Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 55 to 62, amendments to the schedules of the principal Act, including the schedule proposed in Amendment Paper 473. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a wonderful opportunity to have a brief call on Part 2. Part 2, as you so clearly outlined, is the part that outlines all the amendments to the schedules. It does, essentially, three key things. The first thing is that it amends those schedules relating to information requirements and conservation land, and that’s in two key areas. The first is around fresh water and other technical information schedules, and the amendments essentially change the schedules specifying information requirements for freshwater fisheries approvals and other consent types to align with revised decisions and to ensure that panels have complete information on environmental disturbance. Members will note that it uses the term, I believe, “fish facility” numerous times, which I found very, very fun to say—“fish facility”. It’s one of those Christmas tongue-twisters.

The second thing that Part 2 does—the very short and succinct and somewhat bland Part 2—is amend schedules related to land exchange in conservation. It amends Schedule 6 so that panels must consider the conservation values of both land disposed of and land acquired. It requires explanation of why the exchange benefits the conservation land, and it ensures that any improvements required as conditions of the exchange are aimed at enhancing conservation values across conservation areas and Crown-owned reserves—which, I think we’ll all agree, are very, very positive, pro-environmental, pro-conservation changes that will receive wide support from across the House, from all members.

The third thing that Part 2 does is it amends and makes refinements and changes to project descriptions for a range of projects, including the Stella Passage development, which was mentioned earlier on in the debate. I’m particularly excited, from a ports and maritime perspective, to see the change that amends “after Sulphur Point Wharf” to insert “and Mount Maunganui wharves”, with a significant change from “wharf”, as was originally in the bill. I think that just reflects the amount of care and attention that is being taken to this process to ensure that we get things right and that we make sure it is very clear what the projects are and what they stand for.

Throughout those changes, I think members will see they’re relatively self-explanatory. For example, when you look at the solar farm projects, essentially it amends descriptions of the proposals, from being simply numbers of panels to include things like battery capability, and perhaps the wattage that those solar farms may well produce. I think that’s just to provide further clarity and consistency as we get this thing moving and get these fast-track projects through the process and delivered for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there’ll be a bit of jumping around because there are significant amendments to Part 2, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just outlined, particularly with that extra detail in the schedules. But I’m not going there at the moment.

What I want to focus on is clause 56 “Schedule 3 amended” and the new clause 3A. This is very important, and we heard a lot of submissions on it as well: an “Applicant or local authority may raise concerns about prospective panel member”. Now, I’m not concerned about the local authority being able to raise concerns about the prospective panel member, but I’m very concerned about the ability for somebody who is making an application through a special process to then be able to say, “Well, these decision makers have been given to me”—and must start within very fast time frames as well, that we’ve already talked about—“but I don’t like them. I don’t like that decision maker. I want somebody else.”

Hon James Meager: It’s been removed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, it’s been removed? I don’t have that in my copy.

Hon James Meager: In the Amendment Paper.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That’s all removed. Sorry, I’m happy to—sorry, if the Minister just wants to explain to me that that’s in the Amendment Paper.

Yeah, so I just refer to the Amendment Paper, new clause 3A of Schedule 3, inserted by clause 56(2), is proposed to be removed.

Thank you for the call, Madam Chair. It’s really good to be able to ask some very clear questions, particularly about this part, because we have had such a short and unthorough—is that a word?—undetailed select committee process.

Particularly, I wanted to begin on clause 55—this is Part 2, clause 55, “Schedule 2 amended”, and this is clause 55(2). In the Schedule 2 heading, it proposes to, after “projects”, insert the words “with significant regional or national benefits”.

Now, we had some really clear submissions around this clause, in particular from submitters, and many of them—the majority of them, actually; over 200—were opposed to this specific clause. The reason they were is because it’s virtually assigning the definition of significant regional or national benefits to automatically apply to those projects in Schedule 2. The official—and the Government—response to this was that the intent of it is to actually clarify that it is not the role of the expert panels to determine whether listed projects have national or regional benefits, as this determination has already been made by the Minister. Now, the real concern that people had—and which Te Pāti Kākāriki absolutely share—is this is, essentially, a benchmark of reckons where the Minister has not had adequate information to actually determine whether it meets criteria of significant regional or national benefits.

We know this because we’ve just heard in the previous part that, for example, it’s up to the applicant to assess the significance of their own environmental impact. And what we heard very clearly from submitters, even with projects that are already in the fast-track process, is that this is completely inadequate and, actually, there’s been errors and there’s been glaring gaps of applicants’ environmental assessments where the holes are not being plugged.

So, at this early stage, the Minister is meant to be making this determination without any criteria of actual net benefits of a project. Now, the concern with this, and I think it is a very valid point which submitters made, is that if these projects have such significant regional or national benefits, then they should be able to stand up to a criteria test that actually proves that—that actually makes the applicant do the work to show they have those benefits. Now, the concern here is that it’s automatically applying that by simply changing the title of Schedule 2; it’s taking the power away from the independent decision makers to appropriately make that decision.

