, but, again, it seems entirely inconsistent that while some activities will not be allowed in national parks, and nor should they, things could happen that would be inconsistent with these water conservation orders that have been through years and years and years of processes for those very special protections. It totally undermines the whole point of those water conservation protections if they can just be overridden by a fast-track approval.

The third one there is an application for an activity that is substantially the same as an application for a specified Act previously made and declined by a tribunal or court. Of course, the specified Acts are the different Acts that the fast-track approvals can be made for, and the ones that I’m particularly thinking of here are the Resource Management Act and the Conservation Act.

We know that a number of the projects that now turn up in Schedule 2 of the Minister’s amendment have already been decided and declined by a court or tribunal. When the Prime Minister stands in this House in question time and says the Opposition members should support this fast-track bill because it’s good for the environment, he needs to make this change to this clause as well, and some other changes, to be able to demonstrate that this bill is not, in fact, an override of those protections—because an application has been made, it’s been declined on environmental grounds, and then, now, magically, it can be approved under this fast-track bill despite the fact that it had already been declined on environmental grounds.

The Minister may say, “Well, the application will be different this time and it will provide better protections for the environment and that is why the fast-track legislation should apply.” I can understand that argument in part, which is why we’ve put in this Amendment Paper, which is substantially the same as an application. If it is different, if for some reason a coal mine in a kiwi habitat is suddenly not going to harm kiwi, or if it’s a marine farm in a landscape area and there’s some environmental effects regarding penguins that can now be mitigated in a sensible way by changes to that application, then it wouldn’t be substantially the same and it could still go through this process if this amendment is made.

At the moment, the way the bill is structured, any argument that this bill somehow protects the environment is undermined by the fact that applications that have previously been declined because of their adverse effects on the environment can be approved under this bill.

It’s a specious argument to try and then argue that somehow this bill is going to protect the environment. We’ve solved that problem for the Minister by this Amendment Paper in Glen Bennett’s name, with that change that adds paragraph (o). I’d like the Minister’s comments on excluding prohibited activities and any evidence or thought that’s gone into what those activities might be, and why they should be included in the fast-track bill, and about protecting water conservation orders that have gone through these giant public processes that I’ve just canvassed and not allowing projects that are substantially the same as ones that have already been declined. Thank you.

The answer in relation to all of the three areas that the member, the Hon Rachel Brooking, raises—prohibited activities, water conservation orders, and previously declined projects—is the same in all of them, which is that the bill is designed to facilitate projects with significant regional or national benefits. Very deliberately, the Government has gone for a wide scope to enable a broad range of activities, wider than the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), but that’s not to say that those things that the member mentioned aren’t important; our expectation is that they will be taken into account during the panel process. The point is we’re just not excluding, up front, projects that fall within any of those categories from being considered.

Specifically, when it comes to previously declined projects, I take a different view to the member Rachel Brooking, which is the Government’s view that there have been projects under the RMA that have been declined that we would like to see progressed. That is an explicit policy decision, and that, I think, gets to the nub of the issue and the heart of the bill, which is that the current laws are too restrictive about projects that can be done. If you take the view that the status quo is fine, then, obviously, you support restrictions and the status quo when it comes to projects that have been declined, because that’s your view. That’s acceptable—that’s a legitimate point of view; reasonable people can disagree. The Government’s view is that the current laws have not allowed enough development and therefore we are changing the law to make clear that we want to see projects happen that would—that have—otherwise been declined in the past.

It’s just really an issue as to the committee’s comfortableness with the strictures placed on projects right now, and our Government position is that there are a whole range of activities that have not been allowed that should be allowed. It really gets to the heart of the bill, and that is the Government’s position.

Thank you. Just in reply to that—and I know that my colleagues from the Green Party have more questions on Part 1 of the bill before we get to the schedule in some detail—given the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s answer just then that he’s unhappy with the current law and the decisions that have been made under that law that have constrained some development, and therefore it is a policy choice to go through with this piece of legislation to enable those projects to proceed, does he agree that that is then inconsistent with the Prime Minister’s remarks in question time yesterday that this bill will protect the environment? That is my first point.

My second one is a point of frustration, really, because many people, when this bill was introduced, came and made submissions to the Environment Committee and said this bill is about process only. The word “process” was, in fact, in the purpose clause as the bill was introduced—it’s been removed now by the select committee—but they said, and a number of parties who then went on to also apply to be in the bill said, “No, no; this bill is about speed and it is about the joined-up, the one-stop shop. That’s all it’s about.” We’ve listened to the Minister and we’ve listened to the Prime Minister say it’s not about overriding environmental protections, but what the Minister—and I would like him to agree or not agree with me; I think it’s useful to have on the Hansard—has just clearly outlined, in my opinion, is that this bill is about substantive decision making, which is consistent with the changes to the purpose clause, and is very particularly designed to enable projects that would otherwise fail under existing legislation to happen.

It’s a “getting things done” approach that, regardless of what happens to the environment, regardless of what the community thinks, the projects that are included in his Schedule 2—the 149 projects—are there purposefully to override the environmental protections that we have seen stopping some of these projects in the past. If that is the case—we’re following on from the logic that he was just discussing—does he think it would have been better or would he consider some changes to specify the projects included in the 149 why it is that the Government thinks that the previous decisions—the 149 projects; the ones that have already previously been declined—why it is; what the public interest is, apart from regional or national benefit, that is so important that those environmental protections should be overridden?

This is fundamentally important: there’s been a judicial process and something has had a negative environmental effect—say, it’s going to kill kiwis—and then the Government, the Minister is here saying, “Well, we’re OK with the killing of those kiwis.” We’ve heard his colleague the Hon Shane Jones say, “Goodbye Freddie.” He said it a number of times: “We’ll say goodbye to the Archey’s frog.”—something that horrifies OceanaGold, who tell me how much work they’ve done to protect Archey’s frog and that there is no way that they want Archey’s frog to go extinct. They said in the submissions that they’re very happy to have an environmental clause added to the purpose.

Has the Minister thought about specifically outlining the projects that have previously been declined for environmental effects and what the justification is for that particular project to override those environmental effects? Or, if he considers that the process under the fast-track bill will provide enough security for those environmental impacts to be treated differently, is it his expectation that the projects will be different from the ones that were applied for with the negative environmental effects; that this process will give them a chance to rethink about the project; and does he expect different environmental outcomes?

Well, the member, the Hon Rachel Brooking, makes some reasonable points, but all I would say is this: she seems to be drawing a distinction between various different rationales for the bill and trying to claim that they are different; they’re not. There are multiple rationales for the bill. One is speed; there’s no doubt about that. One is the one-stop shop nature of it, which is the major distinction between this version of fast track and the previous Government’s version of fast track, which was basically a Resource Management Act (RMA) fast track. This incorporates a variety of underlying statutes like the Wildlife Act and various other statutes that are often required—the Conservation Act being the most notable other one. It is partly about speed; it is also partly about the one-stop shop element of it.

It is also partly about changing the decision-making framework to allow more projects to happen, and we’ve been really up front about that. When we launched fast track in December last year, soon after the Government came to office, I gave a series of speeches about that. It’s not to say that the environment is not important; it is important, and layered throughout the bill are a series of protections about the environment. The underlying parent legislation for all of the statutes we are talking about—the RMA, Conservation Act, etc.—is layered through the bill. Those things are considered at the substantive expert panel stage, and those protections and the conditions placed on the way in which a project happens, the activities that a project undertakes, are weighed against the purpose of the legislation. The Government’s view is that we’ve struck the right balance between one-stop shop, speed, and making it clear that the purpose of the bill and the legislation is to facilitate the delivery of regionally and nationally significant projects while still maintaining core environmental protections.

I come back to what I said last night, which I think is the major point of disagreement between both sides of the Chamber: the Government’s view is that the status quo is unacceptable. Members are entitled to take a different view. The Government’s view is that the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to speed, when it comes to condition setting, when it comes to environmental protections weighed against the economic interests. We are disrupting that; we are quite explicit about that. We want more houses built more quickly, we want renewable energy built more quickly, we need more quarries, we need more mines, we need more infrastructure built. The status quo does not work; it fails New Zealand, and that is why we have fast track.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, you’ll get the sense that we’re prosecuting quite deeply this question of environmental protections, but I think it’s important, because the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s just stated that within the purpose of the bill there is still an intent to maintain core environmental protections, but it is not clear how that intent is fulfilled in this legislation, because at every step the legislation is unwilling to express that principle in its drafting.

Last night, there was a debate-like speech by the Minister on how the Resource Management Act (RMA) had failed to facilitate development that was wished—a speech that was reined in by the Chair, we might recall, because it was not appropriate to the setting. The point that had been made by my colleague that the Minister was responding to was in fact that not only has the RMA, in your conception, failed to facilitate the sort of development you would like to see; the RMA has facilitated environmental decline as well. There is not disagreement across this Chamber that the RMA is problematic and failing. When you were asked specifically, “Where do environmental outcomes fit in this bill?”, you’ve just said that this bill will still maintain core environmental protections. The question is: by what means will it do that? In its drafting, it clearly, specifically, and explicitly rules out multiple pieces of environmental legislation. That is what the legislation does.

To remediate this, we have proposed various additions or changes to clause 3, the purpose of the bill. My colleague proposed inserting the words “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” I had proposed inserting “in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes”. There is another Amendment Paper that I’d like to speak to in that regard that I’d like the Minister to respond to—

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

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me, the two that I just referred to, the one by Lan Pham, 147, which my colleague spoke to last night, and I spoke last night to 148, and I’m now speaking to Amendment Paper 149, which has not yet been spoken to.

This is an attempt to get the Minister to put in some form of the word “environment”, the conception of the environment as a thing that is part of the intent of the bill to be protected, because it seems to me that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. The Minister’s argument is that environmental protections have been the primary barrier to the sort of development that he would like to see, but here he is absolutely removing any true burden and consideration on decision makers to take into account the environment. The question, I still believe, remains unanswered: where do environmental outcomes fit in this bill?

The amendment I’m proposing is: at clause 3, after “regional or national benefits”—on page 6, line 11—insert the words “for the prosperity of all New Zealanders and the natural environment”, thereby clarifying that the intent should also include the environment. Is the Minister suggesting development at all costs? Why is it so pernicious to the Minister, or so revolting to the Minister, to consider putting in mention of the environment in the actual purpose?

The Minister said that what he was trying to achieve was a belief that there were projects that have been declined that this Government would like to see progress. Now, I wonder if the Minister can outline: what are those declined projects that you would like to see progress? You have stated that. It seems to me that he has clarity about there being specific projects that have not been allowed to progress. I wonder if the Minister can outline some examples of projects that were turned down in the previous regime that the Minister would like to progress—this is another point, really—the obvious big ones being the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project that suffered 10 years of being kicked back because it was so bad for the environment and had such a negative effect.

I noted last night that the Minister said, in regard to the departure of a major offshore wind interest in this country because of the Government’s articulated support for seabed mining in Taranaki, there was no regulatory regime for offshore wind. What is the regulatory regime for deep-sea mining, Minister? There is no regulatory regime for that. It is a totally novel and extreme extractive industry. It basically doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. You’re purporting to support, and have added to the fast-track list, this novel, unregulated industry and seem to be backing picking a winner. Is that one of the projects that was declined that the Minister would like to see progress?

