Fast-track Approvals Bill

We now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 14 to 33, “Fast-track approvals process”, and Schedules 3 and 4 to 13. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve no desire to dispute your ruling previously. However, we are in a situation, given the Speaker’s ruling last night and the unprecedented nature of it, that I think it’s reasonable to say that some clarity is required. My understanding is that Schedule 2 can still be debated in Part 2. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Reference to the projects in terms of process—Schedule 2 not in itself, but the projects can be referred to, to clarify what the members are asking around process.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. That’s important, and that’s how I read it, but for the sake of everybody’s awareness I thought it was best that we set that out from the get-go. Members can still go through project by project, but it’s your expectation that the calls are focused on the process around those projects?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s my expectation that this is around process but the projects can be used for examples to clarify the questions. Is that clear? I’m not sure that it—am I making myself clear?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, it’s just not what I had expected, so I’m pleased I’ve asked the questions.

I’m not ruling out people talking about the projects; all I’m saying is that Schedule 2 was in Part 1. This is about process. If people want to speak about their particular projects in relation to how the process is going to work, then that is fine.

Madam Chair, speaking to the point of order, I just want further clarification from you that we are then able to also, for example—because we are using examples from different projects—refer to the same clause within Part 2 in order to receive some enlightenment from the Minister around the process for those specific projects.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That would be really helpful if people did refer to the clauses, because then it makes it much clearer for the Minister in terms of the questions that the members are asking.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But we can refer to the same clause or the same subclause, depending on the project that we are using as an example?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as you’re using the clauses in Part 2 and the projects to, I guess, quantify what you’re asking.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sounds great—thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right, thank you.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave to give a five-minute call on Part 1 in relation to Winton Sunfield.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there agreement on—[Interruption] There’s disagreement? No, there is objection—there is objection.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Right, as we’re moving on to Part 2, I want to note at the outset that this includes many, many schedules that are very important in terms of process. Of course, Schedule 2 does link to Part 2 as well, as we’ve just been discussing. Whilst other members may want to talk more about the Schedule 2 projects and how they relate to this process—this process which involves a lot of “mays” and not very many “musts”. I’m going to talk quite a lot about the difference between “mays” and “musts” as we go through this because, fundamentally, there are not any of the requirements or protections for the environment or for community participation or for Treaty considerations in this bill, and the requirements in terms of the process.

I’m going to start right at the start, and I will try and move through; I cannot speak for what other people will do, but that is my plan. We have a number of Amendment Papers, some of which have been tabled early last month, so these should not come as a surprise to members at all.

Before I go to the first one, on clause 14, I would note that the Minister’s giant Amendment Paper 238 includes a new clause 14AAA, “Consultation requirements for referral application”, and also clause 14AAB, “Notice of request to grant right of access for proposed access arrangement”, and the short question on that is: if they have come from somewhere else in the bill and it’s just a move around, or if they are new, could that be pointed out to us? There aren’t the little numbers that sometimes there are in these documents with the comparison there is at clause 9, so why are they there? That’s the basic question.

Whilst the Minister responsible for RMA Reform considers that, if we move on to clause 14, there are a couple of amendments that Labour’s had on clause 14, and this is “Referral application”. This is not for the projects that are already included in the Schedule 2—those 149 projects—this is for other projects that might want to be referred. It’s an important process issue of how you go about being referred.

We have Amendment Paper 131, in the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s name, that’s after clause 14(3)—which is “The information to be included in the [referral] application is as follows”, and there’s a wide range of projects, of information that is required—to add at the end of that list, so it would have been (ix) and (x): “neighbours” and “relevant public interest groups”. I’m wondering if the Minister will consider these changes, because the list of groups to be considered there is very narrow. “Persons affected” includes: “relevant local authorities”, some “iwi authorities”, “Treaty settlement entities”, “customary rights groups”, “Ngāti Porou”, “Marine and Coastal Area”, “person with a registered interest in land that may need to be acquired under the Public Works Act”.

What is not included in that list is “neighbours”. We heard before, in a contribution from the Hon David Parker, some concerns from a chap, Hayden, whose surname escapes me, who has a wedding venue near a large, proposed goldmine. He is not an adjoining neighbour, and so I was concerned that he will not be able to participate. I mean, that’s slightly different because that process has already been referred, but it’s that type of situation where neighbours should be included, and relevant public interest groups.

We have a further amendment on this clause as well that I’ll quickly move to, and that is in the name of Glen Bennett, Amendment Paper 141, and that is to delete paragraphs (ea) and (ua). That is a statement of any activities involved in the project that are prohibited activities under the Resource Management Act. That is, of course, because we consider that prohibited activities should not be included in this bill. We’ve discussed that again, but, again, I advocate for a change in this.