Now, we heard throughout this process from very concerned submitters, including the fast-track panel conveners, who specifically urged the committee to use caution and watch for unintended consequences. This is exactly one of those aspects that it would be great if the Government could actually turn their mind to and consider whether it is appropriate to make this change. I’m proposing in my amendment simply that we would delete clause 55(2), so that it isn’t making this inappropriate inference and, essentially, a benchmark where the Ministers are actually not in a position for them to even make that. What we’ve heard time and time again from submitters is that these are the exact things that in fact open this process up to appeal and judicial review. So I’m really interested in the Minister’s views on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a bit of clarity, because these are Schedule 2 projects that it refers to: it’s the Government’s view that projects that are listed in Schedule 2 are those that already have national or regional benefits. That’s the Government’s view, one which will, hopefully, be endorsed by the Parliament as well. Once that view is endorsed, it will then be up to the expert panel to assess the level of those benefits. The Parliament is going to endorse the view that these projects that are listed in Schedule 2 are already of significant regional or national benefit, but it will still be up to the independent expert panels to assess the level of those benefits and the environmental effects, at the substantive stage. Of course, there is no ability for Ministers to add new projects into Schedule 2, so, with Parliament’s endorsement of what the law will define them as, it will then be up to that panel to assess the extent to which they are of benefit.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume tonight at 7 p.m. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Members, the committee has resumed on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were debating Part 2. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for that. Now, the Minister in the chair, Chris Bishop—I see he was off having a beer before, according to his social media.

Hon Chris Bishop: That was yesterday.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, that was yesterday—oh, it looked like it just popped up.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It is yesterday.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I was going to ask why he wasn’t drinking a Speight’s, like Simon Court was, but there we—

Hon Chris Bishop: Facebook scheduling is a wonderful thing.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh right, OK. So, more importantly than beer choice, I was pleased—I will tell the Minister this—that in clause 56(2), which was to insert the new clause 3A into Schedule 3, “Applicant or local authority may raise concerns about prospective panel member[s]”, which we called outrageous in our differing view, the Minister’s Amendment Paper has deleted that. So, good work.

Now I would like to come to something that isn’t deleted in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and that is a change at—so still looking at clause 56, but at subclause (6) there’s a phrase here: “In Schedule 3, clause 7(1)(a)(i), after ‘application’, insert ‘, including knowledge, skills, and expertise in the sector to which the application relates (for example, mining or quarrying, housing and land development, or aquaculture)’.” That change might be OK, because below that, in the Act itself, there is a requirement for environmental knowledge, but what the Minister’s amendment does is say that this knowledge, skills, and experience is “only if practicable”. We’re very concerned about this addition “if practicable” and in fact are wondering if we can still call panels “expert” panels if they are only expert panels “if practicable”.

I’m concerned about this. I’d like the Minister to tell us why it’s been included and if he’ll consider removing it, and if there are any limits on it—particularly interested in criteria and limits.

I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her kind remarks about some of the changes the Government is making. I think this would be in the “rats and mice” category, which I know the member likes to talk about sometimes with changes. The simple reason is that it’s really just a gloss—so the “if practicable” bit is a gloss on “knowledge, skills, and expertise” in case there are panels that are stood up and, for whatever reason, you can’t find the expertise, knowledge, and skills for the particular relevant application. It’s really just a bit of a gloss to make sure that you can do it “if practicable”, but if you can’t, it’s not the end of the world either. But it should be read in conjunction with all the other bits, as the member rightly states.

Still on this topic, does the “if practicable” only relate to the knowledge, skills, and expertise in the sector to which the application relates—for example, mining or quarrying?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: So there’s no “if practicable” caveat on environmental expertise or other sorts of expertise—

Hon Chris Bishop: No, no, no.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and the Minister’s saying no, no, no. It’s good to hear the Minister say no!

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do also have a very specific technical question on clause 56, “Schedule 3 amended”. In subclause (3), it says: “In Schedule 3, clause 4(1), replace ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law’ with ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or resource management planner’.” I’m just wondering whether the removal of “in relevant law” is an actual material difference in who qualifies, or what is the reason for the change in the language in this point?

It’s just a tidy-up. It’s one of these things where the Fast-Track Approvals Act was done—bills are never perfect, even bills that have been on the statute book as Acts for years. We were doing the amendment anyway. It’s just one of these ones where, if you’re going to do it, you may as well take the opportunity to just—it’s beyond “rats and mice”, I would put this is in the “finesse” category of changes. It said, “a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law”; now it says, “with ‘a suitably qualified lawyer or resource management planner’ ”, which just makes it clear that we want people with resource management planning expertise as part of it, because resource management is ultimately what we’re dealing with 95 percent of the time—well, in fact, all the time, actually.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a series of questions and comments. My colleagues have tabled a number of amendments to the subclauses. This is in the Amendment Paper—sorry, I should make this clear; this is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper—which was only recently tabled. If we go to Part 2, clause 55, it makes a number of amendments to the project descriptions in the schedules. The ones I’m particularly interested in—the Minister will be shocked to find out—are the amendments to New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi’s listed projects. There are a number of tabled amendments that we’d love the Minister to consider, including some that just delete the projects from the fast-track list.

I guess the comment I would make, at this point, to the Minister, is that I think the fact that we’re having amendments to the descriptions of specific projects as an amendment to a bill, post select committee, and the description of the bill and the general policy statement is all about the Commerce Commission’s supermarket competition. Most of the paragraphs in the explanatory note say this bill is about supermarket competition. It’s only at the very end that it says the bill also includes specific technical and machinery changes. Arguably, changing the description of listed highway projects has nothing to do with supermarket competition or even technical amendments to the bill. I just want to raise that particular process point. Would the Minister like to comment?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes, I can comment on that.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Great.

We canvassed this in Part 1 because it kind of came up as well. Just to kind of reiterate for the committee, I suppose: we found ourselves in a situation where what we thought were quite accurate project descriptions, which would do the job to make it clear what projects the Government and Parliament wanted to accelerate through the fast track—we found a situation via the courts which has made it very clear that there needs to be absolute specificity, like, literally to the very word about the particular descriptions of the projects.

That was not anticipated and the advice was that that would not happen. But that’s OK; we have a separation of powers in this country and the courts have said—well, I shouldn’t say “the courts” have said, generically. I should say that the High Court has found, in relation to one case—which, of course, makes people nervous about everything else. So given we’d already decided to do the amendments in relation to grocery competition via the Government policy statement process, we thought it was an opportune time to also—just for belts and braces, for absolute clarity—update some project descriptions at the same time. I think that’s the responsible, sensible thing to do. We’re making the amendments anyway, so we might as well take the opportunity to do it, to just make absolutely certain they’re all accurate.

And, of course, there’s the residual power in Part 1, which we’ve already canvassed in the previous part, which places the ability for the Minister to update those project descriptions, but there are some guardrails around those project descriptions as well. That issue has been canvassed in the previous debate.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter—just while we’ve got this interaction, we’ll try and encourage this and leave one member with a few questions while the Minister’s answering.

Thanks, Mr Chair—I do really appreciate it. I think it does help the flow of the debate. In that case, as I said, there’s a whole number of amendments, which I’m sure the Minister will be very interested in.

I want to make the point that the Minister might now have to consider amending project descriptions in the future, because it may well be true that the description of the projects—and specifically the New Zealand Transport Agency projects—could change again in the future. For example, in the projects that refer to Wellington and improving State Highway 1 in Wellington, in Amendment Paper 473—this is, again, clause 55(2R), “item relating to State Highway 1 Wellington Improvements”—well, firstly, I think it is highly contestable that what’s been proposed by the Government is an improvement. Also, would this therefore rule out improvements that might include further changes beyond what’s been proposed, like bus priority or a light rail connection? Walking and cycling aren’t specified in the project, so I’m just wondering: is the Minister expecting to have to continually update the project descriptions?

This would be one of our criticisms of this whole fast-track approach and the projects that it applies to, and specifically the New Zealand Transport Agency projects—that trying to define in a schedule in a bill what the projects are when they haven’t even really been fully designed and still have to go through a process is possibly not the best process.

I think the member makes reasonable points. In relation to her second point about whether we want to continually update projects, the answer is no, but the ruling of the High Court has placed us in a difficult situation. So just by way of background there without impugning the honour of the court, it relates to the—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Are they pernickety?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that? Are they pernickety? It’s the word du jour. It relates to the Stella Passage extension of the port of Tauranga. Literally, I think I’m right in saying two or possibly three words left off the project description have meant that it apparently can’t be a substantive project. Now, this bill actually fixes that issue by updating the schedule. Also they’ve subsequently lodged a referral application, which has been accepted and so it’s in the mix for that as well. We’ll wait and see where that gets to, obviously, without getting ahead of the panel, but that has meant that people are obviously pretty concerned to make sure that project descriptions are accurate because if the High Court interpretation in the Stella Passage case holds, then it will mean a very strict reading. So that’s why we’ve gone through the process of updating them, and there’s the backstop power to continue to update them. I don’t really want to do it, but clearly there may be a need to.

In relation to the member’s first point, that’s a question of judgment that I’m probably not the right person to proffer a view on. I think the question was: will it include walking and cycling or bus priority, for example? I mean, strictly, the project that she’s referring to was State Highway 1 between north of the Terrace Tunnel and Kilbirnie, including associated infrastructure and connections. I suppose it depends on whether or not you think associated infrastructure includes that. Probably it does if you’re talking about walking and cycling through the tunnel; bus priority on the quays, probably not, but that’s OK. That’s why there’s two pathways. There’s the listed projects which a lot of time and energy has been spent on, but there’s the referral pathway as well. I haven’t got the numbers to hand, but I think I’m right in saying that we’re about half and half so far. Some of the projects that are actually working their way through have been referrals—and I’ve turned down some referrals as well, by the way. People think it’s just an automatic accelerator to get all these projects done; I’ve actually turned some down and I’ve used my judgment in relation to a range of matters. All of that is publicly available, by the way, there’s nothing to hide here. It’s all available online and people are examining that. So I think that deals with the member’s questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back briefly to a matter that was raised just before the dinner break by Lan Pham about the schedule, and the answer that the Minister in the chair gave that those listed projects in the schedule are now to be all thought of as regionally or nationally significant.

My only question around this is, given what the Minister has just said about loss of time and energy that went into those listed projects during that time, of the time and energy between when the applications were made to the Minister—in a very secretive process. We didn’t see the schedule to the original bill; they all came in at the committee stage. Was there scrutiny of whether or not they were of a regional or national significance when they were put on that schedule to start with? That’s my first question.

The member makes a good point, and this is actually, I think, quite important. Clause 55, the Schedule 2 amendments, right?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is a direct response to the Delmore decision, which was a housing development, from memory. Delmore was a listed project. It was a Schedule 2 project, and the panel in Delmore—I’m paraphrasing—said, “Just because a project is listed in the schedule doesn’t mean it necessarily has significant regional or national benefits”. That was the intention of listing it in the schedule. Without getting into the panel’s reasoning, somewhere along the line listing it in the schedule got lost sight of. So, regardless of the rights or wrongs of that, this is a response to that and makes it clear that Schedule 2 projects have significant regional or national benefits.

Now, the extent of those regional or national benefits is clearly an issue for the panel to weigh up in the decision making, with the adverse effects, but the sort of a priori threshold question “Does it have significant regional or national benefits?”—if the amendment is agreed to, then the answer will be yes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the analysis. What’s the analysis?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you for the reminder. I was just churning in my head exactly what the next question was. The answer is yes.

Look, members may disagree about this, but we went through a relatively robust process, I think, through the independent advisory group report, which provided the advice. There were hundreds of applications to be a listed project, and some of them made their way through and others didn’t. There was an independent report; we put a group of experts in charge of that, and we accepted many of those recommendations, but some were rejected by the Government. Look, these are, in some senses, issues of judgment, obviously. Is a 1,000-home housing development substantial or significant, versus 500? I mean, these are issues of judgment.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Is there the infrastructure that goes with it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the infrastructure’s not there, then, as the Delmore decision finds, that is an adverse effect that can be taken into account, although, however, we have also made the amendments around conditional approvals based on the infrastructure. That’s also a direct response to Delmore.

This is Parliament acting in response to, in this case, one High Court judgment and, secondly, a panel judgment. It looks like you’ve got another question.

Still talking about the schedules—thank you for the answer—these are just two small questions I’ve got in relation to clause 58, which is Schedule 6 amended. Throughout clause 4 of Schedule 6, there’s this new phrase “or a transfer of”. The question is whether this transfer is something that is new, that’s come through the other changes that we’ve already made to these fast-track approvals, or if it was already there.

Then the second point is at clause 4(7) of Schedule 6—so I’m looking at page 35 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473. There’s a “delete ‘, including an explanation of why the exchange would benefit the conservation estate’.” There are other references to the benefit of the conservation estate, but what I’m wanting comfort on, I guess, from the Minister is that consideration of the benefits to the conservation estate are still in the mix and they are not being degraded by these changes, which are quite technical in their nature.

I have answers on those issues. The transfer point is just to make clear that concessions can be transferred through this process in a way that would have otherwise taken place as well. The bit about the “delete the explanation” is just a redrafting. It occurs elsewhere, so they just delete that bit. It’s just a redraft.

This will be my final point for now because I know that other members—and we heard from the Hon Julie Anne Genter as well—are very interested in talking about the specific changes.

We see in this Amendment Paper that there are many specific changes to Schedule 2. I don’t want to go through them in a lot of detail, but that’s not to say that other members won’t have a different approach. I don’t know the detail of these explanations, and I don’t think it’s particularly my job to do that either, but I would ask the Minister if he could go through, in particular, the ones where we heard submissions on them. We definitely heard submissions on KiwiRail. We obviously heard submissions on the Port of Tauranga as well. If the amendments that have been made align with what was asked in those submissions—or not—is one question.

Then some other questions on these: if there is anything else, the Minister might want to make a general comment, and we did have a general comment from the Minister who was in the chair before the dinner break about how some of this is just more detail. He referred to the solar panels and that they give a wattage—I think he said—and that is different from what is currently in the Act. Can the Minister provide any general comfort that the changes are not significant, or minimal?

Before he does, I’ll ask one more question, as well, and this is about the amendment to Precinct Properties. The Minister will know that I’m not from Auckland, but I do know Auckland is our great international city and it’s got a beautiful harbour, and thank goodness it’s got some marine protections now. I love Auckland, but I don’t pretend to know a whole lot about the Precinct Properties development; there do seem to be some changes here about the heights of the towers. I do also know that Aucklanders like being able to see that beautiful gulf of theirs, so I was wondering what the implications of this will be on those view shafts and if the Minister can tell the House the sorts of consultation that has gone on with Auckland Council and anyone else who might have a particular interest in this project.

The short point is, in relation to the member’s first point, yes, the submitters asked for these changes because they noticed that there were errors in the original words—“errors” is probably too strong a phrase. In light of the High Court ruling in relation to the Sulphur Point, for the Tauranga decision, everyone got the heebie-jeebies and realised they needed to be really strictly accurate. Literally, relating to the Stella Passage development, the court found that because the words “Mount Maunganui wharves” were not in the project description, the project was not eligible, even though the project’s been around for, like, 10 years. I don’t know; I’m not an expert on wharves—God forbid. But I understand there’s—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Me, neither.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, exactly. But I understand there’s two particular parts and one was listed and the other wasn’t. It’s literally “and Mount Maunganui wharves”, so that’s four words. We’re just adding that in to make that clear.

Arena Williams: I mean, it’s a hotel now, though; it’s quite different.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some would argue that that was clear already. But I don’t want to—some would argue that. I would not venture a suggestion.

Arena Williams: It’s a hotel now, the Precinct towers.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hon Member: Not the wharf, though.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The wharf’s not a hotel. Oh, you’re talking about Precinct Properties. Yeah, well, I’m not super familiar with that project, either, to be honest, but it will have been upon the submission of Precinct. I think there’s a council involvement in that, because the building’s a car park—the old car park building is an old council building. I think there’s been an arrangement.

Arena Williams: It’s a big topic in my household.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a big topic? OK, well, there you go. In relation to the view shafts, which are issues in Auckland.

Arena Williams: We love a view shaft.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well—OK!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There is now an opportunity to take a call, Ms Williams—geographical trip around Auckland.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, it’s great that you love view shafts, but do you love the E9 view shaft that protects the view from the toll bridge on the Harbour Bridge that doesn’t exist any more—that to view the view shaft would make you guilty of dangerous driving? That view shaft goes right through the middle of the Auckland CBD and has at least a $1.5 billion to possibly $2 billion impact on development capacity in the middle of our biggest city. If you tweaked the E9 view shaft a few degrees to the left or right, you would unlock hundreds of millions of dollars of development capacity in Auckland. I’m just saying you can tweak these view shafts with quite big economic benefits.

View shafts are important. I’m not an Aucklander, but view shafts are important. Viewing the maunga is important and there are iwi relationships we need to maintain and preserve there as well, and that’s all important, so don’t get me wrong. I’m not proposing to make any changes, but we do have a study under way into the economic cost of view shafts. People need to realise that these things that we impose for legitimate reasons have trade-offs. We’re doing this study, which the council knows about, so I’m not telling anyone anything secret. That will seek to quantify the economic costs of view shafts. Anyway, it’s a bit away from the topic. I think I’ve answered the question.

