edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 93New Zealand National 37; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.Noes 9ACT New Zealand 1; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill — Third Reading
COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-Track Consenting) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 38New Zealand National 37; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 533 and 534 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper number 533 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 40New Zealand National 40.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 534 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 51New Zealand National 40; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 531 in the name of Erica Stanford be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 41New Zealand National 40; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-Track Consenting) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
11. Question No. 11—JusticeGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 11—Justice11. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Criminal Cases Review Commission?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I announced that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) Te Kāhui Tātari Ture has started work and can now independently investigate claimed miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is an independent body that will review criminal convictions and sentences where there is a claimed miscarriage of justice. It can refer cases back to the Court of Appeal but it does not determine guilt or innocence. The CCRC will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961 which is part of the royal prerogative of mercy process. The CCRC is headed by the Chief Commissioner Colin Carruthers QC and he leads a board made up of Deputy Chief Commissioner Paula Rose as well as Kingi Snelgar Tangi Utikere Nigel Hampton QC Professor Tracey McIntosh and Dr Virginia Hope. The commission is based in Hamilton in order to demonstrate its independence from the traditional Government and judicial centres of Auckland and Wellington. Greg O'Connor: Why is the Criminal Cases Review Commission important? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Even though we have appeal rights and safeguards against unsafe convictions in this country from time to time our justice system frankly gets things wrong. The design of the CCRC is based on international best practice and is an important safety valve against wrongful convictions. Anyone who believes they've been wrongfully convicted or sentenced can now apply to the CCRC for a review of the case. The commission honours also a significant commitment in the 2017 Labour - New Zealand First coalition agreement and it was very pleasing to see colleagues—in particular the honourable Fletcher Tabuteau—at the event yesterday. Greg O'Connor: How will the Criminal Cases Review Commission improve our justice system? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Criminal Cases Review Commission will enable our justice system to address concerns expressed over a number of years about the independence the timeliness the quality and the fairness of investigations into claimed miscarriages of justice. There will now be a dedicated resource and it is likely that investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice will be conducted in a more timely way. The launch of the CCRC yesterday is a significant milestone in the development of New Zealand's justice system.
5. Question No. 5—Economic DevelopmentTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Economic Development5. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to help save jobs and protect incomes in the domestic events and screen sectors?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yesterday my colleagues the Hon Carmel Sepuloni the Hon Kris Faafoi and myself were pleased to announce a screen sector recovery package. We're injecting $73.4 million into New Zealand's domestic screen industry to help 230 screen productions with their COVID-19 - related extra costs and to save thousands of jobs. We're also investing a further $140 million in the screen production grant for international film productions which employ thousands of New Zealand crew. Of this investment $25 million has been reallocated to support New Zealand feature films. And finally I also announced yesterday a new $10 million fund for the domestic events sector to prevent the loss of existing events which contribute to regional economies.Tamati Coffey: How does the screen sector recovery package support investments that the Government has already made?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well $23.4 million will go into the screen production fund for additional COVID-related costs incurred by productions that NZ On Air and the New Zealand Film Commission have already invested in. The remaining $50 million has been reallocated to produce up to five feature films or limited-series screen productions. This will create jobs and opportunities.Tamati Coffey: How does the screen production grant create jobs and boost our economy?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The screen production grant has allowed New Zealand to attract large international productions which support local businesses lead to the creation of spin-off businesses and provide invaluable training for Kiwis who go on to work in our world-class domestic screen productions. Without this rebate we would simply not be able to compete with other international locations. In the 2018-19 year the screen production grant paid out $138 million and spurred $605 million of economic activity. The Film Commission estimates that on average 90 percent of the crew on international productions are New Zealanders and last year the main live-action projects employed 3400 people and that doesn't include the visual effects projects including the likes of Weta Digital who alone employ 1500 people.