I wonder, in that context, what is the line of environmental damage that is acceptable? What is the guidance for those decision makers who are making determinations around the projects that you wish them to make evaluations on? What is the line of environmental damage that is acceptable and what are the protections that you expect, and, in the simplest terms, where do those environmental outcomes fit in this bill?

I will leave it for another call to talk about the Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations that my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer talked about last night, the fact that there is no mention of Te Tiriti in the fundamental clauses, and your response that it would be utter legal chaos to consider Te Tiriti. I’ll come back and speak to that, but my primary question, Minister, is: where do environmental outcomes fit in the bill, and how will you maintain core environmental protections if you don’t mention them?

I want to encourage the member Steve Abel to read the bill, for starters. The various pieces of underlying legislation are in the schedules, and all of the environmental considerations as part of those statutes are part of the bill. The member says, “Is the Government’s position development at all costs?” No, it isn’t, and I point him to clause 24WD, which is “When panel must or may decline approvals”, which is the panel must decline an approval if the panel forms the view that there are one or more adverse impacts in relation to the approval sought. This is the key issue: those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to be out of proportion for the project’s regional or national benefits that the panel has considered under section 24W(3)(a) after taking into account conditions, etc. There’s a very clear decline clause.

As I canvassed last night in the Chamber, the Government’s initial position was that Ministers should be both the referring body to the fast-track panels and then ultimately make the consenting decisions. Now, that met with some degree of scepticism from people, including from members opposite, so the Government’s changed its stance on that, and the panels now make the final decisions, and we put clear criteria in there around declines. It’s not development at all costs, but it is a pro-development statute.

I’ll just make the point that I made before and again last night: this is a disruption to the status quo. It is a change. We’re explicit about that and we’re deliberate about that, because, as we canvassed last night, the status quo is not working for New Zealand.

In relation to projects that we would like to see advance that have been previously declined, I’m going to decline the member’s invitation to get into the specifics about that. Suffice to say—just to repeat what I said before—that if that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t be here. Clearly, there are projects that we would like to have seen happen that have been declined.

In relation to Trans-Tasman Resources and the offshore wind, I mean, it is a true statement of fact that there is no regulatory regime for offshore wind, but there is for the activities that Trans-Tasman Resources wish to undertake. We have an Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and we have a Resource Management Act, so there is a well-canvassed regulatory regime around that. There isn’t for offshore wind. It’s not a most super important point, to be honest, but it is a point I make in passing.

In relation to his comments around the Treaty, I stand by what I said last night, which is that an untrammelled clause to just give effect to the Treaty—I mean, Parliament does not legislate for “the Treaty”. To be honest, that shows a staggering lack of constitutional nous from those members. Parliament has not done that for years and years. In fact, the last time Parliament tried to legislate the Treaty was the—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It doesn’t mean you can’t change and start doing it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, just listen to what I’m saying. The last time a serious proposition was put to legislate the Treaty was the 1987 Palmer proposal for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the first draft—which went out for consultation. Palmer’s version of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually wanted to literally incorporate the entirety of the text of the Treaty—leaving aside the debate about which version you do. He wanted to put the entirety of the Treaty in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it was 1985, sorry. That met with widespread opprobrium from everybody, and so that idea was rejected, including by Māoridom, by the way. Views may be different 40 years on, but that was the last serious attempt.

Then, subsequent to that, Parliament decided that we would legislate Treaty principles. The Government’s position is that we should be much more specific about what legal rights and obligations you are creating. The approach of untrammelled, broadly defined words and phrases that we ultimately leave to the courts to define has been problematic. That’s one of the major reasons why the then Opposition, now Government, opposed the Natural and Built Environment Act because of the reference to Te Oranga o te Taiao, which has never been used in New Zealand law before and would have led to years and years of litigation. Parliament has to be clear and specific about what it is legislating. I stand by what I said. It would be chaos to—[Time expired] Mr Chair? Just very briefly.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Chair, I’ll just finish this point off. It would cause chaos to just insert “the Treaty” into a piece of legislation.

The principles have proved problematic and difficult enough for the polity and the courts to grapple with, and we are trying to be more specific and clear about what we are creating, which is why in the bill there are references to Treaty settlements. The settlements are agreements between the Crown and iwi in relation to specific legal obligations that the Crown imposes on itself around consultation, around—I mean, it depends on the settlement, but there’s a variety of different things that the Crown enters into and then legislates. We have not sought at any point—in fact, it’s a core part of all of the coalition documents that we will uphold and honour Treaty settlements. That is a critical bottom line for the Government. That’s why it’s reflected in the legislation. The idea—

Hūhana Lyndon: Only historic.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hūhana Lyndon: Those are only historic agreements. That does not recognise contemporary breaches that you’re doing.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, let’s not have conversations across the Chamber, please.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, contemporary—I mean, it depends what your definition of a contemporary breach is. The Waitangi Tribunal’s currently seems to be that literally anything the Crown does is a contemporary breach; the Government has a different view, unsurprisingly. That’s a conversation for another day.

There’s a core commitment to uphold Treaty settlements, but we are not going to insert a clause into the bill that puts a broad commitment to “the Treaty”. That is not the way Parliament, including for the last 40 years—that is not what Parliament has done, and Parliament has not done that for a very specific reason. Actually, that enjoys cross-party consensus. Maybe it doesn’t any more, but it certainly enjoys consensus across the Government parties.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up, firstly, on the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’s reply to the question about where do the environment and environmental outcomes sit in the bill. He very accurately described what is in the bill, when it comes to environmental aspects, as “environmental considerations”.

Now, that is the accurate way to summarise where the environment sits in this bill. It is a consideration, rather than protections that New Zealanders would typically understand are involved when it comes to environmental legislation. We previously had various checks and balances where there were thresholds that constitute environmental protections, but we know that, under fast track, these are now merely considerations which ultimately need to be weighed up by the panel, and when they legally have to give the greatest weight to the development benefits, we know that they are simply considerations rather than protections. I’m really interested in if the Minister thinks that is an accurate way of summarising where the environment sits in the bill.

I want to specifically talk to Amendment Paper 150. The context for this is that we’ve heard, time and time and time again, particularly from the Prime Minister, about, for example, the renewable energy projects that sit within fast track. We hear about various projects that confer actual public benefit. Now, if this is the thing that, publicly, the Government wants to point to about fast track, then let’s actually make the fast-track bill about these public projects. Here we have an amendment that very basically spells out a definition of what would constitute “significant regional or national benefit”.

In clause 4, which involves various definitions about how to interpret words that are used within the bill, after “responsible agency”, we would actually suggest a definition of “significant regional or national benefits”. We would say that this “means public infrastructure projects that provide a public good; and (b) includes, without limitation, public infrastructure projects that relate to-sustainable transport: [to] water: [to] hospitals: [to] education: [to] renewable energy generation: [and to] telecommunications”. Again, these are the kinds of projects that the Government likes to point to that are part of fast track, but it isn’t actually defined.

A lot of submitters during the select committee process actually pointed this out as a really sensible way to narrow the eligibility of projects that actually deliver public benefits, rather than the private, more controversial aspects of, like, the waste incinerators, the seabed mining, the coal mining, the open-cast gold mining—these are the kind of projects which are causing all of the controversy with fast track. We had a number of submitters, including the Infrastructure Commission, recommend that we actually do make changes here, and we proposed these changes, even at select committee stage, but, like so many sensible suggestions, they were shut down.

I am really interested to hear the Minister’s response: why is he not considering narrowing to this very clear definition which would make the fast-track bill exactly what the Government purports it to be?

We’ve been through this for two hours last night, but I’m happy, hopefully for the final time, to deal with this issue.

It depends on what your definition of a public benefit is. The debate last night, as I demonstrated, was about this proposition—nuts proposition, frankly—that a privately owned electricity generator didn’t deliver private benefits. The member Lan Pham’s argument seems now to be that renewable energy is a public benefit. I agree—I agree with her—there are public benefits from renewable energy, but much of New Zealand’s renewable electricity infrastructure is privately owned. Trust Power—or Manawa Energy, as it’s now called—and Contact Energy are privately owned.

Now, that reflects historical circumstance and a variety of different things. If the member’s proposition is that renewable energy is a public benefit, I agree with her, but the point we made last night, and I make it again today, is that the ownership structure of those entities differs. Some are publicly owned, listed companies; 51 percent owned by the Crown. Others are wholly privately owned. The member’s argument across the foregoing debate last night was that all of those private benefits had to be ruled out. She now seems to be claiming that renewable energy is a public benefit and, therefore, that should be allowed. Well, I agree with her, but the point is that the ownership of those entities differs. The argument seems to have changed.

The core contention of the Government is this: all of the projects and all of the activities listed in the fast track deliver public benefits, and those benefits differ depending on the project and the activity, but they are all public benefits—for example, housing. Now, the vast bulk of housing in New Zealand—again, I said this last night, and the point remains true; it’s never been rebutted—is delivered by the private sector; it’s not delivered by the public sector. Kāinga Ora has a role to play, but the vast bulk of it is delivered by people putting their own private capital up, developing their own land that they buy—and it’s bloody tough, frankly. We need more private sector housing. That’s part of the reason why we’ve got fast track.

Is there a private benefit from someone developing a piece of land and selling it to buyers of houses? Well, of course; they’re making money out of it. Is that a private benefit? Yes. But is there a public benefit in more housing? Absolutely there is, because we need more houses. That is a public benefit. Is there a private benefit from Contact building a wind farm and making a buck out of it in the electricity market? Yes. Are they making money for their shareholders? Yes. Is there a public benefit from renewable energy? Yes. The member’s argument is that renewables are a public benefit. We agree.

The member is actually making our point, which is that, in a mixed economy, there is a variety of different ownership structures and there are different benefits, both public and private. Is there a benefit from more quarries? Yes, there is, because to do anything in infrastructure in this country you need more quarries. Are they publicly owned quarries? No, the Government hasn’t nationalised the quarrying sector. The Government doesn’t run quarries. We haven’t run quarries since probably the 1870s. Do we need more quarries? Yes.

Mining: is there a private benefit from mines? Yes, of course there is. Well, we used to own a coal-mining company in New Zealand. It was called Solid Energy. The Government didn’t do a very good job of running Solid Energy, because the Government doesn’t do a very good job of running most businesses, so we don’t own Solid Energy any more. The majority of mines in New Zealand are privately owned. Is there a private benefit to them? Of course there is, because people who own the mines will make money out of it, but is there a public benefit to the West Coast from having coal mining on the West Coast? Absolutely.

Go down to the West Coast and tell the people of the West Coast that the mines that thousands of New Zealanders and West Coast workers depend on for their livelihoods, or go to Waihī and tell the people there that the mine that is near there, which provides jobs and growth and regional resilience in sometimes quite neglected parts of New Zealand—tell those people there aren’t public benefits from mines! There are, and the Government’s position is that the broad suite of projects that are in fast track or that will be considered, whether it’s mining or renewables or quarries or wind farms or housing or roads, all of those different things—all of them, yes, to some extent have private benefits for their owners or private benefits for the people who run them, but they all have public benefits.

