Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill

Good morning, members. The committee is resumed on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Related and consequential amendments”, and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

Madam Chair—that was very loud!

Hon Member: Good morning!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, good morning, everyone.

Hon Member: Full of enthusiasm!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s great—it’s great to be loud! We are now on Part 2, as you just said, and, of course, in Part 2 is the schedule that names, specifically, the critical infrastructure projects. The Minister told us yesterday, in our Part 1 debate, that these projects cannot be changed—the project name cannot be changed; projects cannot be added to it except for going through a normal legislative process. The project description and the location—they can be amended by an Order in Council.

There’s been some discussion by some members about some particular projects that are on this list. One of them is the Carrington residential development. We understand that they are Government houses and roads, and it could be a mix of both those houses and the roads. I did have a question that I haven’t heard an answer from the Minister on, on local government houses—if they could potentially, in the future, be included in this list. I also haven’t got an answer on why the amendment to section 185 of the Resource Management Act is needed given that these projects will all be going very fast.

I’m also interested in how these projects arrived on this list. We are becoming accustomed, with this Government, from listing specific projects in schedules that get to bypass normal regulatory processes. I acknowledge this list appears to be—with his comment on the Carrington residential development—all Government projects. That is my first question: can he confirm that all of the projects on this list are, in fact, Government projects and that they are not local projects? And if there are any local projects, could he identify them?

The second related question is to go back to what the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has reported back, where it’s said that the projects listed in the schedule come from the Fast-track Approvals Act and some other documents as well. Of course, there were 149 projects on that schedule to the Fast-track Approvals Act and there are about 29 on this. I understand that many of those projects on the fast-track list are private developments, but I’m wondering if he can elucidate on how it is that these projects came to be in this schedule. I presume they had to fit being a public Government work or a public local work and on one of those lists named in the select committee report back.

Then, I’m wondering if there’s been an analysis then undertaken into why it is these projects and how long they will take. That relates back to my question about the amendment to section 185 of the Resource Management Act, because if it is the case that there has been some analysis, then it would be good to know that. Does the Minister expect them to all go quite quickly? And going to a point that was made by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night, she was talking about a specific project and saying that her understanding of that specific project was that it already had its resource management consents and it was already designated and a whole lot of land had been acquired. Has there been analysis into how far through all these projects are and, where they are incomplete, what the likely cost of acquiring that land will be, now, through this critical infrastructure pathway as opposed to the normal Public Works Act process—and noting, of course, that that normal Public Works Act process has that Environment Court element that’s changed in this bill, to an extent.

Those are my questions. Just reminding the Minister if he can comment on local government housing, section 185, and also how it came that these 29 or so—I might have miscounted—projects are on the list and what analysis has been undertaken to determine how far through they are and what the costs of them being on this list will be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to members of the committee of the whole House. To the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Rachel Brooking, I thank her for the questions and comments that she has made this morning. Picking up on the spirit of a couple that were raised last night by her colleague Tangi Utikere in a similar vein, I’ll take all of those together.

First, in terms of local government projects, which, for members who weren’t present last night, flowed out of a discussion originally around the specific project at Carrington, in inner West Auckland, roughly speaking, I suppose you could say—an important project in its own right—and the question more generally as to whether local government projects could be considered as Government works such that they could qualify for inclusion within the Public Works Act critical infrastructure regime, the answer is that they could, yes, theoretically, but they would need to be added to primary legislation after, because, of course, the matter of listing them in the schedule, in this case, does confirm or lock in the status of such projects that are included. Notwithstanding that there are none in the list at the moment, there could be in the future, but only by way of primary legislative amendment.

In terms of the connection with section 185 of the Resource Management Act, I think the question that the member has posed flowed again from the point around—well, particularly around why it would be needed if the intent is to be able to acquire more quickly. I understand this was a recommendation from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in response to a submission from local government basically to clarify the scenario of compensation entitlement, should that case ever arise.