2. Question No. 2—EducationMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 2—Education2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Education: How many children does he expect to benefit from the recently announced Government's free and healthy school lunches programme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today I announced that 18 schools in Otago and Southland with 3000 students are joining the programme. This is on top of the 42 schools that are already taking part. Across New Zealand we'll be expanding free and healthy lunches to around 200000 New Zealand schoolchildren by the end of next year. When fully implemented one in four schoolchildren in New Zealand will receive a free and healthy school lunch every day. Marama Davidson: How will the expansion of this programme create jobs for local families and whānau?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's estimated that around 2000 jobs in local communities will be created from the expansion in Budget 2020 including jobs for around 30 people in Otago and Southland. This is based on what we know from the existing pilot. For example the school lunches at Murupara Area School are delivered by Manawa Munchies which is a business set up specifically for this purpose which is employing three local people. Similar examples exist up and down the country.Marama Davidson: What are the benefits of this programme to the students and the community as a whole?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Shortly after the programme was launched the Prime Minister and I visited a school in Flaxmere where they had been delivering the programme for several weeks. The teachers there commented that the student behavioural issues in the school had declined that the afternoon sessions were a much more productive time for learning because the children had food in their stomachs. They reported that their breakfast programme had increased attendance because all of the stigma associated with eating food at school had gone down and as a result the kids were healthier they were happier and they were learning more.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Here we are late on a Thursday evening discussing this bill a bill that represents a missed opportunity unfortunately. We saw some fantastic Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) brought forward through the committee stage and I would like to commend the Minister because actually he engaged wholeheartedly throughout that process—quite a few hours. I do want to acknowledge that effort and the officials for their work on it as well. Having said that it was a shame that we didn't see some of those SOPs put forward in particular the extension of the Waikato Expressway to Piarere—a fantastic project a missed opportunity—but I'm sure we will have that opportunity again in the future. So I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): This is a very common-sense bill and New Zealand First commends it to the House. Thank you.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. In the third reading of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill we've spent a busy few days mostly involved in Zoom meetings but also meeting face to face each day—I think about Sunday—to get this bill back to the House and some constructive changes have been made.National is supporting this bill. My colleague has raised some very valid reservations around the bill. I just want to raise one reservation I have around this bill and it is the expiry date of the bill which is two years from when the bill gains the Royal assent. We did discuss in the committee stage quite comprehensively essentially the pipeline and the process by which applicants for referred consents would go through the panel process and on through the consenting process.The question that I have—and I didn't adequately get an answer from the Minister—was that two years is not a long time and given that the Minister indicated that the panel and the chair of the panel would need a fair amount of time to get processes set up well how long will that take? Will that be six months? That then leaves 18 months' time for this panel to consider what could be—and the Minister acknowledged that he did not know how many consents which does not give a long period of time by which the Act expires. Of course there is a provision in the soon-to-be Act which allows for the consenting panels to continue their work until the consents that are in hand are dealt with. But I just wonder—and this side of the House wonders—whether the two years was just the right amount of time because bills of this sort or this bill in particular was modelled on the Canterbury earthquakes legislation and the legislation which came as a result of the Kaikōura earthquakes.This type of legislation works. We know it will work. It will get constructions going—get construction; pardon me it's getting late. There will be jobs. It will provide a very strong signal to particularly smaller communities that things are getting moving again. For that reason if nothing else I commend David Parker for his work on this bill and we are very happy to support the bill to the House.
Parker David; Mallard TrevorThird ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move That the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time. Can I thank officials who've serviced the Ministers the select committee and the House. Can I thank the select committee for their work and also the House for the debates so far tonight. I think it's just about all been said. I'm not going to say a lot more. We've not long ago heard the second reading speeches and we've dealt with the detail through the committee stage. I think it should be clear that this fast-track consenting bill is part of the Government's response to support New Zealand's recovery from the economic and social disruption caused by COVID-19.The bill will bring forward many job-rich projects to proceed earlier than would have been enabled under usual RMA processes thereby getting people into jobs far sooner. Processes are sped up. Environmental protections are retained as are Treaty protections. There are three tracks. The first is listed projects. There are 11 separate projects plus a group of papakāinga projects. They range from water storage to housing developments to road rail cycling and infrastructure projects. The listed projects will create an estimated 1700 jobs located from Kaikohe in the north to Queenstown in the south. And this is just the start because in addition to that first track the second track are additional projects that can be put through to a panel by Order in Council. The third track is permitted works enabled by certain agencies to be carried out on existing infrastructure without the need for resource consent. These generally smaller works will be undertaken by the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail Holdings. But there was also an ability to add local authorities and certain other agencies to that list by way of Order in Council. This bill is a short-term intervention to stimulate the economy. Therefore the new Act will self-repeal two years after enactment. It's a direct response to the specific situation caused by the pandemic. And I commend the bill to the House.Erica Stanford: Mr—SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to—Erica Stanford: Mr Speaker? Sorry—SPEAKER: Those of that opinion—Hon Member: She called.SPEAKER: Oh Erica Stanford.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I've just exchanged a note with the person in the chair for the National Party. I seek leave for the balance of the Supplementary Order Papers to be put as one question.Tim van de Molen: We're in the middle of a vote. You can't take a point of order.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh sorry I thought we had just finished that vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We had.Hon DAVID PARKER: I apologise.Tim van de Molen: I'm calling for a party vote on that.Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm sorry—I apologise.Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair you were interrupted by the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry I apologise if I did but I thought that I'd just finished that one. We haven't taken that one? Quite correct—my apologies for that. That's my error. So we're taking the vote on the Hon Nicky Wagner's tabled amendment to Schedule 2 regarding Marshland Road Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road bridge and intersection improvements.
