Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): The Minister makes a great point: wouldn't it be great if we could fast track every consent application? But of course it is important to balance the rights of neighbours and communities affected by say traffic movements dust and noise from a development or overlooking—if someone wants to build three storeys of three units one metre from your boundary the ACT Party thinks that it is helpful to have a process to engage with your neighbours. That's why ACT has actually proposed an alternative in our solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature which would provide for just that. But Minister I just want to ask you a few questions about the fast track and how it will work—the proposals of national significance.A couple of years ago Port of Tauranga applied for their wharf extension to go into the fast-track process and a decision was taken to decline their application to participate in the fast-track process even though their wharf extension was not out into the harbour but actually alongside an existing peninsular of land that they already occupied. Port of Tauranga made the point that they will be very soon constrained in the number of containers they can process. They are currently New Zealand's largest export port particularly supporting the fruit-growing dairy and sheep and beef sectors and all of the high-tech manufacturing that goes on in the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato region—and Auckland to a certain extent; that exports through Port of Tauranga. But their application to enter the fast-track process was declined Minister.I know you're aware of this because in the decision making—and I think you replied to a written question that I put to you in relation to this and I'll just have to paraphrase because it was some time ago—the consideration was to exclude them even though the environmental effects could be acceptable given that essentially they're just building a concrete dock alongside their existing land as opposed to out into the harbour to allow for the largest containerships that will soon be coming with 10000 twenty-foot equivalent unit vessels double the size of the containerships currently coming to New Zealand. They need the capacity. But there is a marae across the harbour which looks at the port and which in previous years has been surrounded by industrial activities including fertiliser manufacturing hydrocarbons petrochemicals—manufacturing of all kinds—and that marae now sits almost isolated surrounded by industrial activities with major roads going around it with their view of the port and its activities as their primary outlook.I understand from looking into it Minister that that marae has felt that their interests haven't been addressed or past wrongs haven't been addressed through the Treaty settlement process and that they feel they have to object to Port of Tauranga's proposal because they don't see any other way of getting redress for the way that their marae and the papa kāinga housing on that marae has been impacted by industrial activities next door and of course the port which is a vital piece of infrastructure in operation. So while the people who live in the papa kāinga housing in the marae and the hapū who are responsible for it have a genuine issue with the quality of the environment that they are forced to endure and all of the development that's gone on around them that doesn't change the fact it's happened and that the port needs to expand. So by rejecting Port of Tauranga from the COVID-19 fast-track application process that actually indicated that some of these primary hurdles to infrastructure development namely the veto of a group of people who might have a legitimate concern but which can't possibly be addressed through this resource management process will still continue to have a right of veto over major infrastructure projects.Minister would you care to explain to the committee and to people listening how that might be resolved through this process?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes I'm happy to. For a start I would say there are some things that shouldn't be able to go through fast track. People with an understanding of the history of New Zealand would I think understand that raising Lake Manapōuri as happened historically shouldn't go through fast track nor should the high dam at Clyde—nor in my opinion should other hydro projects go through fast track. And that's why the fast-track system here actually says you can—Stuart Smith: Lake Onslow!Hon DAVID PARKER: No Lake Onslow shouldn't be able to go through fast track either. It should be able to go through a direct referral to the Environment Court through some other process but—Chris Bishop: You legislated for it!Hon DAVID PARKER: No—no. The legislation says there are some things that shouldn't be able to access the fast track because people have got a right to a say. And we don't actually need a lot more hydro so we shouldn't be putting that through under a fast-track process. All other infrastructure can apply to go through fast track including renewable electricity for geothermal wind and solar and including port structures such as the member Simon Court mentioned. There is still a right of a decision maker to say some of these things ought not to go through the fast track. I've been the decision maker in respect of that under the COVID response fast track but similar provisions are carried forward under the new fast-track provision in this legislation.How have I exercised those discretions? Well that's been a matter for me as Minister as it will be a future Minister but one of the things I've done is protect the reputation of the fast track by not using it unwisely. And that does rely upon a degree of political judgment as to when events ought to go through with a public hearing. I've only done that on a few occasions. The Tauranga port was one of them. The Mount Crawford developments were another here where there were gondola and commercial developments proposed for a peninsular that I thought people should have a right of participation in in the normal manner. It doesn't happen all that often; it does happen some times. How else do you remedy these issues for the longer term through the country or in the medium term through the country? You do it through the Spatial Planning Act. The Spatial Planning Act could say Look when traffic volumes and freight volumes increase in New Zealand we need to expand the port capacity in Tauranga." That could be foreshadowed in a regional spatial strategy and could actually flow through to a district and regional plan as actually a permitted activity.So in the future that port extension could well actually become a permitted activity. It may not do but it might do—it might do. It might be a trigger. Those are issues for the future; they can be worked through through local communities because there would be people at that marae who would no doubt in respect of the plan change come along and says "We don't think it should be a permitted activity." They'd have the right to do that and that would be for the regional planning committee to decide."