That is the reason why they are being fast-tracked. They all have public benefits, and the member’s own argument makes that point.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really appreciating the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’s responses, in basically saying that the sky is blue, but I don’t accept the quite disingenuous assumption, or assertion, that my argument is changing. It’s not changing. What I’m saying, and what we’ve been saying all along, is: make it really clear within the fast-track bill that companies that apply for fast track need to prove that they are conferring these public benefits. I disagree that every project in the list confers a public benefit, and if you narrow it, again, like many submitters suggested, including the Infrastructure Commission, you would actually avoid a lot of the controversy about these much more damaging projects which are included in the bill.

Now, what I want to pick up on is another aspect, which I refer to in Amendment Paper 151. This is about adding a clause after 4A(1) that inserts where a project is contrary to a regional or district plan, regulations, or an Order in Council—this would, basically, amend the bill itself to make activities that are contrary to these plans set by local authorities, regulations, or Orders in Council ineligible for fast-track approval.

Why I think that is really important at the approval stage is that these plans and the processes that councils and communities have been through are often years in the making, and they actually form this democratic structure of our society, about how we want our communities and our cities to look, how we want them to develop, how we want different protections to be in place or not. I think what’s so important about this is that there’s really clear aspects within these plans—for example, prohibited activities—where it’s been so clear from the community and the council that they do not want specific activities in these plans to be eligible for development. Now, the fact that fast track overrides these is a gross breach of our democratic structure and the way that we actually have plan making and the ability for communities to actually contribute to plan making in this country.

If the Minister considered this amendment, it would go much further in terms of providing really clear, or much clearer, social licence for these activities and companies, which will, ultimately, be setting themselves up in communities, setting themselves up in our regions. The people who live in these communities, who are affected by these projects, would at least, in some small form, through the recognition of the district plans, or the regional plans, for example, have a say in that way. There has been no clear rationale that I have seen or heard—even throughout the entire select committee process, and certainly as part of this committee of the whole stage—that is a rational justification for being able to override these plans and rules that have been democratically arrived at through submissions, through consultations with the community, and through councils actually putting that in place.

I am really interested as to why, again, the Minister has, so far, refused to implement this as part of the bill.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. In the previous speech from the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, he spoke about the statutes within this legislation, and obviously there’s a lot of Acts of Parliament that it refers to. You also spoke about Treaty settlements that are included in this.

Now, I understand that it is around a one-stop shop, hence why there is a lot of this information in the bill. But I’m just wanting to get clarity in terms of—I looked around recently in terms of, as far as I can see, this probably has the largest amount of statutes and Acts of Parliament that are in one piece of legislation. I just want to sort of get some clarification, if that is the case, if it feels comfortable, them all being in here.

Secondly, I’m just going to briefly come back to the interpretation and there’s the piece around competing application in relation to a substantive application. Now, I just want to get clarity from the Minister about what a “substantive application” is, just so we can understand as a committee.

Thirdly, my third question this morning is: just looking at my Amendment Paper 141, which talks about inserting “an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991:”—I just want to get some clarity, because in the Environment Committee we obviously went through the process; we worked with the bill; we changed the bill, and it came back to the House. Now the Minister, in Amendment Paper 238, has added a section in the interpretation around the “complex freshwater fisheries activity” and what that means in terms of “culverts and fords:”, “permanent dams” and structures. I just want to be really clear in terms of why the Minister felt it important to add the complex freshwater fisheries activity explanation into the legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a number of quite contained questions to say about Part 1, before Schedule 2, and then I’d like to move on to Schedule 2—so, a number of things.

First of all, the idea that this side of the Chamber likes the status quo of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is offensive. I spent all of last term working on the Spatial Planning Act and then the Natural and Built Environment Act, which was to change the status quo and which of course, a year ago, this Government repealed. I asked a question yesterday to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, which I haven’t heard an answer to, which was the problem—one of the many problems—with the status quo is that, compared with international comparisons, it is the smaller and medium projects that take too long and cost too much. The large projects take about the same amount of time as international comparisons and cost about the same amount for those applicants. So that would be good to get an answer to that.

It goes to the heart of the problem definition. If the problem definition is “we need to get stuff done”, well, is it the really big stuff or is it the small and medium stuff that should be having the priority? Obviously, the Government’s decided on the big stuff, but that doesn’t seem to be where the problem is.

We also just had a discussion from the Minister about a Treaty clause, and I think it’d be useful to have on the Hansard that of course—and I don’t think he meant the opposite of this, but it sounded like it—Governments have for many years inserted Treaty clauses into bills. In fact, the Minister acknowledged that the Natural and Built Environment Act did have a Treaty clause and it was referring to the principles of the Treaty, and it was a “to give effect to” clause, which is the same as the Conservation Act and stronger than the RMA. The amendment that my colleague, Arena Williams was talking to yesterday was to include a “give effect to the Treaty” clause. That’s not abnormal; many Governments have done it. The Minister then raised an argument that it is better, rather than to have a “give effect” or “take into account the principles of the Treaty” clause—that can be up for discussion; so it’s better to have specific provisions. Of course, the RMA has a section 6(e) and 7(a), which do some of that lifting, and then whole sections on Mana Whakahono a Rohe.

The point is that this bill doesn’t do the specifics except for settled iwi and a little bit about the Mana Whakahono a Rohe, but iwi or hapū that do not have settlements or do not have Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements, which are very rare, are not really mentioned in this bill. That is the problem. The Minister’s idea that you have a Treaty clause that sets out exactly what it is that is expected—that is, you know, a logical thing that we can all debate here, but that is not what this bill does. This bill is only about settled iwi and Mana Whakahono a Rohe. There’s a couple of bits in there, so he might want to come back to that point as well.

Then the Minister talks about how this bill is pro-development, but I would challenge him on that again, because it’s pro very specific development. It’s pro the things that are listed, the 149 things that are listed in that schedule too. It’s not all development; it’s those specific projects.

Before I get to those 149 projects, which I do want to do, I want to, again, ask the Minister about his amendment—I need to be looking at the right version of the bill here, because he has an amendment that is the whole bill—and whether or not the changes that he has made to clause 4A, which is the meaning of “ineligible activity”, if—you know, what is the point of those changes? Do they enable more items to be considered under this bill, as in it reduces the amount of ineligible activities, or does it extend the amount of ineligible activities? Why has he made those changes?

Then we can go through to Schedule 1 and the transitional provisions—these are very large bills, excuse me for a minute—and there are some changes in Schedule 1 in his amendment as well. It would be interesting to know why there are the changes in Schedule 1, and there’s a new bit on new applications at clause 4 of Schedule 1.

Those are a number of questions, but now I would like to move on to Schedule 2 and the list of projects.

James Meager: Oh, we’ve already talked about these.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, Mr Meager, we have not talked about these, and, of course, we want to talk about them in a lot of detail.

James Meager: What’s No. 3?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Mr Meager asks, “What’s No. 3?” Of course, if he looks at Schedule 2, he will see that they are not numbered.

I have flicked to the Minister’s amendment, to page 129 of that, and on that—I just flicked to this page—I see NZSki Ltd. This talks about The Remarkables Ski Area upgrade and Doolan’s expansion, and the project description says, “Upgrade existing infrastructure at The Remarkables Ski Area, including a new passenger transport lift, carparking areas, and expanding the ski field into the adjacent Doolans Basin.” Now, I have to declare that I do frequent The Remarkables Ski Area and that my family are all great fans of this particular ski field. I know the NZSki Ltd people well, through being sort of the Labour representative who does some work and tries to raise issues around the Queenstown area.

This expanding of the ski field into the adjacent Doolan’s Basin is on conservation land and it means blasting a giant hole through the mountains. You wouldn’t know that from reading this project description. Of course, everybody in Queenstown knows exactly what this project is, and there will be different views in Queensland about the importance of extending The Remarkables Ski Area into an area that I’m sure will make for some very great skiing; there is no doubt about that. It is also on conservation land, and it is also a major project, and I’m sure mana whenua will have many things to say as well about those Remarkables—called that in English for a reason—having a giant tunnel blasted through them.

Now, when NZSki Ltd came and made their submission to the Environment Committee, I specifically asked what they thought about community input and that, of course, this fast-tracked process avoids that. The CEO, Paul, of NZSki Ltd did say, “We won’t do this without community input.”, but I don’t know how that can happen with this mechanism through the fast track. My question for the Minister on this item—and I know everybody else will have questions on different projects, the different 149 projects included in this—is that NZSki Ltd is a private company and it’s working on conservation land and it wants to, in this project description, blast a big tunnel through a mountain. That is a very private benefit that this company will get through having the purpose clause not refer to the environment. I want to ask the Minister how he can justify that a project that benefits the shareholders, or the main owner of NZSki Ltd, should be able to avoid consideration of the environment.

He might say, “Well, it’s going to be very useful for them to have all their approvals considered at once because there will be many approvals required.” I don’t disagree with that. The point here is that there is no reference to the environment in the purpose and that this project is going to make a very private benefit to a very private company and should not be included in a public bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just deal with a few of the questions by the last few speakers. Firstly, Glen Bennett asks whether I am comfortable with so many statutes being included in fast track? Yes, we are. That’s why it’s in the bill. Secondly, he asks “What is a substantive application?” Well, it is literally an application under the fast track; that is what it means. It’s a standard application to go to the expert panel.

Rachel Brooking made a number of points. In relation to small and medium projects versus large projects, yes, she’s right that we need to make it easier for small and medium projects. We agree. That is why we have a comprehensive programme of Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, in particular quite a large suite of national direction coming next year, which respectfully builds on some of the work developed by the last Government. We’re now picking up some of where they left off, in some respects. I won’t get ahead of Cabinet decisions, but it’s definitely true to say that we can do a better job of synthesising the parent legislation with clear instructions and directions around what the Government considers to be important.

In particular, we can set standards to reduce the need for resource consents, and everyone seems to be on board with that. One of the great failures of the RMA over the last 20 or so years is that we haven’t been better at doing that. Simon Court, in particular, my under-secretary, is doing a good amount of work there around standards. Anyway, that’s a bit of a preview for next year, but she is right that we need to do a better job with small and medium projects.

In relation to non-settled iwi, there are a range of protections—not just for settled iwi—throughout the bill as well. In particular, I would point her to the make-up of the panels where there has to be a person on the panel with the knowledge of te ao Māori and Māori development. There’s also provisions in there around ineligible Māori land, for example, as well; that was well canvassed last night.

In relation to The Remarkables project which, to be honest, I’m not familiar with—I’m not from down there. But it’s good to see that she’s a frequent user of the great ski field—

Hon Rachel Brooking: My family is.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, your family is; OK, that’s fair enough. I mean, as I said last night, I’m not intending to entertain a dialogue about each particular project, largely because, for some of them, I have no great familiarity with the project. The point is, again, as we covered last night—the debate is becoming repetitious—the bill does not consent these projects. The bill expedites their processing into the fast-track panel process.

