Fast-track Approvals Bill

We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”, including the debate on proposed new clause 2A set out on Amendment Paper 145.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to speak to clause 1. Here we are, after hours of debating this bill, and we are on to the first section where we can really call it what it is. I have an amendment on the Table. It would amend it to be called the “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill”, because this is the first bill where a Chair of the committee of the whole House has been overruled by the Speaker to include private benefits in a piece of Government legislation—private benefits which have not been through the ordinary process for a private bill, where they would be required to be promoted, where they would be required to be shared with all members of Parliament, and where they would be required to be shared with the communities that will be affected by this private benefits. No, none of that has happened, and so we should call this what it is.

We should also ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform why he was so shaken when I put to him how Winton Sunfield development is a clear example not only of private benefits—

Hon Member: So anti-development.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —where the private developers are being given a benefit in the uplift of the value of the options, they have to buy land to the tune of tens of millions of dollars when this passes—and the Government MPs on that side are heckling me about it. They’re saying I’m against developers, but that is not what I’m against. This is not a pro-development bill; this is pro some developers to the expense of others. This is a “pro-housing at the expense of other housing providers” bill. This is a bill about benefiting some over the many.

This is a bill where I did not put to the Minister my questions. I could have asked him: was it him who solicited the $103,000 donation from Chris and Michaela Meehan, who are directors and shareholders of the Winton Land company? But I didn’t. I could have asked him whether the uplift of tens of millions in value that the Winton Land company will enjoy has any bearing on those donations. I didn’t ask him those questions, but he was still ready to use comments about the parliamentary privilege that we enjoy to try and shut down that debate.

This is the only chance that New Zealanders have to understand this connection, because of the way that the Government has introduced this at the eleventh hour. Government members, Opposition members—everyone in this House—has only had that amendment today when it was tabled.

Glen Bennett: Outrageous!

ARENA WILLIAMS: It is outrageous, Glen Bennett. It’s outrageous that no one has been able to put this through the scrutiny that it deserves, let alone the ordinary legislative process for private bills of this nature, let alone using the ancient rules that apply to private bills in our constitutional framework so that people at least understand when Parliament is making a rule which applies in a big way to only a small group of people—whether those are financial interests, whether those are interests about limiting their rights, whether those are interests that affect only them or a class of people. This is not the appropriate way to make this legislation, and that is why we should change its name.

I want to know whether the Minister approached the Speaker, before he made the ruling, about the nature of the ruling he was going to give. I want to know whether the Minister had had a conversation with legal advisers outside of the Government, and I want to know whether that advice was made available to the Speaker too, because this Parliament should know what advice was relied upon to make that ruling—that new ruling—because this is a fresh and new process to introduce private benefit in this way. The Minister can throw his hands in the air and say that every Government bill has some form of private benefit. That is true—

Carl Bates: Oh, that’s true—true!

ARENA WILLIAMS: —but there is nothing like this in New Zealand’s legislation before. Let me explain what is true, to the National members heckling me again. What’s true is that every Government bill will have an element of benefit to some people or to some class of persons, but there has never been, at the last hour, donors to the National Party who are included in a huge uplift in the value of their property. That is new—not in the last National Government, not in the National Government before it.

The National Party used to be a party that believes in homeownership for everyone and private developers being able to develop houses that everyone could buy. It was a National Government that wrung its hands over whether private housing grants should go to first-home buyers, but it was decided that that was an appropriate way to change the market. Those policies used to be hard. That’s what the National Government used to discuss around the Cabinet table. That’s what the liberals and the conservatives in the National Government used to debate. Now it’s cronyism and who’s in and who’s out, and who’s benefiting and whose mates are at the table.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I have a number of suggestions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider about a name change for this bill. The main reason for that is that it’s just the wrong name. It’s the Fast-track Approvals Bill, and that gives the impression—Mr Chair, and to the Minister—that it’s just about speed; that this bill is about process. That is how many submitters saw it when they came and submitted to the Environment Committee, but, no, that is not what this bill is about; it’s actually about getting the things done on that list for pet projects. We’ve heard from my colleague the word “cronyism”. This is very dangerous. This precedent of naming private people on a list is cronyism, and it is shameful.

The first name choice I have for the Minister that I think more accurately reflects this bill is the “Polluting Pet Projects (And Other Matters) Approvals Bill”, because that is all this bill is about—those pet projects that this Government wants to get done, not the small and medium ones that cause all the time and all the energy and all the expense in the resource management system; no, those big projects that are going to have detrimental effects. Those projects that have already been declined are the ones that this Government wants to push through.