I’ve just got a point of clarification for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, whether those heebie-jeebies he talked about were in fact pernickety heebie-jeebies.

Most definitely.

Lawrence Xu-Nan—we look forward to getting back to some parts of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. That is the kind of conversation I’d like to have with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, because I’ve learnt a lot about the last part that the Minister mentioned in terms of view shafts. I do find that very interesting.

Hon Chris Bishop: I’m resigning!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Please, be my guest. I actually do have a question, and this is to do with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473. I want to focus on a few of the projects that have been listed here. I’m going to start with the one that’s an amendment to Harmony Energy NZ. This is clause 55(2A) and (2B) and potentially even (2C). Would it be the correct assumption that by changing it from a quantitative approach of 660,000 solar panels to, I’m guessing, an output approach—is that what the adjustment is in here where, rather than saying, “We’re locking in X number of solar panels.”, we’re saying, “We’re expecting the output amount to be 400 MW DC.”? In which case, that’s really interesting.

I guess my next question is: are those two things comparable? Are 660,000 solar panels the equivalent of 400 MW DC? Then, in the next one, we see that there are 180,000 solar panels in terms of the Hinuera Solar Farm, which then equates to 100 MW DC. It’s one quarter of what we see in Bunnythorpe Solar Farm, but, obviously, 180,000 is not a quarter of 660,000. That’s my question, but I do have other questions.

I mean, look, this just goes to the point I made before—right?—which is: regardless of your views about Schedule 2 and this particular project, and I don’t know it from a bar of soap, you don’t want a situation where someone rocks up and says, “Oh by the way, we’re only doing 500,000 now. It’s the same megawatts as 400.” But the court says, “Well, no, no, no. Because you said 660 and now you’re only doing fewer, even though it’s the same wattage or the same megawatts.” That’s the unfortunate reality of the Sulphur Point decision, where, like, a really strict reading has meant we’re going to have to go through this. But, look, it is what it is. That’s the role of Parliament.

Yeah, I think I actually agree with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I think that’s a sensible adjustment, going from locking into an exact amount to looking at it more from an output perspective. But can I also check in—I think the Minister has answered this already, which is that these are the kinds of amendments, for example, that will now be captured under Order in Council in the future, as opposed—

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes—yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you.

The other question, then, I have is, and, you know, I don’t normally—I’m also the Green Party MP that’s based in Epsom, so I have a keen interest in new clause (2E) of Schedule 2, inserted by new clause 55, in terms of the deletion of “(Newmarket)”. Now, understanding that this original project is KiwiRail and it’s talking in terms of the North Island Main Trunk between Westfield Junction in Newmarket and Pukekohe, I’m checking if the deletion of Newmarket—and potentially it’s the same as before; it just means that it’s a level of specificity that’s not needed, but will that still take place in the same Westfield in Newmarket, or does that then mean that any Westfield along that line potentially would apply? That’s my second question to the Minister.

Westfield there is not the shopping mall. Westfield is the area—

Hon Member: Train station.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s the train station Westfield. It’s not the shopping mall. It’s Westfield, which is on the—well, this project; I mean, I don’t want to distract the committee, but this—

Grant McCallum: Go on!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, just one minute’s indulgence. This project is actually a very important project, the four-tracking. I do know a little bit about this one; I don’t know a lot about the some of the other ones.

We’ve just done the third main project, right? We’ve just done the third main. This is the busiest section of the freight section in Auckland and, in fact, the whole of the—in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the busiest freight section in the entire country. Of a rail network that struggles economically, this is the bit that actually makes sense. We’ve just opened the third main, and, frankly, we should have done the fourth at the same time. That’s what this project is: the four-tracking from Westfield to Pukekohe. It means you can separate out passenger and freight rail, because, at the moment, in that part of Auckland—well, the third main’s been good, but that part of Auckland is heavily congested because you’ve got passenger rail on the metro passenger network competing with freight. KiwiRail’s incentive, obviously, is to run the freight, because that’s where they make some money; passengers are sort of, you know, neither here nor there for them.

So separating out the tracks is a really useful thing. It’s very expensive, I have to say. But, anyway, they should have done the fourth at the same time. Some of us argued for that at the time, some of us even campaigned on it, but we didn’t win, so that’s OK. But it just means that when we eventually do the fourth main, which is this project—the four-tracking of Westfield to Pukekohe—it will be much more expensive to do it for all the reasons that infrastructure costs go up. Anyway, KiwiRail will have asked for this.

But it’s not Westfield the shopping mall; it’s Westfield the area.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in turning over many pages to page 40 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and this is where there’s the transitional provision. The bill, as introduced, didn’t have any transitional provisions, and then there are now transitional provisions. I’m pleased to see that the changes to the right to appeal don’t have an immediate effect. That is a good—that is good, although I don’t think the changes should be made in the first place. However, that is not my point or my question. That is a statement.

My question is—it’s just a small question about the use of the word “old”, and it might be a drafting technique that I am unfamiliar with. But “old”—so if you look at clause 11, “Notification under section 29 if consultation undertaken before second commencement date”, then you’ll see a lot of references to “old section 29” and “old section 30(2)” and “old section 30”. I was wondering if the Minister had any comments or if his advisers can help—if this is a normal transitional provision. It’s not one I’m familiar with.

I’m advised the answer is yes, and it’s just a drafting choice by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It is normal.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would actually like to draw the Minister’s attention to the newly introduced schedule, which is technically clause 54A. Again, this is something that we haven’t really had a chance to dig into during the select committee stage, because it’s part of the Minister’s amendment.

I do want to check—in terms of clauses 6 and 7, in particular, of that schedule in the new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1—what is the Minister’s intention when it comes to between the first commencement date and the second commencement date? For example, in clause 7(2), if an application is a substantive application and the approvals sought have not been decided before the second commencement date but it is after or on the first commencement date, the following provisions apply. I just want to check with the Minister the intention of adding something like this and whether there are current projects that are already being caught out as a part of this sort of weird limbo area between the first and second commencement date, or is there any projection of what could be captured between the first and second commencement date as a result of the introduction of this new section? That is my first question to the Minister. If the Minister wants a specific section I’m referring to, I guess, clause 7(2) of the schedule is a good place to start.

Just going back to the main area, I really appreciate the Minister’s response to my question around Westfield Newmarket, because I did not know that and that was really, really informative.

I want to check with the Minister in terms of the idea of introducing some of the amendments. You mentioned in terms of the amendment to the Port of Tauranga Ltd and the wharves and the specific naming of it. But I guess I’m curious to know, in all of these—noting that the Minister cannot add new projects by Order in Council; but in terms of the new ones that are listed here and the specific changes that have been made—I don’t see any one that does mention a supermarket; maybe for the Downtown Carpark Redevelopment? Is that one of the ones that would potentially be considered under retail and hospitality, which is the third bullet point of clause 55(4)?

Clause 7 in Schedule, “New Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1”—on page 39—is relatively complicated transitional provisions reflecting the two different commencement dates around the provisions, and it’s just to make sure that applications in train are not stuck in that limbo land and that they can carry through and they can get some of the benefits of this but not all of them, which is reflected in clause 7(1) and (2).

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just want to go back to this Downtown Carpark building. Actually, it’s a really convenient car park and I’m sorry to see it go, but never mind.

Look, it’s a meta question, but this is a good example of it. Going back to the original Act, the approval was for two towers of 56 and 41 levels respectively. In your Amendment Paper, they are now two towers of 55 levels and 45 levels, so there has been some change.

Arena Williams: And less car parks.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah. And then the residential space, in the original Act, is approximately 300 to 350 apartments. It’s now residential space providing apartments and a hotel. I’ve got no objection to this in particular. I will get to the wider point. In terms of car parks, in the original Act, it’s five car parking levels, basement levels, providing 613 car parks. In the new amendment it’s a four-level basement for car parks.

Look, I appreciate projects change, but in a sense there’s been a change on this project sufficient that you might have thought you’d have to go back and get a new consent for some of this, and yet it’s coming back in, not quite by the back door as it were, but it’s because we’ve changed—and I take the Minister’s point about needing to be more specific about getting the wording right so it’s not affected by those court decisions, but what we are seeing here is a slightly back-door route to what looks like a change in a project.

It just begs the wider question of what happens—and I may have missed it earlier in the discussion—when someone applies for a fast track but then, a few months down the track, something changes and so the project changes a bit. At what level do they need a new application? If you could just clarify that for me.

The member makes a reasonable point. I think she’s sort of answered her own question, which is the High Court ruling and the Stella Passage case: the passage of time between fast track and this project’s been updated. It’s not—I mean, it is different, obviously; I wouldn’t say it’s substantially different.

Going forward, if Parliament agrees with this amendment and the bill becomes law, there is the ability through the section we’ve talked about quite a bit, which is new section 117A, where there are guardrails in place; where the Minister must not make a recommendation to change the scope of a project unless the Minister is satisfied that the scope of the project will not be substantially different as a result of the amendment, taking into account three different factors.

That’s ultimately a judgment call. Of course, that’s reviewable, and Ministers will take legal advice on that. I’m not venturing a suggestion in relation to the Downtown Carpark, because it’s a listed project, but that is what it is.

Just to those enthusiastic members on my right: can you just actually have a look at the bill and see how much is in there? That might just curb your enthusiasm a little. You can stand and take all the calls you like, but I just suggest you have a look at what’s in front of you.

Thank you. Well, my point is a small point, and it may even be a pernickety point, Minister. And that was I asked you earlier about the changes throughout this schedule and if they all related to submissions that were made, and you responded in relation to a couple of examples; I think you spent some time talking about the Port of Tauranga case, and I understand the Minister’s point there, but I’m just wondering if he can confirm if they all came from submissions or if there has been some other process that has been undertaken that has changed these other projects, and, if so, what that process was.

I’m advised that some are in response to submissions. When the member said submissions, I thought she just meant, you know, suggestions or submissions somewhere; I didn’t realise she meant select committee—did you mean select committee submissions?

Hon Rachel Brooking: I meant select committee submissions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. Well, the answer is yes, in relation to some, but there have been others into the Government—into either the Ministry for the Environment or my office—in relation to some of these updates.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to touch on Schedule 6. This is clause 58 in Part 2 and it’s to do with the assessments and the reports by the Director-General of Conservation with regard to conservation values.

What was really clear from submissions is, particularly because this is a process that the Director-General of Conservation undertakes, that this is one avenue to potentially provide mana whenua with a voice under this, particularly when it comes to the assessments that need to take place under Schedule 2. We know that there’s a lot of Treaty provisions that have conservation and taonga species provisions that could be relevant to these clauses. One submitter made the proposal that, because it is the Department of Conservation involved in putting together these assessments and the analysis of these assessments, perhaps this could be one way that relevant iwi and hapū could actually feed in at that process.

Now, the other aspect that I’m interested in is, from what I understand, the information requirements were somewhat complicated in the original bill, and so there’s been a number of what looks like quite basic changes to actually clarify the requirements there, particularly when it comes to land exchanges. I just wanted assurance from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about whether there are any material changes in that and whether this could be a particular area where mana whenua could have a voice.

I’m not an expert on this area, but I’m advised that it’s optional, not mandatory, to involve mana whenua, and that, in practice, the Department of Conservation do that.

Thank you. Just one quick follow up in response to this, and thank you to the Minister for his response. Forest & Bird raised the question about whether this applies or does not apply to council reserves and there was concern that there is not clarification. Now, it looks like there have been some changes, but, again, just looking for clarity that that has been covered in some way.

It’s Crown-owned reserves as opposed to council reserves, yeah.

I have just a small point, going back to this discussion I was having with the Minister about submissions made. He’s now clarified that the amendments to Schedule 2 go beyond what was requested by submissions in the select committee process. He said there’s been some conversations with the Ministry for the Environment or something like that. What I’m looking for now is some assurance from the Minister that, where something hasn’t gone to the select committee and is changed here, the changes are pernickety in nature only and are not expanding the projects or likely to have an increase of adverse environmental effects as the result of these wording changes.

Hon Chris Bishop: Sorry, I missed the start of it. Can you just summarise it?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Pernickety. The changes to Schedule 2—these projects that are listed here, some of them were looked at by the select committee because they went through the select committee process; some of them weren’t. For the ones that weren’t, can the Minister give us some assurance that, whatever processes happened to make these changes in front of us now, there are no increased adverse effects from the changes in the projects and no changes in scale either?

Well, best endeavours. Ultimately, the question of adverse effects is for the panel, it’s not for me, because they’re listed projects and the assessment of the effects will happen later. So best endeavours. If the member—I hesitate to suggest this—sends me a written question, we can get into it. I get quite a lot, but, you know, it’s not like we don’t have enough to do, so, you know, put it down in writing, take it on notice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s response before, but one of the things I was asking the Minister is with regard to the—and I totally understand in terms of the complexities, and we can talk about some of the changes to the commencement date a little bit later.

But between the first and second commencement dates that the Minister mentioned, is the Minister aware of any potential project—not the name of the project, but a rough number of the projects—that would be caught in that kind of limbo period that the Minister has mentioned, particularly with regard to, I think it was to do with the reducing scope of substantive applications. It’s also good to hear from the Minister that the Minister’s already declined some of the substantive applications as well and it’s not just an open slather.

That was my first question, just to see if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying. I do have another question, but if the Minister wants to respond—

It’s an easy answer, which is: the provision the member’s talking about applies to projects lodged after the first commencement date, prior to the second commencement date. We haven’t had either of them yet because we haven’t passed the bill yet. So, you know, God willing, we might get it done tonight—ha, ha!—at which point there will a commencement date, but that is a future date. So we’re not there yet, sadly.

Cool, thanks Minister. That’s a fair point, and, hopefully—maybe—no one will be quite in between that limbo. My next question for the Minister is to do with—I’ve got two additional questions, which one is first? Let’s go with this one. This is clause 56, Schedule 3 amended, subclause (7), which is in Schedule 3, “replace clause 13”. Now, I had to check with the original amendment bill, not the Amendment Paper that the Minister has produced. I want to check, because in the bill, there’s mention of “associate panel convener” in the main legislation, the Fast-track Approvals Act, but this two-tiered process of liability between panel conveners or an associate panel convener and the members appointed to a panel—this is something that’s been introduced that’s new, that isn’t in the existing clause 13.

I want to check with the Minister: what is the rationale behind splitting out the two-tiered liability, one being the panel convener or an associate panel convener, and one being the members? Because in the current clause 13 of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, it is the panel convener, where any member is appointed as one group of liability—no mention of associate panel convener. Is it just because “associate panel convener” was missed out for the original one and there is the realisation that there is a weird, I guess, gap or loophole where, if you are associate panel convener, you are somehow liable, whereas the others are not?

I have one more question for the Minister. Maybe I’ll ask my final question while the Minister gets some advice.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ask your next question.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: My final question is around clause 58, Schedule 6 amended, and this is subclause (10). I just want to check if the Minister wants to respond to my previous question before I go on to this one?

The answer is neither panel conveners or associate conveners are protected now from liability. This amendment means that they will be. It’s an amendment in response to a suggestion from the panel conveners themselves.

Oh, cool. Thank you for that, Minister. My final question is on clause 58, “Schedule 6 amended”, subclause 10: in Schedule 6, replace clause 26(1)(a) with the following—noting that paragraphs (i) and (ii) are what’s existing; paragraphs (iii) and (iv) are what was being produced. I guess my first question on this section is: who makes the determination of what is considered threatened or abundant? They are not terms that are determined under the primary legislation.

The next question is, in terms of what we’re seeing being inserted here under clause 58, the original bill in its explanatory note also doesn’t explain why an explanation for how the exchange would benefit the conservation estate is needed. But I guess the question of that is if paragraph (i) considers the two components of threatened or abundant, would paragraph (iii) also include things like an explanation of why the exchange would not benefit or would be detrimental to the conservation estate?

And the final one is paragraph (iv), which is the impact of anything registered or noted for the conservation purposes on the record of title of the land, and I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale for introducing that particular number as well.

Good questions. In relation to addressing “threatened or abundant”, those are Department of Conservation reports, but over to the panel to assess. In relation to the explanations, that is because the panel has to consider that as part of the determination process. So it’s just to make it clear that there needs to be an explanation in relation to that, and likewise, for subparagraph (iv) as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m looking at these transitional provisions as well in the new Part 2 being inserted into Schedule 1. Going right to the end of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 473, on page 41, at new clause 15, there’s transitional provisions relating to consultation on the Government policy statement (GPS), and it refers here to the consultation that’s already been undertaken in new section 10A(3).

As we traversed in the Part 1 debate, that consultation is very minimal. All that is required in the consultation is whatever the Minister thinks is fit, or with other Ministers, and so I wonder why we need a specific transitional clause here. When the requirements for making that GPS are already so lax and there already are so few guard rails around it, why is it that we need a transitional provision letting this consultation roll over when that’s hardly necessary due to the terrible process, or the total lack of process, that goes into making these Government policy statements?

It’s because the first Government policy statement—the grocery one—has already been issued. So it’s just to make sure that it’s valid and that no one turns arounds and says that we didn’t consult on it because we’d already issued it, and so it’s going to come into effect when the Act comes into effect, obviously. It’s just to make that clear, and so that’s why it’s in the transitional sections.

Further to that, can the Minister confirm whether there are any other Government policy statements currently under way that this transition provision would relate to?

No.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to quickly talk to a project in Schedule 2 of the Act, with reference to clause 55(2) of the bill, around the “significant regional or national benefits”. The project is the Ōhoka Residential Subdivision. I’m hoping you know the area—for those that don’t, Ōhoka is in the Waimakariri District Council. It’s a really beautiful, character rural community. Not too many people live there; it’s best known for its farmers’ market. Obviously, quite a few years ago now, the plan for this subdivision went through the proper course of action, processes—went through an independent hearings panel, who decided to decline it, and that went to the Waimakariri District Council, who rejected it. Since then, obviously, the group there have lodged an appeal to the Environment Court and that’s still awaiting the result of that hearing, but it’s obviously been included within the fast-track project.

But if you have a look at what they’re actually trying to achieve—850 residential developments, a mixed-use centre, polo field, potential development of a retirement village or a school—if you look at the current community now, it’s a small community. When they went through that process, the community, by a huge majority, opposed this, as did the city council. I believe, just recently, the mayor, when this project got into fast track, said that, actually, rejected projects that went through the due course should not be accepted on to the fast track.

So I’m just wondering, when you look at the size of this project and the size of this small, quaint, rural village, whether it actually would bring regional or national benefits given the scale and, actually, the location, considering, when you look at Waimakariri and what they’ve done across Greater Christchurch, they have enough provision in there for, actually, the proper amount of housing to meet its future demands.

So I’m just wondering if you have concern that this is still in this list, and I’m just curious if you would be willing to accept an amendment to actually delete it from the list. Kia ora.

No, and if there’s no demand for the houses, the project will never get built.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2G) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2H) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2I) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2J) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2K) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2L) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2M) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2N) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2O) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2P) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2Q) be agreed to.

The question is that that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2R) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting “including pedestrian priority at every intersection” into clause 55(2R), be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting words beginning “safe, separated, and continuous cycling” into clause 55(2R), be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting words beginning “light rail between Wellington Railway Station”, into clause 55(2R) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2S) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2T) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2U) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(2V) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Alternate Water Supply Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Auckland Prison Capacity Increase, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Balmoral Water Storage Facility and Fish Screen, be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No.

Hon Member: Aye.

Stuart Smith: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Ayes have it.

Stuart Smith: Noes have it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2—

Point of order. Sorry, was that voice carried on voices for no?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It was carried on voices, sorry, for yes.

STUART SMITH: For no. I called no.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no. I called it yes.

STUART SMITH: No, you didn’t.

OK. I’ll go back and recall that vote just to clear it up.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Balmoral Water Storage Facility and Fish Screen, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Belmont Quarry Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bendigo–Ophir Gold Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bledisloe North Wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Bream Bay Sand Extraction Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Buller Plateaux Continuation, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Central and Southern Block Mining, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Clifford Bay Marine Farm—Innovation and Productivity, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Drury Quarry Expansion—Sutton Block, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Drury Metropolitan Centre–Consolidated Stages 1 and 2, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Eden Park 2.1, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the End of Life Bridge Replacement Programme, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Flat Top Quarry Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Flint’s Park Urban Intensification, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Green Steel, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Hananui Aquaculture Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Hunua Quarry Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Integrated Development Plan for Te Ārai South Precinct and Regional Park, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Katikati Quarry Expansion, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Kings Quarry Expansion—Stages 2 and 3, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Klondyke Storage, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Macraes Phase Four (MP4), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Makarewa Hatchery, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Miners Road Northern Expansion, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Muriwhenua Aquaculture, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 in the principal Act the item relating to Northern Block Mining, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Northport Container Terminal Expansion, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to the Pit 1 Mining Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Pound Road Industrial Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Project East, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Project Kea, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Remarkables Ski Area Upgrade and Doolans Expansion, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Rotowaro Mine Continuation, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Ryans Road Industrial Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Sanford Second Greenshell Mussel Spat Hatchery, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Shipyard and Drydock Facility, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Southern Screenworks Quarry Extension and Managed Fill, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere Long Term Improvements Project, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 25 Pepe Stream Bridge Replacement, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to State Highway 29 Tauriko Network Connections (including Omanawa Bridge replacement), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Stella Passage Development be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Stratford Park, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Summerset Retirement Village, Mosgiel, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Taradale and Awatoto Borefields/Water Treatment Plants, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Taranaki VTM, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Tara Road Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Te Rāhui Land Fill, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to The Hills Resort Development, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Tukituki Water Security, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Waihi Hydroelectric Power Scheme Reconsenting, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, inserting clause 55(2W) and deleting from Schedule 2 of the principal Act the item relating to Waihi North, be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(3) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 replacing clause 55(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473 deleting clause 55(5) be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 55(2) be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to delete clause 56(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 58(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 62 to insert new section 118A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 473 be agreed to.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Clauses 1 to 3