Parker DavidBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to draw attention to clause 23 what will become section 23 particularly clause 23(2) which states The Minister may decline an application for any other reason whether or not the project meets the referral criteria." Now accepting the fact that if the project traverses one of the mandatory declination criteria it can't be approved but setting that aside as a given this clause gives near absolute discretion to the Minister to decline an application even if that application were to tick every box—and I mean every single criteria under clause 19. So I'd like to hear from the Minister well one does he agree that the wording as it stands does confer that near absolute discretion? Secondly what justification—does he believe that this is reasonable in a bill of this nature? And thirdly just because it's so related does that therefore mean that the criteria in clause 19 because they're not determinative of a decision are actually not necessary in primary legislation anyway? Because if meeting them doesn't mandate a positive decision why have them in there?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The discretion to put things through to a panel or not is a broad one. The consequences of the Government of the day through their Minister for the Environment making unwise decisions so that we get held to account through this place through hearings that we have at select committee and through the media—that's the effect of it. The other way that you could do it is just say wave everything through—didn't think that was the right answer—or have a very rigid set of criteria which we didn't think the right answer because they might be wrong and too rigid."
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Pleasure to just make a quick comment if I may just noting the various Supplementary Order Papers from the National members opposite wanting to add in projects to Schedule 2. I'd just really like to let the Chamber know that the Government and New Zealand First part of that Government will not be supporting these. We think they'll clog up the system and that they might be worthy projects to go through the fast-track process but not being listed in the bill and we just feel that this bill is not the place to do this.
Mahuta Nanaia; Parker DavidHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment): Can the Minister clarify irrespective of clause 6 of this bill whether in the case of the Waikato River and any take from the Waikato River its own Waikato River Treaty settlement has clause provisions which would need any other regions such as Auckland for example to take account of Te Ture Whaimana?Also can the Minister clarify in relation to the conversations between regions around the recycled use of waste water what types of conversations would need to take place between Māori and the council for example around those types of issues and are you aware of any positive conversation in that respect?Perhaps also Minister could you clarify in terms of the seasonal winter take being made available immediately whether that improves the resilience of Auckland's water needs in the next summer months as it seeks to increase the dam capacity that is available to Auckland?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think the Minister could answer the first and the third but I think the second question is far beyond the scope of Part 2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the last point yes I confirm. We've recently had a discussion about those additional consents for water to get Auckland through the forthcoming summer and perhaps the summer after through additional water particularly in winter months.In respect of the need to take into account the plan that underlies the Waikato River Authority the member is correct that that would be required to be taken into account. It's interesting you know—I think members would be interested to know—that that is such a central thing for members of the iwi that are in the Waikato River Authority that Parliament agreed that they would have a right of representation in respective panels that are set up to call in consents that affect the Waikato River. So the call-in process that I exercised earlier in the week requires the Government or the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)—I'm not sure whether it's the EPA now or the Government; one of us—to accept a nomination to that board of three or five. We've got a choice. If it's a board of three one of them is a nominee of the Waikato River Authority and if it's a board of five two of them are.