Another suggested change, if he doesn’t like “Polluting Pet Projects”, is “Fast (Removal of Community Input) Environmental Approvals Bill”. Of course, that is another thing that this bill is doing: it’s taking away all community input, whether that’s from mana whenua, whether it’s from Forest & Bird—

Carl Bates: Not true—go read the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —whether it’s from the wider neighbourhood, that is what this bill does. I suggested—I can hear some heckling members of the National Party, saying “Not true.” Well, they should have been here during the debate, when I specifically asked the Minister if he would include the list of groups of people, from Business New Zealand to Forest & Bird, who were included in the COVID legislation. But, no, he wouldn’t even do that, and that is a disgrace.

A different title would be “Approval for Private Projects in a Public Act Bill”. This goes back to the point that my colleague was making and my point about cronyism. It is very dangerous, the precedent that is in this bill.

If he doesn’t like that, another title suggestion is “Removal of Appeal Rights to Fast-track Approvals Bill”. I say that because, at this eleventh hour, we’ve had a substantive amendment to the bill. We got it in the afternoon that we were starting to debate this bill in the committee of the whole House. There are major changes to the appeal rights in that amendment.

When I asked the Minister in the chair why it was that groups that had an interest greater than the public were being removed by this Government-tabled amendment, he told me that I was wasting the committee’s time by even asking him. That just shows the disdain this Government has for any proper lawmaking processes. We hear from the Minister in charge of this bill that he has Fitzgerald v Muldoon on his wall; well, he should take it down—he should take it down fast—because this bill does exactly the opposite of what that Minister likes to talk about in terms of good lawmaking and scrutiny.

We can disagree, but we have to have the time to have that disagreement and to have the arguments. Introducing an amendment at the eleventh hour does not do that, and it does not do it when the Minister in the chair tells me that I’m wasting the committee’s time. He didn’t even get into the judicial review clause; no answer on that—no answer on why there’s only 20 days to do a judicial review. Nothing. That suggestion was the “Removal of Appeal Rights to Fast-track Approvals Bill”.

Another title suggestion is “Eleventh-hour Changes Avoiding Scrutiny Bill”. That goes to the point I was just making.

Hon Members: Frivolous.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, members opposite are saying it’s frivolous. It is accurate and it is, again, disgraceful, and they should be embarrassed that they are sitting here at almost half past 11 at night to defend what their Ministers are doing, their Ministers, who would have told them when they were all in Young Nationals, or whatever they were in, “Oh, we want to defend good processes. We are conservatives.” If you’re a conservative, then you want good lawmaking, surely? You don’t want these radical changes that are happening. What this bill is is radical, and it is radical in all the wrong directions. It’s radical in terms of cronyism, it’s radical in terms of pollution, and it’s radical in terms of undermining the rights of New Zealanders to be involved in their communities and have a say about what’s going on. It’s a disgrace.

I’ve just heard a degree of pettifogging and trivialising that, in my view, is inappropriate and does not become the members. The proposed legislation is of significant importance to progress projects of national and regional importance. The comments reminded me of the Hawke’s Bay secondary school debating final in 1993 between Te Aute College and Woodford House—epic, energetic but, ultimately, full of exaggeration. The title of this bill reflects the policy intent designed to speed up the regulatory approvals for nationally and regionally significant projects. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I like what the Minister of Conservation just delivered. However, it is also important to know that, as we are going through this bill, we have had various Ministers sitting in that chair, and for most of it, we had the Minister in question as we were going through this bill methodologically. I think it is really important to mention the fact that it is undemocratic and is completely against the ethos of this House to drop a 235-page amendment on the day of the committee stage where the people of Aotearoa did not get a chance to participate and question during the select committee stage. The Minister cannot deny that that is not OK. That is undemocratic.

Not only that, I wasn’t part of the Environment Committee, and when we are looking at this particular bill, overall, we’re seeing a lot of errors, a lot of mistakes. When we got that Amendment Paper 238, it was almost like a new bill. My question to the Minister is whether he would consider changing the title of this bill to “Fast-track (Cannot Draft a Bill Properly the First Time) Approvals Bill”, because frankly that is what we are seeing here. We are lawmakers, we are the legislature in this House, and there are certain expectations when we are looking at the drafting of a particular bill. Frankly, this bill does not stack up. It does not go up to the standard that people of Aotearoa expect from us.

That is one of my amendments, but I want to just mention another particular point here. It is the fact that, as we are going through this bill, as we are debating various parts of Schedule 2, which, again, was something that was only dropped on our laps and only debatable by this committee yesterday or today. As we’re going through this—and I’m hearing from my colleagues when they are discussing the kinds of projects that are in there, the kinds that are against certain standards and the kinds that have been denied previously—I also want to check with the Minister if he has considered that maybe a better title for this is something along the lines of “Fast-track (Resurrect Zombie Projects) Approvals Bill”. Again, this is what we are hearing throughout this entire debate today.

In all seriousness, there are also other amendments on the title that I’ve put on the Table here.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’m being serious too.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: You know what? Actually, I take that back. That is correct—that is correct, the Hon Rachel Brooking. All of those things that we are saying are true. All of those things that we are saying are what has been brought to us. What people from those communities and what those people that are supposed to give approval or, as part of that proposed new section 14AAA, who are supposed to be consulted by these projects are telling us—that these are, in fact, zombie projects that are being resurrected, which is why I’m proposing that particular title.

If we’re looking at something like this, to be fair, we have come to know this as the fast-track amendment bill. Actually, I was taken aback when I was looking at it. It says Fast-track Approvals Bill. But, regardless, there are also other ways to potentially look at. I also have an amendment on the Table as well, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering, something along the line of “Fast-track Decisions Bill” as well. I also know that there are other people who have been heard and who have been part of this debate this entire day and will have other things to contribute in terms of clause 1 and 2. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this legislation, acknowledging the hard work of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber to hold the Government to account.

I would like to propose a title to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, and it’s the “Fast-track Approvals (Green-wash and Woke-wash) Bill”, because we’ve heard a lot of green-washing and woke-washing from the Ministers who’ve sat on that chair. We’ve heard from them and we’ve heard this frequent rhetoric every question time from the Prime Minister when we question him on the fast-track bill. They always go, “Oh, why don’t the Greens join us in passing this bill? It’s actually about passing renewable energy.” Well, there are some renewable energy projects here, sure; but, if you actually look at the reality, there’s already enough power that’s been consented. This bill is completely unnecessary and completely promotes private benefit.

Further, if you look at what it’s actually doing, if you look at the list of projects, only a small fraction of the projects are actually renewable energy. If you’re calling this a renewable energy project, when, in fact, only a small fraction of the things are actually to do with renewable energy, and a lot of the projects are to do with mining and mining infrastructure and road infrastructure that will actually increase climate emissions, then that is the opposite of the Green vision. That is just mere green-washing and mere woke-washing.

Cameron Luxton: Give us a definition of woke-washing.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, woke-washing is when you pretend that things are actually going to be better than they are. That’s the definition of “woke-washing”. I’ve heard this rhetoric deployed from this side of the House as well when they referred to, I think, fossil gas as indigenous gas. We’re supposed to believe that this Government, which has launched an unprecedented assault on race relations in New Zealand, all of a sudden cares about indigenous rights when it comes to mining fossil gas and fossil coal. What a joke—what a joke!

Another aspect of this legislation is the sort of environmental processes that it does. I want to propose another potential title for this Fast-track Approvals Bill: the “Climate Doom Approvals Bill” because of all the negative environmental stuff that it’s promoting. We’ve talked about how little investment, how few projects, are actually to do with active transport or public transport. I think there was only a handful of projects that would actually invest in these. There was the busway project, some active transport projects, but the bulk of this is actually roads, holiday roads for people who go on holidays, not actually investing in the real roads that people need, you know? I went to Northland recently and they’re still repairing the roads that were damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle. None of that’s here—none of that’s here. It’s all holiday roads. It’s all woke-washed nonsense. This bill is all woke-washed nonsense.

Another proposal that I’m proposing is the “Fast-track (Burning Rubbish like it’s the 1800s) Approvals Bill.” Look, with the incinerator project, they’re trying to resurrect ancient technology that we used to do in the 1800s. I grew up in a village in the Philippines and we didn’t have modern waste systems, so we had to go and burn our rubbish. We just didn’t even have pits; we just burnt it. That’s exactly what they’re proposing. The incinerator they’re proposing doesn’t have any kind of capture technology. I think that’s what my colleague David Parker rightfully pointed out. It’s just burning rubbish.

Even worse is that this Government, which will barely meet its climate targets because—well, surprise, surprise—in the draft emissions reduction plan, they actually didn’t meet the target to 2050. But, in the revised second emissions reduction plan, they’ve done what they’re good at doing. They’ve done what this Government is good at doing, and that’s cooking the books. They’ve cooked the books on the climate targets by relying on 100 percent capture for technology that’s been deployed overseas that doesn’t reach the 100 percent rate. Amazing! I mean, I believe in Kiwi innovation, I believe in Kiwi science, and I believe that we’re a smart people, but if we’re getting rights that no one else is getting, I suspect something is afoul here. In conclusion, Mr Chair, this is woke-washing and green-washing.

I appreciate the energy and enthusiasm of members right across the Chamber at 25 minutes to midnight tonight, but if I could ask members to keep it tight towards the title and commencement clauses.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As we are debating the title of this bill, the simple question that we have to consider is: is it an appropriate reflection of the contents of the bill? I would argue that it is not, because if you were to look at the title as it currently presents, one might think that the way in which this Government has presented this bill right from the get-go—that this is nothing new, that this has been done before, this is just business as usual—might be accurate. But we know that this is anything but business as usual, and so I propose that this should be one of two alternatives.

It should be called in the first instance the “New Fast-track Approvals Bill” because it is nothing like any other fast-track regime that this Parliament has passed. We mustn’t forget that at the start of this debate—not just in the committee stage but right when the bill was first introduced—there was a proposal that Ministers would have unprecedented powers in order to approve applications for projects. This is where the questions about cronyism were raised, along with the concerns around what this would do to New Zealand’s reputation in terms of being corruption free. Now, they are legitimate questions. They were then and they are now.

It is not to say that individual Ministers are corrupt. It is certainly not to say that the Ministers that were originally proposed to have special approval powers in this bill were corrupt, but it opened up the opportunity for that to happen in the future, and that was a concern. Yes, that was addressed, but has that brought this fast-track approvals process back to what this Parliament has previously passed? No. This is nothing like what we’ve seen in the past, and we can see that in the way in which this committee of the whole House stage has gone about.

An Amendment Paper hundreds of pages long has been brought to the committee for consideration after the select committee process, an Amendment Paper which, it was advised, had provisions that would allow for private benefit allowed to be debated—that’s never happened before, ever. For the Clerk’s advice and the presiding officer to be overruled by the Speaker has never happened in this Parliament before. To suggest in the title that this bill is the same as what we’ve had before is false.

Now, I know that there are restrictions on what proposals for an alternative bill title are, and they should be serious in nature and they should not be a criticism of the content of the bill. Well, this isn’t. This is a reflection of the bill and what it proposes: a brand new process that has never been seen before, that has come about in a way that we’ve never seen before.

The other alternative is that we simply say what this is: the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill”. Now, members may say, “Well it’s not actually an amendment bill.”, but I would argue it is because it’s more amendment than it is bill when you have an Amendment Paper hundreds of pages long that hasn’t been through the full process and that was deliberately kept from the public—and that’s fair to say. The Ministers, if they followed proper process, would have included that schedule at select committee for the public to be able to submit on. Actually, if they had done that, it’s likely that the question that we saw in the debate around the Speaker overruling the Clerk’s advice probably would not have arisen, because it would have gone through a proper process. It was actually the Government subverting the process, trying to sneak it through, trying to avoid public scrutiny, that led to that question.

The other example that would lend to this bill being called the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” is the fact that today we’ve had three amendments from the Minister in charge—today, the day that they were hoping to pass this. Now, that suggests to me, as it would to anybody that’s been observing this debate, that this has been a poor process.

There were serious questions raised by my colleagues Arena Williams, Glen Bennett, David Parker, and Rachel Brooking around these amendments, and they weren’t addressed. They were dismissed. That is the arrogance that this Parliament has had to deal with through this committee of the whole House stage. There were three amendments, quite substantial ones, that touched on serious things like judicial review and the ability to appeal a decision. “Oh, don’t worry about it.”, they said. We should worry about it because the Ministers didn’t think about it, or did they? Is this another example of the Ministers trying to subvert public scrutiny or proper parliamentary process? Did they know about this all along?

Now, I think it’s actually the Ministers’ responsibility to address this. They have refused to do so. There’s nothing stopping them from doing so now. The Minister has stood up and responded to suggestions; interestingly, did not respond to the questions posed by Arena Williams. I would wager the Minister will not respond to these questions. We’ve already asked on a number of occasions why those amendments were brought to the committee for consideration today. Why not at the start of the committee of the whole House stage? Better still, why not through select committee? They didn’t answer that.

