Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

Over the last three decades, house prices in New Zealand have increased more than any other OECD country. According to the OECD’s Better Life Index, we ranked 40th, out of 41 countries, for housing availability—just in front of the Slovak Republic. Our housing crisis has held us back economically and socially. As I’ve said many times, the Government is determined to get on top of this problem by focusing on the fundamentals, treating housing as a complex and dynamic system. There are three pillars to our housing growth programme: pillar one is about freeing up land for development and removing planning barriers; pillar two is about improving infrastructure funding and financing to support growth; pillar three is about incentives to support growth.

Pillar one includes housing growth targets, requiring them to enable 30 years of development capacity, enabling intensification and a greater mix of uses in the right places, and making greenfield growth easier.

Members who have read—or at least glanced, so far, at—the Planning Bill that is being introduced to Parliament today, which will have its first reading next week, will notice that one of the aims, or goals, of the new system is competitive urban land markets. That is an extremely important objective and goal for the system, and that is reflected in the bill we are reading for a first time today, as well.

Pillar two of the Government’s reforms relates to infrastructure funding and financing. This is very important, because you can have as much land supply and abundant development opportunities as you like—whether or not that’s achieved through housing growth targets or more responsive land supply and land release mechanisms in cities, which we’re also proposing—but without the infrastructure and without the nimble infrastructure funding tools, the capacity will not be realised into, ultimately, houses.

Pillar two is under way as well. We’re publicly consulting on an exposure draft of the Local Government Infrastructure Funding Amendment Bill; this is to replace development contributions with a development levy system. Public consultation runs until February next year. The Government intends to introduce legislation mid - next year. The reality is that under the status quo, councils and developers face significant challenges to fund and finance enabling infrastructure for housing. The Government’s aim is to move to a future state where funding and financing tools enable a responsive supply of infrastructure where it’s commercially viable to build new houses. The aim is to shift market expectations of future scarcity, bring down the cost of land for new housing, and improve incentives to development land sooner rather than land banking.

It brings us to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Act, which was established in 2020 by the previous Government, picking up on work developed by the John Key and Bill English - led Government in 2016 and 2017. It’s an alternative means to fund and finance infrastructure for urban growth. It involves the establishment of a special purpose vehicle to finance the infrastructure needed to enable development, repaid by levying the properties which benefit off council balance sheets.

I think it would be fair to say that the Act has fallen short of delivering infrastructure needed to respond to growth. Only two IFF Act levies have been established since 2020. This was a piece of legislation developed in a relatively bipartisan fashion, actually. As I say, it started life in the last National Government, passed by the Hon Phil Twyford and friends in 2020. It has not quite worked out the way that people intended it to work out. This amendment legislation makes some, I think, sensible amendments to allow it to be used more frequently in a cheaper way and in a way with less red tape. The bill aims to remove unnecessary barriers to using the Act and to improve the viability of it to make the levy development and approval process simpler and more streamlined.

The improvements to infrastructure funding and financing reflect the Government’s overarching approach of growth paying for growth to enable more flexible provision of infrastructure that responds to development. As I said earlier, what we’re trying to do is move to a system where there are abundant development opportunities and the funding and finance required to support those development opportunities is allowed to turn up and is not artificially constrained by artificial constraints on funding and financing, in the same way that there are artificial constraints on land supply, which is what we have at the moment. Our future state will move to a world in which the economics of development dictate where and how it happens and when it happens, rather than artificial planning rules which have held our cities back for too long and are the root cause of the housing crisis that has bedevilled New Zealand for too long—with all of the moral, fiscal, social implications that come from that. Fixing our housing crisis is going to take a long time. It is not something that can be done overnight. It is a complex system, but we are making good progress, picking up on some of the good work done under the previous Government.

