Offshore Renewable Energy Bill

I call on Government order of the day No. 4. I call the Hon Matt Doocey. Is there a legislative statement?

Arena Williams: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears to me that there is no item on the Order Paper that is ready to be presented. The Government is not ready to present the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and they do not have a legislative statement to present, so my suggestion to you is that it would be appropriate to ring the bell and if in 10 minutes the Government is not ready to present that, then this bill should be discharged.

Cameron Luxton: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker?

Just a minute, I’m going to take some advice because I actually have taken a call. The member stood. But the clock is ticking.

on behalf of the Minister for Energy: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

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

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I move, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you for the opportunity today to talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I do rise on behalf of my good friend and colleague the Hon Simon Watts, Minister for Energy. I think most people would agree with this bill coming in for its second reading—that its time has come. This is a bill that is supported by many Kiwis. We do know the support it had for the first reading, and it has then gone through the select committee process. What we do know is that the select committee process is an important time for people to have their say. It actually is quite often the time that parties do get together. We’re criticised quite a bit that we’re not as collaborative or cross-party, working on bills like this, so I do want to acknowledge the select committee that has worked quite diligently on this bill as it comes back through for the second reading as well.

Renewable energy generated offshore, including from offshore wind farms, could support New Zealand to meet its long-term energy needs, ensuring the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Let’s be very clear, because what we are going to hear from Opposition parties is the challenging of the Government’s position in this space. Let’s be very clear: we are committed, we know this is important for Kiwis, and we know it’s important for “New Zealand Inc.” Actually, when you think about it—about rebuilding this economy—it is important that we get our energy sector right and our offshore energy sector right, which can support this Government’s focus on reducing the cost of living.

The Offshore Renewable Energy Bill establishes a legislative regime to govern the construction, the operation, and the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy developments. When you look around the main provisions of this bill—and, as I said in my introductory comments, I do want to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who have worked hard on this bill as well—it starts off with a two-stage permitting regime designed to give potential developers greater certainty and to enable the selection of developments that best meet New Zealanders’ interests.

I suppose you would start with the position of “Why is this bill needed?” It delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, and that is important. It’s part of the Government’s Electrify NZ plan. This is something that we have spoken of not only in Government but, actually, in Opposition, when we stood on that policy of electrifying New Zealand, and that is the mandate we got in the last election—to bring bills like this through the House. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them certainty to invest. What we do know is that when people want to risk their private capital to invest, it is the role of Government to give them certainty and clarity, and that’s what this bill will give them today. The bill will also enable risks to the Crown and to the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I suppose, the next point to raise is “What does this bill do?” Well, firstly, a feasibility permit gives the holder certainty that no other offshore renewable energy developers will be approved to develop the same site while they undertake feasibility studies. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental consents, resource or marine, in the permit area. It’s also about how a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins, and it provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. It will complement the environmental consents and other approvals required to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure.

It also, you might be interested to know, limits the ability for developers to land-bank certain areas or impede other developments. Permits will be “use it or lose it”, which I think is important with the provisions, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. The Minister for Energy will consider commercial permit applications and must have regard to readiness to carry out the proposed development, compliance with requirements in the legislation, conditions of the applicant’s feasibility permit, and the applicant’s ability to put in place an acceptable financial security arrangement.

Very important for this Government is the focus on consultation and engagement with relevant Māori groups. Applications for feasibility and commercial permits will be required to consult with relevant Māori groups ahead of submitting their applications. The Minister for Energy must consult with relevant Māori groups before granting any permit, and the provisions in this bill relating to upholding Treaty settlements and associated rights and interests align with those in the fast-track approvals legislation. I must say, it was encouraging to hear, through the submissions process, the support for fast track and thinking about how we deal with offshore renewable energy. What we do know is that, under the last Government, the issue was around consents; there was interest, but obviously people were waiting—it was reported publicly—eight years for consents. That can’t be continued, so that’s why this Government, quite rightly, is making a change.

Under decommissioning and financial security, the bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of its life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holder or infrastructure owner fails to meet their obligation to decommission.

When we look at regulation powers, the bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedural and implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit, and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees and levies to recover the costs of the regulator. Shortly after the bill is passed, I intend to introduce feasibility-permit and cost-recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as possible. That is, really, the focus from this Government: ensuring that we, quite literally, are getting things done, and it’s great to see the focus here of moving at pace and ensuring that we will operationalise this regime as fast as possible as well.

Just to conclude, the amendments will enable the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits could be invited for offshore renewable projects where there is a pause on granting new permits for seabed mining under the Crown Minerals Act. It’s a real privilege to take this opportunity to speak on this bill this afternoon. It’s a bill that I’ve been watching through the legislative programme, one that I’m very supportive of, and I support my colleague the Minister for Energy, Simon Watts. I commend this bill to the House.

As it did at the first reading and as it did during the select committee process, the Labour Party supports this bill at the second reading. This is a timely bill and, actually, it’s a very collaborative one. It builds on work that was under way under the previous Government that was picked up and carried on with by the current Government, and it is much-needed legislation.

When we talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the obvious application is in wind farms. Of course, we are experiencing, frankly, an over-abundance of wind today, and so I just want to recall in the House today that people in Canterbury, people in Kaikōura, people in Tasman-Nelson, and now people in Wellington are experiencing some pretty severe wind conditions today. Much as we love the energy that can be generated by wind, there is some pretty terrible stuff going on, and so I hope that everyone is staying safe, staying inside, and looking after their neighbours as much as possible, and that we’re generally doing all that we can to get ourselves through this incredibly windy period today.

I’m a Taranaki girl, born and bred in Taranaki—

Cameron Brewer: Whangamomona.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —from Whangamomona, which, to be fair, is right inland. But I mostly grew up in New Plymouth and spent some time in Hāwera, as well, and things like that—there you are, Mr Brewer. It’s a windy place. We think of Wellington as being windy, but something about Taranaki is that the wind offshore is pretty constant.

Hon Member: World class—it’s world class.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s a world-class wind, which does make it highly suitable for offshore wind farming, and, of course, we also have an abundance of wind onshore in New Zealand.

One of the interesting things about offshore wind farming is that there is a fairly constant flow of wind and of air so that the turbine is turning maybe about 40 percent of the time, which is actually pretty good for land-based wind turbines. It’s about 40 percent of the time in, say, the Ruahine wind farms and things like that, and the offshore wind farms can turn pretty much all of the time. So it’s a very reliable source of power with offshore wind farms, and it’s a source of power that we need to tap in to if we are going to meet out climate commitments. If we are going to do our bit to meet the existential threat of climate change, we need to move to renewable energy, and this is an excellent way to do so.

There is very good reason for the support across the House for this particular bill. There are some wrinkles in it that I do think we need to have a bit of a look at, and I know that they will be examined quite closely during the committee of the whole House stage.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s report, and to the particular section on managing competing uses. Now, this is quite an important issue that needed to be worked through, and it has been worked through at the select committee. The interesting thing is that sitting in the legislative statement from the Minister for Energy is a really interesting bit, talking about progressing changes to the bill through an Amendment Paper. I’m going to direct the House to paragraph 6 in the legislative statement presented by the Minister, where it says that the Government has actually announced that it has plans “to progress changes to the Bill through an amendment paper. This is intended to address issues raised by submitters and Select Committee in relation to competition for space between seabed mining and offshore renewable energy.”

This is not merely a theoretical concern. We’ve had in the past year or so a huge push for offshore seabed mining off the south coast of Taranaki—the same south coast of Taranaki that would also be an ideal place for an offshore wind farm. Those two uses are going to be particularly difficult to put together, but here we have reports from October 2024—so about this time a year ago—of wind power firm BlueFloat Energy cancelling its plan for wind farms in New Zealand, and the major reason was that a seabed mining firm wanted to mine offshore from the south coast of Taranaki. Those two uses are incompatible.

It’s a bit of a frustrating one, because an offshore wind farm is something that is clearly compatible with our climate goals, but seabed mining for iron ores is not necessarily compatible with our climate goals. We actually need to have a think about which of those projects should go ahead in that really incredibly valuable space off the south coast of Taranaki. So I’m pleased to see that the Minister is intending to bring in that Amendment Paper. We’ll want to have a really close look at it during the committee stage to work out whether it’s going to meet the issues that were raised by submitters during the select committee process and the issues that have been raised in this House right from the start.

It’s also an issue there that I’m sure that tangata whenua will want to be sure is examined closely because, again, it’s an issue to do with Māori-Crown relations there, and how resources that belong to the whole country are used. We’ll look forward to that debate at the committee of the whole House stage.

There is one other set of issues that I wanted to raise around offshore wind farms. It is pretty important that we go ahead with them, particularly around places like Taranaki. Taranaki has called itself the energy province for a long time. I remember, as a girl growing up there, seeing the lights of the oil-drilling rigs offshore, and, of course, there’s still a fair amount of work around fossil fuels that still goes on around Taranaki and there are wells drilling for it, bringing it up, and using it. Now, we are very clear that the use of fossil fuels needs to stop if we are to meet our 2050 climate goals, and that will have to take a transition, but one of the difficulties for us as a labour party is the jobs that are associated with that—the jobs that are associated with mining, with oil wells, and with that drilling for fossil fuels.

There are people who have worked in those industries who have developed really high levels of skill in managing critical equipment and in managing and actually creating the machinery, adapting it to the particular conditions, and maintaining it, and they are valuable jobs. Of course, as we move out of using fossil fuels, that means that jobs go as well, and we do need to find viable industries for people to have jobs in that is good, fulfilling, worthwhile work. It just seems to me that the offshore wind industry is one of those areas where people can work and where there are jobs to be had. They are trade jobs. They are jobs where our sparkies can be employed, where our engineers can be employed, and where workers of all sorts can have work to do that actually really contributes to the country, that is well-paid, and that gives that sense of standing—the sense that when they get up and go to work in the morning, they are doing a job that is worth doing.