So, very quickly wrapping up on the start to Part 2, what are those new clauses before 14 about, and will the Minister consider opening up the referral application information to neighbours and other interested parties? Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. My question is a continuation of what my colleague has just been talking about: new clause 14AAA in Part 2, on Amendment Paper 238. It’s not repetition, because she alluded to this clause but she did not delve specifically into the content, and it is around consultation.

I’m glad that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and his officials have ensured that the word “must” was included in this, because in many ways, if this legislation goes through, this is potentially the only place where consultation will take place before the lodging of a referral application. My concern around this is that for many people who have maybe been involved in local government or been involved in any kind of consenting, or who have been involved in iwi and hapū relations or in community engagement, with this sort of thing, you can always drive a digger through it. It talks here about this and says that they must consult with “relevant local authorities;”, “relevant iwi authorities, hapū, and Treaty settlement entities,” and then it goes on to include others, as well as the “relevant applicant groups with applications”, and so on and so forth.

Now, the concern I have is that it’s pretty vague on what consultation is, and I often speak to colleagues and friends of mine in Taranaki, including some of my iwi and hapū friends, who talk about the dreaded email that gets sent. It’s the email that says, “Oh, we’ve consulted because we actually emailed the local hapū. We sent the email and we told them, and we asked them to respond to us by 5 p.m. on Friday with their feedback.”, and often what I then get coming back to me from the other side is people saying, “They never replied to our email. We tried to send something through.” The challenge of “must consult” is the fact of capacity but also just the fact of just the sheer arrogance, I’d sometimes say, or the assumption that sending a random email to people who, often, they don’t even know and don’t even have the connection with is their version of consulting, and it’s not—it’s not. It has to be far more than that.

I really want to understand in terms of this consultation requirement how we can firm it up so that the engagement, the connection, and the consultation is actually something that is thorough, something that dives deep, and something that is meaningful with relationships. Now, they don’t need to be friends and they don’t need to be best mates, but the fact that that consultation can just be an email is actually, to me, not acceptable, because I have seen it so often in my own community and I’ve heard about it far too often in so many other communities around the fact that consultation is just a once-over-lightly tokenism. We need to consider as we move forward as a nation but also within our regions and our cities and within our councils and local authorities and other agencies what true consultation and engagement look like, and I’m concerned because of what comes after this in the process.

This piece here has the consultation requirement just for the actual application, so if they do that once-over-lightly, the one email that they might get a reply or might not get a reply to—and I’m not arguing that part of it, because I think it’s just a bit embarrassing sometimes. The fact is that this, potentially, would be the only check and balance in terms of going through the process. Do you know what? It may end up with the panel. It may end up with the panel, and it may make some choices in terms of this process to engage or to seek further information, but, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has said, there’s lots of “mays” versus “musts”, and that challenges us in terms of how we make sure that the process is good, that it is tight, and that communities feel heard. It’s not about slowing things down, but it’s actually about having genuine engagement, a genuine relationship, and a genuine understanding of the issues and the challenges but also the possibilities of projects. That could also be good.

To the Minister: how do we ensure that this consultation is fair and engaging, and we are prescriptive enough in terms of clause 14AAA in terms of the consultation requirements?

I thank the members for their questions. A question from Rachel Brooking: the Minister can identify other parties, including neighbours.

The question from the member who’s just resumed his seat, Glen Bennett, in regards to how do we understand whether the consultation has been adequate: there’s a requirement for the applicant to include a summary of consultation and how it has informed the project.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 in the fast-track approvals process. My questions do follow on alongside my colleague from Labour in terms of consultation and determination of what is consultation, but also links into clause 14(3)(ha), “Persons affected”, on page 24. What I’m seeing here in terms of a theme is there’s a list of Māori to engage with, but there’s specific wording—and the “may”, and specific wording that the applicant “considers”. Is it the intention of this Government to say that the applicant will determine who’s going to be the local Māori?

It’s pretty tricky, eh? While we’ve got a list of iwi authorities, those who have done a Treaty settlement, you might have a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement, you’re probably going back to the High Court again for marine and coastal area because the customary marine title (CMT) threshold is so high now—very few of us have got any of that. A lot do not have organised authorities or charitable trusts who represent their hapū groupings. Some organise themselves through marae as well. If the applicant is the one to consider who is the best Māori to engage with, I’m a bit worried about that, because that’s where you fall into the trick of tick-box exercise and favouring who is the best Māori of the time. I am cynical about that because I have experienced that myself in hapū and iwi land whereby you pick and choose who the relevant Māori is that you engage, but it should be a blanket approach. It should be all-inclusive, because we have layers of interest in this space. We have layers of whakapapa, and we have layers of connection.