Webb Duncan; Parker DavidDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wonder if the Minister might help us. I've had the opportunity to look through the numerous Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and they seem to fall into a number of categories. Some seem to be pretty run of the mill work such as a college upgrade; others a little more substantial such as the busway and flyover that is in SOP 532. Some are sort of traffic upgrades such as I think Nicky Wagner SOP's here for a traffic lights and bridge upgrade in Marshland Road. I was just wondering if perhaps the Minister could just indicate that most of these SOPs would fit either into a referral or indeed under the existing works provision. Yet a third category would probably all manage to be addressed under the Resource Management Act's ordinary provisions. It just strikes me that none of these really meet or come anywhere near the threshold of needing to be listed in the way that perhaps some of the members on the other side are suggesting.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I would agree. I think it's good that the member refers to the permitted activity route here. I was talking to the KiwiRail chief executive who thought that most of the jobs of this that will come through fastest are actually those which are permitted activities in existing rail lines and road lines of the New Zealand Transport Agency. There will be a myriad of smaller projects that are by this legislation made permitted activities. There are standards in the legislation that require dust for example to be mitigated and prohibitions on going into the marine area for example on a permitted activity basis. But I think we've got the balance right between the listed projects the referred projects and the permitted activities.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you Madam Chair. I am puzzled because of what I'm hearing from the National Opposition with all of these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) seeking to put forward their particular pet projects. Then the bill sets out very clearly—as the Minister has enunciated—the criteria by which the Minister for the Environment will consider whether a project goes on the fast track. That is the process in the bill which will become the law.What the National members seem to be seeking with their questions is for the Minister to risk judicial review and predetermination by giving an answer now of which projects are likely to succeed against these criteria. I am puzzled because all of the members should be in the House long enough to know that no Minister would risk that by saying Yes I will approve. No I won't approve." to particular projects that they are promoting. The Green Party will not be supporting any of National's SOPs to add projects to the schedule because the process is there the criteria are there. If the projects come they can be considered by the Minister against those criteria or alternatively they can go through the usual process under the Resource Management Act."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I won't hold the Minister in the chair David Parker for long; I know there are a number of people raising issues. Fundamentally fast-tracking of some projects is a really positive thing. I think Schedule 2 outlining up to 11 projects is positive. I suppose as context for me Minister I would be keen to see that to be more ambitious when we're looking at—Hon David Parker: 12.SIMON O'CONNOR: 12 now? Oh well we've gone apostolic—that's not a bad thing. We're up to 12 now. I'm ambitious further though Minister that we might get to 13 with your support tonight.In my own electorate of Tāmaki—you'll know it well; I know you've visited Auckland—a significant project there has been pushed by myself and with the support of the local board to develop and it has developed a master plan to have Tāmaki Drive completely and comprehensively upgraded. I am optimistic I would hope for your support because not only is it a road of local significance but also regional and national significance. I'm sure of great interest to the Greens is that Tāmaki Drive is very popular for walking for other forms of recreation—cycling and so forth. As the Minister I'd hope you would appreciate it's underdeveloped or needs further support.So I would like to see if the Minister would support my call and that of my local constituents to have a comprehensive upgrade of Tāmaki Drive so that it can be used by all—not just the locals but by the tens of thousands hundreds of thousands who visit. Most importantly it's to support something which is a safety upgrade. Ultimately it's a shared area. Obviously for those who cycle who walk and who ride scooters and cars it's become relatively unsafe. So I see this as a very positive project for the area but one as I say that also has regional and national significance.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I repeat an earlier answer: we believe that the make-up of the list of 12 projects already listed is appropriate. We don't want to overrun the system with too many projects at the start. We will though quickly receive other applications to consider under the second tract of referral via Order in Council.
Shaw James; Parker DavidHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I'd just like to ask the Minister for the Environment about—some of the feedback that occurred during consultation on the bill and in the select committee stages was strongly asking for an environmental bottom-line and I understand that the Minister has included that in the bill but I'm just seeking clarification. I believe that the clause is—clause 11 in Schedule 6 Matters to be covered in assessment of environmental effects" states "The assessment of an activity's effects on the environment under clause 9(4) must cover the following matters:" and then it lists a series of matters. I just wanted to ask if that is the Minister's understanding—that that is the environmental bottom-line clause that was being looked for—or are there other clauses in Part 2 that I've missed?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That's one of them. There are quite similar clauses in respect of notices of requirements as well as consent applications. Referring to referred projects I could give an example of clause 13(4) of Schedule 6 which describes the documents that the panel has to assess an application against and that lists "(a) a national policy statement: (b) … coastal policy statement: (c) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (d) a plan or proposed plan: (e) a planning document recognised by a relevant iwi authority and lodged with a local authority." So that's how those are brought to bear. Then there are also more general references to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act in related clauses as well."
