THURSDAY, 2 JULY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday, 21 July, when it will consider the second readings of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill and the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. The Business Committee has agreed that on the morning of Wednesday, 22 July, there'll be an extended sitting devoted to members' business. That afternoon, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill will pass through its remaining stages.
I've notified the Business Committee of my intention to move urgency on Wednesday, 22 July, as we continue to make up the time lost while the country was at COVID alert levels 3 and 4. The business to be included will largely consist of the remaining stages of bills currently listed on the Order Paper as being at committee stage or third reading, as well as some first readings. I expect that urgency will last into Friday or Saturday.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the Leader of the House advise us as to whether or not he intends putting the Estimates debate into the urgency motion? That's an 11-hour debate. It would give an indication of the Government's need to get all those done in a hurry and also give us a fair idea of what they're not going to get done in the next few weeks.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): At this point, I'm happy to tell the member that my expectation is that we will do the 11-hour Estimates debate in the second week back, after the forthcoming adjournment.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Is she confident the Government is delivering on its infrastructure commitments, particularly its commitment to light rail from the city to the airport in Auckland?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, we are confident that this Government is delivering on infrastructure, including the $12 billion announced in January before COVID-19, the $4.6 billion spent so far on rail, and the $3 billion of infrastructure investments announced just yesterday. Our latest achievement was announced only this morning by the Minister for Infrastructure and Minister for Regional Economic Development, Shane Jones: $40 million to develop a regional freight hub north-east of Palmerston North.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the reported comments of Green Party co-leader James Shaw that New Zealand First's killing off of Auckland light rail this term was a slap in the face of Aucklanders and breached the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, Mr Shaw has many qualities, but being up to date on contractual law may not be his forte, because you've got to be a party to a contract to insist upon its terms being referenced. That's why I'm saying that, but it's not a criticism. There was an agreement between Labour and the Greens in which it's mentioned, but it's not mentioned in the coalition document that we signed up to. Now, that said, people are entitled to put their options, and in the New Zealand Herald today you see the other side of the story, which is widely being read by supporters of the National Party—know where they must go to now.
SPEAKER: Order! I am going to remind the Prime Minister to speak in the Prime Minister's voice.
Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm just seeking your guidance with regard to the statement by the Hon Nikki Kaye about the quotation from the Hon James Shaw. I'm just seeking some clarity on what she is stipulating was actually the quoted text.
SPEAKER: Well, it's probably—no, I'm not going to ask for it to be done again. My view is that we can have a look at it later on, but there's not going to be anything added to it. If the member is of the view that the quote was misleading, then there are other ways of taking that up, and doing it now is not one of them.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who referred to the agreement to begin work on Auckland light rail as "loose drafting", and is this why construction has not begun?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the reality is that work on the light rail concept did begin. The Ministry of Transport asked for proposals. The transport Minister received them. They were consulted on. But, alas, we did not get agreement. Those are the facts.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Is it her view that the Deputy Prime Minister's decision to oppose the light rail Cabinet paper last week was based on good faith and a no-surprises approach?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, such a statement about being part of a no-surprises approach demonstrates someone's lack of familiarity with the Cabinet Manual and what the no-surprises approach is about. Why on earth would a consultative document, which relates to a judgment on facts, be a matter of no surprises? Or is it a surprise to that member, for example, that, in terms of costings, that was not advised or being told? That member, by the way—and I can say—in July 2010, July 2011, and September 2011 made three separate steps with respect to light rail and did nothing about them whatsoever.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Is it correct that the cost of the NZ Infra proposal for light rail was as high as $10 billion?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there is a secrecy provision inside the costings which does not enable us to disclose them. 
Hon Member: Aww.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But before we say, "Aww, aww, aww," can I mention Transmission Gully, where the whole project has stopped. Now it looks like it's going to cost more to finish it than it's cost thus far. I'd like to know who over there, including the former member Steven Joyce, did the fiscals, because it was amateur hour.
Hon Grant Robertson: Referring to the primary question, can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government inherited a $5.9 billion hole in the Auckland Transport Plan?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, alas, that is the truth. That's what we inherited, because they talked a big game but they never delivered.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with her Deputy Prime Minister that the light rail proposals would have cost untold billions and seriously obstructed Aucklanders moving around their city for years?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there have been attempts with respect to light rail led by that member in July 2010, July 2011, and September 2011, when she was presenting a petition to Parliament. Can I just propose to say this: that such a definitive, well worked-out, fiscally judged project that she says she supports—would surely know what the cost is. Does she know what the cost is?
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Nikki Kaye: Why won't the Government, after multiple requests from the Auckland Council, confirm which shovel-ready ready projects it is funding, so they can set their budget and their rates?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that's a marvellous question, actually, because—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The shovels are still in the shed.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know something. That member's never seen a shovel—ha, ha!—and it shows. I mean, anybody that's done any physical work, they keep their shape all their lives.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, he started it.
SPEAKER: Well, he might have started the interjections. He didn't take it down to that level. The Prime Minister will withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise. Can I answer the question though, Mr Speaker?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel obliged to say that I have kept my shape all my life.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I fear he's got me there. On behalf of the Prime Minister, with respect to these projects—listen up—$350 million for the improvements to the Wiri to Quay Park Corridor; $371 million to extend notification of Papakura to Pukekohe—
Hon Louise Upston: It's been done.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —$211 million for the improvements to Wellington, Wairarapa, and Palmerston North networks—
Hon Louise Upston: It's been delivered.
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Louise Upston, it's bad enough that you interject into four mikes at a time, but when you bring me into it, you are definitely disorderly, and you will cease interjecting this question time.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —$400 million for the Interislander ferry replacement; $247 million for the Drury railway stations; and $6.2 million for the Napier to Wairoa railway. Auckland is getting a stack of that money as well.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the name of a number of infrastructure projects that she has announced and actually completed?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this question is impossible to fathom. What is the name of what?
Hon Nikki Kaye: What is the name of infrastructure projects that she has not only announced and completed?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, infrastructural projects take years, but getting started is what we do, and we're getting started now. All around this country, from Invercargill to Kaitāia, things are getting started.
Jami-Lee Ross: Is ensuring long-term water supply for Auckland an infrastructure commitment for the Government, and, if so, will the Government heed the calls from Shane Jones and Nikki Kaye to include in their COVID fast-track bill the Watercare consent application?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can answer that member by saying we're already on to it and very shortly we will have provided a solution.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does that mean the Government will include in the COVID fast-track bill a Schedule 2 inclusion which would ensure the Watercare application for additional water for Auckland is a fast-track project under the bill?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the intent being dealt with by David Parker is to cover the issue of concern that he's got. In fact, this Government has borrowed the slogan from President Truman, "Action, this day."
Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this week the Minister for the Environment called in the large long-term consent application for direct reference to a board of inquiry, which is a similar but not identical process to that which is in the fast-track bill, and also that there is an expectation that water for this summer will be made available by Hamilton City Council as well as the additional 25 million litres per day that has already been consented?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, both of those propositions as shaped in the question can be answered in the affirmative.
Hon Nikki Kaye: How many infrastructure projects have been announced and actually started under her Government?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, to use the biblical phrase, the number is legion, all around this country—far too many for me to articulate today.




Question No. 2—Education
2. 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 3,000 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 200,000 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 2,000 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.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What did he mean yesterday by his comment on the tax system that "by and large, it is fair and balanced", and does he think changes to the tax system will be required?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I meant to express my view that, by and large, the tax system is fair and balanced. As with all Governments, there have been areas where we have looked to improve fairness and balance—for example, such as cancelling the tax cuts proposed by the previous Government which would have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest New Zealanders, and taking the decision to redirect that funding to low and middle income New Zealanders through the Families Package. The Government continues to work on changes to the tax system where we think they're required—for example, on making sure multinationals pay their fair share. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think some New Zealanders will need to pay tax at higher rates? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made a commitment not to change the rates of income tax. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who will pay for all the extra spending he announces every day? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is being paid for through the hard work of New Zealand taxpayers and through the ability of New Zealand to borrow against our very strong and robust balance sheet, and the fact that we came into this crisis with one of the lowest rates of debt in the world. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I might try that again: who will pay for all the extra spending he announces every day? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I did just answer that question.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn't it true that we all will pay, including our kids, and, if so, can he now assure people that every dollar he is spending is considered and focused on results? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the last part of that question, absolutely. In answer to the middle part of that question, I think all members in the House can see the impact that happens when we don't invest in current generations now and in the moment. That's what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s in New Zealand, and the scarring effect of children growing up in homes where their parents are unemployed or where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table is the thing that this Government is determined to avoid. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he had a report from the education Minister as to where the $87 million worth of modems sent to schools after they returned from lockdown has gone, and is that a good example of good quality spending? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The vast bulk of those modems went to support young New Zealanders to learn when they were in lockdown, to bridge the digital divide. A small number did not go where they were intended, but the vast bulk went to the exact purpose we wanted, which was to make sure that young New Zealanders could keep learning. 
Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister heard about the tax initiatives loss continuity and feasibility expenditure—initiatives that the tax community and the business community have been asking for, for years, but only sorted by this Government? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I have. Both of those initiatives have been championed by the very modest Minister of Revenue, who's done an excellent job in ensuring that New Zealanders pay a fair share of tax. 
SPEAKER: Oh well, I would just remind the member about irony, but we'll go on to question No. 4. 




Question No. 4—Health
4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: My question is to the Minister of Health, whom I welcome to the portfolio. Did any records held by the Ministry of Health on 17 June contain details of whether all 2,159 people who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June received a test before they left managed isolation?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I'm advised by the Ministry of Health: no. The process to compile that information began on Wednesday, 17 June. All necessary information was available to the Ministry of Health on Saturday, 20 June. The Ministry of Health then commenced a comparison from the Healthline database against the lab testing database to determine which individuals could be confirmed as having had a test. It's important to note that the problem has now been fixed, and that all 2,159 returning New Zealanders completed their 14-day isolation stay, which is the safest way to ensure that there is no community transmission.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So is it correct to say that health officials had no idea who of those 2,159 people were tested prior to departure, and that the first question they are asked when contacted is not, "Please have a test." but "Was a test undertaken?"
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is clear from my answer that the Ministry of Health did not have that reassurance when those people left isolation. That is not an acceptable situation, and it has been fixed.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of "has it been fixed", are there still 367 people who have not been contacted to ask whether or not they had a test, as at this morning?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those are approximately correct numbers. Of course, they are changing as more people are contacted. But I do want to point out that these people all completed 14 days of isolation. They have now been in the community for more than 14 days, and we have seen no evidence that there is any transmission within the community, despite the fact that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of testing in the world relative to the number of positive results.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can the Minister confirm that he has been informed by the Minister responsible for managed isolation and quarantine that since 17 June, as well as now having direct batch data returned to the managed isolation facilities as well as the individualised test to notify of a negative day 12 test, there is now double verification of that batch data taking place?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can confirm to the House that the issues that were identified have been fixed, and that very robust processes are in place.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Then is it correct to say that if those 367 people are not successfully contacted by the Ministry of Health, the country will never know if they left managed isolation without having been tested?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is possible that some of those people won't be able to be contacted. Whilst the Ministry of Health will make every effort to ensure that they are contacted, it is important to note that there is no evidence that any of the people who left managed isolation during that time have taken COVID-19 into the community.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has the Minister seen any evidence or verification from health officials that a random homeless person wandered into a managed isolation facility before 17 June, and has the Opposition provided any evidence to that effect?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. I'm afraid to say no evidence has been produced to verify that claim. I am, of course, willing to accept that at any given point in time.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of that previous question, how on earth would they know?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the officials went to detailed lengths to check security camera footage, to check the individual records, and there was no evidence that the member's claim had any veracity whatsoever.
SPEAKER: No. The member is referring to statements made in the House, and the member can't say that they lack veracity. I'll require the Minister to withdraw and apologise.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.




Question No. 5—Economic Development
5. 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 3,400 people, and that doesn't include the visual effects projects, including the likes of Weta Digital, who alone employ 1,500 people.




Question No. 6—Infrastructure
6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What criteria, if any, did the Government use to allocate the $239 million announced yesterday from the $3 billion allocated to infrastructure in the COVID-19 Recovery and Response Fund, and what explains the length of time between his announcement that the Government had had 1,924 submissions to the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group and the announcement yesterday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The $239 million represents a sample of the types of projects we will be supporting. The overall investment package we announced yesterday includes around $210 million for climate resilience and flood protection projects, $155 million for transformative energy projects, about $180 million for large-scale construction projects, and $50 million for enhanced regional digital connectivity. As for criteria, the group was asked to develop a pipeline of projects that were shovel-ready, meaning they could get under way within 12 months; preserved and created jobs; and had a national or regional benefit. As the member quite rightly points out, more than 1,900 submissions were received. Ministers received the initial Infrastructure Industry Reference Group report in mid-May. I believe the six weeks between then and yesterday is easily explained by the need to assess and prioritise the projects and move with alacrity and velocity.
Chris Bishop: Why did the Infrastructure Commission not provide him with advice regarding the guidelines employed by the infrastructure reference group to assess the submissions it received, when surely doing jobs like that is exactly why the Infrastructure Commission was established in the first place?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I covered yesterday in the House, the Infrastructure Commission chair Alan Bollard was a member of the group, alongside Mark Binns, Brian Roche, Greg Miller, Rosie Mercer, and Andrew Crisp. They all represented different parts of both the private and public sector and they were all involved in the process.
Chris Bishop: Why has Auckland Council written three times to the Government without reply, urging them to announce what of the 73 projects they put forward will be funded so they can finalise their budget?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The question of why Auckland Council writes something is up to Auckland Council.
SPEAKER: Yeah, it is out of order, clearly.
Chris Bishop: Sorry, do you want me to reword it, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: You can have another supplementary if you want to.
Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments from Peter Silcock from the civil contractors association, namely: "We need details in the form of specific projects and tenders coming to market ASAP, or we may see extensive job losses", and why has it taken the Government so long to announce this alleged pipeline?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have seen those comments. I've also seen the comments this morning from Gisborne about a massive win for the region with the funding there; also from Rotorua this morning about the shot in the arm for this region, with 1,000 new homes and 300 jobs. I've seen the reports from the West Coast of $90 million being put in; $260 million in the Otago region—and it goes on. There will always be a wide variety of views, but the regions are welcoming these announcements.
Chris Bishop: How can the public have confidence in the figure of 20,000 jobs to be created, when the Government's own Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) data shows that the $3 billion PGF has created just 1,200 jobs in nearly three years?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'll pass on to Mark Binns, Alan Bollard, Andrew Crisp, Rosie Mercer, and all of those people who were responsible for those estimates, the member's cynicism.
Chris Bishop: Can he assure the House that the full list of infrastructure projects will be known within the next two weeks, or does he intend to drip-feed them out over the next 79 days?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is the plan—that they will be released as soon as we've done all of the final due diligence on them. And I'm sure the member will look forward to all of the announcements in the continuing headlines that we have seen today.