Moving over to a couple of projects I’d like to speak to within my own tribal rohe, being the project from McCallum Bros for Bream Bay sand extraction—and we’ve heard about that a little bit earlier; that’s in the south of Whangārei—and also the Northport expansion, which was also listed here. I know that it’s been spoken to a lot by members of the coalition Government around how it’s a national significance project. Now, in terms of the process, I’m really wanting to understand the intention. This is an intention kōrero, because I think, from the amendments I’ve seen, there is a desire to try and improve this space. We have heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that there will be a Māori on the panel—there’s apparently going to be a Māori—and that impacted whenua Māori landowners also will get a say. That assumes that there is whenua Māori there.

Now, if I can speak specifically to south Whangārei—aka Ruakākā, Bream Bay—the tribes of that area only have tiny little land parcels; I would say less than 2 percent whenua Māori. For the adjacent whenua Māori, there’s very little at Bream Bay. We claim Poupouwhenua—Poupouwhenua is under claim. That’s of particular contention with the Northport expansion proposal. But, for the McCallum Bros over there on that side, whenua Māori will not get a say, because there is none on that side of town.

Further, with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act implications—and noting earlier in the legislation; and it’s only a brief mention—Part 1, clause 4A talks about if you do receive Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act customary marine title, you can decline or you can approve activity. Now, this goes hand in hand in terms of you giveth the opportunity to say no, but then you take it away with the repeal or the amendments being proposed in the current Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

For the hapū, for the iwi of Bream Bay, learning I guess from what we’ve already experienced in the Pākiri sands issue—so, Pākiri sands, our whānau there, and I’d like to signal that I’d like to continue on with this line of kōrero with you, Mr Chair, to take a second call. Pākiri whānau, Ōmaha Marae, in April this year won in the Environment Court against McCallum Bros. McCallum Bros have now changed tack in coming north to Bream Bay for this purpose—for sand mining, of which they are going to take 150,000 cubic metres of sand per annum.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Take a call?

HŪHANA LYNDON: Āe. I just want to take a second call.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you. McCallum Bros are there. I’m wanting to see what learnings we have in terms of what consultation looks like, and if these applicants who are coming into the process and are listed are going to have high thresholds in terms of what is consultation with the local Māori. Will it just be only those who have the tribal authority status, who have the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Can marae be consulted? It seems to be pitched towards the applicant determining who is the Māori. That’s of grave concern as an uri of that district.

Similar with Northport, knowing that there’s some 12 hectares of reclamation proposed for the Northport expansion. Again, these are pan-tribal interests. They have just finished two hearing processes for inside the harbour and outside of the harbour for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, of which they’re probably going to have to go back to court. It’s a significant impact of which the tribes had already been to the Environment Court or had been before commissioners and are in mediation right now. It’s custom and practice. How do these panels assess—because you’re going to have a Māori, so I acknowledge that. You’re going to have a Māori, but how will the panels assess how pono, how tika the applicant is in their genuine engagement with the local hau kāinga.

I go to hau kāinga on this, because the hau kāinga are the people of the land—the people who have lived there for generations, who have seen the obliterations of pipi beds in Whangārei Harbour, and they may not be represented by a tribal authority. Ain’t nobody got any CMT rights in Whangārei? And there are no Treaty settlements on that side of town as well, in the south of Whangārei, so it’s a very narrow group of Māori that these applicants will be engaging with. It’s an important question because I think it opens up more questions around the 149 projects, but also how the Māori on the panel will operate and how the Māori is appointed to the panel. Do the Māoris of the rohe get a say on who the Māori is that considers their project? Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for her questions. Clause 14AAA obviously includes the list of people or organisations or iwi that are to be consulted. The Ministry for the Environment will check the completeness of the application at the referral stage, and the Environmental Protection Authority will check that parties required to be consulted have been consulted at that stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to follow on from clause 14AAA, and actually there are a whole lot of others. I’ll go into it, but if the Minister for Energy will just bear with me. There are a few things that concern us, and if we were looking for a project that should be removed from this, I’m more than available to help you locate that one. It does start with Trans-Tasman Resources, which should never ever have made the list, and I refer to that particular project on page 138.

Now, the reason—and there are a few things I’d like to highlight. If we were to go on to clause 14AAA and talk about consultation—there must be a consultation with hapū and iwi. This project specifically has had extreme consultation with hapū and iwi. In fact, one of those iwi which settled and was apologised to by the Government in 2002 has made it known since 2014 how it feels about this particular project. I want to be able to delve into the process and the concerns we have there.

On 30 September 2021, the Supreme Court highlighted two particular issues and its concerns with, one, the domestic law and how it applied to Te Tiriti, and the international law. If we were to look at affected iwi and hapū and what it is that clause 14AAA is intended to do, and the significance of the importance of tikanga Māori, the hapū opposed the marine discharge consent as is very clear and outlined in the exclusive economic zone, nicknamed the EEZ, or the Resource Management Act on water, if you prefer to call it that way. There was extreme concern with the way that the decision-making committee (DMC) at the time refused to decline the applicant.

