Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill

We now come to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Hello.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hey there. “Story time” from me is over for a while, thank you.

Thank you very much—that did take some time. We are now on to the title and commencement, and I’m sure there will be some contributions on the commencement, because, of course, the Amendment Paper from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has changed quite a lot of that, and we’ve seen in what we just voted on there, the change to the schedule, that actually now includes a whole lot of transitional provisions.

I will leave others to talk on that for now, because I do want to address the title of this amendment bill. Of course, it’s the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, and we all know that the primary piece of legislation is the Fast-track Approvals Act. I’m interested in that word “Approvals”, and that is because, whilst there have been many changes that the Minister has made in his Amendment Paper that we agree with and are beneficial and show that there has been some listening to that Environment Committee process, shortened though it was, the most egregious provision in this bill has not changed, and that relates to these Government policy statements (GPS) that can pop out of a Minister’s head and then relate to a substantive decision.

We had some discussion with the Minister; we traversed this a little bit, but he would not specify how it would be that the GPS would be relevant to the decisions made in sections 81 and 85, which is the ability to decline in the Act. He said two different things—two, I would say, contrary things—in saying, “Well, it adds to the weighting, but it doesn’t change the test.” If it’s adding to the weighting, then it is relevant to that test.

Given that, I’ve got some suggested better names for this amendment bill, and one of them is that it is the “Fast-track (Based on Ministerial Whim) Amendment Bill”. Going back to this word “Approvals”, another change would be that it’s the “Fast-track (Never Declining Applications) Amendment Bill”. In fact, if we’re going to the primary piece of legislation, I mean, a good amendment there would be to amend the Fast-track Approvals Act to the “Fast-track and Never Decline Act” as well.

Another suggested change, going to this point about the ministerial overreach, would simply be that the fast track—so you’re fast tracking by enabling ministerial overreach, because that is what this bill and the provisions around the Government policy statement do. The Minister had an opportunity in his Amendment Paper to change those provisions, and he had an opportunity in the committee stage when we were on Part 1 to give more comfort about the role of those Government policy statements—policy statements that have no process and have no criteria beyond talking to some other Ministers and whoever the Minister wants to talk to and publishing it in the Gazette. That is it—that is all the criteria. That is why I say it is ministerial whim.

Another one might be the “Fast-track (Reversion to the Original) Bill”, and I say that again because people knew in the Fast-track Approvals Act, as it was originally introduced before it got changed, that it was the ministerial overreach that people objected to, and that is where these changes take us.

Of course, another change would be the “Fast-track Approvals (Nothing to Do with Supermarkets but We’re Going to Say That Anyway and Rely on it in a Very Cynical Way) Amendment Bill”, because that is what the Minister has done, and that is what the Minister of Finance has said about this bill as well. That is cynical and not needed, and that is why we are not supporting this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will just have a short contribution on this. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for considering my amendments, even though it’s disappointing that none of the amendments was voted on and accepted, because I thought they were—

Francisco Hernandez: You nearly got one.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah. We were close to getting some of them through. I do want to check two things. Number one: I do have two amendments that I want the Minister to consider. I think one of them is around the commencement date—and both of these two are regarding the commencement date.

The first one is changing the commencement of the bill from the day after Royal assent to 24 December 2027. The rationale for that is, as we’ve seen through the select committee stage—and we’ve had a number of submitters discuss the fact that, as many of them rightfully observed—the Act itself only came into force on 24 December 2024 and it hasn’t had the chance yet to bed in. A lot of the changes that are being made are changes that have not yet seen the full impact or implications of the principal Act. The proposal: like many things, as we see with a lot of the legislation, a three-year period is appropriate for when it comes to review. The idea is that the commencement date will start on 24 December 2027, and that way it will allow the time, too, for the Act to bed in and maybe consider whether the changes we’re seeing in this bill are necessary before making changes that materially affect clarity and certainty. I think that in general is a good practice.

The other one is around the amendment—and I think this actually speaks to the two-tiered first and second amendment date that myself and the Minister had a discussion on in Part 2 of the bill. I do want to check with the Minister on the date for 31 March 2026 and where that particular date came from. Although the explanatory notes say that this is the date in order for the fast-track system to be able to be fully implemented, it doesn’t actually give any explanation that I can see—“specified amendments will come into force on 31 March 2026 to enable updates to be made to the fast-track approvals system.”, but it doesn’t actually give any more information on when that date comes from. As far as what we see in the bill as written, the date seems to be fairly arbitrary, so I want to check with the Minister if he can provide any clarity on the 31 March date.

It’s good to see you all again! I mean, this is relatively straightforward, to be honest. The title of the bill is the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because that is, indeed, the Act that it amends, and it is an amendment bill. So we can have some fun with the title.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Just going for accuracy—just going for description.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. I’ve played that game before. I admire it, but it’s not going to succeed. On the principal Act, I mean, that is also relatively straightforward: it is the Fast-track Approvals Act, so we need not spend more time on that.