Willis Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA WILLIS (National): The Minister David Parker has just set out his view that the four projects I have referred to in my amendment could still be considered for fast track under this legislation. So I want to ask the Minister a very direct question and I expect a direct answer. Will the Government allow these projects to progress under the fast-track mechanisms of this bill if they are referred by Order in Council?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That would be a decision that I would be required to take in accordance with the bill.NICOLA WILLIS (National): My question to the Minister is: does he at this stage believe that those are the sorts of projects we could expect to receive in Order in Council and that would be progressed under this bill? Because the significance of this is that actually New Zealanders around the country are asking What sorts of projects are actually going to be referred under this legislation?" Is this fast tracking just Shane Jones' special projects or are these projects that have broader support across our community? Will these projects need to get the agreement of the Greens who oppose for example a second Mount Victoria tunnel or are these projects that will actually be assessed against national good criteria and that will be projects that will advance regional benefit?So I put to the Minister: would he expect projects to be agreed to if they do not have the support of other Government partners such as the Green Party?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The answer to the member's question about whether the projects of the sorts that she has described would be suitable for consideration for referral by Order in Council is yes."
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I bring to your attention Standing Order 330(1) and this Standing Order—I'll quote quite directly from it—it requires that Any member intending to propose an amendment which may have an impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates or to move a change to a Vote must give notice of the amendment or change by lodging it with the Clerk at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day on which the amendment is to be proposed or the change is to be moved." The point I ask you to consider is that many of the amendments referred to by Nicola Willis in her contribution were amendments which clearly do have an impact on the Government's fiscal position but were none the less tabled as recently as this afternoon.Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): So can we just see if I can get it right first go and then I'm happy to take your advice or your contribution after this. So if the member refers to Standing Order 330(3) and reflects on the process that this bill has gone through there hasn't been an opportunity for the further Standing Order to be met which is why it says "This Standing Order applies in respect to an amendment to a bill only when the bill is set down for consideration and committee on the next sitting day." We moved straight to committee stage from the second reading. Did I get that right Mr van de Molen? Tim van de Molen: Absolutely.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Perfect. We're in agreement."
Willis Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA WILLIS (National): I wish to ask the Minister questions about specific projects that are omitted from this bill and that I believe would be of significant value not only to Wellingtonians but to New Zealand as a whole. Those projects are outlined in Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I have tabled in Parliament and they relate to the Mount Victoria tunnel they relate to the Terrace tunnel unblocking the Basin Reserve and undergrounding roading at Karo Drive.The reason these projects are appropriate for fast tracking is that they have been discussed and consulted on in Wellington for not weeks not months but years. They were subject to extensive public engagement as part of the Let's Get Wellington Moving process which brought together local government central government and members of the public. They were broadly agreed to as significant priority infrastructure projects that were required to unblock traffic in the city and get it moving that were required to ensure that we had the modern transport amenities that are expected in a growing city. They are projects that will allow not only for road traffic to move faster and to reduce the commuting time for Wellingtonians but they are also projects that will facilitate safer cycling and walking and they are projects that will facilitate more reliable and more timely bus services—something that this city dearly needs.I accept the Government's position that it has selected projects that it believes are of priority in the fast tracking of this bill. I would put to this House that these are absolutely the sorts of projects that the Government should be prioritising for fast track because they are projects that have already been broadly agreed to they are projects that would create hundreds of jobs because their construction would require the involvement of engineers builders and many others and they are projects that are needed for the ongoing growth of Wellington and that would therefore contribute to this country. So I ask the Minister: why would you not support the inclusion of my SOPs and these four very significant transport projects?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The answer that I am about to give applies really to a lot of the other projects that are suggested in other Supplementary Order Papers. Their non-inclusion isn't to say that they're not worthy. They can be considered as referenced projects through the Order in Council route. We chose 12 projects spread throughout the country—some in this region. Those were not the ones that were chosen but they can be referred by applicants through the referral process for consideration by the Minister for the Environment as to whether by Order in Council they should be put to a panel.