Question No. 7—Employment
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: How does the performance and capacity of his employment programmes help the thousands of New Zealanders who are unemployed due to the coronavirus outbreak?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): First of all, congratulations to that member on his promotion in the National Party—ngā mihi ki a koe. The Government has moved quickly to respond to the labour market impacts of COVID-19 by swiftly ramping up our employment and redeployment supports. Within my portfolio, we have seen a significant increase in capacity for a range of initiatives, including He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, and jobs and skills hubs. This increase in capacity will see, for instance, He Poutama Rangatahi now reaching up to 15,000 of our young people in need. My employment programmes are designed to help those who have been most marginalised from the labour market and face the biggest barriers to employment. Those are people who might have various complex needs, and it's not a simple job to support them into secure and rewarding work. However, our initiatives and investments are an all-of-Government project, because COVID-19 requires an all-of-Government response, and we're working together on this.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm written question No. 12308 from two days ago that the Government's flagship employment programme, Mana in Mahi, has capacity for only 2,000 placements per year?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can confirm that the aim is to get 2,000 placements over four years.
Dr Shane Reti: If there are currently 40,000 unemployed people and his flagship employment programme can only enrol—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask the question in a straight manner and without the pejorative.
Dr Shane Reti: If there are currently 40,000 unemployed people and his employment programme can only enrol 2,000 a year or less, how many unemployed New Zealanders cannot take up Mana in Mahi this year?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I've said this before and I'll say it again: it's not just Mana in Mahi that is responsible for fixing the unemployment problems in this country. We just the other day announced a $2.6 billion infrastructure plan that will bring 20,000 more jobs to New Zealand—20,000 more jobs. On top of that—our $1.1 billion programme in terms of the green economy, 11,000 jobs; $1.6 billion in terms of apprenticeship investments; 15,000 extra in terms of He Poutama Rangatahi. It's not just about Mana in Mahi, although the Opposition seems to be fixated on that.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm his reply to the first question that Mana in Mahi will enrol 2,000 people over four years?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That is the aim of Mana in Mahi. That's been our aim right from the start, and there is no problem that—
Brett Hudson: They've got no aspiration over there.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we all have aspirations. That is the goal, and we're on track at the moment. But I will say that it is a worry that the Opposition seem to have a problem with programmes with Māori names. A programme with a Māori name, Mr Reti—you should know—can provide for everyone.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not, in these programmes that he is funding, there is any sense of pigeonholing or being paternal about the placement of Māori, for example, at 13 and 17—specially reserved for that occasion and these events?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it's not about being paternalistic, Minister, and thank you for the question. Mana in Mahi is open for everyone. It just has a Māori name. Could the National Party get that through their heads? Programmes with Māori names can fit for everyone. It's a sad indictment on that party that they don't understand that.
Marja Lubeck: Why was increasing capacity important to the Government's response to COVID-19?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In answer to the question, just as the Government has gone hard and early on our public health response to COVID-19, so have we gone hard and early on supporting those who face displacement or unemployment because of the global impact of this virus. One of the biggest and earliest responses was the wage subsidy scheme, which has supported over 1.5 million jobs and paid out over $11 billion. This has kept people in work and given employers the ability to get going again as we relaxed our public health restrictions. We have invested early in job creation through redeployment and supporting the creation of new jobs, especially in the regions. We've increased capacity in our programmes, which has made it easier for people to undertake training—
SPEAKER: OK, OK—[Interruption] OK, we've had enough. Thank you.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm written question No. 11043 that regional leadership skills groups have employed zero people to date, given they were established a year ago and he has stated in this House that they are one of his critical employment programmes?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think the member is getting confused with our skills hubs in Auckland, our Sector Workforce Engagement Programme hubs in Auckland, which have been going for some time. The regional skills hubs have just been announced, and of course no one has been employed. The essence and the main point of our regional skills hubs is for our leaderships to come together—iwi leadership, industry leadership, union leadership—and put forward a strategy and policy for those various regions. I'm excited with the establishment of the regional skills hubs, and that member may want to play a part in terms of the development of the northern one.




Question No. 8—Sport and Recreation
8. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What progress has been made on the implementation of the Government's Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation strategy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): The Prime Minister and I launched the Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation strategy in October 2018. It's aimed at improving and increasing leadership, participation, and value and visibility. Since then, we have seen significant progress including $2.7 million of funding through High Performance Sport New Zealand to support women into leadership and elite coaching roles. The Sport New Zealand activation fund has invested in nine projects to lift participation and support young women to be physically active. And we have held the first New Zealand women and girls summit for sport and active recreation, and the next summit will be held in October this year. The strategy also sets a gender diversity target of 40 percent for boards funded through Sport New Zealand; previously it has sat at 27 percent. Many boards are making progress towards this and we will receive a final report shortly on where we have reached.
Ginny Andersen: What recent announcements have been made that will support the women and girls in sport strategy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The announcement last week that New Zealand and Australia have been confirmed as joint hosts for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is a significant boost for women's sport. The Government has set aside up to $25 million to host the event. Of that, $14.2 million goes to New Zealand Football for direct support of the tournament. The remainder will ensure a seamless tournament is delivered. The opening match is proposed for Eden Park and a total of 29 matches are expected to be played in New Zealand with 35 to be played in Australia. This is one of the world's major sporting events. It presents an amazing opportunity for us to grow female participation in sport, create new female leaders, and further raise the visibility of women's sport in New Zealand and around the globe.
Ginny Andersen: What other significant events will help increase leadership, participation, and value and visibility for women and girls in the sports sector?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is the latest in a substantial line-up of international women's events, each providing a platform for women and girls in sport and active recreation to be enhanced. The ICC Women's Cricket World Cup 2021 is scheduled to be held from 6 February to 7 March, and the organisers have already begun developing a leverage and legacy plan with a strong focus on women in cricket at all levels. Likewise, the Women's Rugby World Cup 2021 will be held in New Zealand in September and October. This also has a strong leverage and legacy plan under way. Off the pitch, New Zealand is currently the secretariat for the International Working Group on Women and Sport, the largest network on the globe dedicated to advancing sport by empowering women and girls, and we will be hosting the eighth International Working Group World Conference in 2022. Through all of these events, we have a tremendous platform for transformational change, and I am proud to work alongside so many passionate and willing partners who are committed to providing a lasting legacy for women and girls in sport and active recreation.




Question No. 9—Health
9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: How much of the $1.9 billion allocated for mental health and drug addiction services in Budget 2019 has been committed for mental health and addiction treatment services, and how much, if any, of that allocation to mental health and addiction treatment services has been spent to date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Of the $1.9 billion, around $1 billion is allocated to Vote Health services. Of the $150 million of Vote Health funding from the Budget 2019 mental health and wellbeing package that was available in 2019-20, approximately $125 million of that funding has been committed. As at the end of May 2020, of this $125 million, around $110 million has been spent.
Matt Doocey: In light of that answer, when the Government's own mental health inquiry indicative target is to increase access to mental health and addiction services from 3 percent to 20 percent of the population, what increased level of access is he expecting to deliver from the stated $125 million spent to date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government's always been very clear that the funding allocated is for a four-year programme of work, that the spending profile of that is the smallest in the first year, and that it increases as additional capability and capacity is developed. Some of the big investments early on in the programme are around workforce development, for example. We can't provide better front-line services to New Zealanders if we don't have the workforce to be able to deliver that. So there is a heavy emphasis on that at the moment. But there are already improvements happening across a whole variety of initiatives. I've got about 20 or 30 of them listed in front of me, and, if the member wants to ask me about any specific one of them, I'll give it my best crack at answering it.
Matt Doocey: In light of the answer of the roll-out of four years, after that four-year programme, if the Minister is going to spend $1 billion, what level of service is he expecting to deliver within that frame from the mental health inquiry of 3 percent to 20 percent?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's interesting that the member's given up on the next election already. Of course, the overall level of funding will depend on who the Government is, and on this side of the House we'll let our record speak for itself.
Matt Doocey: The question was: under his own forecasting, when he allocated $1 billion to a four-year roll-out, if his own mental health inquiry said access needed to increase from 3 percent to 20 percent, what level of access is he expecting to reach after spending $1 billion after four years?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, we'll get as close to that as we can.
Matt Doocey: In light of the previous Minister's answers and challenge to talk about one specific service, why, when asked written question No. 10111, "How much, if any, of the $8 million invested over four years for improving responses for up to 15,000 people a year who turn up at hospital emergency departments needing mental health support announced in Budget 2019," has not one dollar been spent to date delivering that service?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants an answer that specific regarding a written parliamentary question and answer given by the previous Minister of Health, I suggest he puts that down, and I'd be happy to come back to him.




Question No. 10—Housing
10. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Have any developers undertaking construction of market homes approached the Government for an indemnity or underwrite that would provide additional financial assurance to their banks, and, if approaches of this sort have been made, what steps has the Government taken to ensure it applies fair and transparent criteria to assessing or granting these applications?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. As I'm sure the member is aware, the main mechanism under building the KiwiBuild programme is the underwrite provided to a developer for the KiwiBuild homes that are included in their housing projects. These projects will include market homes. There are well-documented, detailed, and well-established processes for these underwrites, which I don't propose to canvass in detail here, but I am satisfied with the due diligence that is undertaken.
Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that on 20 May this year, she was advised of a request by a private developer for a Crown underwrite for the construction of 49 open-market homes, and, if so, on what date did she agree to provide a Crown guarantee of $21 million for those market properties?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don't have the specific dates, but I have confirmed to that member, in answer to written parliamentary questions, that an underwrite was received for the Monark development—a request for further underwrite—taking the underwrite from $19 million to $40 million, and, as has been well canvassed in this House on multiple occasions, that's because this development was in a category of one. It was a development where a substantial number of KiwiBuild properties had been sold prior to there being a financing and construction agreement in place—a practice that has not been undertaken since December of last year.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister stand by her statement that without this Crown guarantee for the Monark project, "further delays would have risked the homes not being built"; if so, will the Crown provide financial guarantees to other private developments where there is a risk that homes will not be built?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have consistently reminded this member, this was a development that was in a category of one. So when it came to assessing whether or not to extend the underwrite to the further properties, we only had to consider all of the properties in that category, and that was one. I am confused by that member. Is she now saying she supports the underwrite? Is it now her party's policy to continue this practice?
Nicola Willis: Did the Minister have any input into the decision to exclude residential property development and investment projects from the Government's business finance guarantee scheme, and can she explain why they were excluded?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, no.
Nicola Willis: Is it fair that the Monark development, in a category of one, received a $21 million Crown finance guarantee for 49 market homes, when hundreds of other residential property developers across the country may want a Crown guarantee but have no way of getting one?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Apart from looking forward to seeing the fully costed National Party policy to extend this underwrite guarantee to the hundreds of developers across the country, which is clearly a move from the position of opposing any underwrites under KiwiBuild, I am satisfied, and what I would like to remind that member is that there were two unsold market homes in that development. If the underwrite needs to be exercised on those two market homes, the underwrite will only be exercised at the KiwiBuild cap. And what the member might like to know is that through her publicity for this particular development, while 10 people have cancelled their contracts, 29 have entered into expressions of interest. So while that member may be looking to crash property developments in Wellington, we on this side of the House are backing them.




Question No. 11—Justice
11. 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. 




Question No. 12—Corrections
12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Corrections: How many individuals sentenced to community service have had hours remitted to date under the Epidemic Preparedness (Epidemic Management—COVID-19—Parole Act 2002 and Sentencing Act 2002) Notice 2020, and how many hours were remitted under this notice?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Speaker. At various alert levels, community work was unable to take place. During this time, 10,745 people were subject to a sentence of community work, with more than half of these sentences imposed for traffic offences and non-payment of fines. Corrections identified 5,576 people who had demonstrated compliance with their sentences during the month prior to lockdown and remitted on average between four to seven hours a week of community work per offender from 23 March to 5 June. This was in line with Section 67A of the Sentencing Act 2002. 
Simeon Brown: How many times did the Department of Corrections use the alternative power in the epidemic notice to extend the time frame in which someone could complete their court-imposed community service and sentence instead of simply remitting hours of community service? 
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Extending hours would have disadvantaged individuals for something outside of their control. It would have also created a backlog of hours for community Corrections to manage, with associated health and safety risks. And, of course, the health and safety of our Corrections staff is our top priority. The length of the lockdown period was unknown at the time these decisions were made.
Simeon Brown: So why did he tell the House on 4 June 2020, "the situation was made so that they could do their hours post-lockdown.", when, instead, hours were simply taken off their court-imposed sentence?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In accordance with the provisions of the notice, people who had community work hours remitted are still to be required to complete a significant portion of the hours that they had been sentenced to, which can be up to 400 hours per person. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that it would've been totally unfair to expect someone in lockdown 3 and 4 to leave their home when they could not, because of the rules, and go out and do community service—that that simple proposition is totally unjustified?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, it was totally impossible for people to leave their homes in lockdown alert levels 4 and 3, so what I said in my previous answer was that we would have disadvantaged people for something that was totally out of their control. 
Hon Stuart Nash: Given the Minister has successfully reduced the prison population by over 13 percent, can he confirm that the crime rate has remained relatively stable, meaning that this Government has successfully reduced the prison population while keeping Kiwis and communities safe? 
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can confirm that there are fewer people in prison. There are also fewer offenders in the community, at the same time that the crime rate has continued to plateau. So what this Government has done is made New Zealand a safer country in the few short years that we've been in power. 
 





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
Hon Dr David Clark—Ministerial Resignation
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Michael Woodhouse seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the resignation of the Hon David Clark as a Minister. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations will lead to an urgent debate—Speaker's ruling 199/7, Hunt. I have permitted debates where ministerial probity has been a central issue, and where Ministers have been removed from their roles. I do not think Dr Clark's resignation reaches this threshold, and I'm not convinced of the need to set aside the business of the House to debate—which member was that? Which member made a noise then?
Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did; I was coughing. It was a reflex action.
SPEAKER: I accept that member's word. I am not convinced of the need to set aside the business for the House to debate this matter today, therefore the application is declined.





SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 5)
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move that urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Government benches will resume their seats or leave the House—the backbenches.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, I'll do that again. 
I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.
This bill is a bill that I think is broadly supported. It's directly related to our COVID-19 response, and I think most members of the House want to see it passed as soon as possible.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 RECOVERY (FAST-TRACK CONSENTING) BILL
Second Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a second time.
Firstly, I want to thank the Environment Committee for its consideration of the 946 submissions made on the bill, and for their cooperation with the request of this House to do this through a truncated period. I'm aware that they worked very long hours, including over the weekend, and I thank them for reporting an improved bill back to the House—or an altered bill back to the House.
The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill is a direct response to the effects of COVID-19 on the economy and employment in New Zealand. The bill seeks to establish a new fast-track resource consenting and designation process for infrastructure and development projects that can employ people. The bill speeds up processes while retaining environmental protections and respecting Treaty interests, including Treaty settlements. Accelerating projects nationwide will help restore economic growth and provide job opportunities for people who have lost their work. It would also help address New Zealand's infrastructure deficit, thereby improving long-term productivity.
The projects chosen will, overall, support the transition to a low-emissions economy and improve resilience to climate change. The bill lists 12 named projects that will progress first and have a high certainty of being approved. These include water storage, housing, cycleway, rail upgrade, and roading projects. These are located across the country, from Kaikohe to Queenstown. Projects listed specifically in the legislation will be referred directly by Parliament to the expert consenting panel for decisions and to set any conditions.
The committee has added another project to the list: the Queenstown arterials project. I welcome this addition as it will provide crucial jobs in a region hard hit by the economic effects of COVID-19, and indeed it's a project that's best carried out when Queenstown is not as busy as it normally is. The project involves upgrading Queenstown's transport network to improve roads, cycleways, and walkways, and help ease traffic gridlock. The Queenstown Lakes District Council note the project is expected to directly create up to 450 jobs over the two-year construction period, with up to 650 other jobs being created in support of the project indirectly through local economy services which will be supported by the project.
With the addition of the Queenstown project, there are now 12 substantive projects listed in the bill, and these will create an estimated 1,700 jobs. And this is just a start, because, in addition to the projects listed in the bill, additional projects are added through a second pathway, which allows many other projects, both public and private, to be submitted to the Minister for the Environment to enter the fast-track process. If the Minister agrees that a project should proceed to a panel, then by Order in Council the project is referred to an expert panel. That panel will consider consents and designations for projects, taking into account similar matters as would be considered under the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Expert consenting panels will be appointed by a sitting or retired Environment Court judge appointed as the panel convenor. That's likely to be Laurie Newhook, soon to retire from his role as principal Environment Court judge. Panels will have the expertise to enable the panel to consider the projects referred to them and to determine resource consents as well as designations. These panels of three to four people will be led by an Environment Court judge or similarly qualified person, and will include members nominated by the relevant local authorities and iwi authorities. The committee has made a useful clarification that if no nominations are received, the panel convenor must appoint a person with the appropriate skills and experience to be a member of the panel.
Despite the need to fast track projects to support economic recovery, it's essential to ensure environmental outcomes will not be sacrificed at the expense of speed. So Part 2 of the RMA still applies to these projects, including to its central purpose to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In response to submissions, the committee has also strengthened the role of Part 2 of the RMA during a panel's consideration of projects. Treaty of Waitangi principles continue to apply, and the effect of Treaty settlements are also protected. I'll detail those protections in more detail in my third reading speech.
Besides the fast-track consenting processes for listed and referred projects, the bill also enables some smaller-scale work on infrastructure to be carried out as permitted activities without the need for a resource consent. To begin with, these will be works on their existing infrastructure by KiwiRail and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Kāinga Ora, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, or any local authority may also access these provisions if conferred through an Order in Council. The committee has made a number of changes to improve the workability of this part of the bill and to uphold environmental protections, including ensuring that an activity is not permitted if it would be contrary to a water conservation order.
The bill will self-repeal in two years, by which time the Government will be implementing its more comprehensive reform of the RMA, drawing on a report which is expected to be released soon.
As stated earlier, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. This is a bill of that vein. It's a direct response to help restore the economy and help create jobs sooner, which I think everyone in this House agrees with. In summary, this bill seeks to make processes faster but not to change in any substantial way either the environmental test or relevant Treaty provisions under the RMA or Treaty settlements. I commend the bill to the House.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. I'm going to say from the outset that National supports this bill. We supported it at first reading and we support it again today. 
I want to just start by thanking officials. I need to do this because they worked at breakneck speed over a very short period of time and they did an exceptional job. They did this on the back of another bill that we had, the log traders and forestry advisers bill, which we also did at breakneck speed over the course of a week. So they absolutely need to be acknowledged because they did a fantastic job. I think we met seven out of eight days on this bill—so that just goes to show you how much hard work went into this bill—including at 8 a.m. on a Saturday. So I do absolutely need to acknowledge them. 
I just want to start by saying we understand this bill is under urgency, and that's understandable. It's a little bit curious, though—I just want to point out that it wasn't introduced under Budget urgency. Instead, under Budget urgency we got the log traders and forestry advisers bill. But here is a bill which actually, in its title and in its purpose, goes to the very heart of the problem that we're dealing with, that the Budget spent billions and billions of dollars on helping to improve our economy as we recover from COVID, yet it wasn't introduced under Budget urgency; we get it under normal urgency. It's just a strange anomaly that I wanted to point out because it is very confusing to us why this wasn't introduced under Budget urgency. This bill has the aim of supporting employment and boosting local economies by the acceleration of nationwide projects and activities, and what better bill to have introduced under Budget urgency?
This bill is an acknowledgement that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken. The consent process is long, it's expensive, and it's open to appeal, which can see projects delayed, made far more costly, dragged out, and often not got off the ground at all. And in times of crisis like the Christchurch earthquake, like the Kaikōura earthquake, and again, at the moment, this bill and what we're putting in place will very much help our economy get back on track. Fast-track consenting is required for job growth. It is required to create legacy projects that have ongoing economic benefit. Like I say, we've used similar legislation in the past and we support legislation today to assist our economy to recover from COVID-19. 
The bill achieves its purpose, as we heard from the Minister for the Environment, in three ways: by listing projects, 11 projects, under Schedule 2 of the bill; by having projects referred by the Minister to a panel; and allowing agencies like the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail to carry out specific work on existing infrastructure without the need for a resource consent. So works would then be limited to operation of, maintenance of, replacement of, and minor upgrades to existing infrastructure located in rail and road corridors. 
At the first reading, I made the point that while we support the bill, and its intentions are worthy, this bill lacks vision. In fact, we said in our minority view after the select committee process that it is a wasted opportunity. The fact that there are only 11 projects listed in Schedule 2 means that there was an opportunity here to create some legacy projects that would have ongoing economic benefit for New Zealand that had great vision, and instead we got 11 projects of, for the most part, relatively small scale. While in themselves not bad projects and we agree with them, where was the vision from this Government to create long-lasting projects with ongoing economic value that we can look back on and say that out of the ashes of COVID-19 this is what we were left with: some fantastic legacy projects. 
We had the opportunity, for example, to fast track the Katikati bypass, the Waikato Expressway extension, the Dunedin Hospital redevelopment, and many, many more projects. And we will take the opportunity today to put forward amendments by way of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to inject some vision into this bill. We've got a number of them on the table. We will speak to them later. But it will be up to the National Party today to inject that vision and the real economic growth that will come from this bill by way of our amendments. 
This bill exemplifies—I would say it's one of those bills that exemplify the very uncomfortable relationship between New Zealand First and the Greens. This was made very clear at the select committee process. There is a project that was listed in Schedule 2, a very good project. It was called the Kopenui Water Storage Reservoir at Kaikohe. We all know it as the Ngāwhā dam project. In fact, the Minister in his speech talked about water storage projects being listed in Schedule 2. But, to be fair, when this bill came to us in the Environment Committee, there wasn't a water storage project. It was a hole in the ground. The reason that it wasn't a water storage project was because the Ngāwhā dam, in fact, was only for the construction of the dam—just a hole in the ground. It specifically said that it was not for water-related consents. So you could dig a hole in the ground, but you couldn't fill it full of water and you couldn't take the water out of it, so it wasn't a water storage project at all. It was a big, expensive hole in the ground. 
Now, New Zealand First were very aggrieved by this because there was a fair amount, I suspect, of Provincial Growth Fund funding that went into these projects. And here we have a project in Schedule 2 that was just for a hole in the ground. Now, we know very well—we can suspect where this came from and we could only imagine that it came by way of the Greens not wanting water storage projects.
Now, let me remind the House of the importance of this project. Not only is it for horticultural developments in the area and for iwi projects, it's also for potable water for Kaikohe. In the midst of a drought the likes of which they have not seen before they need drinking-water. And this was an extremely important project that the Greens clearly have got their little fingers all over by not allowing them to fill it full of water—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Shame.
ERICA STANFORD: —or take water, which, as Jacqui Dean is saying, is absolutely shameful.
Now, I'd just like to point out that the National Party came to the rescue at select committee because this would not have been changed in select committee to allow for the filling of the dam and the water takes out of the dam if it wasn't for the National Party, because when the amendments were put by Jenny Marcroft from the New Zealand First Party, the Greens abstained. They knew that they didn't have the numbers on that side to get this through and it was the National Party that came to the rescue for Kaikohe and for the people of Northland.
Hon Nathan Guy: It was actually Matt King.
ERICA STANFORD: It was. In fact, I do have to acknowledge Matt King, because the hard work on this was done by him in his electorate and fed down to us, and we came to the rescue. Matt King came to the rescue for the people of Kaikohe when it comes to this amendment. We made these changes so this consent will now go to the expert panel. 
The other thing that the National Party wanted to put through, because we heard from Mayor Goff in select committee and he made the very good submission that Auckland was in the midst of a drought like we have never seen before and there would be water restrictions for many, many months, perhaps years, to come—he talked about the number of jobs that would be lost in Auckland because of this—was an amendment to the select committee; we put it forward twice, actually. It was one that Nikki Kaye drafted. She'd done a lot of work in this area. We put it to select committee to add the Auckland water take from the Waikato River to Schedule 2. It was voted down by all members of the Government: the Labour Party, the Greens, and New Zealand First all voted it down. 
That was on a Friday. Over the weekend, there were many reports in the media from Shane Jones backing this project, saying that he wanted to see it in Schedule 2, in fact. We thought, "Well, this is great. We've going to have the numbers in select committee to then add this very important project for Auckland to Schedule 2." So we on Monday, after the weekend and after the media, tried to put it forward again. I asked for leave and the chair of the committee did not grant it so we weren't able to vote on that. We do understand now that Minister Parker has called the project in under a different mechanism under the RMA. So he has very much bowed to the pressure of Nikki Kaye and Mayor Goff—the very good work that Nikki Kaye's done on this. He's bowed to that pressure. He knows it's important thanks to the work of the National Party, again. We hope that the process that he's putting this through will work. If it doesn't, when we are next in Government after September, we will ensure that Auckland gets the water that it so desperately needs if that process doesn't work. 
I'll just finish by saying that I have a very good SOP also to push this out from two to five years, and I look forward to speaking to that at committee stage.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker; thank you very much. Look, I enjoyed that little flight of fancy of Erica Stanford, but also thanks very much for her hard work on the committee and for getting out of bed on a Saturday morning with the rest of us! Thank you very much! I do absolutely want to endorse her remarks in respect of the officials, though, who worked incredibly hard. I know the committee worked hard, but they worked much harder than we did, giving up their time with family and things over the weekends, and so on. I do really want to recognise that they went above and beyond to address the issues that were raised at select committee in this urgent piece of legislation.
I wanted to just recognise that there are three kinds of projects in this bill: listed projects, referred projects, and, kind of, work on infrastructure, which is maintenance and replacement. And the listed projects are the ones in the schedule and get all the kind of headlines, but the other projects are equally as important. Whilst there was a lot of attention around those listed projects, the Kopenui Dam is the obvious one but also the addition of the Queenstown project—which, although a roading project, is actually about freeing up the inner city to make it much more livable, much more rideable, much more walkable; another good project.
Also, I do just want to mention Auckland water briefly. Now, that has been referred to an expert panel, called in by the Minister and referred to an expert panel, a much better process because these listed projects essentially are consented by statute, and in respect of the proposal to take water from the Waikato River, that requires much more consultation before the consent is given. It's about whether, not how. But that can now be done and a long-term solution to that problem can be addressed. The other matter I'll touch on briefly in respect of the listed projects is the fact that Transpower came along and noted that they really needed some powers in there because some of their assets are going to be affected.
Also I wanted to just touch on the projects which are repair and replacement. That's actually a large amount of work. What it does is in respect of KiwiRail and the New Zealand Transport Agency; it enables them to work on their assets without going to get consents for minor works. So rather than having to wait for months and months—there's things like bridge replacements, retaining walls and culverts, resurfacing—they'll be able to do work without getting consents.
Now, to all of those people who are emailing me pretty much as we speak—I suspect friends of Eugenie Sage—saying that climate change is not addressed in the bill, in fact, that's not entirely accurate. There's two things I'd say about that. First, the purpose of the bill tracks, in some ways, the Resource Management Act, but does talk not only about supporting employment and New Zealand's economic recovery but also continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In select committee, we did listen to submitters, and I want to recognise Chlöe Swarbrick, who was very insistent that we listened to everyone who wanted to be heard. So we did, across the course of the week, listen to everyone. And, actually, from those submissions, we made a significant amendment, I think, to clause 19. In particular, when talking about significant adverse environmental effects as a basis for declining a consent, we noted that this will include greenhouse gas emissions; so overtly recognising that at least one consideration—not an exclusive consideration, but a highly relevant consideration—is the carbon impact of any activity. So that's important as well.
I want to talk a little bit as well about the work with our Treaty partners. I know that not everyone thinks we've got it perfectly right, but certainly we worked hard to make sure that all Treaty settlements were absolutely preserved, that partners to Treaty settlements were entitled to be robustly consulted, and that there would be proper consultation with Te Arawhiti in respect of any of these projects that went ahead.
This is a piece of legislation which is being fast tracked, it's urgent, it has a sunset clause. I've heard the Opposition say they want to see that extended from up to five years rather than two. I think we need to be very, very cautious with the kinds of wide-ranging and quite sweeping powers these panels will have. So thank you again to all of the officials. I think the committee's done a good job here, but I look forward to the rest of the debate in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We find ourselves, yet again, talking about the Resource Management Act (RMA). It appears that in the last few months, we've spent a lot of time talking about this Act, and, indeed, in my time in Government, we've spent quite a bit of time talking about the RMA as well. I want to acknowledge the good work that Nick Smith and Amy Adams did as Ministers for the Environment when they were in the John Key - led Government. 
They made significant changes to the RMA, and the one that is dear to my heart is the allowance for Ministers to call in a project to a board of inquiry, and they have to conclude their findings within nine months, and the reason that that's dear to my heart is the Kāpiti Expressway. That had been talked about for ever and a day. Steven Joyce, as the transport Minister, came along and said, "We're going to put four lanes here." As a result, that project was called in, because of the changes that the National Government made to the RMA, and now thousands of motorists—about 24,000 vehicle movements a day—are enjoying a road that is safe and high in productivity. It's connected communities, and I was talking to someone just yesterday who reminded me that all of the projects—the roads of national significance—have had no fatalities on them since they were built, and in my patch, unfortunately, lives were lost. So thank you to the National Government for getting on and speeding up the process and allowing the roads of national significance to occur. 
What's happened now? Well, look at my patch, up there in the Horowhenua, the northern end of the lovely Kāpiti coast. The road has been built from Paraparaumu and Raumati up to Peka Peka, we're just about to drive on the next section from Peka Peka to Ōtaki, and we just need to conclude the next section, but what does the Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford, do? He delays, mucks around, and, unfortunately, never gets on and gets it done. 
But infrastructure now is very topical, and that's what's covered in this bill. Suddenly, the Government realised that infrastructure needs to occur to ensure that jobs are created through this bill. So that section of the four-lane expressway has stalled and stalled and stalled, and it is now back on the drawing board. There would be an opportunity if the Government had a vision to include projects like this in Schedule 2, but, unfortunately, they haven't. 
Now, I sit on the Environment Committee. We heard from submitters in a very shortened select committee process, but we did get some good submissions in, and we're interested to see what happens with the retired Court of Appeal judge. In his report through to the Minister, Tony Randerson has done a wide-ranging review of the RMA. That now is sitting on the desk of the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, and it's just unfortunate that the Government has been very slow to get on and make changes to the RMA. We made changes in another bill recently, but they were really full of, I guess in my mind, sort of going backwards instead of going forward—they were about repealing a lot of good work that was done by the National Government. 
So we find ourselves in a very unusual situation right now. We've got COVID-19 upon us and, as a result, Treasury and others are forecasting 140,000 jobs could be lost this year, which is a very significant number. The Government realises they haven't done the planning and due process to allow projects like the roads of national significance to get on and be built, so in a way they are sort of using COVID to look like they're being responsive to try and reduce the number of people that are signing up for the dole queue every day at the Ministry of Social Development. 
We are supporting this bill because we need to, but in my mind, it lacks ambition. The projects are all about a couple of cycleways and a little bit of housing development. The project that Erica Stanford raised is one that the committee spent quite a bit of time talking about and deliberating on. That's the one at Kaikohe, or, as we know it, the Ngāwhā water storage project, and I've been up there and had a look at it when I was the Minister of Primary Industries. I support it, and it's great that the Government has finally come around and wants to work with iwi and get on and build a project that is going to sustain water for those in households, those in industry, and those involved directly in the agriculture and horticulture space. 
So we support that project, but when we actually started reading this bill—and it's about 80 pages long, with 264 clauses—we went through it and we suddenly realised that this is about an earthworks consent to build a dam in Kaikohe, the Ngāwhā dam. But hold on, where's the water? Where are the consents to fill the dam and actually extract for the dam? They're nowhere to be seen. The reason is that there was a hell of a debate—and my contacts in the Government tell me it was incredibly robust, which means it was quite angry—between the Greens and New Zealand First, so the reason that the water-take consent is not in here is because the coalition Government is starting to fracture and fall apart.