So as we move away from using fossil fuels and as we move and transition through to a green and renewable economy, this is one of the tasks we must engage in: ensuring that people continue to have good and meaningful work. Offshore wind farms seem like an ideal place for that kind of work. It keeps people employed and it actually generates good for New Zealand. It is part of the work that we must do to become an energy-independent nation, and that’s a great goal for us to have. Why? Because we do not want to be dependent on overseas fuel suppliers. We actually want to have our own energy independence here, in New Zealand.

For a whole variety of reasons, we support this bill. We support this bill because it has been a collaborative effort, beginning in the last Government and continuing through into this Government. We support this work because it supports our climate goals. We support this work because it will create jobs for people. This is a good bill. There’s stuff we still need to iron out—stuff we want to see at the committee of the whole House stage—but Labour is proud to stand in support of this bill today.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It is my pleasure to talk to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and, as you might expect, the Green Party does support renewables. However, we do have some things to say about this bill given that the Government is promoting fast track as a solution to everything, and we’ve seen what happened with fast track with Trans-Tasman Resources being written into the legislation and BlueFloat floating away. It is time that we focused on the renewables transition we want rather than simply seeking to extract more minerals and destroy our reputation internationally.

Simon Court: You can’t build wind turbines without minerals.

SCOTT WILLIS: Oh, that’s an interesting comment—you can’t build wind turbines without minerals. Actually, there is so much potential. We see in Scandinavia wooden wind turbine towers. We see so much circularity in wind now, but I am surprised that—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just need to check. Is the date 2025 or 1825?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Are you trifling with the House, Mr Court?

Francisco Hernandez: That is not a point of order. Sit down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I did not accept the point of order. He was trifling with the House. Mr Willis, please continue.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are used to the trivial nature of the Government. However, this is a serious matter. It’s a serious matter that does merit consideration, and I appreciated being able to sit through the submissions at the select committee. We heard concerns from iwi and hapū about the need to be engaged, the need to be consulted, the need to be participating in the offshore renewable transition that we’re seeing. We heard the concerns about Trans-Tasman Resources very strongly.

What I would have loved to have done was spend some time in the Cabinet when this bill was being discussed, because I wonder how the Hon Shane Jones was able to manage the restrictions we require on extraction to enable the offshore renewables transition.

This bill is something we will support because we want to see renewables powering our nation. We want to see our nation fully powered by renewables—not simply our electricity system; our whole energy system. We want to see our mobility powered by renewables. We want to see the end to the de-industrialisation that is under way. We want to see our industry and our manufacturing supported by renewable electricity. In that sense, we certainly will support this bill. What we saw and what we heard through the submissions was the need for hapū and iwi to be involved, and we’re pleased to see some strengthening. It’s not all the way we would’ve liked but it is some strengthening for participation in the bill.

We’ve also heard that there are real risks even though we’ve got some controls. There are still risks if there are multiple uses in that area, and these risks don’t magically disappear when we limit some things, because if we’ve got large boats that are seeking to operate in the area, we have risks to big bits of kit—to our wind turbines. We’re not wholeheartedly pleased with where this has got to, but there are definitely benefits there.

The most important issue, I think, was that we do need to make sure that iwi and hapū are more involved in what happens in the marine environment. This was the most prominent issue that came up through submissions, and I’m not convinced that we have got there yet with this bill. I think we will need to improve it when we take Government in 2026, but at least this gives us something to work on. As my colleague from Labour talked about, this is something that we have worked on collectively across the House through the previous Government to this Government, and we will keep working on it in the next Government as well.

We have a focus to make sure not only that we build the renewables we need but that we involve the communities that are affected in those buildings. And this is where we take issue with fast track, because what fast track is doing is cutting out the community voices, cutting out iwi and hapū voices, and that is problematic. That is why we have taken a position on fast track that will ensure that we revoke those consents that we don’t deem consistent with community interest, with our climate interest.

I also want to address the natural and built environment legislation, the fast track legislation, the enabling legislation, not just the offshore renewables legislation but the lack of legislation for renewables onshore as well, because we had a promise from this Government that by June 2023, 2024, we would have a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. That still has not been delivered. We had a promise that we would have national environmental standards. That still has not been delivered.

So while it is good to get this bit of legislation through, we’re seeing a real problem with the rest of the renewables transition, the faster, quicker, easier renewables transition, which is onshore, and we don’t have the legislation that was promised back last year. We are still waiting, and I particularly take issue with this because in my pre-parliamentary days I have worked on renewables. There was the Board of Inquiry Report into the Proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation in 2010. It was gazetted and implemented in 2011. Since then, numerous reviews of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation have made it really clear that it made no impact whatsoever in enabling renewable electricity generation through the Resource Management Act. It’s made no difference whatsoever.

There have been attempts to replace it because it was, I believe, the first national policy statement. There have been attempts to replace it, but they have not been completed, and this is what we’re seeing here—we’ve got one little bit of legislation that has taken quite some time beyond December 2024, when it was going to be delivered, and now we still do not have the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation. We’re still waiting.

This is really problematic because we’ve been told that this Government wants to double or triple renewable electricity generation, yet it can’t deliver on time the legislation we need to meet that target. That’s the problem. We’ve got to get it right. If only this Government did not rush legislation and get it wrong so often. If the Government took the time to do the work instead of trying to fast-track things and causing social disruption, they could choose to do things right and deliver what they promised. Unfortunately, they failed to deliver far too often.

We will support this bill. We’re pleased that it has got here finally—finally. But we also want to see the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation delivered, with national environmental standards, so that we can fast-track onshore wind and solar, so that we can build the renewable nation that we could be if we had a Government that knew what it was doing.

This is really, really important because at the moment, the $10 billion per annum of fossil fuels we import costs us, costs everybody, costs every household heavily, in a cost of living crisis. And that that $10 billion we can wipe off the slate by generating our own electricity here, by powering our households, our industry, our businesses, our mobility with the electrons we generate onshore and offshore here in Aotearoa.

So we will support this bill but we do not feel as though all our concerns have been addressed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a day when Wellington reminds us how much power the wind has, it’s fitting that we advance this bill to turn energy into jobs, investment, and reliable electricity for New Zealanders. ACT supports this bill wholeheartedly at its second reading. The select committee’s work has produced a clearer, faster investor-grade regime, putting flexibility first, commercial second—with transparent decisions, obligations to decommission, of course, and engagement with iwi and hapū being important too, and the ability to manage the safety and coexistence at sea of different types of activities.

This bill fixes what matters. It provides certainty over ambiguity, pace over drift, and, above all, accountability over open-ended process. This bill’s not about slogans; it’s about unlocking billions in private capital and safeguarding the marine environment and other users. Over the mid to long term, offshore renewables, especially offshore wind, will complement hydro, geothermal, solar, and the growing contribution from utility scale or rooftop solar. Together, these resources can lift supply, they can sharpen competition, and they help keep power affordable for Kiwi households and businesses. But we should also be honest. Variable renewables actually need a reliable, firm supply so that they can do their part of the heavy lifting. For the foreseeable future, not just as a temporary measure, New Zealand will need flexible thermal generation powered by gas and, yes, of course, that reliable trusty black nugget, coal. We need to keep the lights on when the wind is low and the sun doesn’t shine, or maybe the rain doesn’t show up either, and that’s why we’ll always need thermal. In fact, proponents of renewable projects have told me—and I know they will have told other members of this House and the Government—that without reliable thermal firming, the type of renewable energy projects like offshore wind simply won’t get off the ground, because those developers cannot sell offshore wind or any other type of renewable to their customers unless they have an insurance policy in thermal firming to back it up.

Now, the committee engaged seriously with the challenge of competing uses in the marine environment. Investors simply won’t commit to a project if they feel that their need to use a space can be undermined by somebody else coming along and getting a consent after they’ve already started planning. It’s important that we make space for different types of activities, and that’s why this bill does provide space for offshore wind projects but also recognises that we do need to get those critical minerals from places like the seabed in offshore Taranaki that the former speaker from the Green Party was so concerned about. While he proposes you can build wind turbines with sticks and bits of wood, I tell you what: the wind turbines coming out of North America, Europe, and China right now are made out of critical minerals; they’re made out of epoxy resins made from oil and gas and coal. You cannot deliver renewable energy without the minerals that go into manufacturing these components. Look, just to reflect back on something we often hear from the Greens, educate yourself greenies, because you can’t have one without the other.

Now, we should also learn from Australia, particularly our cousins in Victoria, where declared areas for offshore renewables and transparent milestones give developers clarity and give communities confidence about what’s coming next. New Zealand must be at least as bankable as our neighbours in Australia because developers will judge whether to invest in Australia, if it’s easier, or New Zealand, if it’s easier. They certainly won’t come and invest in New Zealand if we make the playing field too hard to play on.

Passing the bill is necessary but not sufficient, and the previous speaker from the Green Party alluded to the fact that this Government is getting on with fixing what matters in terms of a National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Generation and for electricity networks. We’ve consulted on those in the past few months—

Scott Willis: You promised it in June last year. Where the hell is it?

SIMON COURT: —and I would have expected that member to know that and, if he was really involved, to actually have made a submission on what should be in those national policy statements. I understand that the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, will have more to say about the results of that consultation in the near future, and I’m sure it will address many of the concerns that the Green Party member had, no matter how misinformed. As I said, passing the bill is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. The next action, consistent with my delegation from the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, is to deliver an environmental management framework for offshore wind that provides a clear and reasonable consenting pathway across the coastal and marine area. Applicants need to know upfront what standards apply, how environmental effects will be managed—for example, on marine mammals, on the sea floor—and how long decisions will take. If we get that right, we move from torque to turbines, from potential to actual projects.

We also need smart coordination on the shore side. I do agree with that member from the Green Party that transmission planning and making sure we’ve got the resource management system coordinated is really important so that we keep pace with new generation as it comes on stream; ports capable of handling the large components, the wind turbines, the towers and the bases; and training pathways so that New Zealanders can take the jobs this industry creates. The wishful thinking of the Labour Party, since announcing a just transition and cancelling an entire industry like offshore oil and gas exploration, is like giving people a pink slip and a pat on the head and a “wish you well”. This Government does not agree with that approach. We believe in making sure that people have the skills and are supported to take a role in this industry.

When consenting, when infrastructure, and when skills and jobs align, costs fall, timelines shorten, and confidence grows. That is what this Government is all about. That is what fixing what matters looks like—targeted reforms that reduce uncertainty, that reward progress, protect the environment, and make private investment do the heavy lifting. That’s why ACT is trusted with important work streams in this Government. We focus on outcomes—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Ha, ha!

SIMON COURT: —rules that are clear—from the giggling Gertie over there—decisions that are timely, and responsibilities that are enforced. That’s what this Government is doing. That’s what ACT’s role in this Government is to do, again, through the resource management reforms that complement offshore wind.

So, on this very windy Wellington day, let’s harness what we’ve already got. Let’s pass the bill. Let’s deliver the environmental framework next and show that New Zealand can welcome offshore renewables on the same terms and conditions as Victoria, Australia, Europe, and the United States. ACT supports this bill. Let’s fix what matters and secure reliable energy. Let’s get on with it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill in its second reading. As the previous speaker has alluded to, we’re not having a lack of wind across the country today, but probably the wind that we are all experiencing across the country is something that we don’t want to see at the levels they are at the moment.

The previous speaker also spoke about how this bill can create jobs and investment, and another important part is around energy security. I do want to highlight the select committee, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that’s chaired by Andy Foster, and the work that they’ve done on the bill. I had the opportunity in the first reading to take our first reading speech on this, as well, and there has been a number of changes to the bill by way of amendments. I’m sure that there will be further amendments through the committee of the whole House stage, but it’s good to see the work that’s been done from the chair and the committee members.

Just as I alluded to in that first reading speech, a number of us—I guess it’s almost all of us in this House, at some point in time—get to see the opportunities across the country. I’ve had the opportunity to go to Taranaki and talk to some of these companies that are looking at setting up these wind turbines. I also had the opportunity this year to travel to Taiwan, where they’ve actually got some of these already up and running. Obviously, seeing these structures and how big they are, you actually get a presence of the size of these turbines that we’re talking about and the planning that needs to go into them. It’s not just the rules and the regulatory regime that needs to be set up but the logistics of setting one of these up in different ports. I know they were talking to me about the construction sites—how they would actually even piece them all together was quite a puzzle.

The fast-track bill: I do want to speak about that, as we hear often in the House about the fast-track bill and, at the moment, I think there’s 22 renewable projects in the fast-track bill. Some of them are the hydro opportunities, some of them are solar, but some of them are the wind opportunities. It is disappointing, as we’ve gone through fast track, that the Opposition parties have not realised the potential to actually get some runs on the board, especially in the renewable space. We often hear—

Glen Bennett: There are already dozens of consents.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Now we’re hearing from the other side that some of these things are consented, but we’re actually trying to create certainty, and when we come to renewable energy, you would think that, across the House, we could come to a bipartisan situation where we go, “Yes, we can see the potential here”, and fast-track and actually take away the red tape and the rules around this stuff, and actually get some runs on the board. So it’s great to see that these projects are included, and, actually, let’s see some of these getting developed.

Through this bill, we see that it’s just a two-stage permitting regime. It’s the feasibility first—we hear, also on my site visit and just discussing with these potential companies that they need to have the feasibility opportunity, and then going into some commercial permits after that. So that, to me, is very, very sensible. I do just really want to say how important it is to see these projects now and developed. I think, across the House, we should just be celebrating the fact that we’re actually getting some of this work done. The bill does see that this will enhance the clarity around the legislation. It does give some flexibility—and again, because it’s a pretty new concept here in New Zealand, we’re going to have to have some flexibility, some understanding, as we get these under way.

But, importantly, we need investor confidence, and I think the previous speaker again touched on that with the oil and gas ban. We don’t want to see people rising in this House saying, “Hey, maybe through fast track this will be consented, but we’re actually going to have another look and maybe we’re going to decline it further down the track.” That isn’t going to give confidence to renewable energy, just as in other sectors when people say things like : “Oh, maybe further down the track, we’ll really look at this and decline things.” That won’t give confidence to investors to come here and invest.

I do highlight, and I think we have heard across the House, the competing interests, and there are obviously things like seabed mining and wanting to use the same kind of areas as the offshore wind. I think that’s an important issue to discuss. I think you could look at it something like spatial planning; in the Resource Management Act, we look at spatial planning on the land, and maybe here we need spatial planning in the sea, so it’s that same kind of concept.

Another really important part, as well, is the decommissioning of this infrastructure. As great as it will be to get the infrastructure in, there will be a time and a place to actually have these decommissioned, and to have a plan in place for that. So this is about futureproofing energy security and infrastructure—and on that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation and in the spirit of the cross-party comity which has gripped the House in supporting the passage of this bill. I’ll highlight one thing from each previous speaker that I do agree with, starting with the member Deborah Russell, when she pointed out that it was good to see the Government continue the framework that was set up by the previous Labour Government. I say “Labour Government” deliberately, because sometimes speakers across the House call it a Labour-Green Government, but, actually, there has never been a Labour-Green Government. The first term of the Labour Government was a New Zealand First coalition Government, with confidence and supply from the Green Party. The second term of the Labour Government was a Labour majority Government with a cooperation agreement with the Green Party—

Cameron Brewer: Are you trying to distance yourself?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: No, it’s not to distance ourselves; it’s just to factually outline the things that have happened.

Then there was the contribution from the member Scott Willis. Of course, like the Government members, I have to say I agree with everything that Willis says.

Hon Members: Oh!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I agree with everything that the Willis on our side says.

The member Simon Court said that we should look to Australia for our energy policy and our wider policy settings. I do agree with aspects of what he said. Australia has set a very aggressive and impressive emissions reduction target of 62 percent to 70 percent. If you contrast that with New Zealand’s, of 51 percent to 55 percent by 2035, I do think there are things we can learn from them in that regard. The member Simon Court also said that ACT exercised disproportionate influence in this Government and was trusted with important jobs, and we certainly agree with them in that regard; they’ve definitely exercised disproportionate influence. If you look at the things like the Regulatory Standards Bill, if you look at the Treaty principles bill, if you look at charter schools—if you look at all sorts of legislation—we definitely agree with him that ACT has definitely been a powerful and driving influence on this Government. We agree with him in that regard.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: ACT and New Zealand First

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: ACT and New Zealand First—yes, definitely. I’ll turn to the contribution by the member Jamie Arbuckle, because he said that it was important to have a security of energy policy and to ensure a stable transition between different energy policies across different types of Government

Look, that’s why we’ve called on them to not reverse the oil and gas ban, because one of the things we need to do is give confidence to people who want to invest in New Zealand. I do believe we are giving them confidence in the House today, because the House is sending a very strong signal that you should invest in offshore renewables and that you should invest in renewable energy policy, because that is something that every single political party in this House does agree on. The message is: invest in renewables.

What we don’t want the Government parties to do is give false hope to people who might want to invest in the sunset oil and gas industries, because that is something that we, in the Opposition, have taken a united stance on in saying, ”No more investments in that regard.” In that regard, we do want to give policy certainty, and the policy certainty we do want to give is partly being granted through this bill, is for investors to come to New Zealand, invest in offshore renewable energy, and invest in renewable energy in general, and not to invest in the declining sunset fossil gas industry, because that’s not something that’s going to be continued and supported across the next Government.

While we do support this legislation, we do feel that this is one step forward and 10 steps back in the context of the wider energy policy taken by this Government. There have certainly been some positive initiatives, like this one, like the wood and biogas energy strategy that was announced, either yesterday or a couple of days ago, but that has to be contrasted with the wider cuts and what has been taken away in terms of clean energy policy. One of the things that they took away when they first came into office was the decarbonising industry fund, which was a really important component. They took away clean energy subsidies, which was also another part of the transition to a clean energy policy. While we do welcome this as one step forward, we do decry the 10 steps backwards that this Government has taken on energy policy.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill delivers on our Government’s commitments to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, as part of this Government’s Electrifying New Zealand plan. If you let me just provide a little bit of an update: obviously, this morning, the country has seen a significant impact on our electricity network, in particular at the top of the South Island, with the top of the South Island and the West Coast losing power. I’m glad to report—Madam Speaker, you may be interested in this—that Reefton is now back on, and all substations are also back on across the top of the South and the West Coast. I want to recognise those staff who are out there in these conditions, providing repairs to our network, and acknowledge their work.

This bill today is not merely administrative; it is a measure to unlock a significant new source of clean power for our economy. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to help grow our economy, powered by clean energy, and reach New Zealand’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them greater certainty to invest, as well as allow them and the Government to select the developments that best meet our national interests. The bill also enables risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I want to use the time that I’ve got to run through a few of the key features of the bill and feedback that we have received during the select committee process. The bill introduces a requirement for all forms of commercial offshore renewable energy infrastructure to obtain two permits: a feasibility permit and a commercial permit. The feasibility permit grants the holder exclusive rights for a specified site for a defined period. This exclusivity is vital. It provides a secure window for developers to undertake the complexity and costly feasibility studies and apply for the necessary environmental consents. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental resource or marine permits in that area. Feasibility permit applications will be assessed on a comparative basis and awarded to the projects that are most likely to deliver benefits to New Zealand. Secondly, a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins. This permit provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction, and that process incorporates the necessary function that limits the ability for developers to land bank certain areas or to impede other developments. Permits will have a use-it-or-lose-it provision, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. I think that’s pretty sensible.

The bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of their life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holders or infrastructure owners fail to meet their obligations to decommission. This is, of course, as we will all know, consistent with the standard practice internationally. New Zealand implemented similar mechanisms for oil and gas in 2021 through amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Other protections in the bill, of course, include the ability to have safety zones to protect the infrastructure and people from intentional or accidental harm. The bill enables safety zones of up to 500 metres to be established around offshore renewable generation infrastructure and substations, and this will prohibit unauthorised people or vessels from entering or undertaking certain activity in that area. The bill enables the administration, monitoring, and enforcement of this regime, and it is intended that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertake that role.

The bill empowers enforcement officers and safety zone officers to undertake a wide range of compliance and enforcement activities. The bill also includes a range of offenses and penalties for breaches of the regime, from $3,000 to $10 million in fines, through permit revocation or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Significant fines and penalties were considered necessary in certain instances to provide an effective deterrent, given the financial capability likely to permit holders. The bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedure on implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees, levies, and to recover the costs to the regulator.

Shortly after the bill is passed, we intend to introduce feasibility-permit and cost-recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as practical. This bill was transferred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in December last year. The committee received 71 written submissions and 21 oral submissions. I want to thank those who submitted for their interest and their constructive contributions. I also want to thank my parliamentary colleagues, many of which are here today, for their help and consideration in these matters. The committee recommended changes: greater flexibility for determining financial securities regarding decommissioning, removing the cap on the total duration of commercial permit, and, of course, defining the type of projects that are not covered by the legislation, such as research and demonstration projects. These changes will improve the workability of the bill and increase certainty for developers.

A key recommendation from the select committee concerned the issue of competition for space between offshore renewable energy and seabed mining. To provide necessary investment certainty for both sectors, Cabinet has agreed to an amendment that will allow the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits for offshore renewable projects can be invited. This action would occur while a pause remains granted for new seabed mining permits, under the Crown Minerals Act, in the designated area. This measure will create clear pathways for development, ensuring that our offshore wind potential can be realised without undue regulatory friction. The Amendment Paper, which is currently being drafted, will be debated during the committee of the whole House phase.

We have covered the main features of this bill, and I want to conclude by refocusing the House on the true opportunities that this bill unlocks. This bill does more than set up a regime for offshore renewable energy; it creates an economy that is going to be powered by clean energy. It is a catalyst for high-value job creation across the country, particularly in our regions. The billions of dollars in private investment that this framework attracts will translate directly to demand for engineers, specialised marine technicians, and other high-value jobs.

By providing a clear, robust, and certain regulatory foundation, this bill guarantees that New Zealand is ready to capture this massive economic opportunity. With that, I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise to take a call on this piece of legislation, I reflect on how this House is often slow and often is playing catch up. I’m not targeting anyone in this, because I think successive Governments have dropped the ball or haven’t actually been ahead of the ball. And so we’re here and we support this legislation, but it’s probably something we should have been considering 20 years ago. It’s probably something we should have been considering at the start of the new millennium in terms of what we need to be doing to ensure that we burn no more fossil fuels, that we stop extracting those from the earth, that we find ways to ensure that we meet our Paris climate targets to make sure that we’re doing what’s right for future generations so we can look them in the eyes and say, “We did what was right for you.” But we didn’t, and that’s on all of us in previous Governments to consider. But we’re here and we’re making some movements, and it is the right thing.

As I look and read parts of the legislation, and obviously the impact it has specifically for us who are in Taranaki—it impacts our people, it impacts our environment, and it also impacts our climate. As we went through the process in previous years around looking at decarbonisation, as we worked on the process around looking at Taranaki 2050 and what it could be—a future beyond oil and gas—this definitely has been front and centre in terms of offshore renewable wind or renewable energy and what it could be and what it should be, and how we get the regulations right.

I just have a few comments to make, because we’re happy to support it and move on. But I just reflect on the fact that there are, as was said by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell earlier, several organisations and businesses that have been working on business cases and on studies on what this could be in terms of renewable wind offshore. Of course, we’ve had BlueFloat who were there, who were in the mix and have pulled out, have moved on, because of the challenges of getting the regime and getting the settings right. Because, obviously, as a business case, you need certainty to make sure that your business case stacks up. But we also have others that are hanging around. We also have Wind Quarry Zealandia—I think they’re called—who I remember meeting with a number of years ago, who had been looking at the possibility of work off the coast of Taranaki. Also, the Taranaki Offshore Partnership, which brings in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, who are still looking at what could be done.

So this piece of legislation, as it makes its way through this House, is part of setting out and laying out certainty, not only for the ocean floor but also for the marine life, for—like I say—the people, the workers, and the economy of Taranaki and of New Zealand, and, as has been said by many people this morning, the fact is that we are in a position where we need to invest heavily in what should be offshore—and any form of—renewable energy to make our country not only more affordable but the greenest country in the world.

My other point I want to make is around decommissioning. I made sure I flicked through and tried to understand what this legislation was doing around decommissioning, because that has been a huge bone of contention for us in Taranaki, in terms of the Tūī Area oil fields back several years ago. But it also has been an issue for this Parliament, or for the Government of the time. It was just under $450 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent in terms of the decommissioning. Tamarind had abandoned the field and had gone back to their home overseas, and it left the uncertainty and the potential environmental disaster of what could have been if the Government of the day didn’t step in, didn’t front up with the money, with taxpayers’ money, for the decommissioning process to ensure it was sealed correctly, to ensure there were no potential environmental issues. We don’t want that to happen again, because we know that the purse strings in the Treasury are tight. We know that we need to be investing money in clean energy, into things like health, into homes, into making sure that we have good jobs. So when the Government had to spend $450 million because a private firm had just abandoned and gone off back home across the ocean, then we need to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

So looking at what this legislation does: there are obligations regarding decommissioning and financial security to ensure the permit holders and owners of those reflected places do the decommissioning and are liable for it, which we need to make sure. And during the committee stage, I’m sure we’ll be asking a lot of questions to make sure we get that right because we don’t want another Tūī oil field debacle. We don’t want another rookie business riding into New Zealand, doing their thing, abandoning, and then the Government and us taxpayers having to foot the bill.

The other one, just finally, is around the purchasing of permits and what that looks like. We need to reflect on that, because we don’t want this legislation to enable someone to be able to buy a patch of ocean floor, hold on to it—you know, invest not in infrastructure, not in building any wind turbines, but sitting on it—to be able to sell in the future and to make a profit, and nothing to actually be done. So we need to make sure, in terms of how that looks when it comes to offshore renewable energy, that we get that right.

Finally, I just want to mention the benefits of offshore renewable energy. Looking around the world, I think there’s a real challenge because of fast track and because of seabed mining and the uncertainty that creates. It’s dangerous and it’s potentially a huge issue for us in Taranaki, but more than that, for our environment, for our ocean floor, but also for our marine life and what is there. I’ve looked around the world at several offshore wind farms and, in fact, where they actually enhance the ecosystem of an ocean bed, where there’s actually artificial reefs. And there’s been even—I forget what they call it, but it’s padding, that when they’re drilling the holes to put the wind turbines in, they have cushions around to protect the different sea life from the vibrations, and what it actually does in terms of the regeneration and the bringing back to life of what is there and what should have been there.

I think we need to take this into the committee stage and ask some serious questions to make sure that it is fit for purpose, to make sure the decommissioning regime is set up to protect us as taxpayers, but also to protect the environment and to protect our workers. We support this legislation, and we look forward to it heading into the committee stage.

Well, this is a good bill, but you wouldn’t get that, necessarily, from listening to the speech of the previous member, Glen Bennett. He brought up so many “if”, “but”, and “what” questions, which made you question whether this is a good bill.

But it is a good bill and it’s a good bill for Taranaki, I say to the MP from Taranaki, and it’s a good bill for New Zealand. This is a bill that’s about saying yes—yes to jobs, yes to economic growth, yes to foreign investment, yes to energy security, and yes to meeting our climate commitments.

It’s been a pleasure to be part of this bill as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We had a lot of submissions on this. What was really fantastic was seeing the number of foreign investors that were coming to the table and saying, “Here’s what we need to unleash this sector in New Zealand.” I’m really impressed and proud of the fact that there is a lot of foreign investment that wishes to come to New Zealand, invest in regions like the great Taranaki region, and power this sector up for the future. But there are a number of things that we made in select committee based on the feedback that we had from these foreign investors.

We’ve heard it today—that these foreign investors need certainty and they need to make sure that the economics can work because this is a tough sector to actually make viable for commercial businesses in terms of setting up the infrastructure, setting up the pipeline that’s required to connect to the grid, and then making sure that the commercials actually work. So we did make a number of changes to the bill around the feasibility permits: changing the permitting regime; making sure that the decommissioning obligations were clarified, including being clear about what infrastructure is excluded as part of the feasibility and commission regime; and also dealing with the competing offshore renewable energy applications and how that was to be addressed.

There is, I think, substantial opportunity for New Zealand in this area. I’m looking forward to getting this bill passed as quickly as possible. We know that there are going to be some amendments in the committee stage that deal with the new secondary legislation instrument, and the Minister Simon Watts has outlined that today. So this is a great day for energy security, jobs, the economy, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.