Changing the name of the bill to the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” actually is appropriate, because forevermore it will remind people of the shoddy, arrogant, and cynical process that this Government has gone about right from the start—

Hon Member: Back on track.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s what they’ve got: slogans—empty slogans. It won’t be back on the train tracks when it comes to the ferries, will it? They are talking nonsense. That’s all they have. They will go out to their communities, and they’ll say, “We passed this great bill; it’s just the same as the last one.”—that’s not true. They will say that we went through a rigorous process. That’s not true. None of the claims stack up.

At the very least, the bill should be reflected in the name, and the current name does not reflect the bill. It does not reflect the claims that the Government has made, and it certainly doesn’t reflect the process. So they’ve got two options: the “New Fast-track Approvals Bill” or the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.”

I think, though, if I had to choose, I would put forward as my main proposal the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” because of the appalling way in which this Government has gone about it. Then perhaps when this legislation is referred to in future, be it in the courts or be it here in Parliament, every time they mention it, they’ll be reminding Parliament of what not to do.

I hope this Parliament never sees what we’ve witnessed in this committee stage; in fact, throughout the whole passage of this bill. Frankly, it has been appalling and it has been disgraceful, and the only things that they can say are slogans—and that sums it up. They are trying desperately to hoodwink the country that this is something about development when there are serious questions hanging over this that the Ministers have refused to answer.

My last question won’t be to the Ministers; it’ll be to the New Zealand public: why? Why do you think the Government has gone about it this way? Why has the Government deliberately chosen not to put the substantive part of the bill in front of the public at select committee? Why is that? Why has the Government chosen to bring amendments of substance to this bill today? Why? If people take a step back and think about it and look at the progress of this bill and the way that it’s played out, and the reaction to the Ministers on pertinent questions, particularly from Arena Williams, I think they’ll come to a pretty clear conclusion.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you. I’m wanting to address the name of the bill tonight because I think, fundamentally, we have to examine the health of the Crown-Māori relationship and how even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that it’s probably gotten worse this term.

We sat last night and heard the Minister in charge of the fast track say that it would be utter legal chaos if there was to be a Te Tiriti clause within this legislation. That is completely undermining the fundamental relationship of te iwi Māori and the Kāwanatanga. The fact that they refuse to acknowledge Te Tiriti fundamentally in this legislation undermines the very fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand.

As the descendants of the signatories of He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti o Waitangi, me mōhio mai koutou [you need to know] that this is a serious breach of Te Tiriti, as we see the Crown look to create a hierarchy of the haves and the have-nots within te iwi Māori—the haves and the have-nots. In my name proposal, I am saying, hey, let’s call this the “Fast-track (Settled Māori Only) Approvals Bill”. We have heard time and time again from the Ministers in that chair that they favour settled entities above all other Māori—above all other Māori—because it’s all about honouring a Treaty settlement and they are actually ignoring the fundamentals of Te Tiriti, because the Minister says, “It would be utter legal chaos.”

Meinga meinga, e tātou mā, meinga meinga. Nā wai i teka tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi he “utter legal chaos”? Mō te whakahīhī. Whakahīhī ki tēnei kawenata tapu o tātou. Whakahīhī mārika.

[Is that so, everyone, isn’t it just. Whose falsehood was it that the Treaty of Waitangi is “utter legal chaos”? So arrogant. Arrogance towards this sacred covenant of ours. So very arrogant.]

We need to really sit on this and think, because the hīkoi didn’t happen for no reason. When we ignore the fundamentals of the fabric of New Zealand society, which you, as the Government—aroha mai—might whakaeke on to Waitangi next year, these agreements, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti, are fundamental as to how we are meant to move forward as a country, and yet we see the Crown say, “settled entities first”. Then they say that it’s those with Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act rights also. Well, there’s only a few that that got there, didn’t they, because you’re repealing the legislation and you’re sending us back to the High Court.

Then you go Mana Whakahono ā-Rohe [Iwi Partnership Arrangements]. Not many, if any, have got those.

Then rohe moana. OK, a few of us have rohe moana—gotcha. But, really, the way with which the iwi haukāinga are excluded—because we’ve been told tonight there is a refusal to go public in advertising these projects that are coming through. There is a refusal, to make sure that the iwi kāinga, ngā mea whai pānga ki ēnei mahi [the home people, the ones who are affected by these actions], are excluded because there’s a hierarchy that the Crown has created through having Crown mandates, rather than looking at the fundamentals.

