Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is available on the parliamentary website.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I am pleased to stand before the House today for the third and final reading of the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill helps to create a new express lane for new supermarkets to boost competition in the grocery sector and spur on economic growth. It represents an important step in this Government’s mission to roll out the welcome mat for supermarket competitors, boost competition, and thereby deliver better deals for Kiwi shoppers.

The simple fact of the matter is that right now, even with all of the goodwill and all of the capital in the world, a supermarket operator wishing to build a number of supermarkets, or just one, in New Zealand faces the barrier of resource consenting processes, which are off-putting to look at because they can take so much time, create so much complexity, and create so much cost and so much uncertainty. We cannot let the thicket of red tape stand in the way of Kiwis getting better deals at the checkout aisle, and this bill directly addresses that problem.

Of course, the context in which we introduce it is one in which competition in our grocery sector is limited, with the major grocery retailers, Woolworths and Foodstuffs North Island and South Island, making up 82 percent of the market. We have asked those who are involved in the sector and who would want to compete in the sector what barriers stand in their way, and they have told us explicitly and clearly that restrictive land zoning, slow consenting, and cumbersome regulations can make it extremely difficult for them to get a look in or consider expanding in our country. The simple reality is that so long as we have a market dominated by an 82 percent duopoly, New Zealanders will have fewer choices and they will face higher prices at the checkout compared with other countries. This bill presents important amendments to ease the barriers holding back grocery competition and clear the way for new developments to take on the major grocery retailers.

It builds on the success of the fast-track regime, a regime without which we would not be having an expansion occurring at Auckland Port; a regime without which we would not see hundreds of homes being built in Nelson and other parts of the country; and a regime which says yes to making things happen, yes to getting things done, yes to creating jobs, and yes to investment. We wish to make it very clear that the fast-track regime also says yes to pro-competitive grocery developments, and this bill ensures that there is explicit acknowledgment at law that those developments can access the fast track.

We’ve heard from potential developers that they haven’t previously been confident that their projects would be eligible for the fast-track process, and these changes that we’re making will make it clear that they are and give confidence that that pathway is available to developers. It does this, of course, in several ways. First, it clarifies and makes explicit that improving grocery sector competition, either at a regional or a national level, is a valid factor that the Minister for Infrastructure can consider in referral decisions, so that it can be explicitly considered. Second is ensuring that the expert panels appointed to consider those referrals must have regard to the Minister’s reason for referring the application, including factors relating to enhancing grocery competition. And third, it adds a general power to the existing fast-track regime to issue Government policy statements, and this will include a Government policy statement on grocery retail competition, which the Minister for Infrastructure and expert panels must consider when making project approval decisions. Taken together, those three changes will enable more new supermarkets to progress consents fast and to have certainty in their application process.

Importantly, we’ve thought this through—we’ve talked to those involved—and it also includes infrastructure such as distribution centres that can be crucial to enable new competitors to compete with major incumbent grocery retailers.

These grocery competition - related amendments will come into force on the day after the date of Royal assent, ensuring that those benefits will be felt as soon as possible.

During the course of what has been a long debate, actually, I have been surprised to hear opponents on the other side of the House argue so vociferously against a set of amendments that do some things I thought we all agreed were good: amendments which ensure we can get more competition in the very thing that New Zealanders tell us matters very much to them, their grocery shop; a bill that explicitly will allow people to invest in new development, creating jobs; a bill that gets rid of the red tape that frustrates people; and a bill that simply says, “Hey, you know what? You want to come and set up a shop in this country that offers cheaper goods, innovations, new ways of doing things? We want you here.”

And, on the other side of the House, what have we had? We’ve had “Dr No” and the sideshow on the other side telling us why that’s a bad idea. I’ll tell you what: if you’re ever sitting back and thinking “How has New Zealand got into a place where good things can’t happen?”, I want you to go back and listen to the Hansard from “Dr No” over the last few days—“Dr No” and their friends. What they say is: “Please could you keep the thicket of red tape. We love the red tape. We’ve got great affection for the red tape because it’s really cool, because we love the gravy train of consultants and planners and lawyers. They’re our mates. We love that they get to do endless hours of billable work talking about things that, actually, at the end of the day, stand in the way.” This is the kind of legislation that is needed if we want this to be a country that says yes, and we do say yes.

These amendments are part of a suite and a programme of practical—practical; that word—practical, practical changes that our Government is making to improve grocery competition. At the same time, of course, this bill is given ballast by the fact that we have announced a new one-stop shop for supermarket building consents, because, of course, it’s not just the resource consent that they want covered in red tape, members; it’s also the building consent. So we are providing a new consenting service, and it will be provided by Christchurch City Council—hear, hear to them!—for large-scale supermarket developments.

What I want to make clear is that in advancing this legislation, we are not doing, as I think some would say—who’d say perhaps let’s do KiwiShop, and do 100,000 supermarkets, and use taxpayer money to do it. What we’re saying is what we actually need to do is unleash the great spirit of entrepreneurialism, of innovation. What we actually need to do is release the capital that is in the world and in our community towards competitive investment.

The thing that is holding back too much of that in this country and has been allowed to hold back too much of that in this country is “Dr No” and “Mr and Mrs No” saying, “We don’t want you investing your capital in an extension to the port. We don’t want you investing your capital in a new housing development. We don’t want you investing your capital in a wind farm, because it’s more important to us that we spend months in court having debates about all sorts of things”—things that, by the way, do not put food on the table, do not reduce emissions, do not increase jobs in the community, but allow people to stare at their navels and feel good about legal clauses.

Well, we say we tried that, it didn’t work, and we are the Government that’s changing it, unleashing the practical spirit that is actually the best of New Zealand and saying to those with a can-do attitude—the people who want to build things, the people who want to farm things, the people who want to make things and grow things—we’re saying to them: do you know what? We’re on your side. If you’re on the nay-sayers’ side and you want to slow it down, you want to make it hard, you want to make it stop, then go and talk to “Dr No”, “Mr and Mrs No”, and their mates.