In terms of streamlining the levy approvals process, the extensive process required for applicants to have a IFF levy approved can be a barrier when trying to use the Act. We are now simplifying requirements for levy proposals and recommendation reports, simplifying the mandatory considerations the Minister of Housing must take into account when assessing a levy, improving certainty for developer-led proposals by limiting councils’ ability to withhold the necessary endorsements where statutory requirements have been met, and removing the requirement to assess a levy’s affordability for these proposals supported by developers and all other existing landowners. For new developments, levy payers self-assess affordability and opt in to the levy when deciding to purchase a property. As such, ministerial consideration of whether a levy is affordable is not needed if existing landowners are supportive. These things will make a difference, and I’m looking forward to seeing the feedback through the select committee to see whether or not we’ve got it exactly right. This bill will go to a select committee, and I’ve nominated the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because I think that’s the appropriate committee for it.

The bill broadens the scope of the Act to improve its flexibility and viability for a range of infrastructure projects. This is really important. This will better reflect developer-led use of the tool and enable the Act to be used for transport projects delivered by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) or KiwiRail as part of a funding stack for transport infrastructure investment, where it benefits property owners. Broadening the scope of the Act beyond simply addressing local authority funding and financing constraints aligns with wider transport system changes that signal to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport to require NZTA to consider alternative funding and financing arrangements for all new infrastructure projects, to ensure that New Zealand delivers more infrastructure sooner. The simple proposition is this: if there is public expenditure on infrastructure projects that private landowners benefit from, and they are the beneficiaries of that expenditure, they should help to cover the cost of that expenditure. It’s a form of value capture—some would call it that; we prefer the term “cost recovery”. It doesn’t actually matter what you call it. The proposition, or at least the value proposition, is a simple one. There’s a lot of complexity to actually implementing it, but the changes we’re making through the IFF Act amendment will allow that to happen.

It will also enable the Act to be used for water infrastructure investments delivered by new water organisations delivered through the Local Water Done Well policy. The bill replaces the definition of “community infrastructure” so that it’s not required to be owned or controlled by territorial authority. This broadens the potential use of the Act to include community infrastructure that is owned or controlled by a third party rather than vested in a territorial authority. The bill will enable levy deferrals to help manage any affordability concerns and better support the use of the Act for the purposes of value capture or cost recovery. There’s a variety of other changes to improve the Act, including clarifying the special purpose vehicle may commence recovery action if levies remain unpaid for more than four months, and amending the Local Government Rating Act to ensure that rates and levies rank equally in the event of a rating sale.

This is an important series of changes, but it can’t be divorced from the context of the flexible funding system we’re trying to create for local infrastructure. This is one tool in the toolkit. It will be used, I think, for large, new greenfield subdivisions on city fringes where the economics of that development make sense. I’ve already had some people say to me, “Well, I’ve had a look at the IFF. It doesn’t work. It’s too expensive.” Well, that’s OK. That’s actually OK, because if the cost of the infrastructure and the special purpose vehicle doesn’t make it economic to develop, then maybe we shouldn’t be developing it. Actually, letting price signals diffuse themselves into land markets is actually part of the problem. Too often, we’ve been cross-subsidising development in areas that don’t make sense and not allowing those price signals to work effectively. We may see it for greenfield subdivisions where people can make a buck out of it and the economics stack up. We will also, potentially, use it for large, new State highway projects in the future. Also, just in my last 25 seconds, the next time we do a City Rail Link project and we build a brand new $6 billion train station next to a casino, we should ask them to help cover the cost of the massive new infrastructure we’ve put into their private company. We’ll be able to do this with the changes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Let’s go for a wealth tax, Bish!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You don’t need a wealth tax; you just need sensible infrastructure funding tools. I look forward to your support.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve heard from the infrastructure and the local government sector the very clear message that they want some certainty. They want to see an end to the stop-start carry-on that they have seen over the last couple of years, and today is a particularly important day to point that out, because it is relevant to this bill.

We’re hearing a lot today around how much the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make things better, but no mention of the fact that it was this Government that put us back to the old Resource Management Act, which was no longer fit for purpose. Now, I’m pleased that the Government is not following the approach where there was a reform, they scrapped the reform and went back to the old approach and then used that as justification for the fast track, and then bypassed proper parliamentary procedure and public feedback to pass that bill.

At least they haven’t scrapped the original Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act and started again. That is a positive, and it gives an opportunity, as the Labour Party, to be able to indicate that we will support this bill to select committee, because it does build on what was intended by the 2020 Act. It is true that only two levies have gone through the process as a result of that, and it is quite clear that there are some barriers to establishing those.

We would like to see more occur, because at the end of the day, many councils are at their debt ceiling. Even with the changing of that ceiling by this Government, they will be under significant financial strain. That is particularly true with this bungled water reform by this Government, the additional requirements that they have placed on councils, and the Government’s inability or unwillingness to consider alternative revenue streams for councils outside rates—and let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that a rates cap is going to be the silver bullet here. In many cases, it is going to make things more difficult, and, in fact, this is potentially the only way in which some areas will be able to go through some infrastructure projects, because, frankly, councils’ hands will be tied behind their backs. But what is of concern is the lack of consultation that was delivered as part of the development of this bill.

Now, it’s been a couple of years, and, frankly, the changes that are in this bill have been signalled by Ministers for some time, and so it is quite telling that if you look through the departmental reports and regulatory impact statements, it’s quite clear that departments did not have enough time—they say so themselves—to assess this and actually understand whether the changes that are being proposed here will actually deliver what the Minister has just outlined. It’s very difficult for us, as a Parliament, to assess a piece of legislation when departments haven’t been given enough time to actually look at what is being proposed and give Parliament a steer as to whether it’s going to work.

It’s quite telling that they consulted with only a hand-picked, select few councils, and not councils across the board and not Local Government New Zealand. They could argue that they only talked to those councils that are at their debt ceiling already, but, as we know, many, many more are predicted to fall into that situation, and they will indeed be interested in the provisions that are proposed in this bill.

It is also interesting and worth noting that the Government hasn’t consulted with iwi on this bill, despite the fact—even though the Minister’s speech didn’t touch on this—that this bill actually proposes quite significant changes to how Māori land is viewed and considered as part of this process. Now, I am pleased that it is going to select committee, because we will work constructively with the Government to look to improve this bill, but we will have questions around that.

The expansion of this to include transport is worthy of pretty detailed assessment. We want some assurances that the changes that are being proposed around Māori land in particular do not disadvantage those shareholders in that land. Given their unique status, which is unlike any other shareholders of landholdings in this country, and of course the responsibilities of the Crown through Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is essential that we get those reassurances, and I’m not sure that enough consideration has been given to changing the requirement for a levy to be linked to a specific project. We’re keen to dive into those at select committee, and so we’re happy to support it to there, but we’re keen to look into it more.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Minister for Infrastructure, in his speech, referred to enabling more greenfield development, and I think I have to fundamentally disagree with his assertion that that is necessary or desirable for Aotearoa New Zealand. We have known now for decades—there has been study after study that has quantified—that infrastructure costs associated with greenfields development are significantly higher. The places we need homes and businesses and schools—and everything else, now—is within the existing urban area, close to good quality public transport in walkable neighbourhoods.

Simon Court: That’s another “can’t”.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That is what will deliver for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Simon Court: We say “can”.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The people opposite are actually just a bunch of walking contradictions, Mr Speaker, if I could. Like, everything they say as a Government is a walking contradiction, because they say that they want things to be value for money and they want taxes to be low, and at the same time, they have a wish-list of outrageously expensive highway projects which are not actually going to improve productivity at all but would probably facilitate a lot of suburban sprawl.

The one kind of coherent thread that links what the Government is doing is that they’re doing what land bankers want. It’s those people who own farmland that is somewhere out near Auckland who are going to benefit from the Government investing in highways, because they’ll be able to sell off that land as houses. Will New Zealanders benefit from that? Well, no. Those neighbourhoods will be neighbourhoods where people do not have good, affordable access to the amenities that they need to live good lives. Overall, our country will be spending more on fuel and private vehicles, we’ll have higher emissions, more air pollution, more sedentary lifestyles. All of that is cost, cost, cost, cost, cost. It actually doesn’t make people happy, and it doesn’t benefit the economy, but it does benefit some vested interests. That’s why you can guarantee that the coalition Government will be doing something—to help those vested interests make more and more money at the expense of public good and our taiao, our environment, and our climate.

When it comes to infrastructure funding and financing, like, the whole thing is a very complex, new structure that tries to get around the fact that if we want to have more infrastructure, we have to pay for it. As much as they say, “Well, we’ll internalise the cost of that infrastructure.”, when does that ever happen? It’s not happening. If it did—if people actually had to pay the cost of the infrastructure—it would be hugely unaffordable, and they would choose not to develop there; they would choose not to live in those places. That’s the truth; it’s quite, quite simple.

Now, we’re going to support this bill to select committee—and we did support when the previous Government did it—but, ultimately, what they’re trying to get at is the idea that public infrastructure needs to be paid for by a group of people who benefit from it, which is actually the public, and that’s what taxation is meant to do. If you are using more direct pricing mechanisms—if we were doing that, we certainly wouldn’t be prioritising the highways they’re prioritising, we wouldn’t be prioritising greenfield growth, because we have quantified the cost and it is unaffordable.

What we need Government to be focusing on is removing the barriers to building density done well in our existing urban areas; investing in high-quality, fast, frequent, affordable, free public transport in rail and electric bus services linking up our communities across the motu, as we once had. That would all make sense. When you go to other countries—and I appreciate that many people here won’t know what the rest of the world is doing, but if you go to other countries that we aspire to be like, they have much higher use of and much higher investment in public transport, in walkable and cyclable neighbourhoods. They do have more community-driven development of mixed-use neighbourhoods, which here, in New Zealand, it’s like, “Let the landowner dictate how the city develops.”, which is crazy. It just doesn’t deliver what people need to live good lives. People need to be walking distance from schools, walking distance from public transport stops.

The big lie is they claim that this is all about choice—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —rubbish. Rubbish. It is not about choice.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, point of order. I don’t mean to interrupt the member, because she is quite economically coherent on most matters, but she’s just referred to members of the governing parties as liars. I object to that. It’s unparliamentary. It’s going to bring the House into disorder.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I appreciate that members might be feeling sensitive, but I’d said, “The big lie”—not accusing someone of being a liar at all. “The big lie” is a more general thing about the idea that cars give independence and freedom.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well—

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s an expression.

SPEAKER: I think it’s a debating point. You’ve got 22 seconds left.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: People have not chosen this. This is something that benefits an overseas industry that sells motor vehicles and fossil fuels to us at high, high cost; that actually drains our country’s productivity, makes our air dirtier, our water dirtier. It’s the source of all the microplastics in the oceans, and it costs us a whole lot of money. The Greens have a better solution.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today’s first reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill is about fixing one of the biggest handbrakes on New Zealand’s growth: how hard it is to get infrastructure built when and where communities need it. The original Act came out of a rare moment of genuine innovation. A developer found a practical way to deliver the infrastructure for the Milldale development without being trapped by council debt limits or funding constraints. It should have set the standard for how we fund future growth. Instead, the Act has barely been used. It’s been weighed down by process, bureaucracy, too many chances for delay or obstruction by those who don’t carry the cost of saying no. This bill removes those barriers so that more projects can get off the ground. It expands so you can use the Act. It improves viability of a wider range of infrastructure and it simplifies the levy and an approval process so the tool becomes practical instead of theoretical.

The bill widens access to the Act, extending it to new water organisations like Local Water Done Well and to transport projects covered by the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail. New Zealand has a massive backlog of infrastructure needed to support growth. If the people who benefit can pay through a levy, these projects can move sooner rather than waiting for councils’ balance sheets to catch up.

The bill also makes sure that developer-led proposals get a fair run. When developers meet statutory requirements, councils will be required to endorse them instead of finding new ways to stall those projects. That certainty has been missing for far too long.