In terms of the point around what I would call transitional arrangements, as raised by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night and reiterated this morning by the Hon Rachel Brooking, analysis in terms of where projects are incomplete, to the extent that projects are historic, having been undertaken and completed or indeed being incomplete now without being listed for inclusion in this regime, then they would not be included in the critical infrastructure piece, so there isn’t an additional cost in that sense.

I know that that will be a matter of disappointment in some cases, potentially, but others might view the previous regime as being more helpful to their case. But in any case, the general situation remains, of course, as I said last night, that when you introduce a regime that will, hopefully, be viewed on most occasions as more favourable, those who have not benefited from that because they were under a previous regime may feel disappointment, but of course, that’s not a reason not to introduce a more favourable regime going forward.

Then finally, in terms of the point made by Tangi Utikere specifically as to whether projects that are listed here but might be capable of amendment or a change of scope in time, the safeguard is that the Minister must be satisfied that the scope of each project will not be substantially different as a result of such an amendment, taking into account the project’s purpose, location, scale, and the nature of the works involved. The clause expressly says that no new projects can be inserted into the schedule by this Order in Council mechanism. Of course, with that Order in Council, as secondary legislation it will be subject to normal requirements around secondary legislation, including scrutiny by the worthy body that is the Regulations Review Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just looking in Part 2, clause 7 (8), around payment of compensation to landowners or thereabouts. One of the things I’d like to ask the Minister, in relation to some of the projects—well, one in particular: say, the Hope Bypass that has been in the planning stage for a long time and much has changed. There has been a major subdivision built on the boundaries of this. My questions are in relation to any bits of land that may be acquired additionally and whether the changing value of that land is taken into account. The issue of compensation here as specified in how it should be calculated and considered—I guess, it’s the changing land values for projects that are in Schedule 2 and that have been around for quite some time and adjustments may have been made. Are landowners, who may have had indications of potential acquisition, entitled to the additional compensation payments, or how is that worked through? How might the changing land values around those projects be considered by councils or by Land Information New Zealand if some additional land needs to be acquired? Without going through the list of projects in Schedule 2—there are quite a few of them there. Take the Marsden Point Rail Link. I’m assuming it’s on the same rail corridor, but if there are adjustments to be made, who’s entitled to additional payments to speed those up? Or, indeed, is there a risk that some people—given the length of time of these—have been land banking and are going to get a big fat bonus for some of that land acquisition?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member and former Minister for Land Information, the Hon Damien O’Connor, for the question.

I think there are a couple of different things which are helpful to clarify for anyone who is following. One, of course, is the extra payments that might be made by way of compensation, by way of recognition, and also incentive, being an understanding and an acknowledgment from the Crown of the value to the Crown and, more importantly, to the community of the works for critical infrastructure, and an incentive, of course, being to, basically, as the name would suggest, encourage early agreement to acquisition.

Then, of course, as the member has alluded to, there’s the fact that land values can change over time—almost invariably to increase. The amendment to the Act doesn’t change the fact that values may increase over time, and it would be 100 percent of the value as agreed and determined under the Act, anyway, that would be the relevant starting point to which one might add 5 or 15 percent, as the case may be—well, it could be 5 or 20 percent, being 5 plus 15—additional percentage of value.

I do also emphasise, again, as I said last night, that the recourse is to the Land Valuation Tribunal in the event that there’s a dispute about the amount that the land is worth in the first place—that 100 percent figure—so we don’t propose to change that under this legislation before the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to continue the exchange that we were having earlier with the Minister, back on the schedule. I didn’t hear an answer about analysis of the individual projects and how much it will cost to take that land under this process versus the normal Public Works Act process.