The commencement does have some substance to it, and Lawrence Xu-Nan makes a good point. [Interruption] I see Ms Genter down the end is incapable of not arguing with people in the Chamber, but anyway. So the key point is this—[Interruption].

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you keep it down at the back there. Thank you. Continue, Minister. [Interruption]. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Just interesting that Ms Genter has moved on to the right-hand side of the Chamber. That surprised me. I’m not meant to talk about that.

The key point is this: for changes that require IT upgrades at the back end of the Environmental Protection Authority, they are delayed until 31 March. I am advised that that is the appropriate length of time; we’re sort of mid-December now, we’ll get Royal assent, then it’s the Christmas break, and we’re all looking forward to that. Then there’s the summer holiday period, and so 31 March is an appropriate length of time, I’m told. So that’s for the IT-related upgrades, which is, well, you can see it there in the clause. And then everything else is the day after Royal assent. So it’s pretty straightforward. It’s got a logic to it. That’s it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to invite the Minister to consider a different name for this bill. This actually relates very much to what we were told the bill was going to be about when it was announced on 3 November. I have here in my hand a copy of the Beehive press release on that date. We were told that this bill was going to be all about making supermarket competition a bit better. As far as we knew, that was going to be the primary purpose of this bill. Aside from supermarket competition, the press release said that there were going to be some technical changes in the bill—so all about supermarkets and getting some more competition in the grocery sector.

So I went searching through the bill for the word “supermarket”, and you might be surprised to find that the word “supermarket” is not actually in this bill—but that’s fair enough, because, in actual fact, they used another sort of phrase which is a little bit more technical, because we knew it was all about technical matters. In fact, they talked about it being about, I think—let me see, it was “grocery retail” or something like that, was the phrase that was used. Let me just check that; it was certainly around that sort of term. Yeah: “grocery developers”, “grocery competition”—“grocery” was the relevant word. So I thought, righty-o then, let’s just search through this bill and find out how many times the word “grocery” is mentioned, and, as it turns out, it’s 11 times in the bill as introduced, nine times in the explanatory note, once in the clause by clause analysis—but, in actual fact, in the actual bill itself, in the actual legislation, the word “grocery” is only there once—just once. So telling us that this was all about supermarkets and all about grocery competition, well, it’s not exactly accurate.

I’m going to propose a different name for this bill. I think it should be called the “Fast-Track Approvals”—that’s good, but we just need the “Supermarkets (Trojan Horse) Amendment Bill”, because the substance of the bill is actually about far more than supermarkets. As my colleague Rachel Brooking has said, there is this extraordinary matter of the Government policy statement that is sitting in there, and I think that’s perhaps the most interesting but also the most impactful part of this bill. So I put it to the Minister quite seriously: this bill, under the cover of being about supermarkets—that’s what they told us it was going to be about; that’s what two-thirds of their press release is about—is not, in actual fact, about supermarkets at all. It’s actually about letting the Minister’s cute little ideas pop out and influence development.

In that case, I’m offering my own cute little idea: this should be called the “Fast-track Approvals (Trojan Horse Supermarkets)”, or “(Supermarkets Trojan Horse)”—it doesn’t really matter—“Amendment Bill”.

That’s a long title.

I’m prepared to entertain an amendment from the member, but it would need to fit with—the Parliamentary Counsel Office has got all these rules. You’re not allowed to have silly names for bills, and they have to be proper words and all the rest of it, which is fair enough.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Trojan horse is proper.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s true.

Hon Rachel Brooking: What about finickity? Is finickity proper?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No, pernickety.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s a good question. Is it even a word? I mean, these are the questions that one considers at 9.30 on a Wednesday night.

I’m prepared to entertain that, but I don’t think the Trojan horse thing is going to fly. But if the member wants to call it the “Fast-track Approvals (Supermarket Competition) Amendment Bill”, I’m all ears! I’m all in favour!

Arena Williams: Yeah, go on. Do the amendment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, but I think it’s contrary to the point that your colleague was making, which is that the bill doesn’t actually mention “grocery” that much. In fact, I was surprised it mentioned it as much as the member said. Genuinely, though, the bill does give effect to grocery retail competition, because it allows the Government policy statement (GPS) to be issued, and the Government has published a GPS that will take effect as a result of the bill. So, anyway, we’ve canvassed that ad nauseam at various different points, and no doubt we will continue to litigate it in public.

But I think that the bill is appropriately titled. The commencement clauses are appropriately finessed. I suggest we move on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do appreciate the Minister being so flexible and adaptive in thinking about the title and thinking about a title that might fully reflect the bill and a title that has some character and some colour. I did not expect that from the Minister, quite frankly, because this, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill—what a boring title. It doesn’t do justice to what this bill’s all about.

Hon Mark Patterson: What have you done, Scott? Come on! It’s a big build-up.

SCOTT WILLIS: We have so much potential, and I’m pleased that the Hon Mark Patterson chooses to intervene because I would have thought somebody from the South would understand the importance of this bill and would understand what this bill is going to do. We also have Mark Patterson’s colleague, who shouts out to us, on a regular basis, “Coal, coal”. We get the message; we get the message. This bill—

Jamie Arbuckle: Mining, mining.