So the select committee—
Hon Eugenie Sage: Oh, nonsense. 
Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh, yes it is. Just look at—
Hon Eugenie Sage: Nonsense. 
Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh, the Minister of Conservation pipes up. She obviously hasn't seen what occurred this week with the Newshub investigation looking at cameras on the commercial fleet, and we know what's gone on there, because, suddenly, Minister Nash was recorded, and that is now all public. 
So I think it's wrong for Minister Sage to say that it's all happy behind closed doors with the coalition. The reality is that we know that it's not and that it's falling apart. Just look at Newshub's investigation. Under a National Government, those cameras would be in place now. Over a thousand vessels would have them on board, and—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And they're not in the bill—they're not in the bill. 
Hon NATHAN GUY: Thank you. The reason I am saying that is because I was the Minister that changed the law. 
But coming back to—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill. 
Hon NATHAN GUY: —the bill now, I want to conclude on a couple of aspects. One is the two-year sunset clause in this bill. It's going to be repealed within two years, which means it's going, going, gone in two years. Now, we know that it takes a hell of a lot of time to get infrastructure projects ready to be consented or to be called in, and I have a concern that two years is not going to be long enough. 
So we raised that in the select committee. We got pushback on that. It's included in our minority view. These are big, sizable projects—not all of them in here, because some of them I think are pitiful—but if the National Party is lucky enough to win the election, we would want to ensure that we had decent projects that actually had some asphalt going on the ground to ensure that it connected communities, lifted our productivity, and improved our safety. So this two-year sunset period that's going to be repealed over that time frame is, I think, short-sighted. 
The other project that's listed in here that I do support is the upgrade of the Wellington Metro Rail Network, but when I delve into the detail, it's really about freight capacity with KiwRail at places in my electorate like Levin. Now, Levin has got a massive siding of land, and once upon a time, it was really busy and productive, so that land sits there available. KiwiRail want to make that more of a transport logistics hub, and I support that, so I think that is a positive part of this bill. 
The only other comment that I'd like to conclude with is to say that this type of legislation has been done before, and it's been proved to be very satisfactory. That was around the Canterbury earthquakes, and that's around Kaikōura, where we had the earthquake there. 
Also, the one that is quite close to Parliament here is the Arras Tunnel, where, when the National Government was in power, we worked constructively across the Parliament to get that tunnel built. The unfortunate thing is we should have gone further and got the flyover around the Basin Reserve included in that piece of legislation as well, but I'll leave that debate for another day. 
So the National Party supports this bill, with some reservations. We look forward to the committee stage, where we can really get into some of the detail. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a short call in support of this legislation, legislation that's been worked on between the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon David Parker quite studiously. I want to join the chorus of thanks for the select committee for its diligence in the work and the speed and the pace, the hours that they put in, and for the constructive amendments that have been made with the support of the National members of that committee. 
I think I did try to say in my last speech on the Resource Management Act (RMA)—and the Hon Nathan Guy's quite right: we find ourselves discussing the RMA once again. Of course there's always going to be the political debate around it, but I think the comments that have been made once again confirm that the RMA has some serious flaws. There have been many attempts to change it, modify it, and improve it. I do remember Denis O'Rourke, who put up numerous Supplementary Order Papers when the National Government made its attempt to better the RMA—all of his Supplementary Order Papers were voted down. I think there were 13 hours of debate in this House. And, you know, when you're caught in a situation where none of your suggestions, your recommendations, are accepted by the Government of the day, it stands to reason you're probably going to vote against their legislation at the end of it. That could have been a different outcome; it wasn't. 
I'm hoping that in the future, the type of collaboration that we've seen with the select committee process for this piece of legislation will continue, given the importance and significance of the infrastructure problems that we face going forward as a country and the need for us to build resilience into our communications, systems, and structures, and support local government who carry most of the burden. That's just the sad fact of it. 
So I sincerely thank the members of the committee for their work and for the constructive changes that they have supported. It's already been stated—so I'm not going to rotary hoe this same garden again—that this bill is aimed at the COVID recovery. It's aimed at trying to get some shovel-ready projects under way. It's aimed at getting people employed where we've got people who are going to be unemployed, and we know the numbers that are coming through, and it's about fast tracking. I know that a lot of attention has been focused on those specific projects which are covered off in the schedule. I guess, where I'm really hopeful, looking forward, is in the track 2, track 3 space. 
When we start talking about culverts and we start talking about bridges, I recall, as the Mayor of Carterton, asking for a review of our asset management programme, and I particularly wanted some attention around culverts and bridges. Now, being a rural council, a district council, it was quite astonishing for me to learn we had over 2,500, and Carterton's one of the smallest councils—I think third to smallest council in the country. We had 2,500 bridges and culverts. And I know Jacqui Dean who's been in local government herself is nodding her head there. The cost of replacing or upgrading those by a little council with a very small rating base was astronomical. 
What made the challenge even greater and the problem even more concerning was when we looked at the time when these bridges had been built and these roads had been laid down and the culverts installed, and most of them were over 100 years old. Most of them had been done during the Depression. So we were looking at not just failure, not just increased usage, not just increased loadings—and the last Government increased the axle loadings on heavy vehicles; large numbers of logging trucks, large numbers of transporters moving through our area—but we were dealing with the problem of block obsolescence. Because they were all built at the same time, their end of life was going to hit us all at the same time—very much like the problems that the Defence Force faces with old platforms.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep—yep.
Hon RON MARK: So this part here, when we get into track 2, we get into track 3, I'm hoping that under the Orders in Council, a lot of these projects will get the opportunity to see the light and to be considered and to be fast tracked. I'd also like to think that under Provincial Growth Fund funding, when we get back here after the election, we'll be able to continue to fund some of these things as well. 
The other point that's been raised and discussed is the question around the sunset clause, the fact that the bill will self-repeal in two years. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with these changes. If this piece of legislation proves to be effective, if this piece of legislation proves to be something of worth, it's going to be interesting to see what a future Government who's come to power at that point in time does with that clause. I'd like to think that the Parliament will keep an open mind. I'd like to think that at that time, a post-implementation review might give the Parliament a steer. I'd like to think that at that time, the changes that we're making in this legislation might be considered more widely as to whether or not it's appropriate in a wider review of the Resource Management Act, which is clearly going to happen no matter who is in power at the time. 
With that, I'd simply say New Zealand First supports the bill.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National does support the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. We're now at the second reading, and our most excellent colleague Erica Stanford started out the debate for us in the second reading by thanking very sincerely the officials who had assisted and led the committee—a bit of both, really—through the very truncated consideration of this bill. As Erica Stanford mentioned, the committee met by Zoom every day bar one, which was Sunday, for the last week to get this bill back in reasonable shape, and a lot of credit needs to go to the officials, particularly as they had just immediately come off hard at the heels of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill, which had, more or less, the same process. So our officials are working extraordinarily hard, and bill drafters; can't forget parliamentary counsel, who also have been working on this bill, and we do thank them, and we can't thank them enough—I don't believe we can.
So, yes, we consent to this bill. It is a bill very much in the form of the Christchurch Canterbury earthquakes recovery legislation and the Kaikōura recovery legislation, which allowed physical works to be done. There are a number of features in those suites of legislation which enabled both of those communities—or all of those communities, because there are a number of small communities in Canterbury—to find their feet. It was the physical works—getting those physical infrastructure works going—which not only addressed those infrastructure problems but gave the community heart. I would suggest that we are united in this House and we do support this bill, as I said. We've united this country to see that work was being done without the delays which we all are frustrated by under the current provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in terms of consenting, whereby projects can be in the consenting stage for a number of years. In fact, we have a good example right now of Auckland Council being, I think, fifth or sixth in line for their water-take consent from the Waikato Regional Council, and the regional council is saying, "You're in line, and it'll be years." So there's no argument that the delays in consenting for major projects, the like of which Auckland Council are experiencing—there's no denying that there is an issue here in New Zealand with the Resource Management Act. It is frustrating. 
On this side of the House, in the nine years we were in Government, we brought forward a number of RMA amendment bills to the House to achieve what this bill is also attempting to achieve—which is a timely consideration of consents—but we did not ever get the support of the then Opposition parties in this House, who are now, all of them, sitting on the other side in the Government and who are now, suddenly, so enthusiastic about RMA reform. 
So in this bill—this very bill—we have those elements of the RMA which have been demonstrated to work so very well in times of need—earthquakes—and now we have the same situation where we have a country, effectively, brought to its knees by a virus. The question then arises as to Schedule 2 of this bill, which contains the listed projects, and those are the 11 identified projects which are in the bill which will go straight to the RMA consenting panel for consideration for consent. They will have something like up to 20 to 25 days to come back with a decision. They can go back to the project promoters to ask for information. But, essentially, this is a very efficient process, which does provide some protections that sit in the RMA. So this bill fits nicely within the RMA.
But the question has to be asked, and I do hope the Minister, in the committee stage of this bill, will be prepared to answer questions—questions such as: we know that fast tracking projects will be of benefit to infrastructure projects, and we have identified, with the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group, 1,924 submissions for projects. So that's nearly 2,000 projects that have been identified to the Government. They come with a combined value of $136 billion. So there's no shortage of projects out there. And there's more: I have some projects of my own that I would wish to promote through the process of this bill. So there's no shortage of infrastructure projects to be considered, potentially through the auspices of this Act once it has passed. So the question is: why are there only 11 identified in the bill itself. Those are the listed projects, and, of course, there is a mechanism, but it's a slightly longer mechanism for other projects to be referred to the consenting panel. So I think it is a question: why only 11?
I think the answer really lies in the dysfunctional nature of this Government, where the coalition members and confidence and supply partners have such very fractious relationships and there is a fair degree of horse trading that has to go on. So we get infrastructure projects which are deemed so necessary to be included in Schedule 2, and yet, when you have a look at them, they are cycle trails. One just has to wonder at the benefit, in terms of the purpose of this bill, in getting infrastructure up and running in New Zealand. But that is a question for the Minister to answer in the next reading of this bill.
The next question I have is: where is the Infrastructure Commission in all of this? It was an issue that was raised in the first reading of this bill, and that is that the Government established the Infrastructure Commission only a few months ago, and yet here we have a whole other legislative process which has the function of identifying and fast tracking essential infrastructure projects with the purpose of building infrastructure and creating jobs. So what, then, for the Infrastructure Commission? Has that been set aside? Do they intend to repeal that? I don't know the answers to that. But, surely, any decent Government, any decent policy development process, should have cast itself around for what are the options for addressing this problem of COVID-19, and we need to get the country moving and we need to provide jobs, which we agree with. So one of the options surely could have been, and should have been, using the Infrastructure Commission, and possibly that could have been a part of this RMA fast-track consenting bill. I am surprised and a little mystified as to why it isn't, but, again, that is something that this committee can raise in the committee of the whole House, when Minister Parker is in the chair.
I also note, just casting my mind forward, because it is interesting to do that, that there are a number of tabled amendments to be considered in the committee stage of this bill, and this is the opportunity for the Government to really show its commitment to infrastructure in New Zealand. I expect the Government, I expect Minister Parker and the Government—all the parties in the Government: the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour—to support each and every one of these infrastructure projects, if they are to be true to the spirit of this legislation. So I'm expecting great success in that regard with these tabled amendments which are now sitting before us on the Table. 
I have a number relating to my electorate, and, very quickly, I really very much would like to see the Ōrari bridge double-laning in South Canterbury. That's a very worthy project. Now, if that could be dealt with in this fast-track consenting process, that would be great news to the locals, as would the Kakanui bridge renewal. So that's just two projects—that's two bridge projects. We've got infrastructure projects—lots of jobs; good value to the locals. But there's also safety improvement projects. So I'm going to put these to the Government, and I do hope that they meet with the Government's agreement.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Pleased to take a call on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Sometimes I think the National Party doesn't understand MMP. The fact that we've got three parties in Government, representing the breadth of views of New Zealanders, of course means that there are discussions and debate about significant legislation such as this bill. That strengthens the process of developing the legislation, because it means that the different perspectives go into drafting the bill and then amending it through the course of the Parliament, so it then ensures that it represents the wider spectrum of views of New Zealanders. So I make no apology for the fact that we are part of an effective Government, which really demonstrates MMP in action, and three parties are working together.
The Green Party has worked throughout the development of the bill to improve it, to strengthen it. I really acknowledge the work of environment Minister David Parker and the good faith negotiations that he has undertaken with us. I also acknowledge the really important contribution that submitters have made, because the Green Party was adamant that there needed to be a select committee process for this bill so that the public would have an opportunity to comment on it, because communities want to be able to influence the decisions that are made under the Resource Management Act which affect their neighbourhoods and the places that they care about. Public participation enables more information to be put in front of decision makers, and, again, that wider spectrum of views.
So this fast-track bill does reduce the opportunities for full public participation, but it does enable a number of organisations to present their perspectives and their critique of projects to the expert consenting panel. I'm pleased that in the Environment Committee this has been further expanded with the addition of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Others have commended the work of officials. I would also really like to commend all of those individuals and organisations who worked through a weekend—very short, compressed time period—to analyse the bill and to make submissions, and the work that Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick did on the select committee to ensure that everyone who wanted to be heard had that opportunity, and the long hearings of the select committee to enable that to happen. As we have seen with the bill that has been reported back, there have been a number of further improvements in the light of those submissions.
The National Party has said that the Government lacks vision, and their response, their vision, is just to put a whole lot of Supplementary Order Papers seeking to have a number of other projects included in the schedule to the bill. This Government's vision in responding to the environmental and climate challenges of the time is to ensure, as a key part of our recovery to the economic insecurity caused by COVID, that we have a nature-based recovery, that we invest $1.1 billion in creating new nature-based jobs that help Papatūānuku and ensure that people can bring home money to put food on the table and have that security of employment. That is part of our vision. So is this bill, because it ensures that while responding to COVID, while responding to the need to create jobs through these fast-tracked projects, we also recognise sustainable management. That's a key part of the purpose of the bill.
In the criteria that the Minister for the Environment has to consider when deciding whether projects should go on the fast track, those have been strengthened. As Duncan Webb noted, there was already a major criteria that projects have to contribute to New Zealand's efforts to mitigate climate change and transition more quickly to a low-emissions economy, and the impacts of reducing New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions is all there in relation to that criteria. The select committee has strengthened it by including a specific reference to greenhouse gas emissions when the Minister comes to consider adverse environmental effects. One of the key areas where the bill was strengthened early on was ensuring that there was a strong commitment to Part 2, in terms of the decisions made by the Minister and by the expert consenting panel so that the environmental bottom lines that are part of the Resource Management Act (RMA) come across to this bill.
So our concerns are around the constraints on public participation. While National is suggesting that this bill should supplant the RMA permanently, there is a significant constraint on local participation and decision-making by councils because, of course, decisions under the bill are made by the expert consenting panel within 25 to 50 days, rather than by councils elected to represent their communities. So access to justice is constrained, too, with the inability to appeal beyond the Court of Appeal. This bill is complex. So, like others, I really acknowledge the work of officials in taking the behemoth of the Resource Management Act, working out how this bill integrates with it, particularly the members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and their legal drafting so that this bill does fit alongside the RMA. It changes the processes that are in the RMA but retains those key fundamental environmental bottom lines that are in Part 2.
The National speakers have queried why things like cycleways are part of the fast-tracked projects in the schedule. Those cycleways had significant benefits for sustainability, both in reducing emissions and in promoting the health of the population by ensuring that people can commute safely without being threatened by cars. So that's the sort of change that this Government wants in order to shift us to a low-emissions economy, to tackle the climate crisis, and to ensure that infrastructure projects take us in that direction and are not the big motorway projects, the roads of national significance that that party was so keen on when it was in Government, which increased emissions and created an enormous taking of funding away from things like active transport, cycleways, walking projects, and improved access around our cities.
The vision that this Government has for the Resource Management Act is to follow on from the recommendations of the Randerson review, which will be made public. That review, I hope, deals with the issue of spatial planning and infrastructure integration. We have a real deficit in infrastructure planning in Aotearoa. We have a deficit of investment in things like three waters, in things like effective transport, effective public transport. This Government is making that investment through the COVID response and recovery package and through the Provincial Growth Fund. We need our environmental planning legislation to be about good spatial planning, where we are planning to ensure that new housing development integrates with transport corridors. Where we put infrastructure affects how cities and towns develop. So that is our vision for environmental legislation which does that spatial planning and takes us to a low-emissions economy. So this bill is not the bill that will achieve that, but that will come with the results of the Randerson review when we get back into Government after 19 September to take that forward.
So this bill, with its three tracks for projects, has had significant improvements through the select committee process in response to submissions, things like the ability of infrastructure agencies to do permitted activities, through clearance of vegetation in significant natural areas—there've been changes to things like that. Auckland water, which is a big issue, is now on a pathway that's under the existing Act through being called in by the Minister for the Environment. What National would have done was ram that through without taking into account the concerns of Waikato-Tainui. That will go through that more comprehensive process under the RMA, because it is critical that adverse environmental effects are considered properly. Because we've seen with projects like the Clyde Dam, which was rammed through, the failure to really look at the geological characteristics there and the impacts that things like that have had on the functioning of that dam. Things that are done in haste where environmental effects aren't fully considered can have detrimental impacts further down the track, as happened under National with the way it wanted to ram through a lot of irrigation projects. So I'm pleased to take a call on the bill. Thank you.





CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do just want to respond to the previous member's comments about the roads of national significance (RONS). I want to assure the House that, when the National Party wins the election on 19 September, the RONS are coming back.
It always amazes me that the Green Party decries the roads of national significance, because Julie Anne Genter, who's the associate transport Minister and also the Green Party transport spokesperson, depending on which hat she's wearing or which website she's writing for—or actually, frankly, which question time she's appearing in—likes to talk about road safety a lot. They're the safest roads in the country. One person has died on a road of national significance. Nathan Guy said it was zero; it's actually one—one person only. Kāpiti Expressway; Transmission Gully, when we eventually get it open; Waterview; Victoria Park Tunnel; the Canterbury roading projects down on Andrew Falloon's patch, or close to there—one person has died. They're the safest roads in the country.
And they talk about housing. Eugenie Sage just talked about—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Pūhoi to Warkworth—do you know how many people died because your party didn't improve the safety of that road?
CHRIS BISHOP: OK. Well, you can get upset if you like, but one person has died on a road of national significance. They're the safest roads, and they expand housing growth.
I want to comment on what Eugenie Sage said about housing, because it always amazes me that roads that connect our regions, that connect greenfield housing developments, like the road that the Government is building in the South, the expansion of State Highway 1 further south, that opens up greenfields housing developments—that contributes to housing supply. You've got to build the infrastructure to connect the housing, and actually the roads of national significance, four-lane expressways—beautiful things—they actually connect into housing. It always amazes me that the Greens don't support that. So, even on the grounds that they like to talk about being important in transport, they should support the RONS.
I want to thank the Environment Committee for the hard work they have done on this bill, and particularly Erica Stanford and the team on the committee. They have done a great job. I couldn't sit on the committee for the bill, but I know they were sitting at all hours—8 o'clock on a Saturday morning; particularly, can I say, with the weather that Wellington has had, and I want to apologise, sort of, to the House for the Wellington weather over the last couple of weeks. What a shocker. I know many of you will not have enjoyed that. So, sorry about that!
Look, this bill is a good bill as far as it goes, right? But it's really an admission that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken. And, actually, we've been saying that in the National Party for at least a decade, nigh on 20 years. The fact that we're having to sit—
Chlöe Swarbrick: How long were you in Government, Chris?
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I know the point you're making. We could never assemble the numbers to reform it properly. And, actually, you know, if we'd had the chance, we would have done it properly. We could never assemble the numbers. And, actually, the fact that we're sitting here today, on the cusp of an election, in urgency, on Thursday afternoon, putting through a bill to get on with 11 projects, worthy as they are—well, contemporaneously there's this reform process going through, led by Judge Randerson, which the Minister has kicked off, for yet another reform of the RMA, yet another consultation, yet another stakeholder advisory process, and reference groups, and getting everyone into a room to agree on the best way forward. All that stuff. That's happening contemporaneously with this. Doesn't that just indicate to you that the whole fundamental model is broken? It really is.
Everyone agrees that we need to get on with infrastructure projects in New Zealand. There's not a person in the Parliament who wouldn't say that we have under-invested in infrastructure, probably for the last 15 or 20 years. No one would really disagree with that, and yet we have put in place barriers, self-made barriers, through the Resource Management Act, since 1990, to actually building that infrastructure. I've just been corresponding with someone online about the Pētone to Ngauranga cycle trail, which everyone in Wellington and Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt agrees we need, because you drive down State Highway 2 into town, from Lower Hutt into Wellington, and there's a tiny little track next to the railway line, in between the motorway, and it's filthy and it's filled with potholes and it's got nails along it. It's a rubbish piece of infrastructure, and if Julie Anne Genter was here she would, I know, agree with me on this. She would say that that should be the jewel in the crown of Wellington. It should be a beautiful vista that people ride along on their e-bikes, which I know a lot of people are taking up. People could run and walk along it into Wellington.
Well, we're now in 2020. That project has been talked about for 50 years. We talked about it in Government in 2014, six years ago, and we're now in 2020 and it's going to be one of the projects brought forward to be fast-tracked. And the reason that has to be done is because, I'm told, under the current Resource Management Act, structures that would take four years to consent—four years for a project that pretty much everyone agrees we want. Everyone in Wellington agrees it's desired. The current cycleway is unsafe, it's dangerous, and it should be the jewel in the crown of Wellington. It should be a tourist attraction. It should incentivise people to get out of their cars, get on to their bikes or on to their e-bikes and cycle into town from Lower Hutt or Upper Hutt or from Pētone, or for families to walk along the harbour on a nice summery day. Not right now; you probably wouldn't do it on a day like today, or any of the last month, but you'd do it on a nice summery day. And it takes four years to consent? It's ridiculous. Everyone agrees it's ridiculous. 
So we're going to have to put it through in this bill, alongside a bunch of other projects like the papakāinga network development, Britomart East upgrade to the City Rail Link project. I mean, again, there would be no one in Parliament who'd think that was a bad idea. We need to do it. So let's just do it. Papakura to Pukekohe electrification—that's been talked about for five years. We campaigned in the 2017 election on it, and the Labour Party campaigned on it as well, and we're here in 2020—a railway line extension to Pukekohe to better cater to the fast-growing area of the south of Auckland and the Waikato, to allow people to get on a train from Pukekohe straight into Britomart and not have to get off at Papakura and then get on another train. Obviously that disincentivises people to get on the train in Pukekohe, because they've got to get off at Papakura, get off their diesel train and get on an electric train. Obviously fewer people want to do that, so of course electrification makes sense. We've been talking about it for five or six years, but consenting takes for ever.
The Resource Management Act is a self-made blockage against housing, against rail projects that make sense, against roading projects that unlock our greenfields development or help deal with congestion or improve safety, which everyone agrees we need to improve. So I just think, symbolically, the fact that we are here doing this just epitomises the failure of Parliament over the last 20 years, really, to deal with the Resource Management Act. And I have to say that, frankly, the Greens—there is some deep irony in the Greens supporting this bill, because the Greens have been the biggest barrier in the last 20 years to the Resource Management Act. Simple changes, minor changes to reduce the interminable consultation, to speed up the process—all of those changes have been opposed by the Green Party; not just opposed and they vote against them and go through the motions, but vociferously and voluminously. They've run petitions against any changes to the Resource Management Act, and they've had their fellow travellers in the wider environmental movements telling us that the end of the world is nigh. We've had Geoffrey Palmer telling us that the model is fine, and we've had endless opinion pieces from Sir Geoffrey and legal opinions about how everyone is wrong on the Resource Management Act other than him. Well, he's the guy who wrote it, so I think there may be a slight vested interest there and conflict of interest in relation to it.
The simple reality is that if you look back over the last 20 years of New Zealand—or the last 30 years, actually—some of the biggest problems we're dealing with in New Zealand today, the legacy of those problems, can be sheeted back to the Resource Management Act: under-investment in infrastructure, not just roads. We are keen on roads in the National Party; not just roads but rail, public transport improvements, busways, cycle tracks, shared paths—we've under-invested in all of them, and the Resource Management Act bears a lot of the blame for it. Housing—the average house in Auckland is a million dollars; ten times average median income. That's wrong, and the Resource Management Act bears a lot of the responsibility for that, because we have made it impossible in this country, or nearly impossible, to get on and build housing. That's not the sole cause of the housing problems in New Zealand, but it's a major contributing factor. Just building stuff, just living your life in your own home, on your own property—we have made it near impossible to do things. And, again, the Resource Management Act bears a lot of the blame for that.
So, yes, we support this bill. Obviously, we support it. Yes, we want things added to it. But it is really symbolic and emblematic of the Resource Management Act being a major millstone around the neck of Governments of both stripes over the last 20 to 30 years. We need wholesale reform. That will come after 19 September. Thank you.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a very long call to say that the other side of the House supports this bill. Let's put some positivity back into the debate, because this bill is actually a good bill. What I would like to do with my short call—I would like to thank Minister Parker for bringing this bill to the House so that we will have the mechanisms in place to get some crucial infrastructure and other developments going. This will promote employment and, in turn, support New Zealand's recovery from COVID-19. I would also like to thank the Environment Committee, chaired by my indefatigable colleague Dr Duncan Webb, and I'd like to thank the officials for their obviously tireless work on this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was hoping that the Government member over there would want to speak a bit more about this bill. But look, it is a real pleasure to rise to support the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.
Even though I do support it, I unfortunately do see it as inadequate. That is because, first of all, all it does is cherry-picks around 11 projects from around the country and does nothing actually for projects around the rest of the country which aren't given such gold-plated treatment. So, as has been pointed out on this side of the House this afternoon, and as members can see on the Table in front of us, there are a range of projects all around the country that would benefit from a fast-track consenting process and yet haven't been included in this bill. What would have been far better, actually, is if we, as my colleague Chris Bishop has alluded to, have not just a fast-track consenting process but actually fundamental reform of the Resource Management Act, which is, unfortunately, holding back so much development in this country. This bill is inadequate because it ignores large swaths of New Zealand. Of the 11 projects, the vast bulk of those are in the North Island; despite green-lighting projects, transport projects, particularly in Auckland, there is nothing in here in terms of transport projects for Canterbury, nothing for road safety at all.
Now, in the committee of the whole House stage later on tonight, I do intend to move two amendments to rectify some of those inadequacies. The first one of those is an amendment to include in this bill the road between Rolleston and Ashburton and to extend that to four lanes. So as part of the previous Government's roads of national significance programme that Chris Bishop has alluded to, four lanes was extended or rolled out from Christchurch to Rolleston, and now it's time to finish the job. According to NZTA's own statistics just a couple of years ago, that road between Ashburton and Christchurch is now the second most dangerous stretch of highway in the country for fatalities and serious injuries. And that needs to change.
This bill refers to the Papakura to Drury State Highway 1 roading upgrade. It refers to the need to improve safety on that important Auckland road. Yet the bill does nothing for one of the most dangerous roads in New Zealand, Ashburton to Christchurch, and that needs to change. Traffic volumes on that road have doubled over the last 20 years, and with growth around PrimePort in Timaru, also the Rolleston inland port, and of course, a thriving primary produce sector in mid- and South Canterbury, the road has become more congested and less safe. My colleague Chris Bishop pointed out the fact that there's been, I think, one fatality on the roads of national significance, the seven roads that were put in place by the previous Government. Well, in contrast to that, in the last three years there have been 10 people who've lost their lives on the road between Ashburton and Christchurch, and that needs to change.
Instead, unfortunately, that road was re-evaluated by the transport Minister, Phil Twyford, not long after he came into Government and as part of a $5 billion dollar cut to the State highway network, it was shelved. That money was instead put into Auckland cycle and rail projects, which makes it all the more incredible that we've now, in recent weeks, just seen the Auckland light rail project shelved.
The second amendment I intend to move is for a second bridge over the Ashburton River. This is a project that the community wants and it would reduce congestion in the CBD. It's an important component of the Christchurch to Ashburton four-lane project, and that's been confirmed by NZTA, who have said that the four-lane highway should bring forward investment in a second bridge crossing. Now, the Government have announced a business case such as it is, but of course that comes on the heels of, I think, four previous business cases that have been done on the bridge, all recommending that it go ahead. Quite why we need a fifth case, I don't entirely know. That business case, of course, was funded by the Provincial Growth Fund from Shane Jones—once again, creating more jobs for expensive consultants in Wellington than it does in the regions.
My amendment would bring forward this important project. Both projects—the Ashburton to Christchurch four-lane highway, a second bridge over the Ashburton River—would improve road safety. Both projects would create jobs, would create economic activity. I do hope that members across the House do support those important projects and make roads in Canterbury more safe.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following is a split call. Jami-Lee Ross.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also rise to speak in favour of this bill and really echo some of the comments that have already been made about the fact that when we have natural disasters or we have significant economic events, it really highlights to this Parliament—because every time it happens, the Parliament goes and changes the RMA. Those big events highlight that our Resource Management Act is broken. 
The politics of resource management law changes are such that we can never achieve a parliamentary majority for streamlining the RMA in such a way where it is user-friendly and geared towards development and economic progress until we have such an issue like COVID-19 or the global financial crisis or the Kaikōura earthquakes come along. When those issues come along, then all of a sudden the politicians go, "Whoa, we better protect jobs and we better do something for economic development. So let's set aside all of the RMA provisions which are held dear to a majority of the Parliament—let's set them aside and move forward with economic development." It highlights the fact that if we just had an RMA in the first place that was fit for purpose, then we wouldn't need to be doing this type of work.
But the fact that we're here is good. The fact that we have this legislation is a positive improvement. If the need to create jobs and save the livelihoods of New Zealanders off the back of COVID-19 is the catalyst for doing this legislation, then good on the Parliament for doing just that. 
I do share the view also that's been expressed that there should be more projects in this bill. I realise there were comments made—I think the Minister of Defence made the comment that there's other tracks, a track 2 and a track 3. But if we realise already now that there are more projects that we could put in—and I know New Zealand First has many projects that they've got $3 billion of Provincial Growth Fund to fund—they should be going in the bill right now. The very fact that the select committee put the Queenstown roading projects in the bill—I'm not sure, Hamish Walker, you must be very, very effective at lobbying. But the fact that the Queenstown roading projects went into the bill suggests the Parliament is open-minded to putting more stuff into the bill. 
There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the Table. I note the National Party—every single local member seems to have come up with their own local project that's important to their electorate. I've done the same by way of SOP, and I'm sure the National Party, given that they're goodhearted people, will be supporting the people of Botany with SOPs that I've put up, just as they've been supporting their own local electorates. If they don't, then we'll know that they care about politics more than local electorates. But the fact that there are so few projects in this bill suggests that we do need to see some improvements. 
I want to speak briefly in the two minutes that I have left about the Auckland water issue, because there was commentary both in the media and in the report from the select committee around the Auckland water issue. I suspect David Parker has done a very strategic move sideways in putting that particular issue out to the call-in provisions that he as the Minister has the ability to do. But the very fact that he's had to do that suggests we don't have an RMA fit for purpose that can deal with those big significant issues. But he hasn't actually come up with a solution which is fast enough, and we can do things faster if we were to put the Auckland water issue into this bill. 
See, the panel under this bill has to make decisions in 25 days. The call-in provisions under the RMA that the Minister has—it takes nine months or so. If Auckland's water crisis is so bad that a majority of Parliament—because the National Party and New Zealand First came out saying we should put that particular issue into the fast-track bill, and they can't deny it because Shane Jones put it out as Minister for Infrastructure. It was under his brand as Minister for Infrastructure. If a majority of Parliament says that is such an important issue that we should do something about in a fast-track way, let's just put it in this bill. The Minister's done a good thing in putting it out in the call-in process, but we can do things a lot faster by putting it in this bill. 
I realise putting it in this bill would probably upset one of the coalition partners. But for goodness' sakes, Aucklanders getting access to drinking-water and being able to ensure that we have continuity of supply for our largest city in the country, surely that's something that a majority of votes in the Parliament should put politics aside for and put in place in this bill. 
I note that the National Party deputy leader also put out a press release saying that they support something like that going into this particular bill. I have an SOP that would give effect to the very thing that the National Party deputy leader has said that she wants. I hope they support that as well. Otherwise, they are just like that big "h" word that I'm not allowed to say.





Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): At the helm of New Zealand's COVID-19 response is Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and she is strongly supported by all parties on this side of the House. Her decisive and compassionate decision-making has kept all of us safe, and we will continue to work hard to keep COVID-19 at our borders while we work quickly and at pace to support our country's economic recovery and rebuild. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to take a call on this bill, the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, and I do at the start want to acknowledge the work that has been done by everybody in this Parliament—officials, Environment Committee members—in getting through 136 submissions in a very short period of time. As has been said by previous speakers on this side, we do support this legislation, although we don't believe it goes far enough, and as Erica Stanford, my good colleague, has said, it probably should be in place for longer.
That being said, there are some issues that I wish to talk about. While we are accelerating projects or bringing them forward, and a decision needing to be made in around 25 days—which is a massive improvement on what has traditionally been the case, where it can be years, if not decades—it is important to understand what this legislation also does in a level that doesn't require consent. We do support the permitted activity status that has been given to the New Zealand Transport Agency, KiwiRail, Kāinga Ora, and councils to do minor work, but we shouldn't kid ourselves: as part of that, there will be some trade-offs, and some community members worried about small work who might've previously had an ability to object won't have that. That being said, I think that's OK.
I also acknowledge the fact that the previous National Government brought in the ability for call-in provisions. Those are provisions that are available for the Minister for the Environment at any stage, if something is in the national interest, to bring something to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and take it through a process that takes no more than nine months. If you want to look at what that can do and the success of that, one only needs to look at the projects that have been through that, and the Hon Nathan Guy took us through the Kāpiti Expressway previously. In my view, unless the call-in provisions had been available to the Government, those types of projects would still be stalled in the starting blocks.
The call-in provision has been used by the Minister for Auckland water, and I do acknowledge the point that's just been made by Jami-Lee Ross previously that that is a nine-month process; a deal's being done with Hamilton City to give some short-term relief, but at the end of the day, that consent could've been included in this bill. The Minister used the call-in provision—that's fine. That's better than not using it, but the same issue could've been dealt with in this bill.
We're also awaiting the Tony Randerson report, which various Ministers will have seen—and I have no objection to them seeing; it's their report. But, fundamentally, that will change the Resource Management Act (RMA), I suspect, and I think there is cross-party agreement right across the Parliament that the RMA does need to change. So we are, in a sense, doing a knee-jerk reaction right now on the basis that we are looking after jobs and we want shovel-ready projects, and that is a laudable goal. My issue—and I spoke about it in the first reading—is I don't believe we're going far enough and quickly enough. We've included a small number of projects—and I understand there are second tranches, third and fourth tranches, but if you look at the projects that have been included right up—and I'm particularly critical of the housing ones, not of the projects themselves but of the scale of things that have been put in in the first part.
Our side of the House also believes that this bill should not time out in two years—that, actually, it should go for up to five, and I understand a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) will be submitted later that will do that. We say that because we have been, and I think many members of Parliament have been, frustrated at how long it takes to get these big projects up and running—not only big projects, in fact; a lot of projects up and running. While it's important for everybody to have a say, the fact that everybody is having a say under the current RMA ends up costing the country, the community, and the very same people a lot of money, time, and effort. Yesterday or the day before, $3 billion of shovel-ready projects were announced. Many are going to be dripped out further in the lead-up to the election. Wouldn't it be good for some of those projects to be included in the schedule at this point so they don't have to be added at a later date by an Order in Council and further delayed? I suspect what we're going to get in the lead-up to the election is handing the cash around but no actual physical start for a long, long time.
I also want to comment on the local government aspect of this. This is a significant change for many. Many local authorities may want to have a say on some of these projects—they may—and they have an ability to, effectively, as a registered person in the process, but the conversation about which project should be advanced through this process versus which they would like to proceed is actually not, as I understand it, Minister—and I'll come to it in the committee of the whole House—a decision for them. It is a decision for you as the Minister at the outset. So when I look down the Schedule 2 projects, and when I understand the number of councils that are having conversations with Shane Jones and his fund and the finance Minister about shovel-ready projects, I hope there is alignment there. I hope that when the right hand gives out the money, the left hand is working out which projects can or cannot be included.
There is also the capacity issue. We know, and the Minister will know this, that the Environment Court has had capacity issues. A lot of processes get held up for capacity issues. When we add more and more things to the panel and the EPA and the process that's going to be followed, we have to have specialist panels and people that have the capacity to do this. Many people struggle with the complexity, and it'll take a certain type of person to be on those panels. So there is a balance between how many things you can put up versus how many things they're going to fix, and in my view, the list we've already given does not actually translate into giving the most shovel-ready or urgent jobs; they happen to be a list that's available. Nineteen hundred and twenty-four projects were submitted to the Infrastructure Commission to look at, and I think that in that there are probably well over a hundred—well over a hundred—that would need fast-track consenting if you were going to get them shovel-ready in a time frame that'll make a difference to COVID-19. So I say to the Minister: if that's the scale of what we're trying to do, where is the capacity within the EPA or the panel to do that?
Lastly, I haven't yet put an SOP in, but I do want to talk about the four-laning of the Napier to Hastings Expressway, for no other reason than this: that land is fully designated—fully designated. The only thing that needs to occur is a couple of consents for some bridges and the money for the bridges. We are already wasting money on that part of the road because we're putting safety barriers and all sorts of things on the wrong alignment, because when it's four-lane, those safety barriers are in the wrong place. So I'm watching $20 million, nearly, be spent on safety barriers on the wrong alignment because this Government is not aligning everything it does with what is the long-term solution. So when we look at these projects, we need to look at them holistically. That is a project that is shovel-ready, could be included here, fully designated, and if we make a decision about that quickly, we will stop wasting money.
So we support this bill. We don't think it goes far enough, and I thank you for the opportunity to say my piece.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker. About a week ago I joined you in Christchurch at Redcliffs School, where the children there referred to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, as the leader the whole world is wanting. They spoke about her calm and competent and comforting way that she led us through the health response to COVID-19. Now our leader Jacinda Ardern is leading us through the economic recovery response. To do that, we have got the most significant infrastructure bill this country has ever seen. The reason we have that is it will create jobs where, at this point in time, we know that there are some families who are finding it very distressing. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.