Maybe he will say, “Well, that will be done one by one.” He’s entitled to give that answer, but I’d like to know if it’s been thought about or not. I appreciate that to be critical infrastructure, you’ve got to be listed on the schedule, and to be listed on the schedule, you have to go through this process, a legislative process with Parliament. Again, though, if he could maybe give me some comfort: to get on this critical infrastructure project list, you do have to also be a local government work or a Government work before you can be considered for this list? Those are the two little wrap-up questions for me on that list. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking. In terms of the analysis of change costs for specific projects, she’s right in suggesting that it would be the case that this would vary on an individual or case by case basis. The users of the Public Works Act, being local government or a central government agency—and one might think of the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail, in the case of transport projects—would be better placed to know how that will affect them, but, of course, as the regime comes into effect and they’re in a position to have the certainty to update their calculations, that will be something on which they will be better placed to answer, and, again, as I say, and as the member herself said, on a case by case basis.

I’d remind members that the caps on premium payment are those set out in the legislation; limit on the recognition payment at $92,000 for acquisitions valued at $1.8 million or more. As for incentive payments, they are capped at $150,000 for property acquisitions valued at $1 million or more. That does provide some guard rail, I suppose, for the protection of the taxpayer and certainly to protect the integrity of the system and to enable as many acquisitions as possible for the right amount of taxpayer funding—to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s point. That’s where those limits have been set, or at least that’s the basis on which we have set those out and determined them in this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a lovely wet day out there, so it’s nice to be inside. Thank you to the Minister for giving us this opportunity this morning to stay warm and cosy.

I really want to build on the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question about the acquisition of additional land where projects exist or where things have already developed. I’m particularly thinking about the Marsden Point Rail Link, because my understanding—and forgive me, I’m not that familiar with the area—is that it’s consented designated land that’s already purchased, fast-tracked, and in the coalition agreement. If that’s true—and that’s a statement made by the Hon Winston Peters—what else are we doing here with the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill? Is it simply making an exclamation point that we’re going to do this or is it actually doing something else? Is it looking to acquire additional land to expand, to grow the footprint? Because that’s what this bill is designed to do, and yet we’re told that everything’s there, it’s ready to go, it’s in the fast track, and it’s in the coalition agreement. It’s fast track.

I’ve really got a query about why in particular this bit is mentioned in Part 2. Why in the schedule? Why would we go there if it’s already something that’s practically done? Perhaps the Minister would like to respond. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question. Certainly he’s right to indicate and remind the Chamber, as the Hon Damien O’Connor had, that these are critical infrastructure projects as defined by being within the Government policy statement 2024, including roads of national significance but also projects that have been or will be consented on the Fast-track Approvals Act.

I suppose the characterisation could be that there’s an exclamation mark after those, but I think, more helpfully, members could think about it being what follows the question mark. The question mark is: how is it going to be that we can ensure a fast and fair process of acquiring land to enable the projects that have already been confirmed via those other processes. It’s enabling those projects that have been confirmed in a way that makes sense for the communities but is also fair to the landowners, as opposed to introducing any new projects on the table or merely providing emphasis to those which are already understood by those other pieces of legislation and mechanisms to be a priority for the Government.

Carl Bates: Madam Chair!

Is this a closure motion? We’re not quite there yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call on Part 2, and I am interested in the operation of some of the projects in the schedule, particularly the ones that aren’t roads. We’ve been discussing that bit. The members of the committee have heard evidence from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) about how these projects work, but we’re still interested in how those projects that will not be led by the NZTA will work in this context. It is a bit different when you’re thinking about de-risking a roading project, which is for public good, to then compare housing, which is a mix of private and public good. People do feel differently about those sorts of projects. A public works acquisition process, where you’re building a road, and even then, have excess land and might use that to develop houses—communities do feel differently about that and about houses being in front of theirs where there’s been an acquisition for a road. We want to be able to address that.

My first question is about the operation of clause 7 of Schedule 1AA. That was actually a helpful answer that the Minister gave around projects that are in the pipeline now. I’m sure the Minister has had advice about this, and I want to get some clarity on it. Those projects where his amendment in Amendment Paper (AP) 350 sets out the introduction of a new clause here—I just want to get his thinking around whether there are projects here that have already been notified or work has begun—as is the case with some of these projects—and, given the time difference between this law and the passing of the fast-track bill, which initially notified these projects, whether there are any projects in there that have already been notified and will create a different financial liability for the Crown? What I’m asking is: what is the value of this amended clause in his AP? Can we understand whether this applies to any particular projects. We don’t have to understand the landowners. What I’m asking for is the value that is being exchanged here from the old system compared to the new one, given that these projects were projects which we anticipated, probably, being in part of this new process. Have those landowners been served with a notice and then will they work through the process, which is set out in his amendment, for the Minister to issue new notices?