I am proud to be speaking in support of a piece of legislation that’s not only important in and of itself but speaks to the spirit that our Government is fostering in this country—the real spirit of New Zealand. Let’s make New Zealand a country that once again builds, makes, and grows; let’s make it happen. Fast track!

The question is, That the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I may have an issue with the little pernickety comments and I have to respond to some of those statements made by Minister Willis, who just delivered her third reading speech. One of those pernickety comments is that she said at some point that she was surprised by the voracious opposition when, apparently, we all agreed to groceries. If she just paid a little bit more attention, she’d know that it’s about amendments that we put up to very specifically constrain these very wide provisions to groceries. That was an easy thing for this Government to accept, and we could have all been very excited about that agreement, but, alas, that did not happen. So rather than having a bill that is constrained to groceries, which would be a great thing—we’d all, I’m sure, be in support of that—we have a bill with a very wide-ranging and dangerous power, and that is about the Government policy statements—Government policy statements that are made on the whim of a Minister—

Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and Government policy statements where there are no criteria and no guardrails, and Minister Shane Jones is very happy about it, as he says, “Hear, hear!”

All the Minister has to do is consult with some other Ministers and whoever else the Minister wants to talk to, and publish it. That’s it. There is no guardrail, and that then enables the substantive decision to have to take account of that Government policy statement that is made on the whim of the Minister. So that is what we are very, very concerned about. Instead, we’ve just had some Minister waving around the word “yes.” That is not good faith. That is the cynical Government’s attempt to not deal with the real issues, and I’m very disappointed by that.

I’m also interested in the Minister saying, yes, a whole lot about how everyone wants to say yes. She said that this Government’s fast-track regime has said yes to things like ports and houses. She said that without this Government’s fast-track regime, those things may never have happened, but, of course, when that Government came into office, there was a fast track. It was in the Natural and Built Environment Act, which this Government repealed two years ago. However, they did not repeal that fast track at the time. So there was a fast track and that fast track was enabling some of these big complex projects to be done at pace.

Why I’m interested in the use of this word “yes” is because I’m wondering whether anything will ever have a “no” to it. Will anything ever be declined? The fast-track projects are big, complex projects and some of them may have incredibly consequential effects on our environment. If you have, for instance, a tailings dam break, that means you’ll have a whole lot of pollution going into a river, a river that could be used for drinking water, rivers that could be used for all sorts of agricultural purposes and may not be able to be used for those purposes if there was some sort of breach. These are really serious issues. They are not just for a Minister to run around and say, “Oh, we say yes and someone else says no.” That is just so unsophisticated and so basic.

I really hope that the Government are not of the mind that we never need any proper consideration of the controls on projects, so we do not get those significant environmental effects, effects that affect all of the community. When you affect all of the community, you affect all of the economy. Our economy is totally reliant on our environment, and that is why it’s important that there are environmental protections, and that is the Labour Party’s problem with the primary Act all along. It has been and continues to be that the purpose of that Act is to facilitate projects of regional or national significance. It is not to protect, though, or to facilitate those projects in accordance with sustainable management or any other term that you want to use that has some consideration for the environment and prioritises not destroying our environment.

Our concerns always with this legislation is that this will enable destruction of our environment, and that is a terrible thing, and the serious contributions from the Government benches are for me to cheer up, apparently. Well, I’m not going to cheer up about these very serious issues, and I will keep talking about them over and over again.

But I’m going to very quickly change tack. This bill went through a select committee process. It was a very truncated select committee process, and the debate around that truncation did not happen in this House. However, what this Government does time and time again—in fact, most of yesterday was taken up with it—is produce bills and do them in all stages under urgency. I am the first person to ask, with all of these bills, “Can’t we just send it to select committee even for a short time?” I also suggest we have a post-enactment review clause, and the answers all seem to be no, no, no. But this time, at least this amendment bill did get sent to a select committee, and even though the process was truncated and lots of submitters came to us and had great ideas about how they could amend it and how important it is—and I agree with people from Queenstown that affordable housing is a huge issue there—perhaps this bill could have been the vehicle to help them. But, no, this bill could not help them because there was not the time. So again we had the no, no, no.

However, there were some submissions made about the time frame for panels to make their decisions and for panels to be convened, and the Government, in the Amendment Paper, has changed those provisions. There was a provision that would have stopped the discretion of panels to be able to invite comment from parties that they think are relevant. That discretion now remains, so the Amendment Paper that we have today has changed what was in the bill in response to very strong submissions. That is a good thing.

The outrageous provision would have enabled applicants for these very complex and potentially dangerous projects to shop around for their decision makers, and, of course, that would have totally undermined any semblance of a rigorous decision-making process. So it is good that that change has been removed by the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and it goes to the importance of having a process whereby you can hear submissions.

I am concerned that the people who make up the panels must have—there is a new phrase in there; as far as practicable, they must have “expertise”. I don’t know how we didn’t get through in the committee stage to how that expertise relates to the sector involved, but I was pleased to hear that that caveat does not apply to the environmental expertise that is required on those panels.

Those are some good things that happened. But it has been interesting, and I raised it in relation to another contribution that we heard from Ryan Hamilton in his second reading speech. He said that this bill was going to do better for supermarkets and that the Pak ‘N Save in Hamilton that has to pay for its own traffic upgrade, and I think he referenced a roundabout—and apologies if that is not what he said. He said that those supermarkets will no longer have to pay for that type of traffic upgrade. I’m interested in this because I haven’t heard any of the Ministers comment on that, and I don’t know where in the bill it is. But it goes back to this wider point of Government members saying that they say yes, yes, yes. What is it that they are saying yes, yes to? Are they saying, “Yes, yes, yes, ratepayers and taxpayers are going to have to pay for the privilege that a company is getting from being able to use the fast track?” And that is an argument that we’ve had in this House before. We do not think that there should be listed projects in the Act, because the Act enabled projects to go through even if they are otherwise permitted. It is dangerous and needs to change.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess we’re 46 hours into yesterday, and fatigue affects people in interesting ways, doesn’t it, which we’ve seen tonight, but—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I notice that, too, under urgency.