They then in 2014 and 2016 consulted with the Government and it resulted in them taking the DMC’s decision to the High Court, which ruled in their favour. In short, Trans-Tasman Resources could not provide any predictive model for the environmental effects. In fact, it was so bad that Trans-Tasman Resources sought to redact all information from their application because they did not want to be consulted and neither transparent.

In 2016, they won this in the High Court and it was won on the absence of base-line evidence. As we progressed this hapū and iwi in their consultation process, we went through the High Court, to the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court. Four judges agreed on New Zealand’s obligations to Te Tiriti, to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti, and on their obligations to the international law.

If we can, effectively, go into the EEZ, the Treaty clause in section 12 said the courts will not easily read—in fact, sorry, I’ll just go back a bit. The judges’ decision stated, “the courts will not easily read statutory language as excluding consideration of Treaty principles if a statute is silent”. In fact, what it states is, rather, they must give a broad and generous construct.

I think what we have here, Minister, is a project that has made the cut, that had no right, no business, no support from any of those hapū and those iwi in those communities—business communities, hapū, and iwi—who invest largely in the whole region. Nowhere did they have any support at all.

If we go into the further regard on whether there was any doubt about the process—and I think of the hypocrisy of being able to see this particular case make it in here. We have a Government that has told its voters, including iwi and hapū, that they support a moratorium of deep seabed mining in international waters, so it’s really, really hard to understand why we now have a Government that is supporting seabed mining and supporting a particular project that, again, as I said, has lost in every court—every court that exists in Aotearoa—to prove without doubt that it could do this particular activity without detrimental effects to the environment.

We have a perfect storm: we have an economic crisis and we have a company that has had to retract its statement that it gave to The Australian—

Hon Member: Mr Chair?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: If I could carry on please, Mr Chair?

The Hon Simeon Brown.

Mr Chair, appreciate the opportunity to take a brief call. Much of what the member is discussing is in regards to whether or not a particular project should be on the list in Schedule 2 or not—that has already been determined as part of Part 1 of the bill. This part we’re dealing with here, and the consultation, is in relation to how our project is referred, and as I’ve answered very clearly, there’s a range of requirements upon parties as they put forward an application as to who they must discuss that with and consult.

Point of order, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Mr Chair. I believe that, in terms of the previous person in the Chair, it was made very clear to us that we are within our rights to prosecute this section, which includes referring to what is in the schedule, because it was specifically around process—if we need to do that. I guess the point I will make, just to push it through, is this wasn’t something that was able to be discussed during the select committee process I was part of. This is our one and only chance to really challenge and work through this and dive deep into it. I just ask you to consider that, Mr Chair.

Thank you. Before we move on, I acknowledge the point of order, and my understanding is that Part 2 focuses on the process. In the sense that the projects that members are talking about are linked to the process and therefore to Part 2, then we’re able to make those interventions.

Before I move forward, though, members, I’d just like to draw your attention to a new tabled amendment, from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, to Schedule 2. This was lodged after the debate on Part 1 had concluded, so I’m ruling that members can debate that amendment during this debate on Part 2. I would warn members, though, that this does not reopen a broad debate on Schedule 2. This amendment corrects a small error; it’s in Schedule 2: item relating to Macraes phase 4 (MP4), page 129, which replaces the number 13,5000 with 13,500. There was an accidental zero there somewhere.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am still on Part 2 referring to referrals, so this is not relevant to the 149 projects. I will get there, though. Again, I encourage the Minister for Energy to comment on the changes in the Amendment Paper—to explain why they’re there—from those early clause 14s to where I am now, which is at clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing referral applications”. We, in my name this time, have some amendments on clause 22B, and the first is that at subclause (1)(a). It’s “(1) The criteria for accepting a referral application are that—(a) the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits;” Of course, in line with the arguments I was making in Part 1 and that a number of people were, we would like the Minister to consider that that is changed to “public … project”.

Then some further amendments are to delete, at clause 22B(2)(a), subparagraph (vi), which is about whether “the Minister may consider—(a) whether the project—… (vi) will support development of natural resources, including minerals and petroleum:”. This does not fit with any of what the Prime Minister has been saying over and over again at question time about how this bill is somehow going to help meet climate change objectives. Supporting the development of minerals and petroleum, particularly coal and petroleum, will not help us achieve our climate ambitions. I would like his opinion on deleting that. He may even say, “Well, we think in terms of climate change that there are some minerals”—I note the Minister’s interest in this—“that are going to be useful to make renewable energy.” It may be that those minerals are included, but that coal, which does not help, to my knowledge, make wind turbines or electric cars or batteries or anything, is excluded. I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that deletion or change to subparagraph (vi).