Stanford Erica; Parker DavidPart 2 Fast-track consentingCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We move now to Part 2 the debate on clauses 14 to 35 and Schedules 2 to 6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Part 2. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good. ERICA STANFORD: The specific part I want to talk about is clause 16 Who makes referral decisions". It says in this that—and I brought this up very early on in the select committee process just after the officials gave us some advice on this—the "Decisions under this subpart that relate to the referral of a project to an expert consenting panel must be made—(a) jointly by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation if any part of the project would occur in the coastal marine area;". So I want to ask the Minister what happens if there is disagreement and the reason I want to ask him that question is because we have seen over the last couple of years quite a fractured relationship between the Greens and Labour and between the two Ministers in fact over many different projects. In fact I think that the relationship between the two Ministers probably wouldn't be described as being great. So given that I'd just like to know whether if the two Ministers come head to head over something—for example let's take king salmon. They want to increase the number of farms and perhaps put them in different areas. It's a very very good project with excellent economic benefits to New Zealand with a far better return say than dairy. The Minister for the Environment is all in favour of it and the Minister of Conservation comes along and says no. Now the reason that I'm putting this forward is because this very situation happens so many times with the Green Party who decide for many things that they'd like to go backwards or do nothing or hold the status quo because that's the way they think and I understand the Minister in the chair is far more progressive when it comes to these issues. So I can foresee issues like cameras on fishing boats Campbell Island or the Kermadecs where you've got this fractious relationship and I can see in this bill here under clause 16 where the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation come head to head over what would be an extremely good project like the king salmon one I mentioned. There'll be many others that will involve the coastal marine area where the Minister of Conservation disagrees and yet perhaps the rest of the Government thinks that it's a good project. I just wanted to know what sort of process will be gone through in order to come out with some good decisions because what I can foresee is that in the coastal marine area we just won't get anything because we know very well what the Green Party is like. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member Erica Stanford is correct that if it is in the coastal marine area then concurrence is required between both Ministers. That's the same proposition that's used in respect of the formation of marine reserves where you need to have agreement between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Fisheries."
Parker DavidLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. In your last ruling—or it wasn't a ruling—you suggested I shouldn't carry on with clause 4 of Schedule 4. I actually wasn't intending to talk about clause 4. I wanted to talk about why regional plans weren't included in subparagraph (i) and I'd seek your guidance as to how I would handle that.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As long as your contribution is relevant to the part that you're talking to it will be acceptable.LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): So I come back to what I was trying to allude to maybe not as succinctly as I should have. But under Part 1 clause 12(3B)(b)(ii) any conditions that apply to an existing resource consent or designation." my simple question to the Minister is: why are regional plans not also included in that provision in that particular piece?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Officials can correct me if I've got this wrong but my understanding is that what that's referring to is existing designations or existing consents and the conditions or designation conditions which sit therein. They sit in the designation or the consent not in the plan. References to regional plans and district plans where they are relevant are found in later parts of the Act and they would be relevant to panel considerations in respect of a referred application for example."
Dean Jacqui; Parker DavidHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh thank you Madam Chair. I was in the middle of a conversation with the Minister in the chair David Parker around the provision whereby the Act is repealed on the second anniversary of the date at which it receives Royal assent. My question now to the Minister goes to—and I have several questions but I will take them one at a time—the Minister's answer to my previous question where he told the committee that he really had no idea how many applications would be before the hearings panels. My question to the Minister is: what work was done in the development of this bill in the drafting and the policy work prior to the bill hitting the committee and the House on the estimation of the number of infrastructure projects—not the listed but the referred projects—that may potentially be referred to the panel? I want to understand the lack of certainty the Minister has on just how large the workload will be because please reassure me and other members that policy work was done and that the Minister has a better handle on just you know round-figure numbers of consents that might apply to be considered as part of this process.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I did have discussions with officials as to whether we could identify a more specific figure. We concluded that it was impossible to do so partly because there are so many variables involved—including the funding and whether people choose to use another process track; people aren't forced to come forward for this. A lot of the projects that are to be done over the next few years some of them will be relatively uncontentious and they'll be easily consented through district councils and they'll probably still go through that route because it might be cheaper. So for those reasons we decided that it really wasn't worth spending any more time and effort on trying to come up with an accurate figure. We'll just deal with the applications as they come in.
