Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment 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 CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes amendments to the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA), which is a crucial tool for acquiring and managing land to support public infrastructure projects. The bill contains targeted amendments to the Public Works Act, specifically focused on speeding up the delivery of critical infrastructure projects—that’s a term to which I will return shortly to define. Of course, other detail within the bill, as reported back from the select committee, can be found in the legislative statement, so I don’t intend to rehearse that in detail. In short, we want a faster and fairer fashion for the acquisition of land under the PWA for these critical infrastructure projects.

Members might realise that later this year, I intend to introduce a bill that will propose broader changes to the PWA, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity, following a review of the Act involving an expert advisory panel last year. I want to say it, again, publicly, for the record, my thanks to that panel for their expert and very prompt deliberation on these matters.

I’d also like to add my acknowledgments and thanks to the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Mr Andy Foster, and a number of other members who are present in the House today—as, indeed, the chair himself is, I see. I’m grateful for their scrutiny of the bill. They have improved it through their hard work, thoughtful consideration, and have made valuable improvements accordingly.

I also want to thank everyone who contributed through submissions. The insights and expertise shared by experts, industry, and the public alike have further strengthened this proposed legislation: the system working as it should.

I do wish to point out, before I go any further, that there is an urgent need in this country to address our infrastructure deficit and for critical infrastructure to be built at a faster pace to support New Zealand’s economic growth and productivity. Through progressing this bill, we can address the deficit and reduce the costs and delays associated with the uncertainty when developing critical infrastructure. Of course, this sits alongside other Government measures in the resource management and planning space, including that which has just been passed by this House.

This bill outlines an accelerated process for acquiring land for public works that are of national or regional significance. It is targeted and only provides for a finite set of projects. Eligible projects must be either listed on Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 or the roads of national significance identified in the Government policy statement on land transport 2024. Only those agencies that can use the Public Works Act to acquire land—being the Crown, local authorities, and network utility operators that are requiring authorities—will be able to use the critical infrastructure process. Private entities cannot acquire land under the Public Works Act, and this bill does not change that fact.

The accelerated process for eligible projects is aimed at addressing the key barriers to efficient delivery, including insufficient incentives for landowners to agree early to their land being acquired and delays caused by objections. The bill targets these issues to streamline delivery, including through premium payments, in addition to standard PWA compensation measures, to recognise and incentivise impacted landowners, and introduces a written submission process in place of the right to object to the Environment Court. I’ll speak more about these shortly.

It’s also important that I point out that the bill will introduce, or maintain, multiple safeguards. It will retain requirements to attempt to acquire land by agreement and negotiate in good faith with the owner first before the issuing of a section 23 notice of intention to take land.

The Environment Court process will remain for objections to the acquisition of protected Māori land for critical infrastructure projects, as it can only be acquired through the standard Public Works Act process and not the accelerated process. Judicial review will remain as a judicial check, and the Land Valuation Tribunal can still determine compensation claims. And I clarify that that applies to all the projects caught within the regime and the fact that protected Māori land can sit outside the regime is a further and separate point to that. Finally, I point out that the bill requires that the processes outlined within it be reviewed after three years to ensure that the amendments are fit for purpose.

I move now to key elements of the bill and the amendments proposed by the committee, which again, I acknowledge and thank them for. The several changes that they recommended for the purpose of clarity, workability, and consistency are outlined in their report, so I don’t intend to focus on all of them today, but I would, encourage anyone who’s interested in further information about these to read that report. I will instead focus on the committee’s key recommendations that have resulted in changes to the bill.

The new written submissions process streamlines a very slow process that can take between six and 12 months for an objection to be heard by the Environment Court—submissions of course, in relation to the project, as opposed to the submissions to the select committee. The committee identified that the proposed time frames for the written submissions process may be too restrictive, for example, where there are multiple owners to liaise with, landowners live rurally, or where unexpected circumstances create challenges, such as sickness or bereavement.

The committee recommended to retain the time frames as they are currently in the bill—10 working days for each stage of the process, except for making a submission, which is 20 working days. However, the committee did propose changes to remove a limit that only allowed for one extension of 10 working days. It recommended that each stage of the process can, instead, be extended by a maximum of up to 20 working days. I agree that this change strikes the right balance of allowing flexibility to grant landowners more time, when reasonable, while still capping the overall extension time to maintain time efficiencies. It’s a balance, in other words, and I’m grateful to the committee for helping us to strike that correct balance.

I move now to designation requirements. The bill had set out that land required for critical infrastructure projects could not be compulsorily acquired, unless the designation under the Resource Management Act was in place for the project. A designation is, as the name suggests, an area of land designated for a public work, such as a road or school. It allows for works or projects by requiring authorities, that is the Minister of the Crown or local authorities, to progress on the site or route without needing a land-use consent from the council or complying with any rules in the district plan.

The committee heard from the Public Works Act users that the designation requirement may create barriers for some projects, contrary to the intent of this legislation to speed up the process. For example, some projects run the designation and land acquisition processes concurrently and other projects choose to seek a resource consent rather than a designation, deeming them ineligible. The committee recommended, therefore, that the requirement be broadened, and I support this approach.

Requirements can now be met where the project is allowed under the Resource Management Act, has resource consent, has a designation, or where a notice of requirement for the project has been given under the RMA, or a designation application has been lodged under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. This change removes unnecessary barriers for using the accelerated process to meet the bill’s objectives of speeding up delivery.

Speaking of speeding up delivery, with two minutes left, I’ll just point out that landowners whose land is acquired for a critical infrastructure project will be eligible for an incentive payment that includes 15 percent of their land value with a minimum of $5,000 and a maximum of $150,000 payment, if they agree to the purchase of their land early. An agreement must be made before a section 23 notice of intention is served, which begins the compulsory acquisition process. A recognition payment of 5 percent of the land value, with a minimum of a $5,000 and a maximum of a $92,000 payment will also be made available for all landowners whose land is acquired or taken for a critical infrastructure project.