I also want to understand at what point the notification process is to be. Some of these projects are well, well under way, and so, I think this new public works acquisition process is actually about other land that might have to be acquired and not the land which is initially acquired, even though it is schedulised.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’ll just focus on Schedule 2 and the lists of projects. I think it would be remiss of me as a South Island MP to not ask some questions of the Minister for Land Information, given they are, supposedly, critical infrastructure—critical infrastructure. There’s not too much critical in the South Island. In fact, only about 5½ of the 29 projects listed are in the South Island. I think perhaps if there had been more advocacy from South Island members of Government, we might have a few more because we certainly need them.

So the question is, really, how were these prioritised? I appreciate that we have the Hope Bypass in there. But of the seven bridges to be replaced, there are only two of them in the South Island. It is a region with a lower population, I’ll accept that, but in terms of its importance for export growth, which is what the Government’s talked about, then I would have thought that, actually, the critical infrastructure projects should be where the growth will come from. I see a couple of MPs from the other side of the House there—Government MPs, Ministers—who I thought would have tried a little harder.

Anyway, so maybe the Minister can answer a couple of questions here. Firstly, why weren’t more South Island projects included? Secondly, how was the prioritisation process undertaken? Thirdly, with some of these roading projects, will they include tolling? I see there’s one there that one of the Ministers over there will probably take a reasonably close interest in, and I know the Minister said before it’s not private interest, but it certainly is public interest if it’s in someone’s own electorate. So there is one there. There’s the Ashburton Second Urban Bridge, of course. We’ve got the Hope Bypass, I understand, and then, of course, one of the four-lane highways, I think it is, north towards Pegasus there, the Woodend Bypass Project (Belfast to Pegasus).

So the question would be, given compensation might be paid for land here, is that offset or paid for by tolling that the Government might be proposing as part of these projects? And indeed, was the potential for tolling part of the prioritisation process that the Government undertook when putting these projects in?

I’m not going to go back through all the projects and ask for each of them—I know that Madam Chair probably wouldn’t tolerate that. But the questions are around: why so few in the South Island; what was the prioritisation process to arrive at this list; and did it include the potential for tolling on some of these roadways, and indeed, the potential then allowed it to get into the priority list? But an important critical piece of infrastructure that may be in Southland or on the West Coast—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Or Otago.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —or Otago, indeed—the inability to toll logically in those areas meant that they actually didn’t become part of the critical infrastructure list.

So these are fair questions. There will be ratepayers and truck drivers and people driving to and from work on roads that need to be upgraded in the South Island, and they’ll be saying, “Why not our road?” So maybe the Minister can take a call and answer that.

Thank you. Passionate South Island MPs in the Chamber can continue their discussion, I suppose, wherever they like, but, within the scope of this bill, I repeat—and I think maybe for the sixth time—that the criteria for inclusion within this legislation had nothing to do with tolling or other mechanisms for funding or financing, other than the Crown or local government ability and requirement to compensate landowners from whom an interest is being acquired. Those topics are incredibly important, I will acknowledge, but not for the purpose of this bill.

In terms of the South Island and inclusion of various projects there, again, I emphasise that the inclusion was as critical infrastructure—being an umbrella term that covers those projects—transport-related or otherwise, under the Fast-track Approvals Act consenting process or the Government policy statements relating to roads of national significance, and so on.