We also introduced levy deferrals, giving flexibility where affordability concerns arise, and better supporting use of the Act for cost recovery purposes. The current levy process is so complex it puts people off before they begin. This bill fixes that by enabling levy orders to be made directly on the terms of the levy proposal itself, removing duplication and simplifying the process for developing a recommendation report; simplifying mandatory considerations of the Minister of Housing, cutting paperwork in the evidence burden placed on applicants; removing the ministerial affordability assessment, where developers and all existing landowners agree to the proposal; removing the need for an infrastructure endorsement, where the infrastructure will not vest in a responsible authority, making the Act far more workable for developer-led and owned assets. These remove real-world costs, time delays, and the friction that currently kills the momentum that will actually get more homes delivered sooner.

The bill also provides several targeted fixes to the Act to make it usable on the ground. These include providing special purpose vehicles clear authority to begin recovery action if levies remain unpaid for more than four months; allowing infrastructure to be completed for up to two years before a levy proposal is submitted, because sometimes developers work much faster than the system they’re forced to work within; ensuring councils can recover reasonable administrative costs when providing endorsements on these proposals; refining the definition of “protected Māori land” so that relevant land can be identified from publicly available information rather than forcing proposers to spend potentially months and a whole lot of money to identify records that are almost impossible to find.

The new changes will prevent double-dipping by ensuring levies and development contributions cannot fund the same infrastructure more than once, expanding how leviable land categories may be defined, including developed or undeveloped status, floor area, or categorising land at a fixed point in time. Together with minor and technical improvements, these changes finally make the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act a practical tool. They give developers, councils, and central government clearer rules, better incentives, and far fewer avenues for delay. Combined with the Government’s Going for Housing Growth programme, this bill helps build a system that actually supports flexible, demand-led growth instead of resisting it at every turn.

This bill cuts through obstacles and enables people who want to build to actually get on with building. That’s how we fix what matters for New Zealanders—more homes, more infrastructure where we need it, delivered without the bureaucratic drag that has kept this country back. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is one of many initiatives being made by this Government to make it easier, cheaper, faster, and more certain to get things built and delivered in New Zealand. We have to raise our productivity—that is what, ultimately, this is all about. If we’re going to have a higher quality of living—a higher standard of living—and if we’re going to be able to deliver the public services that we want to deliver, we have to raise our productivity. It doesn’t grow on trees. We can’t borrow that living standard. We can’t borrow those services, as some in the Opposition benches seem to want us to do.

New Zealanders have been trying to deliver that higher productivity with a ball and chain wrapped around our collective ankles. This bill is part of reducing that barrier. Today, we’ll be talking about making consenting easier. We’re also talking here about making the financing and funding and delivering of infrastructure easier and cheaper. Industry and business know this; this Government knows this; I’m not quite sure if all of the Opposition know it. They keep on complaining about workers, particularly in the construction industry, leaving for Australia, and one of the things they don’t seem to realise is that every time we, in this Government, remove a barrier that helps more construction happen, that is helping to keep those people here in New Zealand.

It was a real delight to be on the West Coast recently to visit a number of mines and to see that there were a number of the people working in those mines who have come from Australia to work in New Zealand because we are providing employment opportunities in New Zealand—in this case, on the West Coast, which I know is a place very familiar to you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about helping to provide funding through making the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFF) easier and less bureaucratic, as we’ve already heard. At the moment, it’s only being used in two places in New Zealand, and that obviously shows the barrier that is there.

Two final things to say: the first is a note of caution. The bill’s general policy statement says that the IFF Act was introduced to help deliver infrastructure projects free from local authority funding and financing constraints. Well, I note that we’re also, as a Government, trying to make sure that we keep a lid on rates rises. What we don’t want to do is to see IFF being used as a way around rates rises and the limitations that there are on council raising money because there is a limitation on how much money they can take from their ratepayers, which we want to make sure there is a limitation on.

The second one is that as the Minister introduced this, he talked about growth paying for growth, and that’s a really, really, important concept. When we had the Infrastructure Commission in front of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee during scrutiny week, they told us, in answer to questions, that growth, at the moment, is paying for something between 30 and 50 percent of the costs of growth. That means growth is nowhere near paying for growth, and that means that the costs of that growth, at the moment, are landing on existing ratepayers, consumers, and taxpayers, and that’s something that needs to change.