The committee has recommended clarifying how the payments will apply in circumstances where the landowner whose land has been designated obtains an order from the Environment Court under section 185 of the RMA, meaning that their land must be acquired by the requiring authority under the PWA. The select committee recommended to set out that acquisitions for critical infrastructure under section 185 of the RMA will be eligible to receive the recognition payment. This change aligns with the intent of the proposal. However, as such proceedings are initiated by the owner, landowners in these circumstances will not be eligible for the incentive payment.

In closing, I do want to again acknowledge the valuable suggestions made by the committee in their report to bring the bill to this stage. I appreciate that they carefully considered the experience of landowners in the process and that they provided ideas for improvements to the bill. New Zealand needs and deserves critical infrastructure to be delivered faster, to support its growth in the economy, and I believe that we are achieving a faster and fairer regime through the amendments suggested by the select committee and the legislation itself. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party, and, as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I want to acknowledge the comments that the Minister for Land Information has just made, very fulsomely addressing many of the issues that the select committee did canvass. I do want to indicate that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill today, and we supported it through the select committee process as well.

There are a couple of things that still don’t sit too comfortably with us, and maybe we’ll be able to look at those through the committee stage if the Minister is amenable to maybe considering some of those changes. I do want to acknowledge colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Madam Speaker, you’ll see, perhaps, from the select committee’s report that we were required to report this bill back by mid-September and we have reported back early—much is the work ethic of that particular select committee. Even though we have reported this back early, that has not been, I believe, at the compromise of submissions and the like.

I want to also acknowledge the officials that did provide support to the committee. Some aspects of this bill were technical and largely historical, so I want to acknowledge Land Information New Zealand and also the Ministry of Transport as well. We did receive quite a number of submissions and there were opportunities for submitters to speak to their submissions.

One of the reasons that we do support this bill is because it is important that there is a process around utilisation and build of critical infrastructure, and it is important to note that that’s specifically what this bill is about. Many of the projects that are outlined in the schedule are transport-related projects. It’s worth acknowledging that part of the reason why we are supporting this bill is because the bill itself only relates to projects that are captured by Schedule 2, so the Public Works Act will still apply as a process and a provision to projects that are not listed in Schedule 2 of the bill. And so that is an important distinction as to why we are continuing to support this particular bill.

One of the real concerns that we do have—and this is contained in the report—is the change to process around appeal right opportunities and, largely, objections. What this bill would deliver would be a requirement for any objections or submissions—apart from Māori land, which would still be able to be appealed to the Environment Court, which we think is appropriate, but for any other objectors that have submitted that want to file an objection, that wouldn’t go to the Environment Court; that would go to a Minister of the Crown. There is a bit of tension in that provision from our perspective, because, effectively, the person or people that would be exercising the decision-making capacity over those objections would be the same individuals as part of a Government that would be looking to progress the projects that are listed in Schedule 2. And so we still do hold the view that a level of independence should exist—that someone who objects to a decision or an outcome should have the right to have that independently assessed, not for that to be assessed by a Minister of the Crown. So that is still something that we’d like to contend with as we move through committee stage.

One of the arguments, perhaps, could be that, OK, that’s fine, except there is still a right of judicial review as a process through to the court on matters. Now, we all know that the process for judicial review can be very costly, it can be very expensive, and while we look at the items listed in Schedule 2 of the bill, it will carry a very heavy price tag. That should not be the reason that a barrier would exist for someone being able to access that—you know, like, you wouldn’t do it because of the cost. So that is something that is still a concern for us. I do hope that there is a little bit of movement in that space.

The other thing is, obviously, the Minister is required to have regard to all of the submissions and the objections. The select committee took that on board, and, as the Minister has said, did put an extension opportunity in there to make sure that it was fair and reasonable, not unlike provisions that exist in other legislation—like, well, the Resource Management Act—that identify an extension period for information to be provided. It’s pleasing to hear that the Minister, in his comments this afternoon, is supportive of that.

One minor example of a change that was made by the committee—and it kind of lends itself to the fact that the way in which people go about their daily business is very, very different. We as a committee had some interesting conversations with officials, actually, around how one could be assured that a notification or a notice had actually been received by an objector or a submitter or an applicant or what have you. We, thankfully, I think, are moving away from just the fact that you would dispense the notice and make sure that there are ways in which you could make that particular course of action happen in a reasonable sort of way. One example is the addition there around the fact that a notice must be served or given by sending it to the last known electronic address. Simple things like that that are seen as safeguards, and I’m pleased to hear that the Minister has agreed to take those on board.

Finally, what’s important is that this is a bill that does also have a post-enactment review provision, and so what’s been inserted there is a requirement for this bill to be reviewed three years after enactment. Not every bill is subject to a post-enactment review clause, but the committee was of the view—and the Labour Party’s of the view—that, actually, three years is probably a fair time period to land on by which there could be an assessment by way of review as to where things are at with the Schedule 2 projects that are listed, but also if there have been any issues that have arisen. For example, if this bill does continue through in its final form with no objection process—apart from Māori-owned land—through to anything other than a Minister of the Crown, it might, as part of that review period, identify that that is an actual concern and be able to address that.

So those are some of the issues that were teased out at the select committee. As I say, the Labour Party is happy to continue to support this bill through to the committee stage.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start with a couple of stories—stories about people here in Aotearoa who have been affected by decisions by the State, or an agency of the State, who were attempting to acquire their land for a public infrastructure project. Of course, the Government of the day would have said it was critical infrastructure, and they absolutely needed the land.