This bill is he mea wehewehe i a tātou [to divide us]. It’s separating the Māori. It’s saying to those who have charitable trusts, those who have an iwi mandate, or those who have a Crown mandate, “You get to come forward and you get to input. But you in the kāinga, you who collect the pipis and keep the fires burning on the marae and keep those lights on—you are excluded, as your marae committee, as the iwi kāinga on the whenua.”, because, actually, you may not even have whenua in your kāinga. Your marae might be your only pānga to their area, and I need to emphasise that because landlessness is real—landlessness is real—for te iwi Māori.

Don’t think, “Oh, those with whenua Māori interests—you get a say”, because many of us don’t have whenua Māori interests left to even be close to where the projects are coming. Me mōhio mai koutou [you need to know] that this is serious. This is a serious breach because te iwi Māori stood before us in the select committee—ia rā, ia rā—and they told us very clearly, “Do not exclude us. Allow us into the process. Allow us to be engaged, and fuel us. Give us the ability to have some pūtea in our pocket to be able to engage and contribute into the process.”

Participation is essential to having a good democracy, but for te iwi Māori, tēnei Kāwanatanga he Kāwanatanga e wehewehe ana i te iwi Māori. Me mōhio mai koutou, me tūpato tātou katoa ki ēnei mahi wehewehe a te Kāwanatanga [this Government is a Government that is dividing the Māori people. You need to know that we should all be careful of the divisive actions of the Government]. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to explain why I am tired of the Government’s masquerading, pretending that this legislation is in any way comparable to the earlier fast-track legislation and, on that basis, why I oppose the current name, which appropriates the name of “Fast-track Approvals Bill” from the earlier versions.

Following the last election, one of the first acts of this Government was to repeal the fast-track legislation that we already had on the book, which was close to identical to the original form, which was the COVID-19 response fast-track legislation. Under that legislation, 95 percent of the projects were approved notwithstanding that it had an environmental test. It didn’t override the existing environmental tests in either the Conservation Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Wildlife Act, or other things. We had participation from voices that weren’t all development voices. Development voices are appropriate in resource management decisions, but decisions in respect of the countervailing views that some people have as to the protection of the environment should also be heard. They were, but still 95 percent of the projects were approved.

What was approved? Well, lots of subdivisions, lots of renewable energy, wind farms, solar farms. You could do renewals of hydro under that; you couldn’t do new hydro, because that ruins a river catchment for ever and there should be public participation before you approve that. That should never go through fast track. It can under this legislation. In addition, we had approvals of factories, of new townships, transmission lines—just about everything that the other side say they want to have approved under this new legislation. Ninety-five percent of them were approved, and all of those that were approved were approved within a reasonable period of time, stripping out a lot of the excess cost that was in the system, which we had remedied. If it’s not about renewable energy and it’s not appropriate subdivisions and it’s not about other appropriate developments that were all proceeding through the existing fast track, what is it about?

Well, it’s actually about different things—the sorts of things that would not be able to be consented but for overriding the environmental tests that this legislation overrides. In the same week that we have the outgoing chair of the Climate Change Commission, one of New Zealand’s experts on these matters, saying that digging up more fossil fuels is a crime against humanity—and those are his words—this bill is facilitating more of that. This bill is encouraging more coal mines. It’s encouraging inappropriately sited subdivisions. It was hard to approve an inappropriately sited subdivision under the old fast track, because the RMA plans that were in the council plans still applied and there wasn’t an override of the RMA. So this will increase climate change emissions from subdivisions, because they can now be located far away from public transport. In what other ways will it increase climate-changing emissions? There are large water storage projects that are only economic through an increased intensity of land use, which will result in higher climate-changing emissions from the agricultural sector than would otherwise be the case.

We are as a planet facing catastrophic climate change, and if countries like New Zealand do not do our bit it is almost a certainty. It is terribly sad, because my grandchildren are going to be facing a climate that is appalling. I’ve just read the latest Tim Winton book, called Juice. He’s not an environmental crusader. People will have read most of his books; they’re about human subjects. He’s chosen to write a book about the dystopia that is coming in Australia as a consequence of climate change. This bill is about a fast track to climate change. All of the other good things that the Government heralds coming from this bill could already be achieved under the existing legislation—quickly, cost-effectively, 95 percent of them approved. This is not about the things that the Government claims it is, masquerading under the title of the former fast track, which was working well. This should be called the “Fast track to Climate Change Bill”.

The committee is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 11.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)