Then the third suggestion in this Amendment Paper, which is Amendment Paper 132—apologies if I didn’t say that originally—is that the Minister also considers supporting green infrastructure.

We have also heard from the Prime Minister—in question time, often—that this bill is somehow going to support the environment, despite its focus on minerals and petroleum. One way—a good way, a good show of good faith—would be to make conclusions like this: that in fact, when referral applications are assessed, if it is going to be supporting green infrastructure—or there could be many other terms for this; nature-based solutions is another name for it—this would be good faith demonstration of how this bill can encourage things that are positive for the environment. That is, a nature-based solution might be the growing of Macrocystis and native seaweed on our coastlines to stop erosion. That would be an example of a nature-based solution or green infrastructure. It might be having wetlands to slow down stormwater flow—those sorts of things.

It seems to me a very easy amendment for the Government to make, one that would demonstrate some adherence to the rhetoric that we’ve heard over and over again from the Prime Minister, that somehow this bill is going to be good for the environment.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair—first time rising in Part 2 of this debate, and I want to talk specifically about the process for referring an application in clause 14. My colleague Scott Willis has an Amendment Paper, 154, which I hope the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Government will consider, which is adding, in clause 14(3), after paragraph (a), “(aa) [a requirement for] an outline of the regional or national benefits of the project, including—(i) what those benefits are; … (ii) who will be the recipient of those benefits; and (iii) what the duration of those benefits will be:”.

I’d like to point out that, if we go to clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing [a] referral application”, the very first criteria that is noted is “the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits;”—so that’s clause 22B(1)(a). Then, if you go down to subclause (2)(iv), it “will deliver significant economic benefits:”. I guess the question is: these are the criteria for assessing the referral application; however, if we go earlier in the process, the details that are needed to assess those criteria aren’t required or specified in the referral application under clause 14. There’s a whole lot of information that is required both in the bill as amended from the Environment Committee and the Minister’s substantive amendment, which was tabled yesterday, controversially, but there’s a whole lot of information that’s meant to be included in the referral application. We can look at that under clause 14(3), “description of the project and the activities [involved]:”. There is “an explanation of how the project meets the criteria”, but I think that is quite vague.

I mean, the whole premise of this entire bill apparently rests upon the idea that we should be able to do projects faster on the basis that those projects will deliver benefits—regional benefits, national benefits, economic benefits. That has been the mantra of the Government. However, if I can refer to an example in Schedule 2, which was different options for a new Mount Victoria Tunnel. In Schedule 2, there’s different options for the Mount Victoria Tunnel. One of those that is in the Amendment Paper from the Minister has already been ruled out by the Government, but they did spend over a million dollars investigating a long tunnel—still referred to—so it could still potentially go on the fast track, but the Government says they won’t do that.

Then we had a story released under the Official Information Act to Oli Lewis and BusinessDesk—I think the Minister and Government members should be very interested in this—about the economic assessment of the long tunnel, because the long tunnel was assessed as having a benefit-to-cost ratio of around 0.2 to maybe 0.6 if you try to include wider economic benefits, which, to be honest, don’t really exist when it comes to road projects in cities; there’s no empirical evidence for those economic benefits. It goes up 0.1; so the total range, the highest benefit we could get, was still under 1. What that means, if you do cost-benefit analysis, is that the costs of the project outweigh the benefit, therefore there are no net benefits—regionally, nationally, there’s no economic benefits from that project. That’s the economic assessment that the Government spent a million dollars getting about the long tunnel.

If we go back to the other alternative, the parallel Mount Victoria Tunnel, which is also in Schedule 2, the most recent assessment of economic benefits for that project was similar: it was 0.2. That means the project costs five times more than the economic benefits that are purported from the project.

I think it is vitally important that this legislation—and, Mr Chair, I’m going to ask for a second call to continue on this, because we’ve got an Amendment Paper here that would just make it very, very clear that the applicants, when they are proposing a project that they want to be referred for fast track, have specific outlines of regional, national benefits of the project, what the benefits are, and who they accrue to. That’s Amendment Paper 154, and I can’t see why the Minister or the Government wouldn’t want to include something like this, because if you’re going to assess a project—whether it should be fast tracked—then you need to have that information about what the benefits are, who they accrue to.

If we take the example of the Mount Victoria Tunnel, which is in Schedule 2, and we just look at both the options that are listed in Schedule 2, the benefit-cost ratios that are on the record show that these projects are a net loss to the country. They do not generate economic benefits. They do not generate national or regional benefits. There’s a whole host of evidence from around the world that shows that when you add a car lane in the middle of the city, it does not actually reduce congestion. It does not reduce transport costs. Within a very short period of time, the road fills up with cars and then you have more pollution, you have more congestion, you’ve got the damage to the environment and the climate of all the materials that you used, that 10 years of disruption to build the project, there’s carbon emissions involved in building these projects.