In the case of the Kāpiti Expressway, in 2014—I believe it was the Kāpiti Expressway; one of those north-of-Wellington roads—Patricia Grace appealed to the Environment Court. In fact, at the select committee, we heard a submission directly from Patricia Grace, which was incredibly powerful and moving, and she made the point that she would not have been able to take the action she did to protect her ancestral lands. It was upheld by the courts at the time, the Environment Court and the Māori Land Court, which directed that a public reserve be placed over that land for the benefit of Patricia and all of her whānau, her ancestors. That would not have been able to happen the way it did if this legislation that we’re debating today had been in place. That’s what we heard at the select committee.

It’s deeply ironic to me that a Government that proposes—or purports—to care about property rights is at the same time making decisions to make it easier to take away those property rights. And, of course, when we’re talking about land and a relationship to whenua, that is much deeper than some sort of financial interest and property. For tangata whenua, the connection to land is—it’s intimate, it’s part of who they are. It’s not just for this time; it’s about their ancestors; it’s about the people that will come after them, their descendants. That relationship to the land is not unique to tangata whenua, but it is very deep, and it’s something that I believe all humans should be learning from, because our connection to land is very important. Whenua is necessary for us to sustain ourselves.

Obviously, during the 20th century, traffic engineering was invented, and, tragically, many countries decided to pursue a project of destroying cities, taking people’s private property, making way for motorways in some Holy Grail of being able to relieve congestion—which, of course, it doesn’t. Indeed, most of the motorways—which either have been built or will be built—will not deliver the economic benefits that are supposed to justify the cost of putting them in place. We know that, objectively.

Tim Costley: Kāpiti Expressway did.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The Kāpiti Expressway’s benefit-cost ratio was 0.2, my friend, 0.2. That means it cost much more—five times more—than the economic benefits of building that road. Of course, the men opposite—and it’s like 90 percent, 95 percent men opposite—have a deeply religious faith in the economic benefits of highways. They repeat it ad nauseam. That doesn’t make it true. There’s zero empirical evidence to support the claims that are being made. While they speak, often, of the Infrastructure Commission and the report that was just made in the National Infrastructure Plan, we were briefed on that at the committee, where they made it very, very clear that New Zealand has spent too much on transport, too much on roads. We’re not getting good value for it. It’s not delivering the economic benefits that are promised—and if that Government actually believed that they did, they would have submitted those projects to the Infrastructure Commission’s infrastructure priority list programme that Minister Bishop set up. But of course, they haven’t done that, because they know that the independent adjudicators will look at it and say, “This case does not stack up.”

But that’s not what I’m talking about, because we’re not just talking about economic benefits here. We’re talking about something much bigger, much more important, which is the deep connection that people have with the land that sustains them, and that in the mistaken belief in progress, from the 20th century, civil engineers and traffic engineers took great pleasure in building large concrete asphalt structures over the land, dividing up cities, making it difficult for people to get around without using a car. And, unfortunately, here in 2025 in Aotearoa New Zealand, we’re carrying on this absolutely ludicrous path of trying to create economic benefit by building motorways. What the Government’s proposing to do with this legislation is ride roughshod over people’s relationship with land.

I have another story, so it’s not just Patricia Grace—and I recommend anyone watching this speech to look up the story of Patricia Grace and to look up the submission that Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira put forward to the select committee, because it was very powerful. Because of the protections in the Public Works Act, which are now being taken away for the list of projects specified in Schedule 2, she would not have been able to protect her land, and a motorway would have run through it. It’s not just about her; it’s the land of her whānau.

There’s also the story of Tony and Debbie Pascoe. I’ve visited the Pascoes’ farm, and I know that Tony, who’s nearly 60 years old, was born on that land. He hasn’t been holding up the project out of greed or selfishness. He has a deep connection to that land. He lived almost his entire life on that 11 hectares. So he knows it really well and he feels very connected to it. He doesn’t want to sell up. And what he knows—which should have been obvious to anyone—is that the Mt Messenger Bypass is an absolute dog of a project. And the reason it got put forward is because some contractors are making a ton of money out of this project. Was it necessary? Was it necessary? [Interruption] Yes: here, again, comes that blind faith. If there were alternative options put on the table that would have delivered the same benefits in terms of safety, in terms of efficiency of the road—

Cameron Brewer: Build the second tunnel. Build the tunnel—tunnel to Rongotai.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: There were options for that project that would have delivered the same benefits by improving the existing road—and maybe putting a tunnel in at one part. But what has happened, instead, is that a billion dollars will be spent on this dog of a project and a huge amount of indigenous biodiversity will be lost.

But here’s a person—a person who was born on this land—and one thing he knows: the way the road has been designed and built, the amount of water that will come down and affect the hillsides—means that we are going to see slips because they’re just bulldozing trees. It’s absolute nonsense that the other side of the House believe that there’s no amount of money that is too great to spend on a road, and that we should just ride roughshod over people’s connection with the whenua rather than listen to them and understand from them. This country could have saved a lot of money by having a more intelligent approach to the Mt Messenger road, but instead, they listen to engineers and contractors who directly benefit from the work—

David MacLeod: That’s unusual! Engineers, experts?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Directly benefit—no, people who have a vested interest—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask the member to come back to this bill?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The majority of the projects in Schedule 2 of this bill are not projects that are needed to respond to climate change. In fact, they will actively take us backwards, and the Green Party, having listened to the majority of the submissions, including those from individuals, from iwi, from Māori groups, from community and other groups, opposes this bill. We have concerns about the rights of Māori and other landowners to appeal against a Government decision to take their land. The bill was developed an incredibly short time frame. In fact, originally, when it was referred to the select committee, the report-back date was in September. That was still less than a full six months for the select committee to consider the bill, but the report-back date was in September. Yet here we are in August, and we’re debating the second reading of the bill.