I will just, perhaps, respond more generally to the comment, because I’d be remiss not to: the South Island is the better performing of the two islands at the moment, partly because of its reliance on and connection to the primary industry, which is always one of New Zealand’s best and most performing sectors and, in the current time, all the more so. We are grateful as a Government but also as a Parliament, I’m sure, for the export dollars through the primary industry, and also through tourism, and also through international education and other high-performing export sectors. The performance of the South Island is to be greatly commended and encouraged, and we congratulate and thank them for it, and it’s important, of course, that they continue to be supported through various projects, whether included in this regime or not.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I think we are much closer than we were last time. The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. As the MP for Rongotai, it was very important to me to ask some questions about a project that’s in Schedule 2, which is the State Highway 1 Wellington Improvements. There are a couple of concerns.

I do think it’s important to raise for the House the specifics of this, because what we’re talking about in this bill is increasing the ability of the State to take private land for public works, and there’s limited ability to appeal to the Environment Court. In the case of Wellington, this has been a very contentious issue for several decades because obviously there was the original proposal for the bypass—huge community opposition to that bypass because it was destroying some of the most vibrant parts of the city just for a road, and it destroyed the amenity of that area. We all know now, of course, that urban highways don’t solve traffic congestion problems. They destroy value. Some of the highest value land in the urban areas gets taken for a highway that people aren’t even paying for directly.

At the same time, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is considering a bill on congestion pricing. If we had congestion pricing, would we need to take this valuable urban land? Probably not. We would need a lot more public transport.

So the issue I have in the schedule is just how incredibly vague and wide the description of the project is. I keep looking at it and then losing it, but it’s incredibly vague. So it could be any bit of land between the northern end of the Terrace Tunnel. It says, “North of Terrace Tunnel to Kilbirnie, Wellington City”. Now, that is a huge area of central Wellington. I want to know, does this mean that the Government could decide to choose different roading projects than what have been proposed up until now, and then take huge amounts of land in the centre of the city with limited ability for people to object to that?

Let’s not forget that the last National Government tried to do the Basin flyover. They created a new process called the board of inquiry process where they hand-picked a panel that was going to decide the resource consent because it was supposedly a project of national significance. That expert panel, which was appointed by the then National Government, heard all of the evidence from the various experts—this was a streamlined process—and they rejected the consent for the Basin flyover.

Now, that was based on evidence. What concerns me is that we have a Government that’s increasingly not listening to evidence, not allowing community voice. So could the Minister speak to whether this bill means that the Government could designate and take land for a new alignment of the State highway anywhere north of the Terrace Tunnel to Kilbirnie, Wellington City?

At the moment, the State highway goes along Vivian Street. There’s a number of stop lights. The latest proposal, we don’t know; it hasn’t been released to the public. It’s apparently been considered by the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency, but they refused to release it. For a while there, they were considering a diagonal tunnel, they were considering a long tunnel, but now we’re back to the parallel tunnel because it’s cheaper. Of course, it’s not going to deliver any time saving benefits, but they’re still going to go ahead and spend billions of dollars on it, potentially.

In between the Terrace Tunnel and the Mount Victoria Tunnel, there’s a vibrant urban area that includes Cuba Street. It includes a whole lot of businesses, a whole lot of homes, and a whole lot of relatively new apartments that have been built. Does this mean that the Government can designate a new area to be State highway through that part of the city and compulsorily acquire the land with limited ability for the owners of that land to appeal to the Environment Court? Is that what this means?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested that the member for Rongotai is nervous about improvements to the roading project that she’s referred to being faster and, I would say, fairer. Of course, private property rights are hugely important, and on this side of the House, we recognise that. It’s interesting that a Green Party member is nervous about citizens being deprived of private property without recourse, and today is not a day for debate about the Greens’ taxation policy, but I do find that an interesting contrast.

In terms of congestion pricing and whether, hypothetically, this regime would be needed if we had a system that is not yet in place and may or may not be in the future, I don’t think, with due all due respect, that’s within the scope of what we are able to determine in relation to the scope of this legislation. As to whether the evidence of projects being worthwhile or not will be improved—or the opposite—by this process, I would simply point out that nothing in this legislation changes the scope of any of the projects listed, nor can introduce new projects without further legislative amendment. The geographic scope of a project, for example, isn’t and cannot be changed by reason of this legislation coming in.