The biggest tragedy from my point of view is that the Government is doing this on the basis that it’s going to be good for the economy and have these great benefits when the objective information says it does not—it does not. It’s just an article of absolute religious faith, which I know—you know, the Minister in the chair there obviously believes that God has told him that these roads are going to be good for the economy and are the right thing to do. But look at the evidence; look at the numbers. The Government is talking about spending billions and billions of dollars on projects that are a net loss to the country for no good outcome.

This whole fast track, it’s really important: if we’re going to talk about fast-tracking and using this process to bypass a normal process—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. If we could link that back to the process, that would help the committee.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. We’ve got the criteria for assessing a referral application. There’s no requirement for the information to be provided, so how will the Minister for Infrastructure be able to assess the referral application on the basis of regional or national benefits or economic benefits if that information has not been provided with the application? Of course, like, in the case of this Government and its priorities, it’s already said it’s going to do these projects, supposedly on the basis of benefits, when the benefits actually are not there—there are no benefits. Why would we trade off the environment to do a project on the basis of economic benefit when, objectively, there is no economic benefit?

I think that when previously projects have gone to a board of inquiry process—for example, the Basin Bridge project went to the board of inquiry that was appointed by the National Government; a different process that was trying to streamline nationally significant projects—that project was declined on the basis of the evidence that it was going to create significant harm and there was not the evidence of benefit. I think we’re in a difficult situation because our entire environmental legislation and this Fast-track Approvals Bill is set up to kind of assess what the environmental impacts are going to be, and judges who are making decisions on cases that may have gone to the Environment Court—been appealed when the consent’s been granted—and people are making the case that there’s going to be all this environmental damage but we’re told, “Oh, well, but there’ll be economic benefits, so it’s justified.” But, actually, where in that process do we have the experts weighing up whether the evidence around the economics is actually there? Often, they say that’s out of scope.

I just think this Amendment Paper 154 is one small step towards ensuring that there is information about the benefits—who receives the benefits, what the duration of the benefits are—which would be important for being able to assess an application. Of course, there’s many more amendments that my colleagues have that would make this process more robust, but let’s just be really honest here that this Government doesn’t actually, whatever they say, it doesn’t appear—well, it’s definitely clear they don’t care about the environment, they don’t care about the climate, but it appears they don’t actually care about economic benefit or cost-effectiveness either, because they’re pushing forward a bunch of destructive projects that have terrible benefit-cost ratios, the worst benefit-cost ratios we’ve ever seen in this country, at a cost of billions of dollars while they sever the rail connection with the South Island, while they deny the South Island from having a hospital. Yet they’re going to spend billions of dollars on a tunnel in Wellington that delivers negative economic benefits. It’s outrageous.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call and respond to those questions. Clause 14(3)(a) requires those putting forward a project for referral to explain how the project meets the criteria in clause 22B, and the detail would be in the standard application. That would include whether that’s for a roading project or whether it’s for car parks outside a Green Party office, I imagine.

In terms of other questions that have been raised in terms of minerals and petroleum, this Government’s been very clear in our view around the importance of minerals and petroleum. We’ve seen the impact this year with a significant downgrade in our reserves of natural gas and the impact that’s had on the industrial base of New Zealand and the incredibly high electricity prices. Even the Climate Change Commission has, in their demonstration pathway, outlined the need for natural gas out beyond 2050. We’re very clear in the need for minerals and petroleum as part of the transition going forward.

In terms of the issue of seabed mining, and the question was raised around our obligations, international obligations, or our position—that is in regards to seabed mining in the high seas. What happens within New Zealand’s economic zone is different, and obviously, there’s a process here in which those applications have to go through, and that is what we’re discussing here: the referral process, the criteria, and how those consultations have to be undertaken.

In terms of the question around consulting with Māori, it’s very clear around the criteria and how an applicant must prove that they’ve done that. At the end of the day, the Environmental Protection Authority and the Ministry for the Environment will undertake checks to ensure that the parties required to be consulted have been consulted.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some small comments still on the referral process and I’m still referring in large part to this Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 238, that was tabled yesterday. At clause 22D, which is “Minister may determine that linear infrastructure on certain identified Māori land is not ineligible activity”, there’s a new subclause (4) at the end, and there’s some other changes, that says—actually, I think I would have just answered my question on that because something has been struck out but then it has been replaced.

That leads to the question: at subclause (4), it did say, “In this section,—electricity lines means [blah, blah, blah]”, and then, “land transport infrastructure means [things]”, and, now, it’s been replaced with new subclause (4), which just refers to “land transport infrastructure”, and I’m wondering why, then, that deletion of “electricity lines” at subclause (4) has happened. This is, of course, the difficulty when you get large amendments on the day that you are discussing something in committee of the whole House.