SCOTT WILLIS: That’s right—“Mining, mining.” Yet we hear from the Government that this is all about renewables, but we hear from the Government’s partners that it’s all about mining. This is not about fast-track approvals. This is not at all about fast-track approvals; this is all about helping our mates do stuff that the rest of us don’t like. I really think we could find a title that is much more appropriate and that would describe exactly what’s going to happen.

I’m particularly thinking about the Santana project, but that’s just an example of the other mining projects that are happening. Santana, which has proposed to dig up a cultural pathway, destroyed one of our premier wine regions—

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s an old goldmining—

SCOTT WILLIS: —destroyed a landscape, destroyed some merino country. I would have thought a farmer over here would have appreciated. I would have thought someone would stick up for the farmers in our area, but no.

I think we can have a title that gives more truth to what this bill is all about. We know the story of King Midas, who was given one wish from Dionysus. His wish was that everything he touched turned to gold. Now, we can see some parallel with the Hon Mark Patterson’s mate over here, who wants to dig up everything and who wants coal at every opportunity. We can see some parallels. Maybe his mate thinks he’s King Midas if everything he touches turns to gold.

What was the lesson he discovered, Mr Patterson? The lesson he discovered was that when he touched an egg and when he touched food, it turned to gold. When he touched his daughter, she turned to gold. Gold is of no use when we need to eat. When we need to show love to one another and when we need to have spaces to live in, gold is of no use, and yet this is what this bill is all about. It’s about extraction, it’s about destruction, it’s about despoliation of our natural environment. That’s what this bill is about. Let’s give it a title that gives real meaning to what this bill is about. For the Minister, I would suggest—it’s a very simple title; I love it that you’re on the edge of your seats; I love it; come on! This is fantastic. I think you are going to enjoy a title that is truly accurate, and I look forward to the support from the Minister who has shown his willingness to adapt and to be a bit more creative. The title I’m suggesting here is simply the “Fast-track (Midas Touch) Amendment Bill”, because everything they touch will turn to gold. Only gold will be of no use to us, and that’s what this bill is all about.

If the Minister would like to give a response, I’d really appreciate that. Given his willingness to be so generous in considering other titles, would the Minister like to give me a response? I think this title really does capture the heart of this bill. Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for engaging in these titles. That’s very good of you. In one of your contributions earlier—I think it might have been to the Hon Deborah Russell—you were saying that, well, it’s got to be legal language to be in these titles. So I was wondering if you could take some advice from your advisers if the word “pernickety” could be included in the title. It does seem to have been relevant this evening, as does “No, no, no.”—that could also be included.

Arena Williams: Don’t forget “farting around”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, “farting around” apparently, as well.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: And “heebie-jeebies”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Is “heebie-jeebies” an appropriate word for a title there? There are a few questions for the Minister.

But then a perhaps more serious contribution, given his response, would be the “Fast-track (Grocery Competition and Ministerial Policy Statement) Amendment Bill”. I think that would be a much clearer title, given the feedback that he’s given, and, hopefully, we will have an Amendment Paper being tabled on that point very soon for his very careful consideration.

A different track, though, in terms of titles would go to this point that the Fast-track Approvals Act and with these general Government policy statements—rather, the GPS—that could be on anything. We often hear in this House the word “coal” heckled by the Hon Shane Jones. Then I know that other members of this House are interested in different types of energy as well, so it is not beyond the realms of imagination that this Government might have a Government policy statement on nuclear power. Perhaps another suggestion for this could be the “Fast-track (Nuclear Power Plant) Amendment Bill”. I’m glad that the members across are fine about this, and, hopefully, they think that that is a very unlikely thing to happen.

But the problem is that when you just give Ministers unfettered power or it’s only fettered by the need to talk to other Ministers, then you can end up in these very problematic situations. We all know that there is a coalition of three different parties with some very different interests. We heard that in question time today. The Prime Minister stood up at one point and said something about how his legislation was great because it was going to allow for more renewable energy. I love talking about more renewable energy. That’s a very good thing. But then from across the House, there was the heckle of “Coal, coal, coal.” That is what came from New Zealand First. So it is not out of the realms of possibility that this Government might want to do a Government policy statement on a nuclear power plant.

But I do not have an Amendment Paper on that; I just have the Amendment Paper on the “Fast-track (Grocery Competition and Ministerial Policy Statements) Amendment Bill”. I think that is with you now and I ask you to consider that very proper change.

Well, I’m prepared to accept it if it says “Government policy statement”, because that’s what the reference is. So it would be [Interruption] “grocery competition and Government policy statement”. And if it means that this ends the matter and we can get voting, then yes, we can do “(grocery competition and Government policy statement)” because that is an accurate description of the bill. So let’s do it. Done. Thank you. Let’s move on.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 473, amending clause 2(2) to change the commencement of specified provisions to 30 April 2026, be agreed to.

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

Amendment agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “24 December 2027” be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading