Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

It’s very pleasing to introduce this amendment bill for the Fast-track Approvals Act, to promote supermarket competition and to improve the application process so it’s more efficient for all fast-track projects. The Government is making this change to make it clear to the grocery retail sector that projects that will improve competition are within fast-track scope. It’s a range of technical and machinery amendments that are also aimed at speeding up the application process by up to six weeks, or potentially more in some cases. The aim of the changes is to cumulatively reduce time frames, lower costs, improve flexibility, and clarify operational matters.

Fast track was designed to offer a streamlined alternative to convoluted Resource Management Act (RMA) - based consenting processes, and also to establish a one-stop shop regime that means large or complex projects can now make a simple application for multiple consents, permissions, and approvals. There’s been a steady stream of applications since February this year and several large projects gaining final approval from independent expert panels. There is real appetite for the fast-track approvals process, and the Government is very proud about how it’s working.

It’s worth noting that it’s not the first time that Parliament has authorised a fast-track regime; the previous Government had its own version. We think our version is better—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Two versions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —two versions—OK. Well, we think our version is triply better, then, than the member Rachel Brooking’s version. We are happy with how it’s going so far, but our view is that there are a range of process-based improvements that can be made. We’ve consulted with applicants, agencies, councils, and, actually, the panel convenors themselves around improving the operational efficiency of the Act.

In terms of the grocery retail developments, as I think all members know, we’re focused on creating the conditions for enduring improvements to grocery competition to benefit consumers. Grocery retailers are not excluded from fast-track applications, but we have heard that potential grocery retailers are not confident their projects will be eligible, so the bill includes proposals to remove barriers to entry, and expansion of new competitors by making it easier to get consents for new supermarkets. The changes clarify that improving regional or national competition in the grocery industry is a valid factor that the Minister for Infrastructure can consider in referral decisions, and expert panels must have regard to the Minister’s reasons for referring an application, including those relating to grocery competition.

The bill proposes a general power to issue Government policy statements, including on grocery retail competition, which the Minister for Infrastructure and expert panels must consider when making project decisions. We’re also making changes to the eligibility criteria for the MultiProof approvals regime to support both grocery developments and developments in other sectors with more streamlined building consenting. Time frames for approvals will vary case by case, but we do expect, with this streamlined approach, grocery developments could obtain necessary consents and resource management approvals in a year or less after formal lodgment. The Commerce Commission’s recent Annual Grocery Report tells us that it takes, on average, 18 months and $1 million to obtain consent for a new supermarket, which, when you think about it, is totally nuts.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Who repealed the RMA?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re fixing that—watch this space—but 18 months and a million dollars for a new supermarket is, I think, frankly nuts and indefensible.

In relation to the technical and machinery improvements, the description of this undersells the fact that the combined effect will be to make fast track more operationally and procedurally efficient. Our estimates are that it will take at least six weeks, and potentially more, out of the current statutorily prescribed processes. The referral process for projects approved for referral currently takes an average of 71 working days, and the substantive stage takes an average of 130 working days. The process improvements could reduce this further.

It’s probably not the right place to give a comprehensive overview of the amendments here—they are summarised in the legislative statement and in the bill itself—but I would summarise their intent by saying that the aim is to reduce process time and complexities. For example, the amendments will allow parts of the process to occur in parallel, where that makes sense. It will also give applicants and other users more clarity on what information is required at various application stages. They will allow applicants to address information gaps during the earlier stages of the process. The amendments include proposals to reduce the scope for projects to be rejected on procedural grounds if part of the application is withdrawn. It proposes that applications can be granted conditionally without planned future infrastructure, such as roads and services, being completed. Proposals in the bill will clarify that Schedule 2 - listed projects are national or regionally significant. This will allow expert panels to focus on the adverse impacts and whether or not they outweigh the projects’ benefits and reduce unnecessary litigation.

Several technical amendments are proposed by the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which include correcting lapsing rules, aligning reporting obligations, and resolving inconsistencies in a variety of provisions, and we are also fixing the issue around the Stella Passage development at the Port of Tauranga to make sure that that project description is rightly aligned with what the project is, following a recent High Court case. Amendments that do not require system changes, such as the grocery competition - related amendments, will come into force on the day after the date of Royal assent. Amendments that require post-enactment updates to systems and processes could be in place by February 2026 to allow time for implementation.

I’d like to thank the Government agencies involved in drafting the bill for their continued efforts. I also want to thank all those who engaged in a bit of a process we ran to suggest improvements for engaging or using fast track. This is a relatively straightforward, simple amendment bill that we want to get through the House so that we can make those machinery and technical improvements, to make sure that people can continue to benefit from the great work that fast track is doing. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the bill. Now, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has talked about—and all the press releases and the front page of this bill talk about—groceries and supermarkets an awful lot. In the Labour Party, we totally agree: do everything that we can to stop that or to create more competition for our grocery sector. That is a good thing to be doing. That is something that we worked on in Government, and I commend this Government, if they are continuing to do some of the work; good, good.

However, most of this bill is not about that issue. Most of this bill is not about the groceries. It’s not about the supermarkets. This bill is a Trojan horse for watering down—even more—this Government’s version of the fast track. What it is doing—we all know that Shane Jones is a big proponent of the fast track, and this Government’s fast track, which is quite different from the two previous fast tracks because it overrides environmental protections.

When the Fast-track Approvals Bill was introduced, it was going to have ministerial oversight—and there were huge protests in the streets. In Auckland, you could have been at Aotea Square and people were already down the bottom of Queen Street near Britomart; there were that many people protesting. To give some credit to this Government, they did listen a little bit and they changed those provisions around the ministerial approval. Then, in the select committee process, there was a lot of work on how it was that expert panels were going to work; how were they going to get as much evidence as was relevant to enable a fast process, but also one that enabled the decision makers to make some reasonably robust decisions? I would say not nearly robust enough because we, of course, opposed that fast-track bill because it was overriding environmental regulations and overriding community plans.

What this bill does is it moves that step closer to Shane Jones’ original idea, which is the Ministers having the say, and they have that say by referring projects or having already put them on the 149 listed projects. So where there was a little bit of rigour—I’m not sure if you can say “a little bit of rigour”, but there was something akin to rigour—was that the expert panels, who are appointed to be experts, had some discretion to ask for other people to give them information and evidence. We now have had this Government’s version of the fast track in place for some time, and we have seen some annoyance from Minister Shane Jones about the fact that expert panels have been asking for evidence—for more information—and that has meant that their decisions have not always been exactly what Minister Shane Jones has wanted. So now what this bill is doing is removing that ability, the one little check in the system for those expert panels to ask for additional evidence and for different groups to come and give them information. That discretion is goneburger with this amendment.

This is not just a simple little bill that’s doing a little bit of fixing up and we don’t need to worry about it because really it’s about good supermarket changes; it is not that. If it was only about supermarket changes, we would be in support of it.

The Minister has said potential supermarkets have asked for this; that it would be helpful. We would be in support of it. We are in support of fast tracking when environmental protections are not overridden, and that is our track record. So I’m deeply disappointed, once again, by this Government’s continued cynical approach of combining something that’s a little bit good with something that is disastrous. We support the grocery provisions, but we do not support the rest of this bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As my colleague Rachel Brooking so eloquently laid out, so much of what this Government does is putting up some positive spin, some smoke and mirrors, and their real agenda is simply allowing corporates and those who have the most to benefit and profit at the public expense, and that includes environmental damage, as well as public cost. We see that as a pattern happening over and over again.

However reasonable Minister Bishop might be on some urban planning issues, when it comes to solving the issue of supermarket competition, this is not the way to do it. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. Fast track is not good public policy; it is not the best way to ensure we have good planning rules. There are many other tools available to the Minister and the Government which they could have easily pursued, but they always choose to go with something that is kind of like taking a hacksaw to cutting a loaf of bread; they’re quite happy to overdo it, to create a tool that allows far too much discretion. It’s very, very clear that this is not going to result in inclusive, transparent decision-making that we need, respecting the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki, and enabling us to protect the things that matter most, which include life, indigenous biodiversity—which is life, a stable climate, and all of that.

Amendments in this bill only worsen the nature of the fast-track approvals process. It does not provide a credible solution. Now, what they could have done—because this does exist and it’s been done—is have a national policy statement on supermarket developments. They have done this for housing in the past. We can do it for increasing housing around rapid transit. We could do it for other things. Having a national policy statement was a simple fix that could have addressed any issues. We don’t have to go through an undemocratic fast-track process.

But, you know, it’s pretty clear what the agenda of this coalition Government is. It’s not good planning law; it’s not protecting the environment; it’s not protecting ordinary workers or communities or those most likely to live in poverty. It is enabling private profit at the expense of public good, and that’s what the fast-track process is all about: it is all about enabling private corporations to run roughshod over communities, over our precious natural environment, to have limited or no oversight over what’s done. They really just want a rubber stamp for companies to do whatever the heck they want, and they’ll pretend that this is somehow going to benefit people.

Well, there’s a whole lot of smart policy that we could be implementing that would genuinely benefit those who are struggling with the high cost of living. The Green Party has laid out a comprehensive alternative approach in our Green Budget which shows that we could improve the incomes for the vast majority of New Zealanders—ensure everybody had a sustainable living income, no matter what their employment status is. We could make sure that the wealthiest people in this country pay their fair share in tax, and that would enable us to invest in the core public services that people need.

When it comes to supermarket competition, it’s actually the Green Party who has long called for measures to address this—like an ombudsman, which we proposed well over a decade ago. There is so much that could be done, but really, going through the fast-track process is not necessary nor sufficient to deliver more affordable prices on food and other goods that are sold in supermarkets. We see through this, and I think most New Zealanders do. That’s reflected in their very poor polling, in the absolute lack of trust in the Prime Minister, who is one of those people who benefits the most from the Government’s policies, like not taxing capital gains. It’s a party—well, three parties—for the wealthy and sorted: for the wealthy donors, for the mining companies, for those that would destroy the environment that our life depends on, simply to make a few extra bucks, while there’s a whole host of people who are barely able to get by in this country. Government’s going to be changing—can’t wait.

I’m proud to stand here on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill is about fixing what matters, making sure the one-stop shop for complex consenting actually functions as Cabinet intended, because it turns out that some of the things Kiwis need, like more supermarkets, actually need a bit of a nudge. What this bill does is it allows supermarkets that qualify to enter the fast-track system and have all the things they typically need consents for—earthworks, putting in drainage, traffic management; all of these things consented in one place and with a very strict set of criteria. Is there a national and regional significance test? It turns out that we need more supermarkets because competition means lower prices; lower prices mean more affordable things for Kiwis, like food and all those other groceries that many families worry whether they can afford and pay the other bills that they get every month in the mail.

What this bill does is it introduces supermarket competition and also clarifies that some specific, significant projects like Tauranga’s Stella Passage project for Tauranga port actually are covered by the fast-track process because, believe it or not, despite this Government’s stated intention that we should get on with consenting and delivering projects, meet environmental tests, meet our conservation obligations, and, of course, compensate people fairly under the Public Works Act if land is acquired or impaired by the development of these projects, some of the decision-making processes have identified that, actually, the legislation needs a bit of panel beating. That’s what this Government’s all about. We’re not here to claim that everything that we’ve said or done is perfect, but we are here to fix what matters.

What’s coming after this, in just a few weeks’ time, is the introduction of a new resource management system; two new bills to deal with planning and environmental matters separately that are going to resolve some of the underlying problems that fast track intends to solve. We’re always going to need a one-stop shop for complex consenting, but those underlying resource management issues need an entirely new system of their own.

At the moment, Kiwis needs to get 40,000 consents a year for things: everything from where you might hang a laundry line, to a tiny retaining wall, and, of course, major infrastructure. We need to get that back to something far more sensible. When I studied civil engineering, Kiwis only needed 5,000 consents a year.

We need to be much more ambitious. Fast track is ambitious. ACT is here to fix what matters; that’s why we support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. Yes, it is true, this was a core part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. Yes, I know from experience that the leader, the Hon Winston Peters, and Shane Jones—yes, in that briefcase, when they rocked up to those meetings, this bill was in there. Yes, finally, we’re getting it to look more like what we wanted to start with.

It is a one-stop shop for consenting. In New Zealand, we have an issue at the moment around productivity, and we need to get these projects consented. We’re talking about the supermarkets, we’re also talking about regional New Zealand where we need competition, where we need to start seeing extra competition in the supermarket industry. This bill will allow that to happen.

We’re also seeing, around consultation—I’ve been a resource consent hearings commissioner, and the nonsense that goes on in some of these consent hearings from people across the country who have nothing to do with the thing that’s trying to be consented: when the local communities want to see a project to be consented under way to create economic activity and jobs, it is stifled by people that don’t even live there, have nothing to do with the area. It’s also going to make the process six weeks quicker. That’s something we want to do. We want to see a pipeline of activity. We want to see that we’ve got one project where people can go from on to another project on to another project, to create that economic activity.

On that side of the House, all we hear is no. We’ve heard no to infrastructure, no to airports, no to roads. We’ve heard no to housing, no to energy projects, no to the supermarkets, because they’re not going to vote for it. They said they would, but they won’t. They’re going to say no to mining because mining’s no good to them, no to aquaculture. To my right here, they’re also saying no to farming activities. They say no to everything.

I actually don’t know what their plan is. I know our plan is a pipeline. It’s going to give a lot of activity; we’re going to get rid of the delays. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for Infrastructure for his opening remarks. I’m pleased to speak to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because it will support grocery competition and thereby enable better deals for Kiwi shoppers. This bill helps to create an express lane for new supermarkets, to boost competition in the grocery sector. The amendments in this bill make it clear to those considering opening new supermarkets that their projects are within the fast-track regime’s scope if they improve competition. These changes to clarify eligibility are about easing the barriers that we’ve been told are holding back competition in our grocery market. We’re doing this because Kiwi shoppers need and deserve greater competition so they can benefit from lower prices and more choice, and this bill is a step towards achieving that.

The New Zealand Commerce Commission has found that competition in the New Zealand grocery sector is limited. The sector is highly concentrated, with the major grocery retailers—Woolworths and Foodstuffs North and South Island—making up 82 percent of the market. While they have different banners and brands underneath them, essentially we have a duopoly in our supermarket sector in New Zealand which contributes to less affordable groceries for everyday Kiwis.

The limited competition also means Kiwi shoppers have less choice about where they shop and they face higher prices at the checkout compared with other countries. You can choose between a Pak ‘N Save and a New World, but ultimately they’re both Foodstuffs. You can choose between a Woolworths and a FreshChoice, but ultimately they’re both Woolworths. We want more real, genuine choice for New Zealand shoppers, because when we look around the world, the countries that have more choice also have more affordable options for their people.

Right now, New Zealand consumers spend more on groceries than in Australia and the UK, with our grocery expenditure the fifth highest per person in the developed world. Earlier this year, I ran a request for information process. What I wanted to know was what is holding back those investors or retailers who might otherwise be able to offer a competitive alternative in this sector. We asked them, “What would help you, as a challenger, to take on the major grocery retailer?”

We get it. It’s a big task. When you’ve got two behemoths that you’re up against that have massive market power, it’s a pretty tough undertaking to say, “I’m going to enter that market and compete and win.” So our position was if the Government has created any barriers, red tape, or regulations that are making that task even harder, we have a responsibility to tear that red tape down and ensure we’re not standing in the way of competition.

Now, we can’t compel a new investor to come into New Zealand and start a new supermarket chain. That is not within our powers. What we can do is say to those investors who might be considering it, “We are on your side and we will get rid of anything that may be standing in your way that is within the control of Government.”

So when we did the request for information process, we got detailed, granular feedback about some of the issues that do currently stand in the way. We heard loud and clear that there was a lot of frustration with restrictive zoning—restrictive zoning that in many parts of the country says that there’s only this tiny envelope of land in which you are actually allowed to build a commercial retailer, in which you could actually build a supermarket. There may be a huge amount of land in New Zealand that’s zoned for other purposes, be it housing or farming or commercial development, but, actually, in a lot of regions in this country, we actively—currently, because of the Resource Management Act—restrict where people can buy land that can be developed for a supermarket.

That’s crazy, because actually what we should be saying is when it comes to the abundant land we have in our towns and regions, and we’re thinking about how we could use that in a good way, one of the best ways it can be used is to ensure that Kiwi shoppers are getting a better deal. That’s what this fast-track change is all about. Of course, it’s not just the consenting; it’s a bunch of other cumbersome regulations that make it difficult for new competitors to gain a foothold and we are addressing those too. We think it is unconscionable to keep in place—

The member’s time has expired.

Now, anyone listening to the speeches in this House would be forgiven for thinking that according to Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones, this bill is just about creating a consenting express-lane for new supermarkets to improve grocery competition. Sadly, that’s not what it’s about; that’s not all that it’s about. If it was really just about addressing the grocery duopoly, as Nicola Willis was waxing lyrical about just now, and putting in place the framework for more competition in the grocery sector, if it was about that, if it was about bringing food prices down, we would be supporting this bill. In fact, Labour in Government started that work five years ago in 2020, when we asked the Commerce Commission to carry out a study about grocery competition, whether it’s working well enough, and to give us recommendations.

Now, this Government has sat on those recommendations for the entire time that they’ve been in office—for the past two years—done absolutely nothing about that, and then they bring in this bill, claiming that it’s going to fix the issues within the grocery sector. But that’s not just what this bill does; it’s a Trojan horse. This is a bill that continues this Government’s war on nature by stealth, and it makes about a hundred other changes that none of the members on the Government benches have bothered to address in their speeches.

In June this year, over 20,000 people marched the streets to protest the fast-track bill. Many of them said that it would put Aotearoa on a fast track to environmental destruction. Many called it the biggest fight for New Zealand’s environment in a generation. Part of the reason for that overwhelming lack of support for, or opposition to, that bill was that the bill—as it was initially designed—would have concentrated power in the hands of three Ministers who could then override the decisions of their own expert panel and put in place whatever infrastructure projects they wanted to do; that would run roughshod over environmental protections. It would also ignore the concerns of local communities and mana whenua. For all those reasons, 20,000 people marched the streets.

After that, they made one little change: they reversed that and said that expert panels would be able to override the decisions of the Ministers. That was a good change that they made—still flawed; it still overrides environmental protections, but at least they made that one little change.

One of the specific projects that people had an issue with is the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mine in Taranaki. The central tenet of the fast-track legislation is the facilitation of projects with significant regional or national benefits, but it does not require independent analysis of the proposals to weigh those benefits against the associated costs, which is ridiculous. If it’s approved, that particular seabed mine project would be the world’s first at-scale, commercial seabed mine, that would destroy the habitat and the ecosystem that many of our critically endangered species, including Māui’s dolphin and Hector’s dolphin, rely on. It’s been rejected by the Supreme Court. There have been significant concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Authority about it. The sad thing is you would think, at least, that they would have sound economic analysis or argument for that particular project; they don’t. Even experts in the mining industry have said that their valuations and their analysis are flawed.

Now, the amendment that’s being introduced today, that we are debating today in the House, will introduce a hundred changes that will give Ministers much more power over the consenting process. It will mean that the expert panel will struggle to get the information they need to make better decisions, it reduces the amount of time that the expert panel can make those decisions within, and it limits the right to appeal those decisions. So it brings back the concentration of power that people marched on the streets about—by stealth.

We would have supported this if it was just about grocery competition and increasing competition in the grocery sector. But this is really about a Prime Minister who cannot keep his coalition partners in check. Shane Jones has been vocal about his opposition to the Environmental Protection Authority, and, sadly, now these Ministers and the Prime Minister have caved once again, the way that they did with the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. They’re rolling over to Shane Jones.

For all those reasons, and for the fact that it’s another blow to the environment and local communities, as environmental non-governmental organisations have said, we cannot support this bill.

I rise to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because we need to get things built in this country. We need things consented faster. That includes supermarkets, where we need to see more competition, where we need to see more choice for New Zealand shoppers so that we can reduce the cost of living. The fast-track system has been really successful so far. I am about to turn the sod, shortly, on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This was fast tracked. This is what delivery means and what building infrastructure in this country means. We’re a Government of action, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealanders are in the middle of an affordability crisis, and we have a problem on our hands in this House. We tell New Zealander when we’re out as electorate MPs—in the church halls for the prize-giving, when we’re giving speeches to our community organisations—that the cost of living is a problem that we understand; that we understand, as parliamentarians, that things are feeling tough right now. We all do it. At the election, the now Government members stood up and promised to take the cost of living seriously. They promised New Zealanders that they would do everything they could to address that.

What are New Zealanders seeing? Prices are rising at the grocery store. They’re rising in electricity by 11 percent, the highest jump in 30 years. They’re rising in education. They’re rising in housing. The truth is that when politicians put themselves on the stump and tell New Zealanders that the cost of living is their number one priority and then they introduce bills like this, which pay lip-service to the issue and do nothing to address the real drivers of price inflation, people start losing faith in the process. They don’t just start losing faith in the Government’s management of the economy, which is a given. New Zealanders are telling pollsters, news agents, and the 6 o’clock broadcast that they don’t have faith in this Prime Minister’s management of the economy. It’s not new.

Do members know what concerns me? They lose faith in this Parliament when we as politicians say we’re going to do one thing, put it in the name of a bill, and then the rest of the bill is about destroying the whenua that we rely on. It’s about a war on nature that is ideological and is based on scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes that they know are there, for people who want to see more “drill, baby, drill.”, and hats on Shane Jones when he rocks up to a select committee. It’s not about addressing the things that New Zealanders really care about.

This could have been an opportunity for the Government to introduce to this Parliament a bill that would have dealt with the land supply issues that are a real issue in the supermarket sector. But this bill is one where the grocery retail sector participants can already apply to the Minister to defer a development project for decision making under the fast-track approvals process. This does not change that. It does not introduce a new track for supermarkets to apply to Minister Bishop for special consideration. They already have that.

In the request for information, I doubt that there were submissions from serious competitors that said they were unsure as to whether they could use the fast-track process, or they might have, usefully, received back from the Minister a helpful explainer note that says, “Good news. You can already use this process, and I would love to engage with you.” Instead, we’ve got a piece of performative politics here that says to those investors that this is a Government that will introduce new legislation to use what they told them is a cloak for a war on nature, which ultimately does not help those investors.

These are serious players that we’re talking about overseas. We want third-entrant supermarkets in our market to know that we have a Government that is focused on delivering them a robust system that they can use to increase their prospects in our market—that people will have faith in their brand in the long term, not only here but offshore.