Then there’s a lot more information about electricity lines at clause 22DA and it’s that “Minister may determine that electricity infrastructure on certain Schedule 3A land or in national reserve is not ineligible activity”. I won’t go through it all, but I the question is: is the result of these changes to enable more electricity infrastructure rather than land transport infrastructure on conservation land or reserve land? That’s the question with those changes. Again, there are more changes to clause 23AAA, and the Minister for Energy might want to explain why they are in there—and in clause 24.

If I move through, though, now, to Subpart 2A, this is the “Steps before lodging substantive application”. This includes steps for the listed projects, so, of course, it is relevant to everything that is in Schedule 2. There’s a lot of changes, again, in the Amendment Paper, and I won’t go through all of them, but it would be useful if the Minister could explain why all these changes were necessary and if any of them are substantive or if they’re moving things around, and for clarification only.

Something that is quite new and different is at clause 24AF, and that is that the “Minister may determine that project is priority”. It seems to be very new that there is this priority process now, and my question on that is: why is it required? I assume it is because there are 149 projects on that list and there has been no work done on that list. To determine when these different issues are in conflict with each other would be one point that you might want to prioritise for. Another point would be that some of them may be still years away from being processed. I’d like the Minister to confirm if that’s an issue or not. This is a big dream for somebody to have their project done, but they want to go through the Fast-track Approvals Bill and get all the consents, all the permissions, in place before they go ahead and build the thing. Then, of course, if that is correct, the question is: then why do you need a fast-track process for that? That’s my question on clause 24AF.

Then, if we keep moving forward to clause 24C—this is a very important one that I would like to reflect on briefly—and that is “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. There are a number of changes in this Amendment Paper, and it looks like the intent might be that it’s an addition to what can be approved in this Amendment Paper from what was reported back from the select committee. I’m particularly interested if the Minister can confirm whether or not clause 24C expands the range of things that can be considered in the amendment version of the bill, as compared with the select committee version of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to be really specific about my contribution and I want to speak to proposed Amendment Paper 153. This is about Part 2, clause 14. Currently clause 14(2) has that “The referral application must—specify all of the proposed approvals, but need only provide a general level of detail about each proposed approval, sufficient to inform the Minister’s decision on the referral application;”. Now, our proposal is actually to replace “but need only provide a general” level of detail with “and need to provide a specific” level of detail. That then goes on to refer to the level of detail that would inform the Minister for Infrastructure’s decision.

Now, why this is so important is because—again, I mean the Government themselves; the whole premise of this bill is that it’s purported to be projects of such a scale that they are considered to be regionally or nationally significant. What’s really concerning about this is some of these projects—and I’ll just mention one that I’ve personally visited the project proposed site of, and that’s the Bendigo mine or, in the actual schedule, it’s referred to as Matakanui Gold Limited mine. This mine is of an immense proportion. If people are aware of Central Otago, it extends all the way from Bendigo and that Bendigo range to Ophir, and it’s of a massive scale.

What I’m really concerned about and what I’d like the Minister for Energy to comment on: why be so high level about the level of detail required for these Ministers to actually make informed decisions at this point; rather than having a more specific, comprehensive level of detail in terms of it being a far more robust decision-making process? It will mean fewer mistakes and not only can things be avoided, but it would actually mean that the Minister themselves actually have all the information at hand.

We just saw, for example, the Government introduced this last-minute amendment that had a quite significant difference in one of the scale sizes of one of the mines. Now, this is exactly what we want to get rid of. We want these applicants, if they are applying, to be extremely specific and comprehensive in the applications so that we can actually understand, and the Minister can understand, in the really important decision about whether to refer those projects on to the expert panel and through the fast-track process, that they actually have that information to hand.

Now, presumably—but I’m not sure and I’m interested in the Minister informing me of this—the Minister can call on more information from the projects, but if they were just up front about the level of detail necessary to allow the Minister to actually make a very considered decision about the referral application, then there wouldn’t need to be this sort of back and forth that occurs and the Minister would be able to have the information to hand to actually make that decision comprehensively.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kāre e roa taku tū engari kei te tū au ki te waha i ngā whakaaro a ngā hapū o Tokomaru Bay.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. My speech won’t be a long one, but I stand to give voice to the thoughts of the hapū of Tokomaru Bay.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have a very specific, process-oriented question on behalf of Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi relating to the Gisborne District Council Tokomaru Bay legacy landfill contaminated land remediation project, not in Gisborne but up the coast—Tairāwhiti.

Anyone who lives in Aotearoa will be aware of the existential threat recent weather events had in Tokomaru Bay, so therefore any remediation of land is obviously welcome in the rohe. The hapū collective of Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi have established an excellent relationship—to use their words—with council. In terms of the process moving forward, can the Minister provide reassurance or, even better, guarantees that any pre-existing arrangements between Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare, Te Ao Tawarirangi, and the Tairāwhiti Gisborne District Council will be respected? And, in terms of the process moving forward, will the Minister guarantee that Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi will be involved in that project to completion?