I’ve already set out the process by which it might be suggested that there could be changes to a project that’s approved under different regimes and, therefore, I emphasise again to members of the committee that the purpose, intent, and scope of this bill is actually for the land or interests in lands that are to be acquired under the Public Works Act where they are critical infrastructure projects, as listed—the change is only as to process, which would be simpler, and compensation, which would be more generous.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll now take an opportunity to ask about two of the three projects that we need some further information on.

The first is Brigham Creek, the rapid transit link there. That’s one that the Minister for Land Information has spoken about in the committee stage before, and so is a useful example for us to really understand the Māori rights and interests there. He will be familiar with the area that is under right of first refusal (RFR) rights for the commercial settlement of Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. That is a shared RFR right that arises from sale of land owned by the prison, by Corrections, and the overhang of the arrangements that were made under the Key Government to develop Hobsonville Point as a special housing area.

There are areas in this project, as schedulised, which are both owned by the iwi or under right of first refusal for commercial settlement. Those are outstanding and unresolved since the first settlement, I think in 2012, because it requires—at some point in time that’s not specified in either part of the legislation—for those two iwi to agree on the way that they will apportion the rights under that RFR. That was something that wasn’t agreed at the time it was settled by Minister Finlayson.

My question to him is about: he’s given an explanation to the committee about how rights that arise under Treaty settlements are protected Māori land. But I’ve asked him, and I don’t think we’re clear on whether those rights that are not crystallised yet will be recognised under this new process. Those rights that exist because there is an RFR right are one thing, and there’s one side of the motorway that they exist on. And then there’s another side of the road that they exist on, on the Brigham Creek side, where there’s New Zealand Transport Agency land that would otherwise be under the RFR of one or the other of those because it was Crown land at the time of settlement. It was part of their commercial redress package.

My question is: there are some which are sort of clear that they are rights which have crystallised; they are part of the commercial RFR of those iwi. When they come up for Crown disposal, they should be settled first to that iwi. Is there a public works application here around that land? Then there’s the more complicated side of the road, which is where the RFR isn’t crystallised because there hasn’t been agreement. In both of those cases, there is a case for public works taking because there is a public good that arises because of a rapid transit network. But these are rights which were arranged by the Crown in deeds of settlement which date back to 2004. We have a sort of hierarchy of what we’re trying to achieve here with fairness outcomes for those original owners of the land, and it would be useful if the Minister would step us through how this process applies to them.

My second question is about the project at Carrington. This is slightly different for the Māori rights and interests here in that I think what I’m really getting at here is the entire project is listed. It’s the whole 40 hectares, and yet most of that exists. What are we talking about here? If we’re talking about the Crown intervening to acquire land which iwi are already building on for the purposes of public housing, then that is a completely different conversation to acquiring some extra parts to build roads in what is a residential development that exists.

Just to give the committee some context around this, this is a really important area to me. My father was the kaumātua of Unitec for many years. In my life, I have gone many, many times, including for Matariki celebrations of a hautapu down to the puna which exists on that Unitec Carrington site. That is, there is customary title that exists there. There is also settlement land that exists there. There is a commercial RFR around it, but there is a cultural settlement property within that block. That is all underneath the area that the Minister has schedulised here for public works taking.

It is clear what the protections are around that customary land. It’s not clear what parts of land around that puna might be included in this. It’s also not clear what land is intended to be in this new process when those notices that went to the landowners and to the people with rights and interests in building it currently have gone. But those date back many, many, many years and so wouldn’t be eligible under his new amendment or in the old amendment to the original Act for use by this new process. So we need to understand those two projects a bit better.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the Brigham Creek project, that’s within the category of projects that I’ve indicated that I wouldn’t feel able to decide as Minister, given that it’s within the current bounds of my electorate. Of course, for the purposes of the policymaking in the legislation, the history is outlined by the member, and that’s interesting and helpful, but I would be probably foolish to attempt to analyse further, in terms of its eligibility, various parts of the land—on either side of the road, as the member has alluded to—which will be more appropriate for the decision maker to determine on a case by case basis in the event that applications are received for the acquisition of land or interests.

