Bishop ChrisSecond Reading Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I move That the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a second time. Not a lot has changed from when I moved the first reading of this bill some 50 minutes ago. Apparently we're going to get a tikanga lesson from the Hon Peeni Henare. That'll be very interesting I'm looking forward to that as he apparently stands up for his people. Actually Mr Henare will find—if he hasn't already discovered this—the law is for all not just his people or our people or Labour Party people or National Party people or Māori people or Pasifika people. The law is for all. That's actually the way Parliament works. He's about to get the—Hon Peeni Henare: Treaty clauses.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh the Treaty—oh yeah yeah. I'm happy to have a conversation about the Treaty clause because there's a Treaty clause in this there's a Treaty clause in the Resource Management Act (RMA) and there's a Treaty clause in the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA). We're getting rid of the NBA and we're going back to the RMA 1991. Tell you what we are getting rid of: the amorphous and unclear legal term in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao which would have caused chaos through the judicial system and the council planning system as everyone navigating the new regime worked out what—Hon Peeni Henare: The High Court found a way through.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?Hon Peeni Henare: The High Court found a way through.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh OK. Right. Well firstly—I mean that is not true. Secondly—Hon Peeni Henare: On tikanga it's true.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well yeah I mean it's a wee way away from the debate the issue of tikanga. But the point I'm making is the correct one which is that when you introduce an unclear and new legal term into something as difficult and as complicated as planning you need to know what you are doing and the last Government did not know what they were doing with this. That is why many legal experts who have looked at this issue have made that precise point which is that the RMA is guilty of many things and there are many issues with it but to some extent people know where they stand. So they know what the Treaty clause in the current RMA means they know how it is interpreted through the courts and they know how it is interpreted through the various council planning documents that fall within the hierarchy of the RMA. There is well-settled case law and jurisprudence on what the Treaty clause in that legislation means. The NBA strengthened the Treaty clause in a way that would have had unclear outcomes and most importantly it introduced a new legal term which would have ended up going all the way through to the Supreme Court before anyone knew what it would mean and what it would have meant in practice. In the meantime people who actually want to do stuff in this country and also protect the environment would have been left unclear as to what the legal ramifications of that Act were.So Parliament through the repeal legislation that we are now undertaking is going back to the status quo ante so that we can have a proper and thorough look at it. I questioned the Minister for the Environment during the passage of the NBA bill in the last Parliament and the answers were as I'm sure Mr Court would agree with me wholly inadequate as to what the implication was of putting in place the phrase te Oranga o te Taiao" and asking all decision makers pursuant to the NBA to uphold it.The other thing that we are unpicking and doing away with is the subordination of everything to the protection of the natural environment. Our view on the Government benches is that the balance in the NBA was wrong. We canvassed at length during the first reading and second reading of the NBA in the last Parliament exactly the problems with that. Look reasonable people would disagree on that balance. But we took to the election a proposal to repeal these Acts by Christmas and we are doing so.It was interesting to listen to Megan Woods' speech the former Minister of Energy and Resources because one of the notable things about the NBA was that the renewable energy sector was vociferous in their opposition to the NBA. Now everyone in this Parliament I think acknowledges that we need more renewable energy. It's going to be one of the key ways we meet our climate goals our net zero commitments and also frankly grow the economy while decarbonising it at the same time. That is the future.Scott Willis: So why kill the Clean Car Discount?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?Scott Willis: Why kill the Clean Car Discount? That's demand.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well because—we've been through this so many times. The Clean Car Discount is a reverse Robin Hood scheme. It makes people who find it hard to transition away from fossil fuel - burning cars—tradies and farmers—pay more and it recycles that money to people who can afford to buy Teslas. In the last two years that it has been operating $100 million has been paid to Tesla owners—paid for by tradies and farmers. That is stupid. I'm sorry; that is a dumb idea. And it does not lower emissions—that's the other thing. The Greens have got to get it through their heads how the emissions trading scheme works. There is a cap on emissions—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Yeah Mr Bishop the trouble with having an "in and out" across the House is you can sort of tend to get away from the bill. Can we come back.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. Yeah no fair enough. Well I was just responding to an interjection. But you know we'll come back to that in due course.I was making a point about renewable energy and the vociferous opposition from the energy sector. The Wind Energy Association turned up to the select committee and they were pretty critical of the bill. I said very directly "Will it be easier or harder to build a wind farm if this bill passes?" And they said it would be harder. Well that fails the test surely of protecting the environment and growing the economy and also growing renewable electricity.Contact Energy turned up—and you know members will have their views about private electricity and all the rest of it but the reality is that they're a major player in the electricity sector. They own a significant number of generating assets around the country—by the way without any taxpayer dollars going into it; it's a privately owned company 100 percent privately owned. So the capital that's invested into the electricity market the taxpayer gets for free in that sense. Anyway I said to them "Well what do you think about the bill?" And the Contact Energy submitter said "This bill"—which is now the Act we're repealing—"is the single biggest barrier to decarbonisation of the New Zealand economy." The single biggest barrier because the reality is that our planning laws have a significant impact on how easy it is to get renewable energy up and running.To take a simple example the West Wind wind farm at Mākara—great wind farm; some of the best wind in the world in Wellington as all Wellingtonians know about a 43 to 44 percent capacity factor. It took two years to build it eight years to consent it.The Wairākei Power Station which has been generating clean—well relatively clean—renewable baseload energy—goes like the clappers geothermal energy baseload power straight into the grid—been going since the 1950s. It took them nine years—not to consent the operation of it in the 1950s but to reconsent it so the thing could keep operating. So we need to make it easier to build wind farms. We need to make it easier to build more hydro. We need to make it easier to build solar which is becoming increasingly economic. We need to make it easier to build more geothermal and that means smashing through the regulatory red tape that holds our energy system back from decarbonising. There are billions and billions of dollars of capital waiting to be deployed into New Zealand because of our enormous renewable energy endowment that New Zealand is blessed with. What we need to do is allow that capital to flow. The capital will not flow when people are faced with shorter consent times like this Act provides; legal uncertainty about how they will get a consent; amorphous legal phrases that they will have to navigate and appeal through the courts and send up to the Supreme Court over nine long successive—Scott Willis: How will you stop them sitting on consents?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?Scott Willis: How will you stop them sitting on consents and not building?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member again does not understand markets—the member just does not understand. Firstly he doesn't understand the emissions trading scheme; secondly he doesn't understand the electricity market right? So over time the price of electricity is going to rise and more and more investors will invest in order to make a return from the electricity market. That is the way the market works. The emissions trading scheme sets a price on carbon; that price will rise over time. Renewable energy is already economic and will become more and more economic. Over time if we get the system properly set up and well regulated and we let price signals work we will exit Huntly from coal—and the last Government imported three times more coal than the Government before it because they stuffed the market. And if we get rid of the regulatory barriers like Lake Onslow which the last Government was obsessed with which hung over the electricity sector for four years and people were not prepared to invest—getting rid of all of that will decarbonise the economy and grow the economy at the same time.But the key point is this: you've got to get the planning regime right. This Act that we are repealing was a step backwards for that and that's why we're repealing it."