Also with regard to process, just looking at the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, I know that project is already under way, but in considering that it has been proposed as toll—

Hon Simeon Brown: We don’t muck around.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Ha, ha!

Hon Simeon Brown: We just get on with it.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Well, sometimes that’s a shame, because sometimes when you don’t muck around and you just get on with it, people who are impacted don’t get the full consultation they deserve.

Speaking of impacts around that project, given that it’s already gone and considering people impacted, such as, specifically, Piringa Hapū, for example, in Ōmāhu—moving forward, what processes will be put in place to address the concerns they have about the increased traffic flow that’s going to go through there? Ōmāhu was also devastated by Cyclone Gabrielle, but they have gone through a process of restoring their marae and restoring and repopulating their community, and so now they’re concerned that they’re going to see an increase of traffic flow through their back roads and they are concerned about the safety of their tamariki and their community in general. They’ve recently opened their school. Piringa Hapū: were they consulted in terms of process anyway?

Moving forward—because it already is happening—what will the process be to address the concerns of hapū such as Piringa Hapū and any other communities in surrounding areas that might be impacted while that work is going on and once the toll is put in place, because we know people are struggling? People may opt to take back roads instead of paying a toll daily to get to where they need to get.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to see the Opposition recognising the progress of roading already under way under this Government, and it’s fantastic to see. I was down in the Hawke’s Bay just recently, just seeing the progress on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, and the road construction’s already under way. We don’t muck around, we get things done, and how much more we’re going to be able to get things done with fast track—that’s what it’s all about. Of course, the last Government was very good at writing endless business cases, which they didn’t even complete—the business cases, I mean—that’s how good they were: they didn’t even complete the business cases. How appalling.

Anyway, there are a number of very good questions here from members in terms of the issues that have been raised. In terms of the referral application and the level of detail, the referral application is not intended to require a level of detail required at the substandard application; it is meant to be sufficient to inform the Minister for Infrastructure of the scope and eligibility, consultation, and affected persons, to give the Minister the ability to then make a decision whether to refer.

In terms of the electricity lines, there is a prioritisation here, due to the need to, obviously, deliver that infrastructure in New Zealand, which is critical to the electrification opportunities and also the doubling of electricity generation that’s required to meet our net zero 2050 targets. That’s why the changes in the bill are being proposed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister for Energy is, firstly, concerned with clause 14AAA—sounds like a battery, but it’s not. It’s the consultation requirement—what it says, what it doesn’t. For example, will both Kahungunu Iwi Inc. and haukāinga be included in consultation about the “zombie project” formerly known as the Ruataniwha Dam? Plans for that billion-dollar dam were scrapped nearly seven years ago when the Supreme Court said the land swap was unlawful, and rebranding the project doesn’t change its fundamentals. I refer to the Tukituki Water Security project in Schedule 2.

I also want to ask about further consultation and the record of that consultation. Will an applicant who consulted with Forest & Bird be expected to provide the results of that consultation, or will they never be consulted ever again on any of these projects? I look forward to the Minister surprising me. Whether a project’s owned by a council organisation or a community trust, the effects are the same. This project in central Hawke’s Bay would see a dam built on the Makaroro River and the flooding of 22 hectares of conservation land. How would Fish & Game be able to contribute their knowledge of the trout fisheries there? How would the local health professionals be able to note that with the current water quality in the Ruataniwha aquifer amongst the worst in the country—we’ve got Hawke’s Bay cases of both bladder and colorectal cancer higher than the national average; so are premature births and infant mortality. There is no way, unless I am convinced otherwise, that the fast track bill is capable of considering these wider issues that a project may invoke.

Of course, it’s not just human beings. Which iwi is going to be consulted about the effect on native species? I’d like to quote that, for this particular project, freshwater advocate Tom Kay notes that there will be fernbirds, mātātā; long-tailed bats, pekapeka; and the New Zealand falcon, kārearea with themselves or their habitats wiped out. Please, address the consultation that could possibly shed light on these important issues.

Finally, I’d like to also say: what about Future Farms Aotearoa? We’re talking about dramatic climate change here, increased floods and droughts in the east of the country. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. Would Future Farms Aotearoa be able to contribute some alternative information talking about how we can improve the soil to improve its water retention, rather than see the topsoil lost? I’d like to refer to our wonderful Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons who talked about our greatest export being topsoil. Whether it’s taken off by floods or it’s taken off by wind, where is the intelligent input to these projects that says we can make them better or there are alternatives? I look forward to hearing your answers.

In relation to some of the issues raised by the member, there are a range of conservation entities which will be asked to provide comment and that is in Schedule 5, clause 4 of the bill.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended and will resume after oral questions.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.