Hopefully, more helpfully than that, in response, I think, to a question that the member previously posed around new clause 7 of Schedule 1AA being intended to make it clear that if a section 18 notice of desire is issued after the Act comes into force, then the project cannot opt out of the accelerated process—the response is that agencies have the opportunity to opt out before they proceed further with land acquisition under the new process. They can opt out of taking into account the financial impact of the new regime, and it would be my hope and expectation that that would be made clear to any relevant landowners affected.

As for Carrington, the member’s more familiar, including through familial links to the property and its history, than me, but certainly I would point out that on a case by case basis, it will be for the decision maker at the time to consider those, taking into account all relevant factors, including the status of the land as customary land or other, and so I wouldn’t want to prejudge that or do a disservice to any of the parties involved, or potentially involved, by musing more than that now.

So in general terms, therefore, I can tell the member that if Crown-owned land, with the right of first refusal obligation, is needed, then it can be used for the project, but the right of first refusal obligation continues to apply and would apply if that land were to be disposed of in the future.

Before I take the next call, I’m just asking members to come up with some new information—new questions. Scott Willis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate being able to take this call, and I appreciate also the Minister’s acknowledgment that the South Island is the best part of Aotearoa, because I agree—notwithstanding there are some lovely places in the North. Like my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, I’m a proud South Islander, but I also wonder where the Minister for the South Island was when we were looking at priorities here—

Andy Foster: In the South Island.

SCOTT WILLIS: Yeah, stuck in the South Island—stuck in the South Island—because there wasn’t a ferry, quite possibly. My particular interest is not in what the Government can do for the South Island but what the South Island can do for the Government—and for Aotearoa. I’m particularly keen on the high-voltage direct current (HVDC) link, and here I think of the high-voltage direct current link replacement project, because this is our main trunk line, and it connects our two islands and it ensures that we keep the lights on. This is really, really valuable, but it also raises some questions because, while we know the work is required and is necessary, it is what we could consider not just critical infrastructure but lifeline infrastructure.

I’m also interested in what thought has gone into not just building something or making sure it’s there but, to come back to a question I had last night—it’s related to the carbon, but it’s essentially about resilience, because, of course, we know that the fault line runs through that part of the country. The question is really about the thought that has gone into the resilience when we’re building lifeline infrastructure. What consideration has been given not just to land acquisition but resilience, because that may well require more than the footprint that is currently occupied by that HVDC link. It may require a wider footprint to ensure that we’re able to keep the lights on when the Alpine Fault goes, because that’s due. As the Infrastructure Commission has said, that’s, let’s see—is it a 75 percent chance that by 2070 we have that major fault? The reason why this is so critical is that if that trips, we will have a national blackout. While this project is really valuable, and necessary, and critical, and it’s lifeline infrastructure, I’m interested in what thought has been given to whether this legislation is actually going to give us all that we need to keep the lights on.

Subsequent to that, what other futureproofing has been looked at, because we know there are maybe some blue-sky projects such as Taslink, which could connect us to Australia? Has there been any thought given to that HVDC link, which would create one trans-Tasman electricity market, with a 2 to 3 gigawatt HVDC cable over 2,600 kilometres? I don’t see any consideration given to that, as well. I’m taking the Minister’s word that “critical infrastructure” is a tautology, but, perhaps, I take it to think that we should be talking about “lifeline infrastructure” here, not the petty stuff that isn’t lifeline. I really think that’s what we should be thinking of. In that consideration, I wonder if the Minister would like to detail any additional thoughts that have gone into how we build resilience. Does this legislation help us in that way—building resilience—particularly for our energy system that is vulnerable not only to climate change impacts, not simply to space weather, not simply to the Alpine Fault, but vulnerable to being left unconsidered by Government action. If the Minister could reply, I’d really value that. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 350 be agreed to.