Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I only have five minutes to contribute to this part of the debate—I will try to cover a lot of issues because there are a lot of hooks in this. For a start can I say something about the discussion around property rights. Simon Court said that he wants a property rights - based regime for the Resource Management Act (RMA). If you had a property rights - based regime for the RMA you would not be able to have a non-point source discharge from a farm adding to pollution to rivers. That's not what we'll end up with though. If you had a pure property rights - based regime the farmer who was discharging into a river via an increased number of cows would be subject to the law of nuisance and could be injuncted for their farming practices. They don't mean that—they don't mean that.The Hon Shane Jones' comments before—with respect Mr. Jones you take the issue the assertion of property rights too far. It has never been the case anywhere in New Zealand or indeed anywhere in the Commonwealth that a private property right to a piece of land in a city that is used for a house can be turned into a foundry. I don't think the member thinks that that should be the case. But it's also true in rural areas. It has never been the case that a private property right to rural land includes the right to kill the last tuatara. What a nonsense it would be if that was the law. So I dislike these simplistic references to public property rights in that sense.In respect of wasted cost on the process for consenting there has been a problem in this country with that and we did address that in the last Government and I was the responsible Minister that did it. In respect of the COVID-related legislation the decision maker was the panel not the Minister—that's a big difference in this proposal. Notwithstanding that the vast majority of projects were consented within a reasonable time. We knocked the average time of consenting back by 18 months and we dropped costs considerably. It did work and was a good model.We carried it forward into the Natural and Built Environment Act with a number of changes. What was the main change? The Minister for the Environment—which was at the time me—was no longer the gatekeeper for whether projects could use that process. Why? Because I actually thought it was inappropriate that I had that role. I thought that decision should sit with officials rather than me.In addition the panels under those fast-track referrals could hold an oral hearing if necessary and on occasions they should be able to. If for example it is the first waste-to-energy project and it was put through fast track I think people should have a right for public submission and to make oral submissions rather than just written submissions.What is this really about and what will be the outcome? What is the most expensive power project ever built in the history of New Zealand recently? It's the Clyde Dam. It was the Clyde Dam. It was an appalling waste of money. It was forced through by the Clutha Development (Clyde Dam) Empowering Act 1982. It was actually one of the things that led to eventually the RMA. It was an appalling waste of money and you should avoid those sorts of mistakes through due process. You've got to be careful that you don't go too far with processes that are too shortcut.Now what clause 25 of this bill says—that when the panel refers back to Ministers the Ministers must not decide to deviate from a panel's recommendation unless they have undertaken analysis of the recommendations and any conditions in accordance with the relevant assessment criteria." I'm not sure what that means and I find it inconsistent with the next subclause (5) which says that the Ministers may go back to the panel and "give … any directions the Ministers think appropriate as to the reconsideration of whole or part". So they can effectively tell the panel what to do. If this is going to survive as legislation that has to be limited because if it's not the threat—and it was a threat from the Hon James Shaw—is that there will be investment uncertainty in New Zealand because those consenting decisions will seem on occasions to be tainted by allegations of corruption as allegations of special favours and they will lack legitimacy. Accordingly you will find that the other side of politics will react the other way and you will create investment uncertainty. In some of those consents there is a risk that they will not last.The final point I will make is that there are two things that this bill needs to do that it doesn't yet do and this is relevant to aquaculture and to wind farms at sea. Sometimes you need a spatial planning approach where a high-level decision is taken as to where things can happen and then you work through later details. That's the way to sort out wind farms and aquaculture not through individual consents."