In Committee
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave that the provisions of this bill be taken as one part.
TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Dr Duncan Webb): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Right. There is objection. 





Part 1  Preliminary provisions
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm pleased to take a call in the committee stage. I want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 531. In my second reading speech, I alluded to the fact that I would be speaking to the issue of the sunset clause in this bill. In Part 1, clause 3 "Repeal of this Act" states: "(1) This Act is repealed on the second anniversary of the date on which it receives the Royal assent." Now, my SOP is to take this out to five years. And the reason, that I want to do that—and this side of the committee wishes to do that—is because we heard from many submitters who made the point that the two-year provision simply isn't long enough. You will have heard my colleague Chris Bishop at second reading in his speech speak about the fact that it takes a considerable amount of time to get a project to the point where it is ready for resource consent. And I can talk to just one project in my electorate, the Glenvar Road project, which has taken actually about 20 years to get to the point where they're ready now to apply for resource consent. There are many more projects like that around. And we need to acknowledge the fact that if we are serious about creating jobs and serious about a post-COVID economic recovery, we need to extend the time out to five years. 
It's been noted many times in this House by both sides, by both the Government and the Opposition, that the economic effects of COVID-19 will be felt for many, many years. We've just borrowed $140 billion and in order to pay that back, we are going to need another rock star economy. And the way that we get there is, in part, through this bill—by creating jobs and projects that will provide economic benefit for many, many years to come. The time frame of two years, in our opinion, is far too short, (a), to get projects to the point where they can apply for resource consent, but also the number of projects that we would see needing to go ahead in order to give us that rock star economy to get people employed, to pay back some of those billions of dollars that we've borrowed. 
We've all acknowledged that the Resource Management Act (RMA) isn't doing what it should do and that's why we've had to do this a number of times, put these fast-track consenting bills in place, and this is an example of that again. It's been mentioned that there is the Randerson report that's coming down the pipeline and that will make some changes, but we've had this Government now for three years and they haven't made a significant RMA reform to get us to a place where we can get projects under way that are going to assist our economy to recover from COVID-19, and I doubt whether or not we're going to get that in the next term of Government after the Randerson report, given we know on this side of the House how very difficult it is to get the numbers to reform the RMA. I think this Government have realised that as well—how difficult it is to get, in an MMP environment, the votes to be able to push it through. So acknowledging how difficult it is to reform the RMA—and that's acknowledged across the House—two years is not long enough for us to get projects under way to help our economy post-COVID. 
So this SOP will seek to move that two years to five years. I would invite the comments from the Minister in the chair, Minister Parker, on his opinion and what advice he's had; why he came up with two years. Perhaps he may support an extension of that out to five years, given the fact that he knows how very difficult it is to reform the RMA, and how we need this bill to help with our economic recovery. I'd be pleased to hear his comments on that.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just before I call the Minister for the Environment, could I say that the member who's just resumed her seat, while speaking very appropriately to the bill, has reverted to the old way of committee stage debate and had her target firmly set at five minutes. That's not the agreement of the House on how we do committee stage debate any more. We're having more of a conversational debate, so the member would ask specific questions and the Minister is expected to answer them and the member can then expect to get another call if she has further questions.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to the questions raised by Erica Stanford, the two-year period has been chosen because we expect by then that we should be through the worst of COVID, the economic response. The effect of the provisions that are put through to the panel under referred projects during that two-year period will, of course, be a lot longer than that two-year period, both because proposals that are put through the second track, which is by Order in Council to these panels, will still proceed through those panels even after the two-year period if they started before that two-year period expired. And also, the actual projects, once commenced, will often take much longer than two years—some of these large projects.
In respect of the question as to why only two years, this bill really does—and Lawrence Yule commented on this earlier—take powers away from local authorities and gives them to a panel set up by local government, removes appeal rights except on matters of law or judicial review to the High Court. So it does amount to a significant truncation of citizens' ordinary rights and local authorities' ordinary rights and we thought that whilst that's justified for a period of two years, those extraordinary overrides are not appropriate long term. 
In respect of why it was that the last Government couldn't overcome the difficulties they saw in the Resource Management Act (RMA), I've sort of summed up my view of the RMA as: it takes too long, costs too much, and hasn't protected the environment. The National Party's proposition in their last term of Government was to cut through length and cost but to undermine the environmental protections that are in the RMA, and we didn't think that that was appropriate. It's notable that the coalition Government of the Labour Party, New Zealand First, supported by the Greens has managed to bring forward and pass an RMA amendment bill, to agree, largely, this bill; and commit us to the Randerson review terms of reference.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In debating Part 1 of this COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, I'd like to ask the Minister why we would not include the most significant project for my constituency of Nelson. People know the geography of my community. The Nelson City sits right at the northern end of the region. We have 100,000 people. We have about 10,000 people living north of Nelson City. We have about 90,000 people living to the south. A huge issue has been efficiently getting people from Stoke into Nelson City. 
I'm proud that over the last 30 years we progressively built the Stoke bypass, a $130 million project that was completed, approved, by the previous Bolger-Shipley Government. We had Queen Elizabeth II Drive, which is to the north of Nelson—many would have tripped on that part of the route. And we also have the Richmond Deviation that goes back to the 1980s. So we've got a roading network in Nelson where three-quarters of the job has been done, but this crucial link has not been constructed. It's about a $200 million project. 
To outline its economic significance, I would point out to the House that over the last 20 years, retail sales in Richmond have doubled. Over the same period, retail sales in Nelson City have been static—have not increased at all. That is largely as a consequence of the roading route into Nelson City being so congested and jammed. Every morning, past my own home, from about quarter past 7 in the morning to about quarter past 9, the road is jammed, and exactly the same occurs every afternoon.
Now, why it's so economically significant is because the retail sector in Nelson has never had as hard a period as the last three months. There are over 30 stores in Nelson that have surrendered their lease; they've closed. If we really are, with this COVID-19 recovery bill, serious about ensuring the recovery of that city, that piece of transport infrastructure is absolutely crucial. 
There's also a huge environmental benefit from it. Anybody who has been to Nelson would know the gorgeous Rocks Road waterfront. I am rather parochial, but I even think many others would recognise it as one of the most beautiful waterfronts in New Zealand. There's actually a very strong consensus in Nelson that it should be a walking and cycling boulevard. But that is only possible—only possible—if we deal with the issue of the State highway. While I agree with my colleague James Shaw from the Green Party that, indeed, it should be a walking and cycling boulevard, that will never be practicable while you've got 4,000 trucks and 18,000 other vehicles. That can only be achieved by the inland route being constructed, and it is the most important infrastructure project for Nelson. 
Now, just yesterday, the Government increased the road-user charges and petrol taxes for my community. It's estimated that we are now contributing over $100 million a year from the Nelson-Tasman region to the road transport fund. We have, over the last three years, seen the Southern Link project cancelled, we've seen even a basic sealing project in our region cancelled, and that is why we are so keen to see this project advanced. 
That is why to Schedule 2, which we are debating as part of Part 1 of this bill, there's an amendment in my name—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but my understanding is that Schedule 2 is part of Part 2, so we look forward to your contribution when we're debating Part 2.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Could I just refer to clause 5. Clause 5, under Part 1, specifically refers to Schedule 2, and my amendment is to Schedule 2. We do not debate the Schedules separately. My understanding—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We're debating Schedule 2 under Part 2.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm sorry?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We're debating Schedule 2 under Part 2, and you're welcome to take a call then.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I just get clarity that if I look at Part 1, clause 5 specifically mentions—in clause 5, subclause (4)—Schedule 2. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Schedule 2 will be debated in Part 2. We're happy to have that debate later.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I would just indicate very strong support for the amendment that is in my name to include that project. If we're serious about this COVID-19 recovery bill working for the community of Nelson, that is the project that is so crucial.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. The member's time has expired. Can I just remind the member of the contribution I made after Erica Stanford's debate. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has reverted to the old way of committee stage debate. That is not the agreement of the House; the agreement of the House is that we have a conversation between members who have questions to raise and the Minister. Obviously, when you have a Supplementary Order Paper, a contribution on that is valid, but five minutes is not a target any more in the committee stage of debate. 





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Parker, and it's around Schedule 3 in Part 1, which is around referred projects: requirements for referral order. I want to ask a few questions now—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. Schedule 3 is part of Part 2, and the member will get a call on Part 2 so that she can make that contribution on Schedule 3. Would you like to speak to clauses 3 to 13, or Schedule 1?
Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I'd like to raise a point of order because I simply don't understand, which clearly isn't a point of order—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's right. Not understanding the layout of legislation is not a point of order, so I'd ask the member to resume her seat.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of the back and forth debate, I would like to ask the Minister some questions about some comments that he made in response to my first call, where he said that in two years we will be through the worst of this, which I find extraordinary, given the way the world is going and the fact that we've borrowed so much money. How he thinks that in two years we'll be through the worst of this, and why a two-year sunset clause on this bill would fit with his expectations that we're going to be through the worst of this in two years—it seems astounding to me that we've borrowed $140 billion and in two years we're going to be in such a great economic state that we won't need to fast track these projects any more. 
But I guess the question I'd like him to answer is: given that comment, how many projects does he expect to go through this process? How many would he expect in two years would be referred to the panel? I've got some more questions, but, in the spirit, I'll let him answer that.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, that will depend on the number of projects that come forward and are referred through to panels. It'll be a significant number. It'll be larger than the initial tranche of listed projects, which is the first track. 
In terms of why I think that it is likely that the first two years of post-COVID will be the worst, that's because that's Treasury's projection.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I wanted to speak to clause 4 in Part 1—the purpose of the bill. I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker: given the purpose of the bill—the purpose being to urgently promote employment to support New Zealand's recovery—given that, why was it that only 11 projects were listed in Schedule 2? This is going to the purpose in Part 1. Why was it that only 11 projects were put in to go straight through to the panel? How did they come up with these 11 projects? Why was it that these specific ones were selected? How many jobs will be created from these 11 projects? And what sort of economic analysis has been done on those projects to see whether or not they fit the purpose of the bill?
The concern that we have on this side of the House is, in fact, that the ongoing economic benefits from some of these projects isn't that great, and I'd be very keen for the Minister to answer the question on what sort of analysis has been done and why these projects, these 11 projects, were listed ahead of the many other projects—very good projects—that could be—
Kiritapu Allan: That's Schedule 2.
ERICA STANFORD: No, it's to go to the purpose of the bill, which is in Part 1.
Kiritapu Allan: Definitely in Schedule 2.
Tim van de Molen: Don't do the Chair's job. Let her rule, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. Thank you both for your assistance. The member was quite specific in referring to the purpose of the bill. She is now referring to something that is outside the scope of this debate, but she very cleverly managed to work it into the purpose of the bill, so I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.
ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. I will sit down in a minute, but thank you, Madam Chair, for that kind comment.
But I am interested in why 11 projects—how were they selected, why were those ones come up with rather than other ones, and what was the economic value, the ongoing economic value? What was the analysis done around those, compared to many, many other projects that were not selected?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. The estimated number of direct jobs from the first 12 projects is 1,700 jobs. There will be indirect benefits as well, with flow-on effects, of course, of the money that is spent into the economy on those 1,700 jobs, most notably through wages being spent in the local economy but also contractors employing local repair people, etc.
As to the question of how many projects do you put in, that's a fair question. The Government was of the view that if we put too many projects in at the start, we choke the system and you won't get anything out quickly, and we thought that it was desirable to get some projects out quickly. That's the reason why we haven't thrown everything in.
Also, in respect of the projects that you do put in, there is a degree of effort required to make sure that they're appropriate for the first fast track, which the panel has limited rights to turn down. Not every project that is suitable for the second track, on referral, where there are broader rights of turning down, is suitable for the first track. That requires an assessment that is reasonably complex and, in itself, takes time. If we put too many projects through that, we would have actually slowed the passage of this legislation.
And how does that happen, in terms of the choice? It's a choice that was made by Cabinet after advice from the Ministry for the Environment, after advice from various agencies, including the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency.
Andrew Falloon: Madam Chair?
Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Andrew Falloon.





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): My apologies to my colleague Erica Stanford, Madam Chair, but I do have a few questions just to follow up on some of the Minister's comments and they do relate to clause 7 of the bill, which refers to listed projects. I'm not going to go into those projects, because you've made your points very clear on that. But I do want to ask the Minister, following on from some of Erica Stanford's points, in relation to how those projects were selected, because it's certainly been noticed by members on this side of the House, and I'm sure by members across the House, that the initial list, which the Minister referred to in his comments just previously, skews very heavily towards the North Island rather than the South Island. So my questions to the Minister are: who did he ask—who did he consult with in coming up with those listed projects that are referred to in clause 7 of the bill? Did he, for example, discuss it with local authorities? Did he approach, for example, pan-mayoral groups, for example the Canterbury Mayoral Forum?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. That wasn't nearly as clever as your colleague. You could take a call in Part 2 if you would like to discuss the contribution that you're making now or you could direct your contribution now to Part 1, which we're debating.
ANDREW FALLOON: Happy to move on to clause 12, which is the RMA aspect, which is the relationship between this bill and the Resource Management Act. Some comments were made earlier in the debate, in the first reading, which was in relation to why we're not considering wider RMA reform at this time. Certainly—and I'm not going to go into the projects, of course—there are a range of projects across the country that could be considered as part of this bill. So I want to ask the Minister: was wider RMA reform considered rather than ramming through a bill which focuses only on a small number of projects for now and then, obviously some further projects later on? Was wider RMA reform considered that would have enabled any range of projects, some of which we don't even know about at this stage? So there's obviously a list of projects that we on this side of the House would like to see progress. I'm sure there's other projects that members on the other side of the House would like to see progressed as well. And so my question for the Minister is: was wider RMA considered?
Because what I worry about, when we discuss the RMA, actually is it's not so much about the projects that we know about that are declined; it's often about the projects that we don't even know about. Because there's a whole range of things. People get put off by the RMA. It's a time-consuming, laborious, and costly process to go through often. And so there's a range of projects that might even never be proposed because people are put off by the RMA and the huge impediments it puts in place. 
And so my question to the Minister, which I hope he'll address, is: was wider RMA reform considered or did he just decide to progress the COVID-19 recovery bill faster, a consenting bill, with a small range of projects, accepting, of course, that there's a process to go through for additional projects, but did he at any point consider wider RMA reform? If he did, why did he discount that? And if he is perhaps looking at wider RMA reform, can he perhaps go into some of the detail of that about what we might see in future? Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the issue as to wider Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, the member will be aware that in the last couple of weeks we've already passed a significant reform to the RMA. Unlike most of the prior reforms of the RMA over the last 15 years or so, it didn't add much to the overall length of the RMA because it stripped out some of the verbiage that had been put in by the last Government, particularly in respect of the so-called collaborative planning process, which is meant to be sort of a collaborative, consensual process and was so overregulated by codification by the last Government that they added many tens of pages to the length of the RMA that the process was never used. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Think of the 48th Parliament—800-page SOPs.
Hon DAVID PARKER: 800-page Supplementary Order Papers?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The Minister was the author of an 800-page SOP.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can we just get back to the debate on this part, please.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of the wider RMA reform, it is complex and you couldn't do it through a short-term process. And if you did, it would be quite inappropriate to push it through in a shortcut process such as this, which had a very limited select committee period, and that would cut across the rights of many people to have a say in legislation like this in a more fulsome way. So it would not be able to be done in practice properly and it would also be a poor process. 
Whilst I'm on my feet, if I could mention my two SOPs on this part of the bill. There is a list of technical amendments, which I won't go through in detail; they truly are technical. There's also a second Supplementary Order Paper in my name, SOP 534.
Hon Nathan Guy: Four—that's an interesting one. What's gone on there?
Hon DAVID PARKER: SOP 534 is easily explained by reference to page 3 of the bill, as reported back from select committee, which shows struck-out language, which says that under the Act "all persons performing functions and exercising powers under it must act in a manner that is consistent with (a) the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Treaty settlements." The Treaty settlements subset is covered elsewhere in the bill as well. But that was replaced with the wording in the existing Act, which is "[For the purposes of this Act] all persons exercising functions and powers under it … must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". That was the form that came out of the select committee. We prefer the earlier form and therefore we've promoted a Supplementary Order Paper for the benefit of the House to consider, in my name, which would restore section 6 to the form in which it went to select committee rather than came out of select committee, with some other consequential amendments.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to open the batting on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 534, and Minister David Parker has pretty much done it for us, but I believe his explanation leaves more questions than answers. Firstly, it's about select committee process, because the reality is the Environment Committee, in its consideration of this bill—a committee that had a reasonably good number of Government members on it, who—
Erica Stanford: A majority. 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: A majority—thank you, Mrs Stanford. That is a significant development. I don't believe I have ever seen a Minister overrule a Government-majority select committee in its careful deliberations on an amendment in this way, and, indeed, the House confirmed those changes in its consideration of the bill at its second reading. So I'm fascinated to know why it is that the Minister felt that the select committee process was somehow suboptimal and whether that's a dispositional or situational trait that he might have. 
But, secondly, I don't believe that his explanation of why we are considering reverting back to the original wording of the bill is adequate. We have Treaty of Waitangi legislation and principles that are clearly articulated in clause 6 as it was reported back to the House, and the Minister's not happy with that. So he's going to ask the House to do the opposite of what it just did half an hour ago at second reading, and it's doubled down on that, because it's adding a number of other clauses into it which continue to refer back to section 6—it will be—through clause 34 and its schedules. 
So I don't, frankly, Minister, think that the explanation is yet adequate enough for the committee to understand and consider whether SOP 534 should be supported. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, the explanation is pretty simple, and I've already given it. We've preferred the wording that went into select committee over that which went out, and whichever way it falls, we're confident that Treaty interests and settlements will be protected. 





