Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): All good policy starts with the problem definition. What we've heard from the Government is that the reason why they are taking New Zealand backwards back to 1991 into a piece of legislation that is no longer fit for purpose is because the legislation put in place by the previous Government was difficult and it made it difficult to get things done and was bad for the environment. What we've had is the Minister in charge of this legislation the Hon Chris Bishop and indeed the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon going around trumpeting as one of the key examples of why this needed to be taken back is because it was so difficult to get renewable energy projects over the line.Wind farms was something that was often touted. Their case in point was West Wind farm here in Wellington where both Chris Bishop and the Prime Minister would claim that that project took anywhere between seven to 10 years to get consented. This is a fallacy. This is incorrect and it is wrong. That project took six months from the time of lodging that consent with the Wellington City Council. There was 18 months in the Environment Court. So from consent to the decision coming out of the Environment Court it was three years not the seven eight or 10 years that we've had the Minister in charge and indeed the Prime Minister running around telling New Zealanders that it took.And that is a problem not just because they are wrong and have been misleading with the information that they've been giving out but it speaks to the problem of putting this legislation through urgency. That is the point of select committee. That is the point of scrutiny. That is what our legislative process in New Zealand is based on and the ability for submitters to have a say and to be heard. When we have a Government that doesn't even understand its own problem definition and is intent on rushing through legislation by Christmas that is where we are running into a huge amount of problems.The legislation that is being repealed is legislation that is about getting that balance between protecting our environment and making sure that we can enable activity in our economy that needs to be enabled. This was not rushed legislation; this was legislation that went through scrutiny after scrutiny after scrutiny. And were there problems that were identified through that process? Of course there were. I know sitting on the ministerial advisory group that in the areas I was responsible for an issue was highlighted that the legislation as it was in the bill was not permissive enough in terms of reconsenting of hydroelectricity assets. So we changed it. We listened to the submitters and we made the change to the bill before it was passed into the Act that is being repealed today. And that is what good legislation looks like not something that is being pushed through by a Government that can't even understand its own problem definition.And then what we have is that we have the Government still saying it's so hard to get things consented but they're going to keep the fast-track provisions that our Government put in. No wonder because if you want to look at how you actually get that balance right how you can see the progress that needs to be made you need to look no further than the fast-track consenting provisions that our Government put in place after COVID as a means of stimulating activity in the economy but that actually work so well that they were carried over to be a permanent feature of the new planning framework in the legislation that we're repealing today.So if I have a look at what was achieved there nine solar panel projects were approved through that. That was nearly 1.9 million panels that were approved to go through the fast-track process. That is 1147 megawatts of renewable electricity generation through those projects. To put that in context the Clyde Dam is 432 megawatts. What we are talking about is something that was nearly three times the output of the Clyde Dam and that was only solar panels because there were also wind farms that went through that. Three major wind farm projects were also approved to go through fast-track consenting—again equal to the Clyde Dam. Of the I think it was 108 projects that were referred through the fast-track process that we had—15 of them being green and renewable energy projects—was four times the capacity of the Clyde Dam.Show me the problem definition members on the Government side. We are not hearing it. You're saying—sorry not you Madam Speaker; you would never say such a thing but the Government is saying that it is too difficult to get things done. We are talking about four times the capacity of the Clyde Dam in electricity generation being approved to go through a process in a matter of months and we are told that that is somehow broken.We've also had Chris Bishop come and say that he is truly a progressor for going backwards that he is somehow putting forward constructive solutions. Well I'm sorry Mr Bishop. All he is presiding over as a Minister is taking New Zealand backwards and showing the lack of vision that this Government holds. All that could be campaigned on was to repeal not even the replacement of it. The replacement—I might not agree with it but I could have some respect for it if there was an idea and a vision of what it was going to be replaced with.But we have a party and parties that are forming this Government that failed in the nine years they were in Government to get Resource Management Act (RMA) reform over the line—they tried and tried and failed and failed again—now coming back repealing and saying Trust us. Magically we will be able to do something." Well we look forward to that because the track record isn't great and instead we're going to be going round and round in circles stuck in 1991 land with a set of planning and environmental provisions that do not understand climate change do not understand the modern Treaty relationship as has evolved today does not understand the issues around water shortages even the multiple amendments to the RMA. Everyone was in agreement. The RMA was broken and needed fixing.We had the Minister Chris Bishop come down and say "Well you did it. A previous Labour Government when they've come in they repealed things too." And he gave the example of us repealing the Employment Contracts Act. We certainly did but we just didn't repeal that stain on our statute books; in our time in Opposition we had come up with an alternative and that is what this Government is failing to do.What was put in place—I just have to have a little something I prepared earlier—is the Employment Relations Act of 2000 a comprehensive piece of legislation that was put in place with ideas vision and thinking of what we thought a modern employment environment would look like. Are we seeing that from the Government in terms of a comprehensive piece of legislation that shows vision for what they want to do instead? I might not agree with it. I might agree with parts of it. I might disagree with parts of it. More likely than not we would hold different views on bits of it. But I would have more respect if there were parties that could front up to this Parliament and put through something substantive that showed what they wanted to do not where they wanted to take New Zealand backwards to.So if we look at the Employment Relations Act—the Minister brought it up as the great comparator that he was bringing in there—this legislation that we replaced it with and the thinking we had done in Opposition promoted concepts of good faith and fair bargaining. It brought in mediation it brought in personal grievances it established the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court and it promoted collective bargaining. There was substance with what was being replaced.This is a Government that has no ideas. This is a Government that has no momentum to take New Zealand forward. All it can do is go backwards to the future and what we will see is New Zealand worse off for it. This is a Government that has no plan to how it's going to cut emissions and meet our emissions reduction budget. It has no plans how it is going to have constructive 21st century Treaty relationships and that is what has been shown in every contribution in this House.I look forward to a day when we have a Government on those benches actually proposing what they are going to do rather than what they are going to undo because someday they will need to front up and share what their vision for New Zealand is."