She asks about community input. The reality is, as happened under the previous COVID-19 fast track, applicants don’t just apply and randomly work their way through the process and through the consenting process, kind of on a whim. There’s a huge amount of pre work that goes into preparing these applications; draft conditions that they themselves propose to the panel to be set, and there’s a bit of a back and forward and a dialogue about what conditions should be set and which ones are appropriate. That is completely acceptable; we don’t envisage that process changing. Part of that is the community engagement that the member talks about.

Very often, particularly when it comes to energy projects, for example, there’s a huge amount of community consultation, engagement—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s because it’s required; it’s not in this bill. We’ll get to that in Part 2.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well—and in relation to her point around, “Well, it’s a private development on conservation land.”, yeah, it is. There’s private developments on conservation land up and down the country, and this gets to the point, again, which I’ve made about seven times now, which is that if your view is that private development should just not be eligible for fast track, well, that’s a legitimate point of view, but it’s not one the Government holds. Again, I just repeat the point: private development can have public benefits because we live in a mixed economy. There will be public benefits from that particular project that the member is talking about, in the same way that there are public benefits from privately run renewable energy projects. Lan Pham, her colleague, agrees, because that was her precise point for much of her speech.

We agree. The Opposition’s got to get its ducks in a row about what their actual point is. Private projects that have private profit for private gain can have public benefits. We stand by that point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. There is a comment there made by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that concerns me, and I think it warrants a response from you. Last night, you’ll be aware, there was a significant ruling made by the Speaker when recalled by this House that was considered, and came about as a result of a decent amount of debate on both sides of the House. Now, at the end of that ruling the Speaker said, “The Chairperson would be justified in allowing a more considered and lengthy discussion in the committee stages.” That was a quote, but it was clear that he was referring to Schedule 2, which was originally advised by the Clerk that it was out of order. The presiding officer at the time agreed with that, and then the Speaker ruled differently.

Given that is a direct quote from his ruling, which the presiding officer subsequently clarified to the House that that does mean the Government can expect a lengthy and detailed debate about that schedule, for the Minister to stand up in one of the very few questions about specific projects and say that he is not going to enter into a debate about, or doesn’t want to entertain a debate about specific projects—I think the committee needs some clarity here. Normally, if a Minister refuses to engage in questions, that means that we have an even longer debate because for a closure motion to be considered, the Minister’s engagement in that is a factor. If that is the case, directly contrary to the ruling that the Minister made, we’re in a difficult situation here.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Speaker made.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Apologies, the Speaker made, and I think we need some clarity.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member has anticipated exactly what I was going to say when I came in. I’ve been following this debate for several hours, including being in the Chair—that we have traversed much of Part 1 and questions from here on in, without risking a closure motion, need to be around Schedule 2, and that’s what the Chair will be looking for. I’m ruling that the points you made are the points I was about to make.

I want the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to tell the committee how many tens of millions will Winton Land Co. make on the value of their project that is in Schedule 2 on the passing of this bill. This is Winton’s project. [Holds up picture of planned development] It’s very close to the electorate of Manurewa and, as the local MP in Manurewa, I have an interest in it. The Minister is proposing to expedite the process for Winton here, which also comes into contracts with another project on this fast-track list. The route of Mill Road, which is being expedited by the fast-track bill as well, goes right through the middle of Winton’s project.

Winton Land Co. has a right to buy this land. They paid for that right earlier, and so any uplift in the value of that land makes their project significantly more valuable. The option to buy becomes millions of dollars more valuable when it is expedited to become residential land.

Right now, it’s rural land. Every MP in this House who is a rural MP knows that rural land zoning is incredibly important to those developers who are land bankers or those developers who expect local projects to progress on their land, like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) projects. NZTA is now being told by the Minister in this bill to purchase land from these landowners which, last year, was worth only $1 million, $2 million, or $3 million, but which will now be in the tens of millions. This is a public Government entity which is now going to pay out tens of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money for land which was not valuable before and is now. It is not only a private benefit; that is public money going into the hands of Winton Land Co. for a residential development that they have lobbied successive Governments for, and it has been turned down over and over again.

Winton Land Co. donated $100,000 to the National Party in its campaign year. Its board members include Steven Joyce, a previous Minister from the National Party. This is public money going into private hands.

There is also an element of private benefit here which is extraordinary. We have rules which require private developers to share the public cost of their developments. This development will cost Auckland Council a huge amount in the infrastructure that is required to build this kind of development: in roads, in pipes, in playgrounds, in libraries, and in facilities for commercial development. All of that is on the line here when this is being expedited in a way where Auckland Council cannot require the developer to put in the kind of infrastructure that will cost the developer many millions more. Not only have they made a huge amount of money when this passes, but they have also saved a huge amount on the infrastructure, which will then be passed on to Auckland ratepayers.

People in the electorate of Manurewa will be bearing the cost of this for a generation if the infrastructure is put back on to their rates bill—back on to the people in New Zealand who can least afford it—to build hundreds of new houses that will cost this area in terms of infrastructure. Yes, we need those houses, but we do not need this at the expense of the people who will be paying for it in my electorate. It should be funded by the people who are making the exorbitant profits out of this which this bill confers on them. Not only will they be making a huge amount on the options that they have to buy—overnight, when this passes—straight from the public purse, but they will be making that on the expediting of their projects through an almost guaranteed set of consenting requirements that are fresh and new in New Zealand.

This is unlike anything we have had before. This is the closest New Zealand has ever come to cronyism through the legislative process. This is wrong, and this project should be struck out.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Chair?

Just before the Minister speaks, I’ll just set this out. We’re on territory here where we’re going to be talking about donations to parties and, obviously, the projects. The unique nature of this bill means that I’m ruling that it is more relevant in this particular bill than it may be in other legislation. However, just be wary that where any of these allegations go towards individuals, that is where the line will be got close to. I just make that ruling now, because I anticipate that as we go into these projects, there may be more of that, and that’s the line that the Chair will be looking at.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for that, and I note that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb also has a point to make. Just for absolute clarity—thank you for that—there was no issue with what was said in that contribution. You’re just pre-empting that and indicating that the debate and contributions on this—is it exceptional to the normal process, and what might not normally be accepted will potentially be accepted here and you’ve drawn a line as to what might be?

No, it’s not. I’d just say that the line remains, but, again, taking into account the unique nature, where allegations start to come towards individuals is where members need to be very aware.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: But that contribution was OK?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That contribution was fine.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Webb, were you looking for a point of order?

Thank you, Mr Chair. My point of order was—because I do think clarity is really important here, going forwards. I accept the obvious statement that members are not to make allegations of corruption against members in the House or that any particular legislative initiative is being done because of, essentially, a corrupt purpose.

I was concerned that you’ve suggested that individuals can’t be named, because there are many projects in Schedule 2 which individuals absolutely have their hands on, and there are legitimate questions around transparency and process about which it’s entirely appropriate to ask—not because there’s an allegation of corruption in there, but to give the Government an opportunity to show that there is transparency and honesty and that the public can have confidence in exactly that. I just want to make sure that you’re not ruling that members can’t say, “In respect of this person, who made a donation to that party, how can you assure me that there is no invidious nature to that?”

Yes, well, when I say, “an individual”, I mean an individual within the Government.

Well, it’s easier when you’ve got privilege, eh? If the member Arena Williams really believes that, say what she said outside the House. I bet she won’t—I bet she won’t.

The first thing is to publicly acknowledge that, in relation to the particular project the member’s talking about, as that went through the Cabinet process I declared a conflict, out of an abundance of caution, on advice from the Cabinet Office in relation to a press release I issued in relation to that particular project back in 2022, from memory. It was actually about Kāinga Ora. It wasn’t actually about the specific project but, out of an abundance of caution, I declared that conflict. The member makes a series of facile allegations.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, firstly, the allegation that infrastructure will just be delivered for—it was actually unclear what the member was saying; it’s pretty disappointing. She is allegedly the spokesperson for building and construction, but her knowledge about how housing and infrastructure development works—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Get personal.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —has now proven to be sadly lacking. Oh, I’m getting personal? Are you for real? What a joke.

Firstly, councils are able to charge development contributions for housing developments. The bill does not change that. You’ve got to separate out consent for building of houses. It’s interesting to see the sort of nimby attitudes from members opposite so far in relation to housing. Auckland needs more housing, but, anyway, I make that as a general point. The development contribution regime and infrastructure is a wholly separate issue from consent for housing.

The other point I’d make here is that the Government actually has a comprehensive programme of work under way. It’s called “Going for Housing Growth”. It actually builds on what the last Government started in relation to infrastructure funding in the form of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, which was passed by the last Government, building on work by the last National Government. It’s actually a strain of continuation here, and the core principle of that is to make growth pay for growth. I actually agree with the one decent point the member made, which is that the beneficiaries of new infrastructure to support housing should pay for that infrastructure, and that is the thrust of the Government’s housing policies. We’ve got work under way around—that’s not dealt with in this bill; it’s not relevant to this bill, but that is very important. If we’re now going to go through every single project one by one, I’ll just—

Hon Members: Yes we are.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK, I’ll just make the general point I made right at the start, which is the point I’ll continue to make, which is that we ran a process insulated from Ministers and the Government around projects that could be considered for inclusion in the schedule. We then took advice from the expert group and we put not all of them but we put 149 of them into the bill. The bill does not grant consent for those projects or the relevant approvals. The bill puts them into the process to go to the expert panel, and many of the issues that the members will have with a variety of the different projects—all of those issues will be dealt with through the expert panel process. The answer is the same for all of them.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to draw the attention of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to the Bream Bay proposal—the Bream Bay sand extraction project—which is a project to extract, using a motorised trailing suction dredge, up to approximately 150,000 cubic metres of sand per annum for an initial period of three years and up to approximately 250,000 cubic metres per annum thereafter. The approximate geographical location is a 17-square-kilometre area of seabed in the marine coastal area of Bream Bay, Northland.

Now, my question for the Minister is: given his recent statements about non-inclusion of Te Tiriti considerations, what is the say and rights of iwi impacted by that project if they do not have customary marine title, if they are not settled, and if they do not have mana whakahono? If we go to Part 1, clause 4A, the meaning of ineligible activity, subclause (1)(b) of that—“an activity that—(i) would occur in a customary marine title area; and (ii) has not been agreed to in writing by the customary marine title group:”—there are numerous tribes of Whangārei who are not settled, do not have customary marine title, and do not have mana whakahono. Is the Minister saying they get no say whatsoever in determinations around the likes of that project at Bream Bay?

It is, of course, but one example, but such a substantive sand-mining project that will certainly impact the interests in the rohe and the marine coastal environment, of which those iwi have customary traditional use. Currently, because they don’t have settlement and they don’t have customary marine title, they will get no say. What is the means, Minister, by which they would get a say if it is not in some way a recognition of the broader Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Last night, I asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop—and I thank him for his reply—in respect of a large mining proposal for what is a project which extends, essentially, from the Clutha River to the Manuherikia River. This is a huge area of land which, if mined, would be the largest mine ever in the history of New Zealand. I asked the Minister how he can justify doing that without rights of public input, as opposed to discretions for public input. I would also suggest to the Minister that one of the reasons why fast track, so far, has not had a tarnished reputation is that there was judgment exercised as to when projects were too big and controversial to go through a non-public process.