No supermarket entrant wants to be associated with a Government that changed the law for them at the expense of their people and their environment. It’s important that we get this system right, so I’m calling on the Government to split this bill so that we can have a proper debate about the supermarket part that we broadly agree with. The second part: those changes that are associated with changing the machinery of this bill are not things that the Labour Party could ever have supported. It is a bit rich for those Ministers who have spoken in this debate to put it back on to the Opposition and say, “Oh, look, they don’t support supermarkets. They don’t support more building.” That is absolutely incorrect.

We want this to work for new supermarket entrants. There are serious issues here to be worked out in our economy about how easy it is for new entrants—not the existing entrants—to build more supermarkets, not to deepen the moats to make it harder for the third entrants. But there are serious questions and legitimate issues about land supply in New Zealand, particularly those small towns that are planned with two spaces for supermarkets. We should do something about that. We should have a bill where we can discuss that seriously, but instead we have this thing, which mixes it all in there with changes we could never support, that undermine our protections for nature and the environment that we need.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to stand up here in this House and support, once again, a bill that believes in and supports getting things done. What we’re looking to do here is to allow for more competition in the supermarket sector so that people can lower their cost of living; that’s what it’s about. The last speaker seems to have forgotten about the 7.2 percent inflation that we inherited from them, and we have done a lot of great work to change that.

Another thing that this bill will do is allow us to build great projects all around this country, and the main one, of course—the most important one—is to get that new road over the Brynderwyns so that it’s got resilient infrastructure into Northland. I commend this bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Madam Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Madam Speaker—sorry, I was standing to take a call for Te Pāti Māori on this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I have already started to put the—

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. She was seeking the call before you actually moved to take the call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, OK. There was so much noise, I didn’t hear it. Thank you for that. It does help with the order of the House if members take their call in the appropriate order.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Of course—my apologies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is, I think, probably the 45th time I’ve stood today, so thank you, Madam Speaker. All for a good purpose, though, Duncan, tēnā koe. No surprises, I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. My cousin Shane Jones will be probably very disappointed but not surprised. I do so for a number of reasons. This contribution will be, I guess, closer to the ground, I might say, and so much of what I discuss here is from the ground and from the people we know and love.

Under the existing Fast-track Approvals Act, section 7 requires decision makers to consider Treaty settlements and recognise customary rights. The Government says that those obligations remain unchanged, but Te Puni Kōkiri has rightly pointed out that the replacement of pre-application consultation with a simple notification process significantly reduces the quality of engagement with Māori. Notification is not consultation. Being told that something is happening is not the same as being listened to. This bill strips away the chance for post-settlement governance entities, iwi, hapū, and other Māori groups to engage early and meaningfully in decisions that could affect, and will affect, their whenua, taonga, and Treaty rights.

By shortening comment periods and reducing opportunities for dialogue, the Government is, effectively, telling Māori to hurry up and to get it done, make their submissions, while developers are told to get on with the building. So we’re caught and not feeling as fast as this process requires us to be. That is not partnership; that is procedural tokenism. If speed is prioritised over relationships, where will this leave communities? For communities, for iwi, and for those charged with protecting the environment and upholding Treaty obligations, this bill creates uncertainty. It compresses timelines, it cuts consultation, and it puts economic growth ahead of genuine and honest engagement.

I am confident that all of us in this House want to see growth, obviously, amongst our communities. We want affordable food and success for local businesses, but true progress is not about moving faster; it is about moving together. Fast tracking without proper partnership risks deepening mistrust and undermining the very relationships that good policy depends on. On the surface, this bill sounds reasonable. After all, we all want lower food prices and better access to groceries for New Zealanders, but if the Government is serious about improving the lives of all New Zealanders, they should ensure that Māori have equal opportunity. This bill as it stands does not achieve that balance. It moves us away from partnership and towards a model where consultation becomes an inconvenience rather than a cornerstone of decision making. That is why Te Pāti Māori cannot support it. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou.

The question is, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.