That’s because there was a Government directive to the select committee—and, by the way, select committee is meant to hold the executive to account, not to do the Government’s bidding—and the Minister said, “We want it faster, we want it faster.”, so we didn’t take the time to actually listen to all the submissions and to consider. So it was limited pre-consultation, a truncated select committee process, in order to assist the fast-tracking of projects named in Schedule 2. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change has not been a criterion used to determine these projects, and most of them will be counterproductive to that goal. But look, who’s surprised? We’ve got a Government of absolute dinosaurs who don’t have moral convictions, who have zero interest in understanding and valuing the very things that make life possible, and they are rushing as fast as possible to take us into the last century—or even further backwards. The Green Party will not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on this Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. I’m also a member of the hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee that got this bill back to the House sooner with bipartisan support from across the House. I acknowledge Tangi Utikere’s contribution, which I think was quite valuable, going through what the select committee experienced hearing submissions. I also acknowledge some parts of Julie Anne’s contribution—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please use the member’s full name.

CAMERON LUXTON: Julie Anne Genter—sorry. Yeah, I acknowledge some parts of Julie Anne Genter’s contribution, which were heartfelt. We did hear about connection to whenua that people feel—Māori, others, people who have lived and died and been born on land that has been in their family for a long time. So I do acknowledge there is a lot to be thought about when the Government takes land for the use of the public to provide infrastructure.

Some parts that I didn’t agree with were the characterisation that these projects are bad because they’re not contributing to reducing climate change—I think that was the term used. Well, we got the high-voltage direct current cable replacement, we’ve got the Lower North Island Integrated Rail Mobility Programme, we’ve got Marsden Point Rail Link, we’ve got Northwest Rapid Transit, and we’ve got Papakura four-tracking.

I think this is not just a bill that’s trying to get projects done for the good of New Zealand; it’s also a bill that’s trying to get projects done so that New Zealand can get its mojo back. We have been held back for too long. Our fast-tracking Act that this Government has put in place is being helped along by making sure that where there is land which is needed for these critical public infrastructure projects, it can be taken, but in a respectful way as far as that can be. It’s a delicate balance, so it has to be as far as that can be managed.

The select committee, as has been acknowledged by my colleague from the Labour Party, thought very deeply about this and came up with some changes, which the Minister has acknowledged are acceptable, and went through this in a considered way. So I commend this bill to the House.

I’m pleased to rise as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and it’s been great to have the contributions before me from members of the committee and also from the Minister. I particularly want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the collaborative way in which it worked through this and also to thank the submitters who gave us a lot of valuable insight and valuable things to think about.

We need to get infrastructure delivered. I think too few Kiwis understand our collective problem. The Infrastructure Commission’s already been referred to. The Infrastructure Commission has told us, and it’s in its draft infrastructure plan, that we are in the top 10 percent of countries in the world in terms of the level of our GDP which is invested in infrastructure. So you’d think we’d be in great shape, but we’re in the bottom 10 percent in terms of the results we get. So we have to change things. The biggest thing we’re doing is we are hamstringing ourselves—I said that in the last debate when we were talking about the Resource Management Act—with suboptimal decisions.

We’re sometimes investing in the wrong things. And we might all argue about what the right things are. That’s why we need a national infrastructure plan which can have multi-partisan buy-in. We see political undermining of the investment pipeline. We flipflop from one Government to another and we’ve got to try to stop doing that. We have to deal with red tape. This is all about part of that red tape. Because some of that red tape is extraordinary and it really does tie us in absolute knots. We made some changes already today with the Resource Management Act.

The fast-track Act is about cutting through that red tape and getting projects built. This bill is about accompanying that fast-track Act. Because you might give it consent, but if you haven’t got the land to build it on, you need to have the access to the land to be able to build those projects on.

So this bill amends the Public Works Act 1981. What it does is it allows for a fast track for Public Works Act acquisitions of land which are necessary to build as we’ve already heard—a defined, narrow set of projects. They’re listed in Schedule 2. They are public works. So they’re not housing works. So the housing projects which are in the fast track are not part of that because they’re not public works. But what is there are fast track and also roads of national significance listed in the Government policy statement. So it’s a very clearly defined set of projects.

What the bill does is it removes the right to appeal to the Environment Court, except—and we had quite a number of submissions from iwi and hapū—in respect of protected Māori land. So we wanted to understand exactly what protected Māori land meant. So we got that clarity, but that is excluded. That right to appeal to the Environment Court still remains for protected Māori land.

It also sets up a new process for a challenge. So instead of the Environment Court, you go, essentially, to the Minister. I’ve got some comments to make about that very shortly. And it also puts in place in law a 15 percent incentive payment for early agreement to try and get agreement early so you can get on with projects. In fact, that’s the reason why we’ve already heard that the committee was asked to bring this back earlier—it’s so we can get on with projects.

In fact, it’s interesting: the Opposition has said to us that we’ve got too little activity going on in the building sector. We want more activity. This bill is about helping to do that. Because what’s happened is, yes, a lot of things have been stopped. The reason that a lot of those things have been stopped is because of the sheer cost—the cost blowouts that occur but then the sheer cost—of building. And it’s actually been very interesting. I’m not going to pick on ferries or anything like that, but what I would say is it’s interesting to see some data about Kāinga Ora, because why was that dialled back and why has that had that impact on the building sector? And we haven’t really heard that. I’ve got here the top 50 builders in the Canterbury region—the Christchurch region—Kāinga Ora is one of those. And this was for the 12 months to March 2024. If you look at the cost per square metre of building, Kāinga Ora is the highest: $4,785 per square metre. The next highest isn’t even close; it’s $3,776—a full $1,000 a square metre less—and the raw average is $2,840. So not much more than half. That’s why some of these projects were stopped—because they just did not deliver value for money.

This bill, in a sense, is about helping to kickstart things again. So, yep, things have been dialled back because of the lack of value for money. This is about the importance of getting on with the job to get Kiwis working, to get that new construction done, and to get that more disciplined construction done, and to deliver the projects that we need.

So the committee asked about a number of things. First of all, we wanted clarity about what was a public work and what wasn’t. So the private subdivisions are not. That would have been a misuse of the Public Works Act. So even if they are on the fast track, they are not public works. We also, as I said, wanted clarity about what protected Māori land is and what it’s not.

We’ve already heard that the compulsory taking of land is a big deal, especially when that land is people’s home. It may be that it’s been their home for generations. It might be a farm that’s been there for generations. If it was Māori land, it would be whenua that’s been there for generations. So that land is a place where people have put their blood, their sweat, their tears, their memories. So it is very, very important. We all know, of course, the iconic Australian movie, The Castle, where the Kerrigans had to fight against a big, bad—

Tim Costley: Tell him he’s dreaming.

ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, tell them they’re dreaming.

Miles Anderson: Straight to the pool room.

ANDY FOSTER: Straight to the pool room. Yeah, we’ve all got it. But that was a great story of the little guy standing up against the big guy and it showed the emotional value of land, of home, of memories.

So acquisition needs to be undertaken with a great deal of care. We spent, as a committee, quite a lot of time thinking about, actually, what that meant. So we were very exercised about the process that actually happens before you get to that compulsory acquisition. So that compulsory acquisition process—the section 18, section 23—doesn’t change. So you’ve still got to go through that first bit of talking to them. Saying, “Look, we’re thinking about it.” And then saying, “Look, actually, we are going to compulsorily acquire your land.”

One of the changes that we were asked to make in the bill, originally when it went in, was one that said that you have to have either the consent or the designation in place before you applied for compulsory acquisition. In other words, you did them sequentially: designation first, then compulsory acquisition. That was clearly going to take a lot of time, it was going to frustrate the intent of the fast-track Act, and it was going to slow these projects down. So what we’ve done is actually say that all you’ve got to do is to have applied for designation or applied for the resource consent, and then you can do the Public Works Act process.

What we were very exercised about is we didn’t want to see—and it’s good to put this on the record—an agency saying, “Look, we’re going to apply for our designation today and tomorrow we’re going to knock on people’s door and say, ‘We want your land.’ ” That is not a good process. We want to try and minimise the amount of surprise that there is there. So that is something which we’ve put very, very strongly. We asked a lot of questions about that, and we were advised that a public preliminary process—so we want to build a road. Where’s that road going to go? So most of the time there will be a public preliminary process that will signal that there are some options and which option is the one which is decided on. That’s an important thing. It’s not there in statute but it’s an important thing that is done so that there is a high level of transparency for potentially affected landowners that they might be in the firing line. That’s very, very important.

The second thing that we got from the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) officials is that they very much saw themselves as gatekeepers. So if we hadn’t done that process well as the requiring agency, you may come a cropper from them if you hadn’t done the process. What were the options? Could you go route A, B, C—whatever it might be. What were the options that you might choose? Why did you choose the one you chose? What level of engagement was there? So LINZ acting as a gatekeeper, I think, is quite important.

And the third one that they said is, of course, if you haven’t done that properly, there’s the judicial review, which we’ve already heard about. That’s a big bar for most people, but it is a bar that you’re more likely for an appellant to get over if you haven’t done that process properly. So our strong encouragement is that in using these accelerated powers, that is done in a way which maximises transparency, especially around options and rationale so that potentially affected landowners understand why the agencies that are involved have got to where they’ve got to. We did really leave with the Minister an encouragement to give some thought about whether there should be a stronger statutory process around that.

We also, as I said, heard a lot of concerns about the removal of the Environmental Court process. The reason for that is just the length of time that takes, the uncertainty, and the potential for it to go to the High Court. But the number of times we were told that the court’s actually been used is very, very small. For the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), in the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, there were only 49 objections. That represented 3 percent of all the properties the NZTA acquired. Julie Anne Genter has quite rightly pointed out the case which we heard from Patricia Grace, which was a very, very compelling one—a very good one—and I well remember that at the time that the expressway was going through.

Then, finally, we also heard concerns about the neutrality of the decision maker. Again, we’ve made some observations that perhaps, instead of being a Minister that makes the decision, maybe there should be a panel set up, just as there was for the fast-track consent process that at least gives that idea of independence there. Also, a lot of submitters said, “We would like not just to do things on exchange of letters but the ability to be face to face with somebody—kanohi ki te kanohi.” That was very important. So, again, we encourage that in the process going forward.

Again, thanks for all the hard work there was from the committee. We made a number of changes there and I think they will stand the bill in good stead. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of my colleague Julie Anne Genter, who clearly articulated our position of opposition to this fast-track public works legislation.

Now, the basis of this opposition is really property rights and the ability for whānau to have mana whakahaere, Māori mai, Pākehā mai, tauiwi mai across their lands. And that’s the issue—that with fast-track public works, you’re taking it out of their hands. You’re even taking the ability for them to go to the Environment Court out of their hands and handing it back to the deciding Minister. It is really difficult to see how a whānau being impacted by this legislation will be able to find any wriggle room to rescue or protect that whenua, who might be whenua tuku iho [bequeathed lands]. As we’ve heard, this isn’t just a Māori issue; this is an issue for everyday New Zealanders, who could have their properties taken through this legislation.

Now, this isn’t a helping hand for the landowner; this is actually harming their mana whakahaere, their mana over their whenua, because they will not have any route to be able to contest the taking of their lands. Because you’re giving it all to the Minister—you’re giving it all to the Minister—and that’s an overuse and overreach of ministerial power.

Now, considering that, and then the ability for Māori to retain their right to go to the Environment Court, it’s really expensive. I don’t know how many of the members of this House have ever been to the Environment Court and had to pay the legal bills. It’s significant. So even though members of the Government might say, “Oh, but, Māori, you can still go to the Environment Court.”, the costs are outrageous—the costs are outrageous. Technically, the costs are outrageous legally. And I’m acknowledging Whaea Patricia Grace, who gave her submission, but also is a legend in this space in terms of the way that they had to fight tooth and nail as whānau to protect their whenua tupuna tuku iho [ancestral and bequeathed lands] from the taking by the Crown through the Public Works Act. And that has not been left anywhere for us as Māori to find another route, except the Environment Court, and it’s just so outrageously expensive.

Now, the incentive payments are another issue, and Ngāti Toa rangatira gave a comprehensive submission of their concerns in terms of what this legislation is. It’s about tinkering around the edges. They’re not interested in having conversations about the tinkering. They want to see this legislation pulled back and take away the incentive payments and come back to the tēpu. As I have shared in this House previously, iwi Māori can find workable solutions with the Crown, but that requires the Crown to come as open, sitting at the tēpu, kanohi ki te kanohi, as we’ve just heard from my colleague from New Zealand First—kanohi ki te kanohi—that we might sit as partners and equals in looking for workable solutions in terms of what happens with this whenua. Ngāti Toa rangatira explicitly shared their concerns in their submission in terms of the way with which this legislation undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This legislation undermines their settlement that they have already gone through and puts at risk all of those things that are intrinsically important to Ngāti Toa rangatira iwi.

They have said in their submission that they are open to workable solutions, but that requires the Crown to take this off the tēpu, come back to the table with Māori, and have a meaningful conversation. But we know that this Government is not willing to do that. They are going to ram raid this legislation through because it’s all about being fast. It’s all about efficiency and economic development, eh—back on track.

But, you know, with what’s happening here with private property rights, Māori mai, Pākehā mai, tauiwi mai, that’s the risk here—that families will be put at risk in the loss of their whenua and the land for their future generations. That’s a conscience that we have to sit with here. No matter how much of a dollar and a carrot you might dangle in front of that whānau’s face, if they say no, why can’t they say no? Why can’t they say no? Why do we have to go then to a deciding Minister, who is also the Minister over this legislation to then say yes or no? Because, ultimately, the will of the Government of the day will take precedence over that whānau, instead of just going around their block and carrying on with your road or your infrastructure or your railway.

So, you know, these are the concerns of everyday New Zealanders. These are the concerns of hapū and iwi who gave submissions. We continue to oppose this, because we can do better and public works is necessary, but it’s also harmful if we don’t have fair, workable solutions for the whānau impacted, as well as for the good of our community. Kia ora.

We need to get stuff built in this country, and you can’t have it both ways, complaining, “Well, stuff’s not being built, but, actually, I’m going to object come hell or high water on X,Y, Z project.” For too long, we’ve been a country of no; this is a Government of yes. This bill contributes to that.

To address the previous speaker Hūhana Lyndon’s concerns, protected Māori land is actually exempted from this process. If it is required for—

Hon Member: Did they not read the bill?

DAN BIDOIS: —they may not have read the bill—key infrastructure projects, then they will be able to still go through the Environment Court process.

Just to clarify, this is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been interesting to listen to the debate in this House, because it does actually demonstrate the difficulty of compulsory acquisition. As the member Hūhana Lyndon said, it’s a Government that actually has as one of its centrepieces the protection of private property, and yet here this bill—which we support—is in fact undermining private property rights for the benefit of the State.

Now, there are, of course, many instances where that is necessary, where there are public works—particularly those public works that we support, like hospitals—and additional land is needed. We can’t have a situation where one or two landowners can, effectively, either stymie the project entirely or demand extortionate prices. Now, if it’s a supermarket that’s being built there, let them play those commercial games, but when it’s a piece of infrastructure being built for the benefit of all New Zealanders, then compulsory acquisition is justified. But I think it really is important to recognise that it can be very traumatic to be told that this house, this home which you have made your own, which you’ve raised your kids in, is going to be bowled for some heartless piece of public infrastructure, no matter what good it does.

Certainly, I just want to recognise what occurred in Christchurch, because that must be the largest compulsory acquisition in New Zealand’s history, where huge tracts of the city were acquired compulsorily—not under the Public Works Act; under special legislation. Then, of course, we had the residential red zone and the trauma that that caused. But, you know, it is an object lesson. If you look now and see the benefits of those decisions—decisions of a National Government, unfortunately—they nevertheless can be seen.

Interestingly, this bill creates two things: the kind of disruption payment and the incentive payment. It actually does something quite unusual, which is it pays over the odds. So the usual rule, that the ACT Party’s fully aware of, is just compensation—“just” in the fairness sense, not as in “just enough”, but just compensation—whereas, in fact, this bill does something different because it’s trying to accelerate the process, which is to give more than just compensation for a more speedy process. We get it. Certainly, if you were a commercial player in the market and you wanted to do a deal and you wanted to do it quickly, you might be prepared to pay for that, but it’s an interesting use of taxpayers’ money to put it into private hands just because you want to go fast. But, nevertheless, we understand the reasoning behind it.

I do want to make one other observation, and that is about compensation for private property. Moments ago, we heard the Resource Management Act, where the bar is being lowered on things like water pollution. That is conferring a benefit on private property owners who are able to emit effluent and the like, but there’s no compensation for the public harm. But here we’ve got the very inverse of that situation, where the public is getting a good and overcompensating the private interests. It’s quite an interesting mismatch, where there’s no compensation for the public under the Resource Management Act harms—effluent—but overcompensation for private property owners under this piece of legislation. Just a strange asymmetry.

The other thing I just wanted to note here—again, we’re supportive of this because we are supportive of good services for New Zealanders. But one of the challenges as I see it—and I haven’t had the opportunity that Transport and Infrastructure Committee members have had to study this—is Schedule 2, because the whole thing is about critical infrastructure projects, and Schedule 2A is the critical infrastructure projects. As with the fast-track Act, it’s a Government list, so there’s no test of whether or not it’s critical. Certainly in public works law, generally, you’d have to demonstrate that the thing that you wanted to do had sufficient public interest to displace private property rights, but here the Government has just listed a set of things that it reckons are sufficiently important.

There is one that I wanted to identify, because at least one end of it ends up in my electorate, and that is the Belfast to Woodend bypass. There it is—State Highway 1 North Canterbury Woodend Bypass Project, the project that the Government said was going to be started already but it hasn’t; also a project that the Government said would not be tolled and now they are looking at tolling it. So if you—[Interruption] That’s right. So to those people of Woodend, Rangiora, Kaiapoi, you know, I’ve got to say that this is the document that we’ve got to look to. So if you’re disappointed, Woodend, Rangiora, Kaiapoi, Ōhoka, look to your local MP, who’s actually not doing much about it and has in fact put the Woodend Bypass project on this list. You’ll be paying 1,300 bucks a year to get to work on that tolled road because of the National Government.

But, you know, we do need to look at whether these things are in fact critical projects, because I struggle to see—and I did hear Julie Anne Genter, who’s never been a lover of roading projects; I heard her eloquent speech. But there’s a real question, because this is a road that is extending a motorway, an existing motorway, out into, you know, 30 kilometres perhaps out of Christchurch City. Its sole purpose, really, is to enable commuters to come from home to work or shop or play in Christchurch, which is a fantastic place to do all those things, but it would be much better if they lived much closer to where they wanted to work, play, shop, and do those kinds of things.

So this road, to say that it is critical, to say that we should truncate decision-making processes—because that’s what this really does. You’ve got to remember that under the existing Public Works Act regime, there are very robust processes to challenge what’s going on, including valuation challenges, including challenges around whether the public work is in fact a public work that meets the appropriate threshold. That’s what’s being truncated here by the use of this list. It should be a very high bar, is my basic point. Perhaps the Woodend Bypass is—I don’t think it is, but let’s ask someone who actually knows whether it meets the test of being critical infrastructure.

Yet here we have a Government that looks like they can’t pay for it because they’ve given tax breaks to landlords, so they’re going to toll people going to work. They’re going to toll people going in to work in Christchurch from Kaiapoi, Rangiora, and Ōhoka. You know, that’s a real strange situation to find themselves in. But Matt Doocey’s silent on the matter, strangely. He wants to get rid of the T2 lane, you might be interested in, member for Rongotai. Matt Doocey wants to get rid of the T2 lane and wants to toll a road—bizarre that he’s got that set of priorities.

But, anyway, it’s a bill that does more good than harm, and in that case, if it makes New Zealand better for most New Zealanders, we’ll be supporting it on that basis.

People across New Zealand are tired of waiting. Infrastructure takes too long to plan and build. Let’s look at the record from our Opposition. They wasted $34.8 million. They tried to build light rail in my electorate, Mt Roskill. After six years, I don’t even see a single section or single piece of light rail in my electorate. So we need to find a smarter and faster way to deliver the infrastructure our country urgently needs. This bill modernises the Public Works Act to support faster delivery of nationally significant infrastructure, because people in New Zealand want infrastructure to be built. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on this bill, the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting this bill because in terms of the intent and the purpose that my colleague Dr Duncan Webb outlined, it has got a significance by way of projects that are important to carry on with.

I just want to talk very briefly about something I just remembered. It happened in Māngere, when the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) needed to extend the motorway network for CBD Aucklanders to get to the Auckland Airport. Now, that’s fine, but when you don’t consult the community as to the purpose of the road or you don’t want to hear the community—and I was quite alarmed, because the motorway infrastructure was going to come right through my living room. So I didn’t understand as to why I was a member of the community that really questioned the infrastructure design. It was a happy ending because between the officials and our elected members and our community, we were able to engage in a process that allowed people from Māngere to really understand the purpose of the infrastructure, the reasons why people need to give up their land to achieve the outcome, and we were able to challenge.

What I’ve read quickly in this bill is that the benefits are that it will allow a process that, yes, has been outlined when I read the notes. In terms of the landowner, or the person who has an interest in the land that is in question, there is a process that you can go through in terms of the written submission, and sometimes people in our local community—for example, South Auckland—may not have the necessary background in terms of understanding infrastructure or understanding the bigger processes of, for example, the NZTA.

What the bill does do, and it will be the relevant authority, the Minister for Land Information must take certain cases into account, which I think is a good thing. But when people of a local community don’t understand the criticalness of infrastructure to allow bigger projects to take place, as long as they can have a step in the process where they can question, where they can understand the ins and outs, that is important. So, on that note, Labour does support this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

In one hour, I’m going to be driving home, down Transmission Gully—a fantastic road of national significance—on to the Kāpiti Expressway. What a fantastic road that is—110 kilometres per hour—despite what the member from the Green Party may have said about it. Very soon, as you then get past Ōtaki, we’ll be starting work on the Ōtaki to north of Levin Highway. These are fantastic roads, but we have learnt from them that we can improve the process where we need to acquire land to build them. They have saved lives; they have transformed our communities. I love them, I support them, and that’s why I’m commending the bill that the honourable and gallant Minister has brought to the House. And can I just take a couple of seconds to finish by saying a very happy birthday to Savannah, one of our wonderful House staff. I commend the bill to the House.

Glen Bennett had a very significant birthday, yesterday, as well.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So we should say happy birthday to him as well, even though it’s one day late.

GLEN BENNETT: You are welcome to sing, and in light of it being my significant birthday this week, I am, potentially, going to sing my whole contribution this afternoon—I thought that might be a way to do it—so the whole House can celebrate with me my coming of age and hitting a significant milestone.

Dr David Wilson: Please yield! Yield!

GLEN BENNETT: Someone else would like to sing for me? That is great. Thank you.

This legislation has been well traversed, and it’s obviously the space, in its second reading—as it’s come back to the House from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. There are some things we need to continue to talk about, and my colleagues already—Tangi Utikere, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and my colleague from South Auckland, Lemauga Lydia Sosene—have articulated some of the key reasons why it’s the balancing of supporting something with the challenges that come with that. As we look at this legislation, the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, we want to acknowledge the fact that it’s not something that we desperately want. As was said, you know, someone’s lounge was in the path of a potential highway. And the fact is that a family home, a family property, is something that is significant to most people.

As others have talked about their own electorates and what’s gone on, I’ve looked at some of the projects that have gone on in Taranaki and in New Plymouth in recent decades. Sadly, a previous mayor, Mayor David Lean, passed away a couple of months ago. He was an innovative mayor of the 1980s and 1990s in New Plymouth, and it’s not sexy and it’s not cool but he got across the line and got New Zealand’s leading waste-water treatment plant built in his time as mayor, to actually change the game of what was going on back in the 1980s, when the discharge of waste water was just pumped out of the Waiwhakaiho River into the ocean and was pumped out in front of the main part of New Plymouth City. It took a lot of land, it took a lot of investment to ensure that this innovative, large-scale project was built to ensure that we protected our waterways, we protected our oceans, and we protected our environment. It was around the Public Works Act, it was around acquisition of land, and it was around ensuring the funding was in place for what still is an important piece of infrastructure that has stood the test of time.

Now, we have challenged the Government and we will continue to challenge the Government, on their record in terms of getting on with building things and getting on with ensuring that infrastructure is where it needs to be, and that’s why it is important for us to cautiously support this legislation—so that things can continue to move forward. We know there’s streamlining that’s needed. We know that the process of land acquisition can be messy, it can be challenging. When it comes to critical infrastructure, when it comes to opportunities for communities like the waste-water project in New Plymouth in the 1980s, it’s hard. I don’t want my land acquired by the Government, I don’t necessarily want these things happening in my neck of the woods, but at the same time, if we want to build a better future and a better community, then there are certain things—not everything, but there are certain things—that do require Government intervention and land to be acquired. So I look again. It’s 40 years since that project kicked off and has been operating, and it makes a difference for our community, for our environment, and for our water.

Now, I remember I subbed in at one stage—or in reading some of the information and the legislation over the last few months. It did occur to me, and I was concerned, around the right of the landowner or the person of interest to object to the land acquisition, and the fact that the Environment Court was removed and it now was a process that was through written submission with no opportunity for oral hearing. But I’m glad to see that in terms of where we are in the House today—and again, we move to the committee of the whole House once it’s gone past the second reading—there is a judicial process that still is able to be used to review the procedural issues that fit in. So, yes, there are some things that people are struggling with in terms of their voice in the process, but the fact that there is a judicial process involved—I’m glad that that is in there. If we can tighten that or work on it further, then I would be happy with that.

As I think about the land around myself and the land in Taranaki and what the future looks like, there are some real challenges. I don’t want to get into our Northern Gateway, but there are challenges there. Again, what is the potential of something that actually has a significant environmental footprint, that, yes, cuts a road through our environment? But, actually, there are some opportunities in terms of the regeneration of our environment and of our local iwi being involved in perpetuity to ensure that there’s pest control on a piece of land that had been overcome with pests and overcome with possums and other imported species. Actually, yes, there’s a road, and it’s State Highway 3, going north, but the fact is that work has been done to ensure that there is an environmental lens put over that, which will actually improve the wetlands and the space there.

But the challenge, we know, is that there is land that needs to be acquired, and that is a challenge for a family, and I want to acknowledge that. It’s great for us to debate this and talk about, you know, let’s just get on with this and make it happen, but actually it is people’s lives and it is people’s history and so we need to be sensitive. We need to ensure that the legislation has the right balance—that yes, there is acquisition, yes, the Government does need to make challenging decisions, but also there has to be respect for those that it steps into.

Finally, around the protected Māori land, as I was looking at the legislation this afternoon, I looked at page 7, and there’s a whole section there that does talk about the fact that if it’s protected Māori land that is required for any critical infrastructure project, the landowners would be able to use the Environment Court process. The fact that Māori land has the opportunity to engage with the Environment Court is important. It goes on to list things like Māori freehold land, Māori reserves, general land owned by Māori that was previously Māori freehold land, land held by a post-settlement governance entity. It goes on through Māori reserves, Māori customary land. I think that is important.

I finish on that because there’s one other situation in New Plymouth that hasn’t quite got there yet. It was a council decision made a number of years ago. It was Waka Kotahi at the time, back in the early 2010s, and it’s the motorway going from New Plymouth to Bell Block and Egmont Road. My colleagues in the House who are from Taranaki know the Egmont Road is a huge challenge. But the interesting thing with this was the council had it under control, because they were going to just cut a road to the side that was going to go from Egmont Road up to Bell Block, but they didn’t quite do their homework correctly. So the New Zealand Transport Authority did their piece and they built the motorway, and there’s now this really dangerous intersection where cars have to pull out into a 100 kilometre zone.

The challenge was that they hadn’t completed their homework, and there’s actually urupā in that space. So they said, “Yeah, of course we’ll do this.” This is sort of, I think, in 2009, 2010. But of course they can’t cut this road straight through, because they weren’t able to acquire the land because of its cultural significance, because of hapū and iwi requirements—and just to do the right thing, because it’s an urupā, right? There is work under way so that potentially in the future, we hope, there will be another route that will be able to be put through, and I’m sure other solutions will be found for that.

But, again, it’s that challenge of land acquisition. It’s a challenge of legislation like this that we can put in place, but then it’s also ensuring that we map out our lands, our cemeteries, our urupā, our sites of significance so that when a decision is made, the right decision is made, and it is actioned and we don’t have to go back to the drawing board and recreate it.

We support this and we look forward to, I guess, a robust debate in the committee stage, to get this legislation right.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be speak on this bill, the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. It’s good to see across the House there has been support for this. When we’re developing infrastructure, we need the certainty that there will be some cross-bipartisan agreement at least. None of this committee has done this with any sort of light-heartedness. It’s been taken very seriously. All of the considerations that have gone before the committee have been carefully thought through, and where they have brought back this bill for our further consideration, I think they’ve done an excellent job and I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.

This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day.