The fast track that we introduced post-COVID—which has been very successful, and the Minister has said is the model for this legislation—had a number of safeguards in it. We had a discussion in Cabinet as to whether there should be a group of Ministers authorising projects to go through fast track, or whether it should be an individual Minister. Cabinet, in the end, said that it should be the individual Minister for the Environment—who happened to be me—but it was the office of the Minister for the Environment that was chosen in order to avoid lobbying and to create pressure through groups of Ministers to get certain sorts of projects on the list. I would suggest to the Minister that that was a wise way of protecting the reputation of fast track, because the risk that the Government is taking with the reputation of fast track is that they’ll so tarnish the reputation of fast track that there will be a push against the legitimacy of fast-track decisions more generally.

First of all, my question is: did they consider just having an individual Minister with an environmental Resource Management Act (RMA) bent—which also goes to development, because the RMA is also meant to achieve development, not just protection of the environment; it’s meant to balance it too?

The second issue is that I’m intrigued as to why it is that the South Island Resource Recovery Ltd project is included in Waimate. This is the first ever large waste-incineration project to be considered in New Zealand. Indeed, the National member for Waitaki took an interest in it during the election and, I think, said he’d resign—I might be overstating it—or took very strong opposition to that particular project, which is now being pushed through under fast track.

Now, why I’m interested in that is that that project came to me as Minister for the Environment at the request of the local council, who said that they lacked the wherewithal and the competencies to properly deal with what is a very, very complex application relating to the burning of plastic waste, amongst other things, which, in addition to toxic fume risks—and they can probably be moderated—does have greenhouse gas implications because carbon in, carbon out. If you burn plastic, you actually release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and there is no current way of avoiding that. I understand this application doesn’t propose to capture the carbon dioxide. Faced with that, I, as Minister for the Environment, said, “Look, this is the first of these events. We need to actually look at it properly. We’re not necessarily opposed to it. It needs to be properly considered.” We, as a Government, decided that we would refer that to the Environment Court.

If the applicant had pushed that through the Environment Court, they’d just about be through the process by now, because it’s well over a year ago since that was done. Instead, they’ve gamed the system to get on this process, which doesn’t have any right of public input, and, indeed, probably at law, the greenhouse gas implications can’t be properly considered; whereas through a referral to the Environment Court, they specifically could be considered, and, indeed, my direction as Minister, asks particular attention to be paid to that particular issue. Instead of actually drawing upon the wisdom of the Environment Court judges, who are wise in these matters and would hear evidence on all sides, in respect of what is the first of these, it’s on this list in Schedule 2.

My question is: why? What justification is there? It was already going through a one-step process which would have kicked the tires on it properly; there would have been appropriate public consideration of the issues. How can the Minister justify the South Island Resource Recovery project?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the bill, and I’m going to specifically ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform questions relating to a project listed in Schedule 2. It’s a New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi project and it is the Hope Bypass in my electorate of Nelson. Labour supports this project and we were really pleased to include this in our version of the Government policy statement on transport, but I do have some questions for the Minister, and they do come off the back of the fact the schedule has come to us at this stage of the process and not through the select committee process.

I will start with some questions I have that are quite specific and are related to a recent media report from two of our mayors, and some of the wording that is in the schedule that could make it difficult for the mayors to get the change they want to the project. I don’t necessarily agree with the mayors on their view.

The thing about the Hope Bypass is that there is cross-party support, at least between Labour and National, for the project, but there are some differences around the edges of the project. I want to talk specifically to parts of Schedule 2. It’s called the Hope Bypass. In the project description, it says, “Construct approximately 4.2 kilometres of new highway bypassing Richmond and Hope townships, altering the existing designation, and additional land acquisition outside of that designation.” That is really specific in the schedule, and the mayors of Nelson and Tasman, the Hon Dr Nick Smith and Tim King, have recently called, on 16 November—and it’s a story in The Press—for the scope of the project to no longer bypass Hope. They want the bypass to only cover the Richmond piece and then for the project to be extended out further into Nelson City.

I don’t necessarily agree with them, by the way, but I think what the process is showing us is that if the schedule had been presented in the select committee process, the mayors would have seen it and been able to submit to the select committee process, perhaps with the wording to be less specific. What concerns me is that if the NZTA together with the two councils, through the design process—because we’re actually still at the design process of that road—do decide to agree with the mayors and make that change, then what’s going to need to happen? Is there going to need to be further legislative change coming back to this House to amend the schedule? These are the kinds of small technical details that exist in a lot of these projects, where there’s been real specifics written into the schedule but it might actually have some unintended consequences.

There are a couple of other questions I have for the Minister on this particular project, and just on that, I understand the transport Minister is going to be in the electorate on Thursday about this project, so, hopefully, he might have some further things to say on this. There are questions in the community as to how many lanes. There is certainly a question—and there’s nothing mentioning it in the schedule—about protecting the existing cycleway, which is part of the Great Taste Trail, which was funded by the Key Government. It is a fantastic part of our electorate, and there is concern in the community that we might lose part of that important tourism infrastructure. Also, the name causes confusion. People might want to change the name of the project. People often don’t understand where it goes when we call it the Hope Bypass.

The schedule talks about land acquisition, and I’m really interested in understanding the interrelationship between this legislation and an important court case that is currently making its way through the courts, which is the tenths. I understand the Minister might not be able to talk to this, but there was a recent ruling in favour of Wakatū Incorporation in relation to the tenths land. It has been issued with NZTA land potentially being subject to claims under those cases. In fact, a small project just around the corner from where this project will happen had to have significant changes because the land couldn’t be transferred from NZTA to the polytechnic.

There are some technical legal issues that I’m concerned perhaps have not been considered, but my fundamental question to the Minister is around the specifics related to this project. I want to be really specific that my question is about how specific it is here in the legislation and what the Minister intends to do if, indeed, the mayors and NZTA do actually agree to change, through the design process, the scope of the Hope Bypass project.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I begin, I just want to seek some clarification from the Chair. I understand that we are currently moving on to Schedule 2, but I have not been able to take a call at all for any of Part 1. Would the Chair allow me to ask three very specific clarification questions for clauses—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no. The fact that the member didn’t participate earlier doesn’t mean the subject matter hasn’t been covered, but what I have just declared is that now the debate has been going for some time. The Speaker’s ruling last night was that it should be allowed to extend perhaps beyond the normal time that it would do, where it pertains to Schedule 2. Calls outside Schedule 2 do risk straying off or into an area that may invite a closure motion.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. I will stick to Schedule 2, then. Thank you for that clarification, Mr Chair. And, again, just a reminder to the governing members, as well, that this is a 235-page amendment that was dropped on our lap yesterday, with no public consultation. Please, bear with us while we do, actually, for many of us, speak to our portfolios and also our communities. Thank you, Mr Chair.

My question is around the fact that, in Schedule 2, there is a particular project, which is the Summerset Retirement Villages Ltd, and it is the Summerset Retirement Village in Mosgiel, in the deep South. I have an Amendment Paper on this, for this particular one to be removed. Now, the reason is that I would like to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform around what he said before in terms of public good and public benefit in the context of this particular project. I think the key word here—and this is something that my colleague Lan Pham was trying to get through as well—is the proportionality test of public benefit. In the case of retirement villages, now there are a number of retirement villages that are part of the 149 projects, but this is the only one that is specifically just on a new retirement village.

Now, many of us, with the committee of the whole House, have gone through various bits and pieces in the South Island, in the deep South, around aged-care facilities, but one of the things that we do notice—one of the things—

Carl Bates: The bill does a lot for the South Island. The Government’s delivering for the South Island.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I said the deep South. One of the few things that we have noticed, and particularly in the context of the retirement village, is the fact that there’s currently a live review of the Retirement Villages Act, which is currently with the Associate Minister of Housing. Fundamentally, this is to do with the way that retirement villages have been allowed to operate and take advantage of our seniors and elderly, from the perspective of not sharing capital, deferred management fees, not paying out capital when they move out, or sometimes when they’re forced to move out due to additional health reasons.

Now, this is something that the Retirement Village Residents Association—this is within my seniors portfolio—has spoken a lot about in terms of the way that the privatisation of retirement villages has had a detrimental effect on our seniors, and the lives of our seniors. That, coupled with the fact that we’re seeing an increasing number of our seniors—possibly, now, 40 percent, up to 50 percent—no longer owning their own property, which means that they are no longer able to have the capital, because you have to pay cash upfront to enter one of these retirement villages; they’re no longer able to pay cash upfront to access some of these retirement villages.

In the context of this particular project, I would like to ask the Minister what sort of public consultation has been done with senior residents—with Grey Power, with other relevant communities and organisations—around the need, in the beginning, for a new retirement village, purely just a new retirement village, in that area, and whether the companies are able to show proof that they’re able to house or able to actually bring people in as part of that. Again, we’re seeing that retirement villages are struggling because people are not able to pay up front to access the licence to occupy some of these retirement villages. If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying what data is there.

Well, I’ll deal with a few of the questions that have been raised in the last few contributions.

Firstly, to start where we left off with the last contribution, which was, basically, a long rant about the problems in the Retirement Villages Act, which, as Lawrence Xu-Nan rightly notes, is under—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: So why are you fast tracking it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, notwithstanding that the Act itself is under review, the Government does not have a problem with retirement villages. If the member wants to campaign on abolishing privately owned retirement villages, which provide residential accommodation very happily for people up and down the country, that’s over to the Green Party. But that was just, really, a long rant about some of the alleged problems with retirement villages’ practice.

He says, “How do we know there’s a need for it?” Well, last time I checked, the Parliament and the Government wasn’t in the business of determining need for retirement villages. Normally, what happens is that, if someone wants to build one, they go and build one and get consent for it. If they can’t make a buck out of it, they don’t build it. And if it fails, it fails. We don’t run a planned economy here, at least certainly not on this side of the House. I think, to be honest, a lot of what he was talking about is really away from the bill. In relation to Rachel Boyack, which was a really good question—

Hon Member: I’ll pass it on to her.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Righty-o, pass it on. Very good. I wasn’t going to breach the Standing Orders by commenting on it.

In relation to Rachel Boyack, her issue is, basically, summarising it—well, interestingly, the most interesting part of her speech was, it turns out, that the Opposition supports one of the projects in the Schedule 2 list, which is the Hope Bypass. That’s quite interesting. It might be an interesting exercise to go through and work out how many of the projects the Opposition actually supports, because it turns out there’s at least one of them, which is the Hope Bypass. That’s interesting. We support all of them, so it’d be an interesting little exercise to work out how many of them the Opposition supports. But, anyway, it turns out they support at least one of them, which is the Hope Bypass.

Her substantive issue was about the route in, I think it is, page 126. I went away and checked and the basic point is, I’m advised by the officials, that the definition of project provides some flexibility. The definition of project at clause 4 includes an activity that is involved in or that supports and is subsidiary to a project referred to in Schedule 2. Her point is that the route listed in Schedule 2, in relation to the Hope Bypass, is quite specific. The mayors have got a different route, which might be better. That’ll be worked through later. Her point was, essentially, that it’s good it’ll be fast tracked but we just want to make sure that we can fast track that particular route, if indeed the route changes. I’m advised the answer is yes.