LAN PHAM: Thanks, Madam Speaker. But I think what I would like to do with fatigue is actually, like, think about that bigger picture, because some of us here have to believe that it’s worth it—being here. I think what I reflect on with this bill in particular is what was going on yesterday and the day before in these very walls, in this building, and that was the cross-party international Antarctic gathering. I want to acknowledge the Hon Andrew Bayly in sharing that and bringing people together; it’s a real privilege to co-chair the New Zealand parliamentary group alongside him. But that brought together parliamentarians across the world with the sole purpose of getting together to re-energise and re-emphasise the importance of the Antarctic Treaty.

We met with scientists—again, from around the world—who came and shared their expertise about the importance of Antarctica. What we heard was that it’s remarkable, that it’s essential. It’s the coldest, driest place on our little world, and it’s the engine room of global climate. What we do, ultimately, around the planet affects Antarctica and vice versa; Antarctica’s influence on us is absolutely critical. We just rely on it to literally live.

What we know, and what the scientists were just tearing their hair out for us to actually hear, is that climate change is happening more rapidly than they could have ever imagined—these were their words—even 10 years ago, and a lot of these scientists have careers over decades. They talked about temperature changing in Antarctica three times faster than the global average. It made me recall a trip that the Hon Rachel Brooking, Arena Williams, myself, and Scott Willis were on just the other week in Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—where we were hearing from local community members there about the change in their ocean temperature, where just in a week it had gone from 17 degrees Celsius to 21, and the result of that was a complete loss of life. We saw two gannets—two gannets—

Hon Simon Watts: There are no gannets in the supermarket.

LAN PHAM:—and they said that usually in that strait, there are complete boil-ups—

Hon Shane Jones: They’re looking after their babies—they’re babysitting.

LAN PHAM: There’s life; there’s marine life.

Sam Uffindell: Is this the right bill?

LAN PHAM: Why I want to talk about that—again, see these members are all confused. Why are we actually talking about that? It’s because everything we do here influences Antarctica, and everything that happens there influences us because it’s all connected. You might not know that, but this is exactly why the scientists were pulling their hair out and so frustrated that we here, in this Chamber, don’t get it, and you’re demonstrating that exactly tonight.

Here’s the thing: our solutions depend on understanding the scope of the problem. We need good information and expertise and relevant community experience to actually make good decisions, and that’s exactly what is absent and lacking in this bill.

Every time the world has gotten to a place where we are, in our global climate trajectory—and the scientists wanted to make this really clear because it was questioned at the conference, they said, “Let me make it clear to you: every time this has happened, the highest order creatures became extinct. Can we have those conversations before it’s too late?” That’s all they want us to know.

It was really painful to hear, as a result, after that, our Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, who’s here, talk about the heroism of the likes of Shackleton, the likes of Hillary, and they are heroic feats, but romanticising it when you literally have at your fingertips—sorry, the Minister literally has at his fingertips the ability to be the hero, to actually deliver, not only for New Zealanders but for the world.

This Government should be absolutely ashamed of this bill because we so desperately need them to act. We desperately need them not to turn the Denniston Plateau into a coalmine. We need them not to open-cast goldmine on the Bendigo Hills. We need them to reject Taranaki seabed mining, the same way that legal process after legal process has rejected it, and they should be ashamed that they are opening up pathways for that to happen.

If this bill is about supermarkets and public infrastructure, it would be a totally different scenario, but it’s not—it’s not. This Government needs to own that and understand their place in history and how shameful that is, because it comes to this broader issue of who influences this Government. It was particularly concerning to hear from the independent fast-track convenors, who are independent of the Environmental Protection Authority. They described this bill as a surprise. They said it was a surprise for them to see the tenor of some of these amendments, which appear to simply be driven by some kind of commentary to the Government that the process is not working.

Now, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, we totally reject this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. We think it’s completely unacceptable to override community voice, to override just our basic environmental protections—that weren’t even succeeding in actually protecting the environment, and yet we’re overriding them. There are still no guardrails, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment painted so clearly for us.

I want to just take a moment to reflect very clearly on some of the voices that we heard, OK? Because 95 percent of people who took the time—despite all of these bills that come across in urgency and that are rammed through, they took the time to make a submission, and 95 percent of them said “Get lost.” The majority of the amendments that have gone through in this bill were only supported by current applicants and past applicants of the fast-track process. That is really embarrassing because it so clearly paints the picture of who is really in charge.

I want to shout-out to some people, like Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu, because they saw that this bill risks irreversible harm to the ecosystems that sustain us.

Suze Redmayne: How?

LAN PHAM: Tinopai Resource Management Unit—do I hear “How?” Incredible.

Kia ora, Kaipara and Tinopai Resource Management Unit. You cannot fast track your way out of ecological collapse; you will only exacerbate it

I really want to invite those members who are questioning how this will damage the environment, to try understand your own legislation. It’s a big challenge, I know, but it’s a real offer.

This amendment bill is ultimately a bill of desperation. It’s a time where public sentiment is running out on this Government’s brutal attacks on nature and our shared commons that we all depend on and our economy is built on. It’s a betrayal of our longstanding identity and understanding as New Zealanders, that we are people of the land and the ocean, as tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti—we’ve ended up here together. Wouldn’t it be cool if we made the most of it? Wouldn’t it be cool if we actually took those heroics of our ancestors and actually applied them? We can evolve as people. This is not evolution; this is devolution. Now, whether we’re aware of our connection to nature and its absolute, essential place in our lives or not—or we’re in denial or whatever—we’re connected; we need to stop making dumb decisions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, after half a speech of complete irrelevance, I’m here to stand up and talk on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill is going to provide to New Zealanders some efficiency. I think of the Ōmanawa Bridge and the Tauriko connections that will get New Zealanders trying to get in and out of Tauranga, to our largest exporting port, moving faster, reducing pollution of cars sitting on the roads. I think of Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore’s redevelopment of the Tara Road area so that we can have more houses in Pāpāmoa; also, the Wairakei South Bell Road development—thousands of homes and businesses will be created. I tell you what, Sam Uffindell, we are getting the Stella Passage sorted because of the Opposition—that was completely ridiculous—we are going to finally, after years of trying, assist an absolutely essential piece of New Zealand’s infrastructure. If we want to be a trading part of the world, we’ve got to have the stuff that does it. I could go on about re-consenting hydro in Kaingaroa, wind farms in Paeroa, but I’m going to leave it there. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A day of economic liberation has arrived. There will be a small range of critics against this bill, but let us just recount that the element which has caused the opposite side of the House to recoil actually comes from their own legislation. They passed a piece of legislation which, sadly, is destroying large parts of the economy—otherwise known as climate change legislation—and in that legislation is the opportunity for the Government of the day to use a general policy statement to indicate the direction of travel. To show the spirit of bipartisanship, we have borrowed that small device, and we will now have the Government able to affirm those sectors of the industry who are looking for leadership from the Government to create jobs, to create investment, and to grow the economy. There is nothing to fear. This general policy statement device will be judged within the statutory criteria, which people can challenge. That is how you grow an economy.

