Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. That was an incredibly curious contribution from the last member Jonathan Young because essentially if I understood it correctly he was sort of saying Well we had the idea in our previous nine years of Government." If that's the case why on earth wasn't it actually implemented or actioned during the nine years of the previous Government? Look I think the voters are going to give the Opposition very short shrift to say "We had the idea. Give us some support as well." Look what Kiwis are going to be questioning and evaluating the contribution of various Governments on is the actual action and difference they bring to New Zealand. That's why I'm proud to be supporting this bill—because infrastructure is such a critical component of delivering a richer New Zealand for New Zealanders. What I mean by that is "richer" in an economic sense and a household finance sense but also in a cultural and environmental sense because I believe infrastructure can deliver better quality of life outcomes nicer communities healthier cities. So we're supporting this because we believe it's a step towards a richer New Zealand.As the Government's about to spend $42 billion on infrastructure spend over the next three years—an estimated amount—it's important that we get it right and that's why having an infrastructure commission created to help with planning strategy procurement and delivery is critically important. An area that the Green Party was particularly focused on in the development of this legislation was making sure that when we're talking about infrastructure we talk about the whole gamut of it. When we talk about infrastructure I think everyone knows we're talking about roads and bridges and buildings but what this legislation also contains is water infrastructure telecommunications. Now when you look at the previous Government they say they had this idea of a commission but didn't implement it in Government. I think the challenge was that if they had one idea in Government over the nine years when it came to infrastructure it was roads roads roads. That was the single plan they had.What we also need to do is make sure that when we talk about infrastructure we're also talking about rail electricity and power infrastructure but I would also add—and I think this is a unique Green contribution to this debate on infrastructure—that it's not just hard infrastructure. It's not just power poles or rail lines—I would put it that it's the water infrastructure; it's our natural infrastructure; it's the lakes the mountains and the waterways. This is actually how our country and our economy operate: built on the natural environment. You couldn't farm in New Zealand without the natural infrastructure. You couldn't have such a vibrant and valuable tourism industry if we didn't have such spectacular natural infrastructure that people literally fly from around the world to come visit because it's so special.When you look at the idea of—often in this House I've heard it portrayed as a trade-off between the environment and the economy. We somehow have to sacrifice our environment if we want to grow jobs. I absolutely reject that argument. We only have an economy because of our natural world. Kate Raworth a UK-based academic described it as the "doughnut economy". Instead of portraying the environment and the economy as in conflict or needing to be balanced you actually need to envision our economy and our society much like a doughnut. The outer limit of that doughnut of the circle is the natural world and if we go outside of that everything within it—which is our economy and our society—can't actually operate. So we're pushing very hard for a more expansive set of infrastructure definitions. I'm going to be very interested to hear the select committee submissions on this because I think many New Zealanders who love and treasure their environment will want to see that our forests our wetlands and our beaches are considered as part of the conversation on infrastructure.An area where you can see the Green Party's influence and touch on the legislation is in clause 11 where climate change is explicitly mentioned as both a thing to be cognisant of in terms of mitigation but also in terms of adaptation. Now that $42 billion estimated spend over the next three years on infrastructure in New Zealand—we can choose to do that smartly to make sure we're saving taxpayers down the line from the risks of climate change.We're seeing the impacts of climate change already in New Zealand in terms of infrastructure. I think of my home region of Wellington where almost 50 percent of Greater Wellington Regional Council's expenditure in recent years is on flood wall protections. Now this is directly as a result of rising sea levels and the impacts we're seeing in terms of the water space. It's happening in other regions such as the Kapiti Coast. It's happening in Otago where sea walls are being eaten into. When we're spending literally tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on infrastructure we need to make sure we're spending it wisely and protecting that investment into the future as seas rise and as weather patterns change.As we hear from the New Zealand Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group head she says "Typically we hold the line we build back a bit response and that won't pass muster anymore." We will be forced to fund the transition the way we make decisions how we do business and where to locate ourselves so it's critically important that these are the big issues that will be considered by the commission in their planning and strategy. We're seeing the impacts of climate change today and it's only going to worsen as time progresses. So we need to spend our money wisely to make sure that if we are investing in infrastructure for a richer New Zealand we're doing it for future generations in this land that we treasure and love. Kia ora koutou."