Hon Members: Mr Chair?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Hang on—hang on. I’ve got two more points to make. I’m trying, in the interests of completeness—members ask questions; they’re going to get answers.

The Hon David Parker asked, basically, why is it not just left to one individual Minister? And it is. It’s just that it’s not the Minister for the Environment, which it was under the last fast track. It’s the Minister for Infrastructure, which happens to be held by me at the moment. That reflects the fact that it’s a development statute. We’ve changed that, but there’s a requirement—I forget the exact clause—to consult with the Minister for the Environment as well. That was one of the changes made through the Environment Committee.

Steve Abel asks about a particular project and what you do if you’re a relevant iwi and you’re not—it was a slightly confused question, but I would just direct Mr Abel to clause 24M, which is about the panel inviting comments on substantive applications. There’s a long list of people that have to be invited to comment, and actually, this question goes to many of the questions that I suspect have been raised or might be raised in the future: relevant local authorities, relevant iwi authorities, relevant Treaty settlement entities, protected customary rights groups, groups under the marine and coastal area Act, tangata whenua of an area which the substantive application relates to, mātaitai reserves, local fisheries, the owners of the land, the occupiers of the land, the Minister for the Environment, relevant administrating agencies, requiring authorities—there’s a long list.

This kind of idea that it’s all kind of like everything just goes off to a panel and no one gets a say and no one gets any public input is, with respect, not accurate, and members need to read the bill.

I’ll just comment that, while the Minister’s colleagues are vigorously seeking a closure motion, I wonder whether he will consider he has now invited the Opposition to go through each project. The Minister might need to just—

Hon Chris Bishop: I said it might be interesting.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Might be interesting. But I’ll also make another comment that we are going to be speaking on projects, but just mentioning a project and taking that as an excuse to do a broad-ranging presentation is also not advisable at this stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I can name a few projects, actually, but they’re all themed around a particular question and whether the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has received some advice in relation to these different projects. I’ll go through them: the Beachlands South Limited Partnership, so Beachlands South—that’s on page 114 of Amendment Paper 238, Schedule 2; the Ōhoka Residential Subdivision on page 115; the Gibbston Village, which is page 118; the Plimmerton Farm, on page 121—I’ll keep going.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Slow down—not all at once.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Yeah, I know—not all at once. Ha, ha! Page 132, that is—actually, no, not that one, I’ll come back to that one, actually. And the Sunfield development, on page 141.

Now, the reason why I’ve picked out those specific projects, and my question to the Minister, is because each of those projects has a comment around “enable the potential development of a school”. These are all very large residential development projects, and as part of the project description, there is a sentence at the end of it that says, for example, “develop X residential dwellings, on approximately X hectares land”—add commercial, add retail. But, actually, the really key theme which strings these different projects together is to enable the potential development of a school. However, as I pointed to, there are other projects right throughout this schedule, such as Stratford Park Limited, that have a very similar example of where it’s basically developing the land for multi-use, for different complexes and facilities, and hosting agricultural and pastoral shows, etc., etc.—different uses—but it doesn’t actually say it won’t enable the potential for a school.

My question to the Minister is: as part of the weighting for those projects, was the ability to enable the potential development of a school—how much weight was that given by the panel in suggesting this to Ministers, and did the Minister or the panel receive independent advice from the Ministry of Education as to the development of these potential schools? I could understand why you would weight your decision very differently if there was the potential for the enablement of a school; however, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Education actually provided that advice, or was that just part of the specifications that that commercial developer decided to input on their own? Unless they’re looking at doing a private school and therefore developing the private school by themselves using their own money, I wouldn’t have thought that having a sentence like that as part of the project description, or as part of the project evaluation as to whether it should be given greater weighting, should be in the absence of the Ministry of Education, who does provide the schools.

If I look to Plimmerton Farms, which is a development within my electorate of Mana—yes, our population of Porirua City is growing and there is a need for schools in the northern area. However, I would also argue that, as part of the Porirua regeneration—the east project—for a number of years, Kāinga Ora, the local government, and schools within that area have been asking the Ministry of Education to do a review of that area because of the population, the number of people that live there, the development of houses. That’s had to be something that over a number of years—and we still haven’t come to a conclusion as part of that review—the Ministry of Education has had to lead, because they’re the ones, in the end, via Crown funding, that then develop this infrastructure of a school. There’s also, when you think about it—I’m not too sure where these other projects are and what the school network looks like in those other projects; I can only really speak to the one I know in particular here. For example, there was an Aotea development, which was a number of stages—I think it was, like, 19 stages. For a number of years there, the community had been asking for a school because the two closest schools are oversubscribed, and the Ministry of Education has basically been trying to put money into those two current local schools to build more buildings.

For me, it’s a really important decision as to a development, but when they put that proposal through to the panel, how much does that actually weigh on that decision? How much information was given by the ministry? It would be concerning to me if it was just, “Oh, we have the potential for a school to be built here”, but there was no actual official advice as to the wider network and the implications of the wider network, and therefore the implications on Crown funding. If there is going to be potential for more schools to be built in the future, who’s going to pay for that? If it’s not the developer, I don’t understand why that would be part of the consideration. I would like the Minister to be able to provide a bit of elucidation around that, the weighting of it as part of the project assessment by the panel or the Minister himself; whether the Ministry of Education was included as part of this advice that they received around that particular weighting. Otherwise, I can’t understand why there is a distinction between some of these projects which have the ability or potential to enable schools but a number of other projects don’t even mention it.

Where did that come from, who was advised or consulted as part of that, and were wider network implications—and therefore the Crown having to fund it if it’s not the private developer themselves; who is having to fund these? I understand it’s the potential to enable it, but surely there must be some advice that was given by officials or someone as to why they could put that in a project description which is now in Schedule 2 of this particular bill going through the committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just want to note a couple of things before we talk about a particular project I’m interested in. It was that the Speaker’s ruling last night did give us the scope to discuss this bill in quite a bit of detail, particularly with that huge Amendment Paper that landed and in particular all these projects which didn’t go through a select committee process. We’re trying to replicate that process now with a bit of back and forth as to many of these projects. In fact, I hope we do have time to discuss all of them, and I note that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform did invite a little bit of information there as to whether the Opposition agrees with some of the projects or not, and we’ll get through that as we go through these projects.

I want to draw the committee’s attention to a particular project. It’s a KiwiRail project; it’s on page 120 of Amendment Paper 238, in Schedule 2, and it’s the four-tracking from Westfield to Pukekohe. Looking at this particular project—and the Minister looks very satisfied that I’ve raised this one—and it is actually one that was something that was proposed under the previous Government as well—

Hon Chris Bishop: You should have funded it. You did the three-track, not the four-track.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s sort of one of those ones which the Minister might like to put a tick in his list of the—

Hon Chris Bishop: The benefit-cost ratio’s higher with a four-track. Bill should have funded the whole thing.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —projects that the Opposition agrees to. If I look at this project, this four-tracking—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just invite the Minister in the chair to know he’s got a microphone there. When he does yell across the Chamber, he’s giving himself a big advantage in that his words are heard by those listening. If he could contain himself, it would be appreciated—or at least give me a warning and I’ll turn the microphone off.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I may need to seek another few seconds at the end of this call because of that.

What it’s going to do is widen the existing rail corridor, all right, and expand the North Island Main Trunk line between Westfield Junction—that’s Newmarket in Auckland—and Pukekohe. It goes from a two-track to a four-track, which is pretty interesting. A bit of grade separation going on at Westfield Junction. Of course, in order to enable four-tracking, you’ve got to widen the bridges and maybe change the configuration of some station platforms. Interestingly, in fact, we’re going to remove some level crossings. Of course, we’re going to support that. Level crossings are a known danger, and it’s a good thing to remove level crossings. Of course, alongside all of this, we’ll need new track, new signals, and electrified lines—so, quite a big project.

The reason I want to discuss it in particular is because this was on the cards before the change of Government. There was a bit of discussion on it. The big thing about this is that it goes through residential Onehunga. There’s going to be a big trench dug through Onehunga in order to enable this, as far as I can tell—it’s not specified in what’s going on in the bill, but that was the project that we had under way. One of the candidates for the seat of Maungakiekie said—I’m going to quote. On this heavy rail going through, this big rail corridor going through, one of the candidates in that electorate said, “I think I might cross the floor on that one, or certainly beg leave to differ. That would be such a bad piece of decision making in terms of the impact on this community.” That’s the exact quote from this candidate.

The candidate responded to the mood of the community. The community doesn’t want it, the community in Onehunga, and the candidate said, “They want to hear me say that if I become the local MP, I will lie on the proposed railway tracks.” “And I will!”, he went on to say. That candidate became the National Party MP for Maungakiekie. Good on Greg Fleming for standing up for what he perceived the interests of his community to be, but now he’s probably in a bit of a bind, and can I suggest to the Minister that this just might be one of those situations where quite a lot of community consultation might be needed. I’m going to ask the Minister to comment on this because my understanding is—and I’ve been told and I’ve read—that community consultation “may” be undertaken but there’s no “must” about it. The legislation enables consultation, but it doesn’t require consultation.

I guess that’s part of the point of the fast track, but, in that case, what is the Minister going to say to his own colleague, who says that the community is really opposed to this particular rail development? I think it highlights a real problem—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, just a few more seconds?

The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Sorry, I was little slow there, Mr Chairman. I’m just working my way through Schedule 2—the first time I’ve had a chance to look at it. I’ll start right at the beginning. It relates to the Āmuri irrigation project, which the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I understand, has already put up an amendment to—the Balmoral Water Storage Facility project.

I just happened to be in and around Culverden this week, so I’m familiar with some questions that should be asked, and it’s really, to the Minister, on advice that the panel received. This is quite a unique area of North Canterbury. The area runs, basically, between the Waiau River and the Hurunui River. This is the area that currently has irrigation from the Waiau River. There’s quite a complex irrigation system that’s been running for some time. The area is quite dry. It has been converted in the past into dairy operations. In fact, it continues to be developed and transitioned from forestry—a huge area of forestry—into farmland. This Amuri Irrigation Company Limited is going to put in this water storage facility, and the amount of water coming from the Hurunui River will, as the Minister has amended, change from “1.5 million cubic metres”, which is not right, to “1.5 cubic metres of water per second”, which is the proposed extraction rate.

My questions to the Minister relate to the nitrate levels in the Culverden basin. It’s quite a unique geological area. There are already increasing nitrate levels in that aquifer. My question to the Minister is: what advice did the panel receive regarding the already increasing nitrate levels—whether this project would rapidly increase the nitrate levels in that aquifer, and what would be the long-term consequences of that? As we’ve seen in Waimate—in fact, there were some other projects here that are likely to impact on that—the school at Waimate can’t drink the water because of the nitrate levels in the water supply.

I don’t think any New Zealander, whether they be in rural or urban areas, wants to see that degradation continue. Here is a project which, again, continues the irrigation—and I’m not opposed to that at all. I think that has allowed us to expand farming operations, but there are consequences in some areas. As I’ve said before, this is a unique geological area where the nitrates, if not managed properly, will remain in that aquifer, affecting the local community’s ability to get good, fresh water. So, firstly, the question to the Minister: did the panel receive any advice on the nitrate levels and what might happen with this greater level of irrigation?