Now, of course, our side of the House has a different view than those who want to wrap the environment in some sort of ideological bubble paper. No, our focus is ensuring that the actual guardrails are consistent with not only the purpose of the statute, but we must grow our economy. No doubt it will come to pass now that Mr Bishop and the fine minds have put together the replacement Resource Management Act. Of course, I had some modest association with that 35 years ago and, apparently, that was on television recently—34 years ago. There is a small change in anatomy. However, it shows greater wisdom can be measured in the size of the puku. Those changes provide an opportunity in the future, but we need a transition, and the fast track is a guaranteed transition.

We also have the ability to ensure that iwi, such as Ngāi Tahu, don’t have their aspirations and their objectives hobbled or blighted. What happened is that they made an application called Hananui; three unelected, ill-prepared, hopefully, never to be seen again grandees destroyed that application, which is why the legislation ensures that imposters, those with fake competence, never have the opportunity to sit again and make decisions and undermine Māori endeavour. Of course, there have been some surprises, I have to say, in the development of the fast-track practice. Now, I knew, within Taranaki, there’d be the predictable banshees, very upset about progress; and then what’s happened? When they couldn’t beat me with intellect, they decided to invoke the Taranaki mountain—Taranaki mountain! They decided to enable the maunga to send off a puff of smoke. But the maunga has to come to the matua, not the other way round—not the other way round. This piece of legislation is going to open up the environment.

Now, you do need boldness, and you need courage to stand up, and nowhere have we seen a greater demonstration of that than by the Minister for Infrastructure. Turbocharge Energy! A nation that does not have an energy plan has no economic plan. Now, as this legislation accelerates the delivery of new sources of energy—coal, coal—please remember that famous saying from the Thatcher era, “Coal before dole”. Now, it may sound awkward, and it may sound slightly jarring to the tender ears of those who bring Parliament pantomime, devices, and unnecessary rhetoric to the House every day, as opposed to us more moderate contributors. Gold, gold; and, in addition to that, critical minerals. Such things would never happen unless we had the farsighted authors and architects of this legislation.

Inevitably there will be continued criticism, but you cannot grow rich by doing each other’s Green Party washing, or “greenwashing” our nation, or snaffling the nation in brown tape. That is why this is such an overdue development. Of course, it stands up for capitalism. That’s what defines this side of the House and those who want to live an ideological bubble wrap—socialists and communists! But it’s a contest of ideas—it’s a contest of ideas.

Now, I am willing to admit that there are contributions worthy of the intellect of Mickey Mouse, but we are not running the economy in a cartoonish way. We are going to the pith of the issue—international investors, domestic investors with confidence in our new overseas investment. Now, it is not us deploying the chilliness of Antarctica to freeze investment; it is the other side of the House. I don’t believe that we’ll have to make any more refinements to this brilliant piece of legislation prior to the election, largely because they are going to be so busy, the three conveners—subject to their performance once or thrice; I might have called them the “three daughters of King Lear”. The fact that they had complained that we—presumably they were talking about one or three MPs, with myself included—had lost confidence in the process was a clear demonstration that the sovereignty of Parliament is beyond the tender mercies of the “three daughters of King Lear”, otherwise known as the convenors. They are paid to do a job, which is administrative, and to apply the law in such a way that the black-letter meaning of the law trumps any other fantasies or any other concoctions which only seek to scare and intimidate those people who want to create a better future. Nowhere is that future needed more than in Taranaki.

The last regime, as you know, destroyed the oil and gas industry. Not content with doing that, they destroyed and sold Marsden Point—closed it down and sold it down the river. What do we see in the schedule? An opportunity to reinvigorate those areas. Now, what could possibly be wrong with that? Some might say you’re trampling on the rights of the hapū and the tangata whenua of their takutai moana. Those rights play second fiddle to the purpose of this statute, which is based on cohesiveness, collective strength, and growing the economy. No single hapū has a veto right to trample or hobble the development of our nation. That is why my name is resounding from Port Waikato right down to Waikanae through the vast swathe of Taranaki.

But, look, I don’t want to sound too triumphant. I don’t want to sound unnecessarily immodest. I just want to put on the record that this piece of legislation was wisely inserted into the negotiations in 2023 by my leader, Winston Peters, because he could see that the last regime had a contribution, otherwise known as fast track, but it was stymieing, it was hobbling, and it was it was covering the ambitions to grow the country in ideological treacle. We are a common-sense bunch of contributors, and common sense shows us that, yes, we ought to observe the existing Treaty of Waitangi settlements, but they must contribute to the growth of the nation.

Now, sadly, development, frogs, bats, and birds all have to enjoy the cleansing experience of trade-off. Trade-offs are what is necessary in order to grow your economy. It doesn’t say that we’re declaring war on nature. Freddie: Freddie’s not going to die—occasionally in the departure lounge, once or thrice. We’ve got to stop all this catastrophisation, which is why Mr Bishop has delivered an overdue dose of common sense. With the small amendments and refinements, including competitiveness in the supermarket sector, who could possibly complain for those who are interested in the patriotic development of our nation? Now, there will be a small group who believe that iwi separatism is the proper construction or interpretation of the Treaty. They can’t even get 1 percent of support. How can they talk about sovereignty when their own sovereignty in their party is fatally cracked? It’s like an egg. The egg soon addles and rots once the shell is cracked, and, sadly, that egg is not only cracked, but please turn the lights out because the party is over.

Coming back, our party and this Minister, with a long experience in economic development, resource management, and the most authoritative voice in the recent history of Māori development, support this bill.

This call is a split call—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Look, I don’t want to come across as unnecessarily modest, but what I do want to do is share with the House this story. It’s a story about a big man with a key, and let’s just call this big man Matua. Matua has the key and he’s gone out and he’s promised everyone: “Don’t worry about anything because I have the key for opportunity and prosperity for all.”—and he locked them all out of the house. Well, he took his big key and this big man Matua went and proceeded into his house. This is a true story, by the way.

He said, “Not only am I going to fix up this place; I’m going to cut all the red tape, all of it. And I’m going to be able to mine on your whenua, I’m going to be able to drill on your maunga, and I’m going to be able to do whatever I want in your moana. But I’ve got the key. Don’t worry; you just trust me because I am unnecessarily modest.” One of the things he told all his whānau and his hapū and his iwi: “Wait outside. Wait, wait, wait, because I have got a reputation like no one else, from Waikato all the way down to Te Tai Tonga. I am the one percenter of every percenter that you ever need to need to know.” Inside this House, this big man Matua walked around and he changed it with this dream and this vision that he had concocted up one night in a really lonely motel room. He said, “I am going to do with this—I am going to play with this—as I want, and no one is going to stop me.”

So many of the people, they kept knocking on the door: “Matua, Matua, let us in! It’s getting cold. We’ve been outside. We told you we trust you. You’re cutting red tape. Let us in.” He said, “No. Taranaki, you trust me. I know what I’m doing because I am the unnecessary modest uncle.”

Anyway, they waited and they waited and they waited and they finally got to have a sneak back into their house, but when they got in, they didn’t recognise it because it didn’t look like anything they’d ever seen before in their life. Not only had he slaughtered the w’enua, not only had he polluted the moana; there was no maunga. There was no maunga left, and that is what Matua left for the mokopuna.

Now, there’s a story behind this, because I come from Taranaki, as some people in here tonight do as well, and we’ve spent 12 years fighting against those types of matuas who make promises—huge promises: “Let us come in and mine, mine, mine; drill, baby, drill. Milk Mother Earth for all we can.” My God, I sound like him. My point being, 12 years of fighting and fighting—not hapū—divers, fishing sector, community members, people who love their coastal life. Not all Māori, not all hapū has sat there and fought and fought to protect their ocean for the mere fact that they believe that every New Zealander should be able to live in their coastal homes, live in their coastal areas, eat from their moana, swim in the moana, have their mokopuna enjoy the pleasures of their taonga.

But, no, ones like Matua fought and fought and said, “We must let Trans-Tasman resources come in. They won in the High Court. They won in the Supreme Court. They won in the Court of Appeal. They won in everyone’s hearts and souls. But you know what? It doesn’t matter how they played their game; there was legislation that came through from Government that told them: “We don’t care what you think, community, because I have the key for your environment. I am going to shake it up and make it like you’ve never known before.”

“But we don’t want it”, the community said, as they were locked outside during this fast-track situation. I walked into the House just after missing—I’m not sure what it was—this really theatrical drama dressed up as leadership telling us that this is all about cutting red tape, being practical, and growing Aotearoa New Zealand. But you cannot and you should not grow anything if you are locking the communities, if you are locking the iwi out, if you are locking those who have spent a lifetime having pride for where they are and where they live. It is not progress. That is not nationhood, and that is what fast track has done. It has put people into situations they should never ever have been. We should never be a nation sitting here listening to someone telling us: “Trust me, I have the key, and my ministerial power, my power to hold that key, will matter to more than anyone else in the world because I am to be trusted.” That has never worked in Taranaki before in the past, and it won’t work for seabed mining as well. We absolutely oppose this.

As the Green Party, we of course oppose this legislation. It’s really difficult standing here to speak to these amendments that have been dressed up as a bill that is here to address supermarket competition, with only a few minor, technical changes, when actually the changes are going to have fundamental impacts for us in the kāinga. Fundamentally, we will be undermined as tangata whenua to exercise our rangatiratanga over our taonga, our assets, and our rawa, takutai moana and our whenua.

It’s really hard to sit here and listen also to the way in which the Government demeans us as tangata whenua and pooh-poohs the way that we will be made second-class citizens in the fast-track process, as we will see the elevation of local government to being the voice of our community, above hapū and iwi, above environmental advocates and community groups, and above the local ratepayers and residents. That’s what’s happening in this legislation. Our communities don’t know that that’s the depth by which this legislation will fundamentally change the fast track.

The applicants are being put in the driver’s seat. The applicants are going to be the ones who get to call the shots as to how long the deliberations will be on fast-track applications in our communities. As hapū and iwi, if we even get a chance to comment on these applications, we’ll only have 15 days’ turn-around. Now, that’s criminal. That is criminal when you know that we can barely survive normal Resource Management Act processes, let alone have to enter into this truncated process and try to respond with technicians and legal advice within a 15-day turn-around.

That’s if local government doesn’t undermine us as tangata whenua or the community by taking up that space as the voice for our full rohe and communities. This fast track is on steroids. That’s what it is doing. It is so unworkable, and that’s why local government has kicked back. Local government came into the submissions and said it is unworkable, and I mihi to the Far North District Council, who said the changes are going to significantly impact hapū, iwi, and community as the affected party, because their expertise and their experience in communities will be locked out. Don’t act like local government supports this, either.

This Government is also ignoring the advice that its own independent panel conveners are giving. The independent panel conveners said the proposed time frames are simply unworkable: for many of the processes that are going to happen, the outcomes need to come from the earlier steps, so as you start to truncate and make things happen concurrently, you’re actually going to put the process at risk and prejudice and compromise the quality of the outcome.

Let’s talk about zombie projects. Just like in Taranaki, we’ve got Bream Bay sandmining. We’ve got the McCallum Bros. They’re a retro throwback that got thrown out of Pākiri. Let’s just remember that those McCallum Bros got thrown out only in 2024, and now they’re creeping their way into Bream Bay—creeping their way into Bream Bay—and through their bros in the Government are going to file just before Christmas because they’re “back on track”. They’ve got their bros in the Government, because this Government prioritises the corporates over the local hau kāinga, over the community, and over those who are going to be most impacted.

When Bream Bay sandmining starts, the impact will be intergenerational, and shame on this Government. Shame on them when they say that this about economic development and opportunity. Nā wai i teka!

[What a load of rubbish!]

We don’t need any sand from Bream Bay. We’ve got all the reports in the world. Our community has mobilised and pulled out all these technical reports that say we’ve got plenty of sand in Northland, and you can also manufacture sand now with this new technology from out of the whenua. You don’t need to go into Bream Bay, but, no, because they’ve got the ear of the Government, this legislation is just giving it to them on a plate. That’s what is despicable about it.

Iwi like Patuharakeke, Ngātiwai, Te Parawhau, and our community, like the Bream Bay Guardians, are trying their best to mobilise, and there will be trouble. I tell you, when this comes out, and it’s going to be so quick, it’s going to be like a thief in the night, for sure, because you’ve only got 15 days to respond. That is horrible for any community group. You can’t even say that councils are ready for it. There is no resource for council to respond within 15 days, either, and they’ve got massive infrastructure compared with community, massive compared with hapū and iwi. That’s what’s so sad about it. It’s that the fishhooks in the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill is a rip-off—

The member’s time has expired.

Look, this is an exciting day for New Zealanders. We are fast-laning supermarkets, putting more competition so we can get a better deal for New Zealand shoppers. We want to get things built in this country, grow jobs, and grow the economy, and this is what fast track is all about: it’s going for growth; it’s good for the economy; it’s good for New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure where to start after that contribution, given that the member who resumed her seat was the chair of the select committee that considered this bill, but I will begin. Despite submissions being open for just 10 days—a unilateral decision by the chair of the committee—there were over 2,500 submissions that were made by individuals and by groups to the Environment Committee on this; 85 of them appeared in person, fifteen hours of hearings were done, and we’re back here for the rest of the process through urgency; 95 percent of submitters opposed this bill. Numerous submitters made mention of the rushed process, the fact that there wasn’t enough time for them to consider the changes contained in this bill. They talked about the weakened environmental protections contained in the bill, the fact that it would reduce community input into the process, and the increased ministerial power that this legislation would confer upon the Government.

Yet anyone who was listening to contributions from members opposite—started off by Nicola Willis in an increasingly theatrical performance, who talked about the fact that this is just about increasing supermarket competition, that this was an Opposition that was voting against development more broadly, that we’re voting against efficiency, and this is all about strengthening the economy—could be forgiven for thinking that members on this side of the House are anti-growth, but there’s nothing that is further from the truth. In fact, it was Labour in Government who started work on increasing grocery competition, that, of course, members opposite seem to have conveniently forgotten in a little bit of political amnesia that we’re seeing from members opposite.

Now, the original Fast-track Approvals Bill was described as an assault on environmental protections, and for good reason, because that is a piece of legislation that allows projects that have been previously rejected on the grounds that they override environmental protections to be resurrected through this project. It allows projects to circumvent the previous environmental rejections on grounds that they weren’t rejected on. Twenty thousand people marched against that bill on Queen Street alone, largely because it concentrated ministerial power. It allowed three Ministers to veto decisions of their own independent panel. Then the Government backtracked. They decided that there was so much opposition to that particular part of the bill—well, the bill in general, but that particular bit that was the worst. They backtracked and they decided to reverse that particular provision such that Ministers couldn’t override the decision of the panel.

Then we come to this amendment bill, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. I want to make some mention of changes that were made during the committee of the whole House stage. Given the rushed process that we have already traversed with regard to the submissions process for this bill, it meant that there was no revision-tracked version of the bill accompanying the select committee report-back. It meant that submitters’ concerns couldn’t be given the adequate consideration that they should be given by officials. It meant, basically, that it curtailed the job that we could do on that select committee.

However, I do want to acknowledge that the Minister responsible for this bill has taken some of that feedback into consideration and introduced amendments at the committee of the whole House stage. For example, the ministerial overreach into the decisions of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is partially restricted as a result of the amendments, and that means that the Minister will no longer be given the power to be able to direct the EPA in relation to its independent function. That is an important change that came through submitters, and I want to acknowledge that that was made.

The second amendment that was introduced at the committee stage that is a good one is the fact that panels will now retain the ability to be able to seek relevant advice and expertise, and that means that they can bring in that expertise to be able to inform the decision making that they are in charge of. In the past, there have been situations where the likes of the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Forest & Bird have been brought in and they have provided some really valuable feedback that has directed the decision making of that panel, and so I acknowledge that that reversal has been made by this Government at the committee stage. None of those, of course, could be examined by the select committee because they were only introduced to the House at the committee of the whole House stage, but none the less, they have been done.

However, one of the most egregious components of this bill remains, and that is the ability for the Minister to come up with a Government policy statement, or a GPS. That is the ability for the Minister to have unfettered power to create whatever it is that the Minister wants to put into a GPS. The only fettering, as it were, of that power, the only guardrail, is for the Minister to consult with other Ministers and then publish that GPS. For example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted that this will “make the approval of applications almost inevitable, by providing the Minister with a mechanism to insert tailor-made Government policy statements to which weight must be given by panels”. That means, for example, and as the EDS notes, Ministers will have the ability to create this GPS and the only consideration for that is that the projects must have regional or national benefits and that panels must take these statements into account when making decisions.

There are no guardrails about what the GPS can contain. So, for example, if an open cast mine in one of the top 50 most ecologically valuable sites across Aotearoa is considered an infrastructure project that has regional or national benefits, then it can be allowed through a Government policy statement. And that’s what people are worried about: that land that should be protected will be opened up in the name of economic growth and efficiency.

The other issues that submitters have raised that have persisted through the passage of this bill through this House is the reductions in statutory time limits for both referral applications and substantive applications. That just means that the panel considering these applications has less time to be able to take into account some of the more complex issues to do with those. That’s been raised by a number of submitters at the select committee stage of this as well. There are also restrictions on appeal rights that are retained in this bill, and that means that legal challenges by people or groups that an expert panel chooses to invite to comment on would need to use the more much more costly and time-consuming process of judicial reviews.

The final point that I’ll make that I did raise during the committee stage as well that we find problematic on this side of the House is the “Henry VIII” clause that is retained within this bill. That allows the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to amend the description of a project that is listed in Schedule 2 of this bill. What it really means is that the Government of the day can choose to change the project description or the geographical description of that project unilaterally, in a sense. It circumvents this Parliament, which we feel is the appropriate forum to make such changes that are substantive. We would have preferred that the “Henry VIII” clause, if it was retained, was limited to just technical amendments or factual corrections. The likes of BusinessNZ have made such submissions to that effect as well, and I would actually support that. To give the Minister credit, he did go into a fair bit of detail to explain that and the thought process behind retaining that clause. He felt that there were enough or sufficient limitations with regard to the scope that was contained within the bill. However, on this side, we would have liked to have seen it limited further.

Ultimately, in the time that I have remaining, the point that I will make is that members on the Government benches wax lyrical about strengthening the economy, the fact that this is a bill that just increases supermarket competition, that it’s just about efficiency. They seem to be completely blinded to the fact that there are a number of other changes contained within this legislation that will reduce and weaken our environmental protections. What they’re doing is engaging in the false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. There is no sustainable economy without a healthy environment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about yes, yes, yes: yes to a supermarket in Kaitāia, yes to a four-lane highway to Whangārei, but, most importantly—guess what!—yes to a new road over the Brynderwyns, because that’s what Northland needs. I commend this bill to the House.

This call is a split call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill changes the initial fast-track bill from back in, I think it was, December last year. That was the bill, I recall, for which the companies and shareholders associated with 12 fast-track projects gave around half a million dollars in political donations to National, the ACT Party, and New Zealand First.

This bill expedites things for those people; they had some feedback from those people, and, in fact, the bill itself says that they’re trying to improve that process. This bill includes specific technical changes to that original Act “and its processes, informed by feedback from the current system users. These amendments are aimed at improving system efficiency by reducing time frames, duplication, and unnecessary costs, improving clarity for applicants and other system users”. It’s making that streamline even better for those who are protecting existing interests and marginalising communities—marginalising those who want to have a say about what’s going on in their own area.

Trying to tell New Zealanders right now that this is somehow going to bring down the price of a block of butter or that it’s going to make your groceries more affordable in a cost of living crisis is an absolute joke. This is a fast track to mates being given a pathway through community consultation by bypassing environmental protections, by bypassing any consultation with iwi, and by enabling those same people to benefit even more from what they have been. It means that there is a quicker pathway into doing that without talking to the very people who are directly impacted by some of these changes.

While, yes, we definitely want to see more supermarket competition—that’s great—I’m yet to hear from one of the lengthy and wonderful speeches delivered about how this bill will actually provide cheaper prices at the supermarkets for those families that can’t pay for the food that they used to be able to afford. They go in with the wages they earn at the end of the week and go to buy things like meat, which is currently unaffordable to a whole bunch of people in the area I live in. They can’t afford to buy children milk; they can’t afford to buy decent wholemeal bread. Those are the things that are impacting upon our communities right now, and fast tracking approvals for your mates isn’t going to make the people in Wainuiōmata able to afford milk, butter, cheese, and bread—it’s simply not. This is an absolute Trojan horse of a bill because, instead, the focus is on reducing participation and making it even more difficult for a panel to decline an environmentally damaging project. It’s selling out from underneath people the taonga that is our land and cashing it up for an absolutely minimal benefit back to communities in the long term.

So many of the things that this Government has done have been a sugar high, a dead cat bounce—it gives you a few seconds of excitement. Down the line for New Zealand’s future, having a future that actually works for us and works for our people; that puts into a long-term plan how we will grow our country and grow our economy; that makes sure our people earn decent wages; that they have a job that actually does that, and that they can afford a home that they’re proud of and they can live in; that their kids can get a doctor and they can get into the doctor and actually get healthcare—those are the things that we should be working for, not fast tracking the 12 different companies that all donated to your parties in the first bill and actually enabling this process in the door.

I fail to see how this will materially make a difference to those New Zealanders right now who were promised by this Government that they would take action on the cost of living. Instead, what do we have? A self-serving bill—a Trojan horse of a bill—that says it’s about improving supermarket competition. Well, what we have seen is prices at the supermarket that mean people are standing outside the supermarket without being able to afford the food that’s inside, and that is what will continue. While your Prime Minister might say that this is a two-stage recovery, it’s one stage for you, and there’s one stage for the rest of New Zealand. They’re not the ones that will benefit from this Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. They will not be the communities that have any real benefits coming out of these changes, but they are the people who will be shut out of voting in your bill coming up later on, and we’ll be mobilising all of those communities to vote this Government out for the fact that it does not serve New Zealand or our communities one iota.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just feel I need to correct the record, because Rachel Brooking was quoting me earlier and I think she didn’t mean to misrepresent what I said, but she that I was saying that Pak ‘N Save wouldn’t pay for an existing roundabout, or supermarkets wouldn’t need to pay for associated infrastructure. Under fast track, they still do—my point was that it’s the consent, the delay, the time. That cost accumulates, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer. So that’s why I support fast track, and I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Yeah, it’s not a pleasure to stand and rise and speak to this piece of legislation. Let me begin, and let me actually share some thoughtful points on this legislation, which is hard to do because it’s no pleasure to stand, yet again, in this House and to speak on fast track.

Fast track, which we’ve heard about a number of times from the side of the House, has been something that we have not been against, because fast track was something that was part of our Resource Management Act reforms that we did in the last Government; fast track, which is part of legislation that we did in the last two Parliaments. Fast track is not the issue here. The issue here is around fast tracking and ignoring things such as the environment and, I would go as far as to say, democracy.

It was noted quite clearly in the submissions, in the 95 percent of submissions who opposed this legislation: they said this overrides the challenges that we have in our democracy. Democracy is a challenging and a fragile thing. We need to be working as hard as we can in this House to make sure that we protect democracy and protect people’s perception of what we do and why we do it. As my previous colleague spoke of in terms of who funds what, who does what, what gets passed through this house is a challenge—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Join the dots.

GLEN BENNETT: Join the dots—thank you, the Hon Damien O’Connor, because that is true. Join the dots and you’ll see all the paths that lead to the reason we’re here tonight debating, again, this debacle of a piece of legislation.

It’s the Trojan horse of this: “It’s all about supermarkets. It’s all wonderful.” There was a comment made earlier about fast-laning supermarkets. I’m not even sure what “fast-laning supermarkets” means, but that’s what was said, “fast-laning supermarkets”. What I say is that what we need to think about here is around why, if it’s around fast-laning supermarkets, it’s not even mentioned once in this legislation. Why didn’t they bring a bill to the House that is around fast-laning supermarkets? Why didn’t they bring a piece of legislation to the House to create cheaper supermarket prices for people at the supermarket checkouts?

But no, they’re not. They’re not, because this is not about fast tracking supermarkets. This is not about making our grocery prices cheaper. This is, yet again, another Trojan horse from this Government that is doing what they can to ignore environmental protections, ignore democracy, ignore community engagement, ignore iwi—ignore anyone except for their mates, except for the people that look after them and line their pockets.

When I look at this legislation, I think very carefully—I listened very carefully in the select committee to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who talked about the removal of guardrails; how dangerous, yet again, this legislation is to protectionism of what we hold dear in New Zealand, which is “100% Pure New Zealand”. As the spokesperson in Labour for tourism and hospitality, it is important to consider our second-largest export—it’ll be our largest again very soon, I know—but we need to consider the fact that “100% Pure New Zealand” is the brand that we sell to the world.

It’s around “100% Pure New Zealand”; 100 percent pure glaciers and mountain ranges. It’s around 100 percent in terms of our food story, our cultural story. It’s around 100 percent in terms of our environmental story and our climate story—what we have that no one else has, that we must protect. Because that is about GDP; that is about jobs; that is about growth, which this Government talks about so much. That is why their Minister for Tourism and Hospitality has put together a 10-year road map for the tourism and hospitality sector, which is around protecting, which is around making sure, that people come to Aotearoa for that experience.

Yet again, this legislation—yet again—is going to undermine that “100% Pure New Zealand” brand that is known globally. We need to think very carefully about this, because I was in Central Otago—I heard that someone said, I’m not sure if they said “bunker”; it might have been another word—but I was in Central Otago recently. The challenge there is for our wine industry; the challenge there is for our stone fruit industry; the challenge there is for our tourism industry in Central Otago, who spoke to me and are very concerned about fast track around mining and the implications that has for the hundreds of millions of dollars, to the thousands of jobs that are created in those industries in Central Otago, in places like Cromwell. That’s where you’ve got things like arsenic, when you’ve got things like dust, when you’ve got things like the challenges of open-cast mining, and what they will do. That money goes to those overseas investors—and people say, “What a load of rubbish.”, but when you work and live in those spaces, when you’re the champions, when you’re the local tourism organisations who say, “This is wrong and we need to do something about it”, what is the—

Hon Mark Patterson: They’re old mining areas! They’re old mines!

Steve Abel: Wines, not mines!

GLEN BENNETT: That’s right. This is a concern, and we hear the rebuttals across the floor, but we need to stand strong and stand tall. As was said previously, I walked down Queen Street last year against the Fast-track Approvals Bill—number one. The reason I did that, and the reason I stand here this evening to speak against this piece of legislation, is around how do we put things in place? How do we lift our gaze beyond today and a quick sugar fix for today; how do we lift our gaze for tomorrow and what our future will look like—what our future will look like?

With something like this, where we just override environmental standards, where we just kind of step in the way and ignore community engagement—and, as I said, we are not opposed to fast track, because we implemented fast track when we were in Government previously. But it’s around—you can do both. You can have fast track, and you can have environmental protections at the same time. You can have fast track, and you can protect democracy at the same time. You can have fast track, and you can engage with iwi, you can engage with community, and you can engage with key stakeholders.

We need to consider that: that it’s not just about a loose and quick and “Let’s just rush off and say this is all about just building more supermarkets and making things cheaper.”—because it is not, in the long run. We need to figure out and find ways to innovate and change how we run our country and what our GDP is all about. The Hon Nicola Willis, in her opening remarks to the third reading—all she talked about was saving money at the checkouts. It’s all about supermarkets, this legislation. Well, again, it’s not mentioned once in the bill—not mentioned once. One thing is mentioned once, sorry: that is “groceries”—but that is all. That is all.

Then we heard, as the afternoon rolled on and we came into the evening, it was, you know, “We’re not about the no, no, no; we’re about the yes, yes, yes.”, and “We’re all about the yes. We’re all about the yes.” I can see Mr MacLeod across the floor there, the previous chair of the Taranaki Regional Council, who was all about the “yes” to look after our environment, was all about the “yes” to look after our rivers, was all about the “yes” to look after our environments and our economy—because they can go hand in hand. They can be hand in glove. We don’t just want to throw the baby out with the bath water and rush ahead.

We are about “yes”; we’re about protecting democracy and saying yes to democracy. We’re about protecting our environment and saying yes to the environment. We are saying yes to productivity. Also, we heard so many times in speeches from the other side around consenting renewable energy. Wind farms: well, there are bundles of them already consented that are just sitting there. This rhetoric from the Government that this is going to unlock all of these new wind farms—there are bundles of them already there. We cannot support this bill. It is terrible.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we just heard a trip down memory lane. The member opposite doesn’t even know that it’s called an express lane in a supermarket, because they don’t know how to get things done. They don’t know what doing things quickly means. This is about consenting an express lane for a supermarket. It’s also about demonstrating an express lane for getting things done on the Government benches. That’s what we’re doing, and therefore I commend this bill to the House.