I was surprised by the comments made by Julie Anne Genter in this debate, talking about greenfield development, and then, somehow, it’s a bad thing that that happens, and somehow linking it with the transport agency and KiwiRail. What this specifically does is it allows the possibility that the likes of the NZ Transport Agency and the likes of KiwiRail can say, “Look, we have built some infrastructure that allows some development to happen, and we are going to charge the beneficiaries of that development for some of that cost.” That is growth paying for growth. That’s been a hole in the system for a very, very long time. It’s a great thing that we move to fix that, and I look forward to this bill progressing. I commend it to the House.

Look, it’s time for us to get things built in this country—say yes to housing, yes to infrastructure, yes to renewable energy, and this bill is about providing the financing tools to do that. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. Earlier this morning, I had the privilege and the pleasure to attend the opening of 18 new homes, which will be owned by Pacific people, in Porirua East. What was really important about that project is that it was a project that spanned different Governments. In Budget 2020, $249 million was set aside for that particular project, with a commitment to $115 million over 10 years to build up to 300 new homes in Porirua East. What also accompanied it was a $132 million investment in the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, which cleaned up—basically fixed—the pipes in Porirua East so that we didn’t have sewage going into the Porirua harbour whenever there were heavy rains. Effectively, if we hadn’t fixed that pipe, about up to seven swimming pools of sewage could flow into the Porirua harbour.

Thankfully, through the work at the time, the Labour Government—I was the local MP—local iwi Ngāti Toa Rangatira, the Porirua City Council, and the Central Pacific Collective managed to now be in the process of actually building homes; built the homes; and, tomorrow, 18 new homeowners will actually be able to turn the key into their properties. What’s important about that is it shows an element of bipartisanship, because, yes, the funding was done in 2022; the works had started in relation to that particular project. But what was really good—and I acknowledge the Minister, Dr Shane Reti, today, who attended that particular opening. I acknowledge them for not cancelling the project. That was a really important point: to both acknowledge that they didn’t cancel it but also that it’s actually continuing. I think acknowledgments are due where they are due.

I do want to acknowledge Minister Bishop as well. In his first reading speech, he spoke about how this particular piece of work—which ended up being the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020—had started under the previous Government, was continued by the Labour Government, came into an Act, and the Minister is bringing forward improvements to this particular bill. We do welcome improvements to this particular Act to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to be able to allow for infrastructure funding and financing. I want to acknowledge the Minister for those particular comments.

I also acknowledge our infrastructure spokesperson, the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He spoke about the number of times that we have been approached by the infrastructure sector. I was the infrastructure spokesperson before the Hon Kieran McAnulty, and I have lost count of the number of sector leaders, organisations, construction firms, and engineering firms who approached me during that period—and still to this day—about pleading for a bipartisan approach when it comes to infrastructure. Infrastructure projects don’t just get spades on the ground on day one. A lot of planning, a lot of processes, need to happen, because we would not have been able to build 300 homes had we not fixed the pipes underneath the ground. That’s just a matter of form, particularly for a city like Porirua City, which was built for 6,000 and now has close to 70,000 people who live there. It’s so important for infrastructure—for the sector—to have some certainty.

Labour is happy to support this bill through the first reading so that we can hear some submissions during the select committee phase. We, again, want to acknowledge the Minister for allowing the select committee phase to happen for such an important bill.

I do want to echo the concerns by Kieran McAnulty around the consultation for this. It’s now by the past; however, my disappointment, really, is that the regulatory impact statement was finalised in November 2024. That’s, like, a year ago—a year ago. Officials and Ministers could have kept consulting to finalise that regulatory impact statement, given that it’s taken a year to get this bill to the House, to the point—well, we’re basically hitting up a wall to Christmas. We’ve got, obviously, something big happening next year with an election. But, hopefully, through the select committee process, I do encourage the community to submit on this, and the particular sector.