Then the other issue of Ngāi Tahu: Ngāi Tahu are big landowners in the Culverden basin there. They will be potential beneficiaries of this. This will enable more conversion of their forest land into farmland, possibly going from dry stock operations into dairy. The nitrate footprint of both those operations is quite different. What advice did the panel receive, and were there any guidelines as to the utilisation of this water over what kind of farming operations will develop from access to more water facilities? These are really important issues.

The other cultural question that I have—and the Minister may know this. This will, effectively, be the mixing of water from both the Waiau and from the Hurunui rivers—two different catchments coming into one area for the development of farming operations. As I say, that in itself is a good objective, but we are learning as we go forward about the impacts of inappropriate land use in inappropriate places: the wrong tree in the wrong place or the wrong farm in the wrong place. The questions go to the Minister: what advice did the panel receive when it looked at this application? Are the issues of the cultural mixing of water important; and, in fact, should that be a deal breaker? And how does Ngāi Tahu manage the issues of the cultural values of water and then the commercial objectives of their land development?

It’s quite a significant project—one that’s No. 1 in the schedule. As I work through, I’m sure I’ll have other questions to the Minister, but I welcome his reply on this.

I’ll just deal with some of the last few questions. In relation to the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ question around a variety of different housing projects, some of which have schools as part of them, some of them don’t: nothing particularly turns on that, to be honest. Some of the applications proposed included the potential for a school as part of the development, others did not, but that wasn’t determinative as to whether or not they were listed.

In relation to her question around the Ministry of Education, I’m advised that the advisory group and Ministers did not receive advice from the Ministry of Education. The wording reflects an option expressed by the applicant to work with the Ministry of Education to include a school in a development down the line—that there may be the potential for a school; there may not be. There’s a whole lot of work that has to go under way around that, and the Government’s got work under way around better school property processes—that’s a separate issue. I think it’s helpful for some of these developments that, when they do take place, developers are thinking ahead about infrastructure, about schools that may or may not be included, but those are kind of subsidiary questions to what we’re actually dealing with.

In relation to the Hon Deborah Russell’s point around some of these KiwiRail projects, I think, respectfully, she may be a touch confused. There are two KiwiRail projects; in fact, there are four KiwiRail projects listed. The two she’s talking about are the four-tracking of Westfield to Pukekohe. I happen to know a little bit about this project because I used to be the transport spokesperson. Suffice to say that the Government is—this is the third main line. The last Government funded it; they should have done the fourth main at the same time. The benefit-cost ratio of the fourth main is actually higher if you do them both at the same time. They didn’t do that. It’s quite an odd decision. So that is that.

This allows me to make a general point, which is that consent is different from funding. Just because something might get consent or it might go through to expert panel does not mean it’s funded. There’s billions of dollars’ worth of projects here, and consent is not the same as funding.

The point she was making about Avondale-Southdown is a wholly separate project across another part of Auckland. She was attempting to make a political point about a National Party MP. They’re completely separate projects, by the way, but she seemed to think they were the same.

In relation to Damien O’Connor’s project point, I don’t know what advice the panel received; that was a process run separately to Ministers. Many of the issues that he talks about would be considered by an expert panel as it goes through the process, but I don’t have visibility about what advice the advisory group who gave Ministers recommendations received.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty—before I take this call, I have been watching the debate with interest and we have been on Part 1 for four hours. As I indicated last night when I was in this Chair, we can have a bit more of a wide-ranging debate, but I’m starting to hear lots of repetition around the purpose and the environmental issues, which I think have been well answered by the Minister. I understand there’s been a bit of an opening up to the projects this morning. I think, if people could be really specific with something new, that would be really helpful, because we have been on this stage for about four hours, and while we accepted that it could be longer, I’m feeling that there is a lot of repetition from what I’ve heard.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that guidance. I think the committee would benefit from some clarity here, because it wasn’t that long ago that we sought clarification from the presiding officer in the Chair around the ability of the committee, given the Speaker’s ruling last night and the subsequent conversation that I had with you last evening and then with the presiding officer around what that meant in practice, and where we landed was that if members of the Opposition, or, indeed, the Government—so members of this committee—wished to speak specifically to each of the 149 projects listed in Schedule 2, that would be permissible. Now, subsequent to that, the presiding officer has made it clear that if we stray outside Schedule 2 at this moment, then that could bring on a closure motion, so that’s something for all of us to consider. But, essentially, in summary, as long as we talk about projects in this, we’re OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I guess we’re speaking the same language, Mr McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m saying to, please, make it very specific and not repetitive to where we shouldn’t be going.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: My question is around it being repetitive. If we were to take that guidance given and the permission, essentially, to speak to each project, naturally we might ask similar questions but about different projects. So my question is: would you deem that to be repetitive?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Excellent—thank you. The other question I have is around the ability to speak to amendments that relate to these projects. There are a number of amendments that are being progressively tabled that propose to remove a specific project. Now, that hasn’t been tested or discussed yet, and I don’t actually intend to ask that question specifically, but I just want to be really clear that if some member has spoken about a project and then another member wishes to speak to an amendment that relates to that project, would that be deemed repetitious?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In my view, it would be deemed repetitious if we were to have people standing up individually wanting to remove projects one by one. I’m happy for people to speak to the project and suggest during their speech, as they’re doing that, that it might be removed and to speak to that amendment, but I don’t think it would be helpful for the committee if we had only speeches about removing the projects one by one.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: So a member could potentially not have the opportunity to speak to an amendment that they’ve put forward?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, that’s always the case—nothing changes there. Not all amendments are spoken to on many occasions, on lots of bills.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK, so I suspect that—

Hon Chris Bishop: Why don’t you just get on with it?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: This is a point of order.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —we will see, in taking on that guidance—

Hon Chris Bishop: You should see the way you behaved in the chair, Megan.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Excuse me, Minister. I’m taking a point of order, which I take in silence.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —that we will see contributions from members specific to projects that won’t be touching on contributions to projects that have been spoken of before and won’t be repetitious. I’m sure we can expect to see that. I’d like to make my call now.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, and I don’t expect that people will speak to the project and then get up and take another call suggesting that it be cancelled. I’m sure people can refine what they’re saying and bring up—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s really useful.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —the amendments during the course of their speeches about the projects, because I don’t want to see a whole list of speeches just suggesting that we remove the projects.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, that’s really useful. Do you have a point of order?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yeah, a point of order, Madam Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’m going to leave it.

Thank you, and thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. Just further to the clarifications you’ve been able to give my colleague Kieran McAnulty, my question is: if there’s a member who has taken a call, asked the Minister some questions, and is seeking information before they decide they need to put in an amendment, because, actually, their decision about whether or not there does need to be an amendment is dependent on the Minister’s answer—whether, in that instance, they will then be able to speak to their Amendment Paper, because they won’t know until the Minister has answered the questions that we’re seeking in this committee of the whole House stage?

It’s a fair question. We’ll judge that one case by case.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The project I wish to speak to is listed on page 133, Schedule 2: Tararua Wind Power Limited. It relates to the area of the “Foothills of the Tararua Range, south of the Manawatu Gorge, and north of the Pahiatua Track, 5.5 kilometres west of Woodville.” Now, this is obviously in the Tararua District, where both sides of my family are from, and it’s an area that I hold very dear. It’s appropriate that I speak to this project because I’ve spoken about this area before in the House, in relation to proposed wind farms and this specific area in particular.

Now, there are already substantial wind farms in this area, and in fact this project proposes to improve and expand, in terms of the size of the turbines, those that already exist, but what it doesn’t provide the committee is the context. Separate to this scheme, but right next door, is another project—the Makomako proposal—that has been given separate fast-track approval outside this bill. Why is that important? Because the Tararua District has numerous consents for wind farms that have already been issued—more towards the east—and they’ve never been actioned. This bill is asking this Parliament to approve projects that subvert the normal process and override or prevent the public from having a say whilst there are consents sitting there that haven’t been used. It’s very hard for us to understand the justification here.

If indeed all those consents had led to projects being built and there continued to be barriers to future projects getting through the consenting process, we might have a valid discussion there, but we don’t. I remember when I was fencing out Makuri for a few seasons, we did work on areas that were consented for wind farms—we’re talking about 20 years ago—and they still haven’t been built. Yet, we go to these areas near Makomako where a project, an additional project, has already been given approval, overriding the views of those communities and all the affected properties. And now, in addition to that, we’ve got this project here that again wants to override their views.

I’m also mindful of Mount Munro, just down the road in Eketāhuna. The residents there have similar concerns that their opposition to the wind farm right next to their residential areas—a relatively compact residential area in the context of a rural community—their views have been overlooked. The Makomako views have been overlooked. And here we are, the fast-track proposal—exactly the same thing. Why I’m particularly concerned about this is that this community has already done their bit; they already have a massive wind farm right up against their farms and right up against their houses. This proposal is going to make that bigger, and they’ve got another project coming. The main concern here is that, in including this project in this bill, it doesn’t provide the context that a normal process would allow, and that is a concern for all of us.

It is also a concern the way in which the Government is trying to frame this debate. They are trying to frame, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform indicated earlier, that because members of this committee are expressing concern about the inclusion of a project, that means they are against that particular project or they are against that industry. We are not against renewable energy—I don’t think there’s a member in this House that is; we’re certainly not against proposals that look to increase the proportion of renewable energy—but when this bill allows the communities that are affected, their views, to be completely ignored and completely overlooked, we have an issue with that.

My question to the Minister is: why are we including this project when projects in the exact same area, surrounding farms, and surrounding residences have already been approved without the requirement of this bill, and yet that fact will not be considered?

Kia ora, Madam Chair. As I listen to and consider what is going on this morning, I want to look at the bigger picture and come, obviously, to one of the pieces here, because the challenge that I’m seeing is that there are some projects—and I’ll allude to them very shortly—with community controversy or there are issues in terms of the projects that have been declined or there are issues in terms of the community.

The Minister responsible for RMA Reform has spoken several times today, and my colleague just now spoke about the fact that this side of committee isn’t opposed to all of these projects, but there are some that we need to take into real consideration. The Minister spoke to us about nimbyism and the fact that we don’t want progress to happen, but, actually, it’s about the protection of our communities and the protection of people for whom these projects are on their doorsteps; not nimbyism, but getting it right, because this is for generations and generations to come.

Now, the project I want to speak on is on page 122, and it’s Maia Properties Ltd in New Plymouth. Again, looking at this project—119 potential allotments, residential development, including stormwater infrastructure—that does sound good, but the question I have for the Minister is in terms of we’ve heard from the Minister that the process, at arm’s length, was with the panel who came up with recommendations; then it went to Cabinet, and Cabinet decided on these 149 projects. The challenge the Minister has—and, I believe, the Government has—is that some of these projects have major issues that are not only running through the media but have run through the courts, as we’ve talked about.

This project in particular—and, in fact, I’ve been tracking with some of the families involved, who, on the record, say completely that they support the development up the top of Mangorei Road. As New Plymouth continues to grow, and as we see communities around the country growing, we see, obviously, moving into farmland, but there’s also challenges: there’s wetlands up there, there’s council reserves. There have been challenges around the developer, in terms of what is good development. This is the thing, I guess, for us on this side of the committee, where we say, “Yeah, of course we want housing development, of course we want more people owning their own homes, but, again, at what cost and at what implications to social cohesion within those communities?”