Parker DavidLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Just a technical question for the Minister on permitted activities. Minister if you go to clause 12(3B)(b) you talk about permitted activities and associated permitted activities and the standards for them. It says that the exemptions that are under Schedule 4 shall not override or replace any other national environmental standards or any condition that applies to an existing resource consent or designation. I understand that Minister. But when you have an interaction between say a territorial authority and a regional authority—and I'll give you an example. A regional council may have a plan or a set of performance standards on what you can do and not do in a riverbed as an example. I can't see how that is provided for in this bill. So in other words the performance standards associated with permitted activities in this bill may actually be more liberal than the regional plan allows for activities in waterways. So the interaction between those two I can't—because it's not listed there as part of a regional plan or another thing for a regional council. I can't see how you're not saying that those provisions are actually overridden and I would like the Minister to clarify how that's protected. I understand what you're saying in those two clauses—that this cannot supersede consent conditions or a national standard—but a regional plan or performance standards from a regional authority is not included. How's that issue protected? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Schedule 4 lists the various standards that would apply to permitted activity at Part 1 of that schedule which starts from clause 4 of Schedule 4. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Which is in the next debate. So people I know—I can feel that people are keen to move on to Part 2 and the way to get to that is to stop taking calls on Part 1. If you continue taking calls on Part 1 could you please address Part 1.
Dean Jacqui; Parker DavidHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The question I have for the Minister in Part 1 refers to the repeal of the Act on the second anniversary of the date on which it receives Royal assent. Under the provisions relating to this we read that the consenting panel will continue its duties after the repeal of this Act until the matters set out before it are dealt with. So the questions I have around that are: how long does the Minister anticipate that that provision and that function of the consenting panel will continue? That is one question.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are statutory periods for the different steps that the panel takes in respect of referred projects. There is written commentary that's required or asked for from a listed group of representative bodies. That's in the next part of the bill.Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Further to that could the Minister detail—I understand that the statutory time frames they are set out in the bill soon to become the Act and I agree with the Minister around the process around that. My question really is around what consideration in the drafting of this bill was given to what could be a considerable number of applications sitting before the consenting panel at I presume different stages. So I guess my question is now twofold: firstly how many projects does the Minister anticipate being before the consenting panel and what advice has he received on what those numbers might potentially be? Then secondly going back to my earlier question: how long subsequent to the repeal of the Act does he expect the consenting panel to be still conducting its business?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the second part of that question I can't give an exact answer but I would expect it would be less than a year. In respect of the first question as to how many projects we really don't know. A lot of the questions or the uncertainties arise not just from consenting they rise from consenting under other legislation—Building Act Public Works Act—they also depend upon which projects have been funded. Because of those uncertainties we've designed this in a way that a number of panels can be set up by the panel convenor who's likely to be the existing head Environment Court Judge Newhook. It's his responsibility to set up the number of panels that are required.
Parker DavidJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you Madam Chair. Actually the Minister referencing his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) actually piqued my interest and I went and had a look at the clause he mentioned. I also looked up section 8 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Minister did rightly in his earlier contribution point out that the Environment Committee adopted wording which mirrors what the RMA currently has. The original bill and the Minister's SOP uses wording which is more stringent and it is a higher test that the panels will have to take into account.So I guess my concern and question for the Minister is given that this bill removes the substantive appeals process that normally is in place under the RMA and it still provides for appeals on points of law and judicial reviews which—Madam Chair it is in Part 1; it's clause 13. I see you looking at me. Given that the only real way in which a challenger could challenge a project like this and given there are some meaty issues in some of the projects around water and given the strong views held by iwi in this country over the issues of water and the use of water the way in which the Minister's SOP changes the dynamic in relation to the consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi—where panels don't just have to give consideration to the principles; they have to act in a manner that's consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—it almost sets up a situation where the more stringent wording that will be in this Act versus the more relaxed wording under the RMA—challengers to any of the projects could simply use a High Court attack on the panel's decision on the basis of Treaty of Waitangi principles.And whereas the panel would previously have had to just give consideration to the principles they now have to act in a manner that's consistent with the principles. So by strengthening the wording here making it more difficult for a panel to make decisions in line with the Treaty of Waitangi and given the only appeal provision is on points of law we will see what might have otherwise been substantive appeals on the whole project now reverting and becoming appeals on points of law relating to this Treaty of Waitangi clause in the manner to attack projects that interest groups that have significant views on these projects relating to Treaty of Waitangi principles may wish to exercise.So I wonder if the Minister has received advice or adequately considered that by making these provisions more difficult for panels to meet he's actually almost setting himself up to see projects defeated on High Court appeals using the Treaty clause which is now more stricter than the RMA.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I don't think that is the effect of this. In respect of Treaty settlements the issue does come up under Part 2. I'm not going to address it but the member might want in preparation for that to look at clause 32(1)(b) of Schedule 6.