My last concern, which I would just want to put on the record for officials, is just around eligible infrastructure—around community infrastructure. They’re broadening the definition of that. Looking forward to seeing their advice when it comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this Government is about getting things done, and it’s about getting growth to fund growth, and getting things done now. The communities, like Kerikeri, are sick and tired of paying too much for land because it’s taking too long to get things approved and it’s taking too long to get funding because councils say no. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have already indicated today, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee.

It’s been already mentioned that the previous Government brought this bill into being. The focus there is on looking at alternative means to support growth in high-growth areas. Now, infrastructure is always a challenging issue for, I think, any council around the world and around the country—in New Zealand—as well.

I want to acknowledge the comments that my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds has just concluded, making acknowledgments where they are due—that is important. But I also think it’s important to indicate criticism where criticism is due. While this is a bill that seeks to try and speed up or free up the ability to fund some key pieces of infrastructure, we also know that in some communities—in many communities—there are pieces of infrastructure that, effectively, have been put on hold because the Government had put a bit of a stop to things. That is certainly something that we want to avoid, and that is part of, I guess, the approach in the Labour Party supporting this bill through to select committee.

The Minister himself talked about the applicability or relativity of transport projects being brought into the fold around that. There’s no doubt in my mind that there are, for the future, a number of transport projects and transport pieces of infrastructure that are proposed. We do have a little bit of a concern around the full extent to which this would apply to transport projects—what specific projects. That’s not going to hold us back from supporting this to select committee, but it does send a message to the Government that we will be interested, at select committee, in delving into the applicability of specified transport projects and what they might mean, because there is a real risk that the costs for these projects could either directly or directly be shifted on to households. As Mr McAnulty indicated, the proposed rates cap from the Government—there are still a number of questions to be answered in that particular space, but we do have some concerns around how transport projects will play a role as part of this bill moving forward.

Likewise, we have some concerns around the local accountability. Again, I guess that’s also framed in the local democracy sort of view, as well—how there will be an understanding that some of those local democracy or democratic considerations are applied for any of these pieces of infrastructure when they’re considered in situ or in place.

I want to make some concluding comments around my concern around what appears to be the very limited nature of consultation that has previously been undertaken. Really, they are in two areas that I’d like to touch on. The regulatory impact statement’s Annex A actually very helpfully identifies a full list of all of those stakeholders that were consulted. The interesting thing is, I guess, not who’s on there but who’s not on there. For example, Local Government New Zealand don’t seem to have been consulted. There is a massive role in terms of councils and the local government sector as to where this would play out. I note there are a number of councils listed there. Most of them are from larger metro sort of areas. Maybe that’s because of the high-growth capacity considerations that they might be placed with at the moment, but, none the less, it’s important to ensure that we have a bit of a wider brief.

The other two are in the transport and water reform areas. I know that developers and some other stakeholders have been identified here, but given that transportation is seen as a key avenue for which this bill would be applicable, I would have thought that outside of the developers, there was an opportunity there to engage from those in that particular sector. The other is in relation to the proposed changes for Māori land. The Minister has very kindly tabled a legislative statement that outlines some of the changes to that, at paragraph 8. It would have been really helpful, I think, in terms of the officials’ preparation of the regulatory impact statement, being able to identify the fact that Māori land owners, iwi, and others would have been consulted as part of this process.

That really does lend itself, in our view, to ensuring that through select committee, those are the types of issues that are explored deeply to ensure that some of the concerns that we’ve identified can be mitigated and perhaps allayed. For now, we do support this bill through to select committee.

Oh, it’s great to stand and speak to this bill, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, there have only been two that have been implemented, despite it having some bipartisan support. These are sensible amendments. They’re pragmatic, which will be more enabling. I’ve got one example in the north end of Hamilton: Te Awa Lakes. They’re literally on the bleeding edge of this stuff, and once they get this over the line, then they can unlock 2,500 homes. By virtue of their development, they can then unlock 25,000 homes, so I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.