Now, I’m holding up a series of news articles from over the last four or five years around this particular development. The reason I’ve got them here is because I’ve been considering that the council’s had to get involved because there was an issue in terms of engineering. One of the houses actually had the potential of subsiding because they had cut far too close to the side of the property that isn’t part of the development that already exists, and now the council is committed to building a public access way along there just to create protection for that home and other homes that are already existing. It went through a process. This project went through the engineering association—I forget what they’re called. The sort of Engineering New Zealand had to actually look into this because there were some mistakes made, and, again, for the local residents, there’s been dust, there’s been concerns around the wetlands, and concerns around council reserves that it feels like it’s impeding on.

The question I’m trying to ask the Minister is: how comfortable is the Minister around some of these projects—I’m going to get to a few a bit later on—that definitely are controversial and that definitely don’t have local support? As you’ve said, Minister, we know that this is about consenting; this isn’t about funding. Just because it’s on the fast-track Schedule 2 doesn’t mean that it will necessarily happen, but if it does, these community members who live there now or live there for years to come will potentially not have a say in what happens. Currently, they feel out in the dark. Currently, they feel like they’re being ignored. This piece of legislation and this project up on Mangorei Road just shows the potential of the community falling apart, but also bad infrastructure, bad build—actually, someone who maybe doesn’t know what they’re doing. The question is for the panel who made the decision: how did that happen? Secondly, why would the Cabinet decide on a project that is as controversial as this to go ahead and be in Schedule 2?

Just before I take the next speaker, I also want to say that the questions around the community concerns and things are relevant, but we want to be careful also that there’s a panel to be appointed as a result of this bill, and we’re not actually here in this Chamber to do the work of the panel.

Thank you for those comments, Madam Chair. I’m going to be very specific about my contribution and the very clear questions that pertain to the bill and the process ahead of us. I want to focus in on a project on page 129 of Amendment Paper 238 in Schedule 2, and the company is OceanaGold, which is a multinational mining company based in Canada and Australia. The specific one that I’m talking to in this contribution is the Macraes phase four, where in stages it proposes to expand the existing open pit and underground gold mining operations to enable output of approximately 130,000 ounces per annum out to 2036.

The concerns that I have around this and the questions that I have for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform pertain to a very significant ongoing pattern of non-compliance of the company and about how that relates to how that will be picked up through the application process by the panel and actually given due consideration to. Now, what we’ve found with OceanaGold at this Macraes site is that they have demonstrated significant negligence, and this is across both the consenting from Otago Regional Council and also Waitaki District Council, who both undertook auditing and reporting on the company that documented this pattern of non-compliance.

This has been over a five-year period, the Otago Regional Council’s audit found, and it found continued or repeated non-compliances over this time which related to the declining of aquatic health and the surrounding ecosystem. These are really significant breaches. It had higher than allowed chemicals and algae levels in the water, and there were gaps in both the monitoring and then the non-notification to the council when there were breaches. With the submitting of their compliance reports, there was a pattern of them being late, but not just a few days or weeks—we’re talking about between five months to one year. I want to make that really clear: that this is a significant pattern; this is not just one-offs.

The same was found for Waitaki District Council. They found significant negligence, particularly when it came to stock exclusion and allowing cattle to graze against consent conditions. A number of these breaches were actually in relation to QEII covenants, and there were certain conditions that actually asked or made clear that OceanaGold would actually have to create lizard habitat, for example, but then the stock issues actually destroyed their own lizard habitat creation, and fencing activity was compromised due to a continued failure to exclude stock. Waitaki District Council found they’d breached all of their ecological consents multiple times, often at different mining sites, and this is captured in an article by RNZ just this morning.

Now, what I’m concerned about with this, and what I’d like to hear the Minister’s comments on, is that even in the early stages, where Cabinet actually considered these on a project-by-project basis—considered these companies that would be eligible to going through and being listed in this schedule—there was, I believe, a part of the application that asked about previous non-compliance. I’m interested whether the Minister is aware whether this kind of non-compliance was first and foremost present in these applications which have now gone through into this schedule. If not, how are the next processes in the bill, in terms of the panel decision making, making clear that these concerns will be vetted and visible to the panel?

I’ll just very briefly deal with three of the last contributions.

Firstly, in relation to Mr McAnulty’s point about the Tararuas, which is a haven of wind power, he seems surprised by that. It’s because the wind is good. That is why everyone wants to build wind farms in the Tararuas. He doesn’t like it very much, but the point is the same for the particular project he is talking about, as it is for all of the projects, which is that expert panels are required to invite local councils to comment on projects so they can consider the full context of projects. That point remains true for all of them, and members opposite often say that local councils know their local communities. Well, that is indeed the case.

In relation to Glen Bennett’s points about the particular project he was talking about, again the point is the same. The expert panel’s job is to consider the effects of the project and can apply conditions as appropriate.

In relation to Lan Pham’s point just made now, which was a good point, the bill provides that panels can take into account the history of applicants regarding previous non-compliance. This has to be included in both listed and referred applications. That is something the panels can specifically take into account, which, I think, deals with the nub of the point she was making. We’ve put the specific provision in the bill for that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m going to take a call now from the Hon Dr Megan Woods, but I’ve just been through a process of having a discussion and Part 2 is related to the process, and I think we’re now heavily straying into Part 2. I’m going to take a call from the Hon Dr Megan Woods and then assess the situation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I specifically want to address my comments and questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop, around the Mid Canterbury Water Storage Limited Klondyke Storage project, which is listed on page 123 of the schedule. This proposal is to construct storage for up to approximately 53 million cubic metres of water for irrigation to improve the reliability of the existing MHV Water Ltd and Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd community irrigation schemes, including realigning parts of the Rangitata Diversion Race to facilitate the diversion and take of water into storage. Specifically, it is 917 and 986 Shepherds Bush Road, Ruapuna, Canterbury, adjacent to the Rangitata River, and approximately 38 kilometres from Ashburton.

It’s fair to say that the Rangitata races and the Rangitata Diversion Scheme is something that is very dear to the Labour Party’s heart. Of course, it was built between 1937 and 1944, and was very much part of the first Labour Government’s mission around regional economic development. This is a scheme which is part of our proud history of how it is we have supported rural communities in New Zealand.

It is worth, before asking my questions, also putting on the table that we’re not opposed to fast-track schemes, but my questions to the Minister around this specifically relate to the fact that this is a fast-track scheme like we have not seen for decades. This is a fast-track scheme where Part 1 of the bill, the purpose statement, clearly lays out the hierarchy of what can be considered, and the environment is not in that hierarchy. That is one of the things that we have been seeking answers on when we have schemes such as this, which I’ve given some of the past history on, but I haven’t gone back to the 1860s when runholders first started building culverts to irrigate their land in that part of mid-Canterbury.

There has been, since 2016, an attempt to get this Klondyke storage scheme up and running. It has had various stages through that, and it has gone through various processes. In September 2016, the Ashburton District Council published the notice of application for the resource consent. The application included consents to divert an additional 10 cumecs from the Rangitata River, at times when the flow exceeded—now, I’m not going to go through everything like that, but the decision to grant this resource consent was appealed by several bodies, notably including the New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association and Ngāi Tahu. These were the two entities that appealed strongly around this in 2016.

In 2019, the disputed application for resource consent was still in the mediation phase in the Environment Court when the then Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage, announced that a project was being developed in conjunction with partners to ensure the ecological health and biodiversity of the Rangitata River. Now, this is really important, because this says that there were processes in place that put at the heart, in terms of decision making, the environmental impacts of the scheme, and we know from the purpose statement of the legislation that we’re debating today, which is in Part 1 of this bill, that the environmental concerns really slipped down the hierarchy. We know from the purpose statement what the overarching concerns were and, when these fast-track projects which were included in the schedule are referred to the hearings panel, the hierarchy of considerations they’re going to have to take.

One of the things was that an agreement to withdraw the appeal was linked to a detailed monitoring plan for the river. I’m not going to go through every detail of this, but there still was a certain amount of angst around this project, particularly around the water conservation order and how that was being adhered to. A key environmental consideration has sat at the heart of this, yet this is a project that is now being included in this legislation, in this schedule to this legislation, under a purpose clause that takes the environment out of the hierarchy of considerations and puts economic development right at the top, when, clearly, what we’d seen over the last years, in an attempt to find a way to work our way through this, was actually finding a way that did bring the environment centrally into the decision making of whether or not this should be a project—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close. [Interruption] I’ve started voting, Mr McAnulty. Sorry, were you calling before I—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I have started voting but I will take the point of order. I suspect I know what the member is going to say, but my judgment is that in the last few minutes, we’ve been talking heavily around the process, which relates to Part 2, and there’s a lot of work in Part 2 around the process. It’s one thing to talk about the projects; they can be used as examples in Part 2, to make the case of the points that the members are trying to raise around process, and I feel right now we’re doing that in Part 1 when it belongs in Part 2.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair, and thank you. I heard the guidance you provided to the committee earlier that it is your view or your preference that there not be contributions talking about process, and as long as there are calls that don’t touch on process, members can still refer to specific projects as has been established previously. My concern, though, is that you took one call and throughout the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ call—

Just for the member’s benefit, I had actually taken one call, but I had been listening to the calls previous to that and I feel that the calls, including the one that I just took, are based around process. I’ve made a decision to take a closure motion. We’ve still got Part 2 to go, and we can still example the projects when we’re talking about the process. What I’m finding is that what we’re talking about now is the process.

Point of order, Madam Chair. With respect, I haven’t actually made the point that I wanted to make, and that is that, very reluctantly, if it is indeed your intention to take a closure, then I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on that decision on the basis that his ruling last night indicated that the debate on the schedule would be wide-ranging, and that was very clearly made.

Yeah, well, I would point the member to Speaker’s ruling 67/3, on page 67 of Speakers’ Rulings, which states that “It is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment [on … closure]. Of course, if in fact the committee does not agree with the Chair’s decision … then it is always open to the committee to vote down the question,”. I’m going to make the decision now to take the vote, so the question is that debate on this question—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, I had started voting, and I’m going to continue voting.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Chair, you referred to a Speaker’s ruling and it is only appropriate that we are able to respond to that before a decision is made, so respectfully I seek—

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order, I feel the Opposition are trifling with the Chair. It is your decision, as you quite rightly pointed out, and they’re attempting to obfuscate you and not allow you to carry out your duty.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I’m actually going to start the vote now.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to replace clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 129 be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 146 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 147 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 148 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 149 be agreed to.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s amendment to insert new clause 3A set out on Amendment Paper 130 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 150 be agreed to.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s amendments to clause 4A set out on Amendment Paper 141 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 4A set out on Amendment Paper 151 be agreed to.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 4A to insert new paragraphs (la) and (ma) be agreed to.

Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment inserting new clause 6AAA set out on Amendment Paper 152 is out order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment replacing clause 6 be agreed to.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace subclause (3) and insert new subclause (4) be agreed to.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to include a reference to the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.