JAMI-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.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks, Madam Chair. It's just worthwhile going back to an issue that was raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and in fact I was in the select committee on this day when we talked about—this is to do with clause 6 of Part 1, Treaty of Waitangi. So in the bill that was proposed, first reading moved, second passed, went into the select committee, the wording was: "In achieving the purpose of the Act, all persons performing functions and exercising powers under it must act in a manner that is consistent with—(a) the principles of Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Treaty settlements." And Jenny Marcroft, who is a New Zealand First member, proposed a change which aligns with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and it reads, "In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". The committee, by majority, everyone—in fact, I've got the minutes here. Eight members voted for that: Labour members, Duncan Webb as the chair, Scott Simpson, Liz Craig, Jacqui Dean, myself, Jenny Marcroft, Erica Stanford, Angie Warren-Clark all voted for that. One member, Chlöe Swarbrick, voted against it, and she's nodding her head confirming that so the minutes are true, accurate, and correct. So what I find a bit offensive is that the Minister now has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—numbered 534, he's just spoken about it—reinserting the words back in, effectively riding roughshod over the Labour members. And the chair of the committee, Duncan Webb, may wish to take a call—I see over the other side of the House he's got his head down at the moment. Something's amiss here, that the Labour members of the Environment Committee voted for this clause to be taken out and voted with National and New Zealand First; now the Minister is proposing in SOP 534 to effectively change it back, as the wording was.
What I'm interested in trying to understand—and the Minister in his address before said he could live with actually both, but he prefers the one that's his SOP and the original wording of the bill. What I'm keen to understand is what changed. Does the chair of the Environment Committee not talk to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, about this bill and how it's progressing through the committee? I just can't fathom that the Labour members voted with New Zealand First and National to change this, and now we have an SOP that proposes changing it back, and I can't understand why on earth there wasn't open communication between the Minister and, particularly, the chair of the committee, Dr Duncan Webb. We've had numerous examples over the last month where the support parties of the coalition Government are starting to fracture. Is this another example whereby the coalition Government, left hand, right hand, hands in the middle coming together are not talking to one another?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just remind the Hon Nathan Guy that this is not the old style of committee stage debate. This is a conversation with the Minister, and I can't hear much conversation and I can't hear many questions. So if you could move to the new style of debate where five minutes is not a target.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. I actually quite like the new style, too, because this is not the first question that I'll have, even though I've been here 15 years. I think the new style is great, because it really means that the Minister in the chair has to be accountable, open, and transparent, which is back to the Speech from the Throne.
So I guess my substantial question is: why was there a change between the way Government members voted in the Environment Committee about the Treaty of Waitangi clause; why did they do that? And now they're being asked to vote for something that is different.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The select committee acted appropriately. No one has done anything wrong here. It's up for the committee to decide whether they vote through the Supplementary Order Paper that I've proposed or not.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): Madam Chair—
Hon Nathan Guy: Lucky the list ranking's been done!
NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it just explains why he wasn't considered as the Minister of Health. My questions for the Minister—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. That's a really unhelpful, unparliamentary way of starting a debate, which is meant to be a conversation—could the member resume her seat, please—with the Minister, not a cheap shot at other people. Nicola Willis—second attempt.
NICOLA WILLIS: Madam Chair, my questions to the Minister relate particularly to clause 12, "Relationship between this Act and Resource Management Act 1991". And I build on questions that my, in your words, clever colleague Erica Stanford put to the Minister and that I'd just appreciate some more detail on. What they go to is the way that this bill interacts with the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Minister has shared with this House and with the New Zealand public that he has under way a working group to reform the Resource Management Act, recognising some of its flaws. I think there's general agreement across the House that the RMA is responsible for delaying much-needed developments in New Zealand.
So my question is: given that admission—that the RMA has these significant flaws—and given the intent of this bill and this particular clause, in particular, to fast track projects and carve them out of that RMA process, has the Minister given thought to allowing this bill to continue beyond two years and, instead, to allow this bill to be in place for so long as it takes for reform of the Resource Management Act to have occurred? It seems to me that there is an opportunity here to fast track much-needed development across New Zealand, not just restrictive to the 13 special projects in this bill but to include the many housing developments that we need in this country—to include, for example, the roading projects that are so desperately needed in Wellington and the transport projects that are needed throughout the country. So my question to the Minister is: on what basis will this interact with the Resource Management Act and whether or not he has given consideration to that relationship?
I am also interested, if I can just take this opportunity for the back and forth, to ask the Minister on what basis he has defined the difference between the listed projects and the referred projects, and I ask that with reference to his earlier answer that he felt that if too many projects were listed, that could overwhelm the authority—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's a very good question to make on Part 2.
NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'm referring, Madam Chair, to clause 12, "Listed projects and referred projects"—Part 1, clause 12 of the bill—which specifically outlines the processes that relate to listed projects and referred projects. My question for the Minister is simple, and I'll take my chair in a minute and sit down, but I simply want to ask why it is that he is confident that this authority won't be overwhelmed with referred projects. Because I put it to you, Minister and Madam Chair, that there are hundreds of projects in New Zealand that would like to avoid the delays and costs of the Resource Management Act and that would likely wish to be referred to this Act instead. Thank you.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Just referring to those questions, this amendment bill does not seek to undermine environmental standards; it seeks to retain them, and the references here to the Resource Management Act, cross-referenced through other clauses of the bill, achieve that outcome. In respect of how many projects could be referred before the system would be choked up—or "Couldn't it be choked up by referred projects?"—of course, that's the very reason that the Government has retained control over how many projects are referred. The Government controls the number of projects that go through by virtue of the Order in Council process that applies to referred projects.





Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this bill. I'm really mindful of the thorough consideration of the Environment Committee and just wanted to—in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 534, which has been tabled, in relation to re-inserting section 6 but, more importantly, the intent of the provision that had always remained core to your aspiration—ask if the Minister could clarify the level of aspiration from iwi who want to take a proactive role in the economic recovery of this country and leverage their Treaty settlements to be able to do that. I'm wondering, Minister, what type of conversation you have heard in terms of the level of aspiration which led to the reason why the provision of Treaty settlements was such a strong consideration. 
I am aware, like you, Minister, that there were a number of iwi who participated in the response during the COVID period and, at the same time, have given their own thought to the way in which recovery, by region, by sub-region, with their inclusion, might well be a total sum benefit to the creation of jobs and the opportunities that arise at a regional level. So I'm really keen to ensure that without a shadow of a doubt, the legislation as you had intended it was designed to enable—[Interruption] The legislation, as the Minister had designed it, was to ensure that there would be a positive—
Hon Nathan Guy: There should have been open communication between the Government.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't think bellowing like that is very helpful.
Hon Nathan Guy: This is my normal voice.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, could you turn it down, please.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The legislation, Minister, that you had intended, in so far as it related to the contribution of iwi would enable economic growth and recovery and actually create the type of environment where, with the assurance of the protection that the legislation would not cut across Treaty settlements, yet it would enable a more productive conversation by region, by sub-region, about the way in which iwi could contribute to economic recovery that would see the creation of jobs, that would also see the protection of the environment, and that would be a more proactive, productive way of trying to initiate that type of focus and conversation at a local level.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The intention of this legislation is to support the recovery of New Zealand. I think just about every group in New Zealand recognises that the economic challenges we face as a consequence of the disruption that's been caused by the COVID disease is significant. It's pleasing to me that all sectors of society, including iwi groups, want to contribute to that. The member will be aware that—well, I'm not allowed to refer to the listed projects, because they come from a schedule, but we can debate that when it comes.
In respect of protection of Treaty interests, the bill endeavours to do that. We are promoting—or I am promoting—Supplementary Order Paper 534, in respect of the original language in that regard. But, either way, I believe Treaty interests are properly protected.





Hon 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.





LAWRENCE 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. 





Hon 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. 





LAWRENCE 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.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.
Noes 40
New 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 54
New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 51
New 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 41
New Zealand National 40; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Fast-track consenting
CHAIRPERSON (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. 





NICOLA 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.





MICHAEL 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.





NICOLA 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.





Hon 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. 





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill. I want to start by speaking to a particular project under Schedule 2, and I want to explain just a little bit to join a few dots as to why I've chosen this project, of several, to lead off here this afternoon. This is the Ruakākā recreational facility project. Why I'm leading off with this is because in discussion with the Clerk, with a view to what the voting might look like when we come to the ends of things, I was mindful under the reform of vocational education how there was a sample taken and they were aggregated together. 
So I've chosen this project to lead, specifically, for several reasons. First of all, it will demonstrate that it's quite different to the others I'm speaking to. Secondly, this is a project that was actually announced the day before yesterday, and so it is highly likely, and our understanding is, that various parties across the Chamber will actually vote for it, therefore proving the point that the projects that we vote for tonight—it will not necessarily be by default that it will be a no for all these projects; therefore, the view of the committee of the whole House cannot be predetermined; therefore, individual voting.
So if I can then speak to, please, the Ruakākā recreational facility project, I'll give a very brief summary and then three very short questions to the Minister, if I can. This is a project that came to me in 2018, I believe, and it's a very important facility at Ruakākā. Ruakākā's having substantial growth. It's out in Bream Bay. I actually believe my colleagues in New Zealand First may be the ones who are particularly supporting this, and I commend them for it. It's an excellent project. This project will remove the existing squash and, I think, its soccer rooms, and replace it with a facility that will have multiple uses by the community—not just sporting but for other uses as well.
So in that very general background, if I could pose three questions to the Minister. The first is: is he aware that the Government announced this project as one of their infrastructure projects yesterday, actually?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm unsure whether that project needs a resource consent or a Building Act consent. That's one of the reasons why you've got to be a bit careful that we don't just put these things in on the floor, because they might not be appropriate for inclusion. None the less, it could be appropriately considered through the reference track via Order in Council.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you. My second question is: has he seen the thousands of letters of support for this project, including from the local MP on 29 August 2013?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Are you going to identify the local member of Parliament?
Dr SHANE RETI: Yes. That's actually myself, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, thank you, Dr Reti.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No, I haven't seen it. But knowing the member, I'm sure the grammar was good.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): You're very kind. Thank you. My final question on this: does he agree that Bream Bay is an area of growth, and that the facility would be a multi-function facility with broad benefit across the community and might fit in with the goals and aims of the Government overall?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): If the Government's agreed to fund the project, I think that indicates the Government thinks it's a good one.





SIMON 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.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. The questions to the Minister, then, are around the 12 projects that have been listed. Given that this bill is about fast tracking consent but doesn't formally guarantee funding for the projects that may go through this process, why limit it to 12? There's ample scope for many projects across the country to benefit from this, particularly as we've heard contributions this afternoon about current Resource Management Act process, and I draw the Minister's attention to Mr Bishop's comments about the shared cycleway and walkway between Pētone and Ngauranga, which was forecast to take four years, at least, through the consenting process—so many other projects that might benefit from that.
I draw his attention specifically to my tabled amendment seeking to add the Pētone to Grenada link road into the schedule. If the Minister continues an answer that he wants to limit that, then I would add a supplementary question: will he, under the criteria I'm about to set out, in his bill, support that particular link road if an application for a referral were made?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member, but can I just advise the committee that if members are going to repeat the question with a different insertion in it—so you're just saying your project instead of the project that's just been replied to, and the Minister would therefore be giving exactly the same response—I will view that as repetitious.
BRETT HUDSON: Madam Chair, I can tell you I'm going to use the specific criteria set out in clause 19, which are the criteria under which the project would help to achieve the purpose of the Act, and to show that that particular amendment—in my view, and I'm hoping the Minister might well agree, even tonight—meets the conditions that are set down so strongly that if it were not to be part of Schedule 2 today, the Minister might signal his willingness to accept a referral application.
For instance, 19(d)(ix) talks about resilience, and particularly the management of risks from natural hazards. So the Minister is probably aware, just the other night, of a five-hour delay, impacting about 46,000 vehicles, from a small slip on the highway between Ngauranga and Pētone. In fact, one of the key purposes of this link road is to provide transport resilience to the Wellington area, particularly for such hazards and potential impacts of climate change in the future.
I also note that in 19(d)(iv) it talks about increasing productivity. This road is forecast to take up to 25,000 vehicle movements per day off the Wellington motorway. At its inception it was talked about improving productivity through a direct link between Porirua and the northern parts of Ōhāriu to the Lower Hutt valley and vice versa. It's assessed that it would reduce 10 minutes each way from those journeys. It would also have taken 25,000 vehicle movements a day off the current Northern Motorway. It would therefore improve—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member again. The member is being—could you please resume your seat. The member is being quite defiant on the contribution that I made to him just a couple of minutes ago. The Minister has been asked that question, has answered it by advocating and inserting a new title. It is repetitious, and I'd ask the member to either ask a new question or recall the answer to his question that the Minister has given on several occasions already in this debate.
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think the concern we have here on this side is that this comes to the nature of the bill around the breadth of the projects, and whilst it may be in relation to a similar type of question, actually, the projects themselves are very diverse and represent a significantly different range of considerations for each project, and—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What's the point of order, Mr van de Molen?
Tim van de Molen: Well, my point of order is that Mr Hudson is asking the Minister about a different project, and whilst it relates in Part 2—that schedule, of course—it is an entirely different consideration, and so therefore the range of amendments should be debatable.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I disagree and I've already ruled on that.
BRETT HUDSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. My point of the question to the Minister is that I'm seeking to ascertain, given the position he's taken so far on the restriction of projects to be included under Schedule 2, a clear sense of how the mechanisms of this bill would work. I'm giving a detailed example, for the benefit of the Minister in the Chamber, of a project that meets so many of the criteria set down for a potential application for referral. I'm very keen to understand from the Minister just how automatic it might be for a project that strongly meets those to actually make it through. Now, the project itself also unlocks housing developments—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member's time has expired.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Clause 19 of Part 2 does make it clear that in respect of the decision as to whether to refer projects through to the panel in addition to the listed ones, the general purpose of the legislation is to bring forward employment. But economic effects, the project's effect on social and cultural wellbeing, whether the project would be likely to progress fast—there's no sense putting something through this process if it was going to go through pretty quickly anyway through a council—whether the project can result in a public benefit of generation of employment, increasing housing supply, contributing to well-functioning urban environments, providing infrastructure in order to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, improving environmental outcomes that are listed, minimising waste, mitigating climate change, promoting historic heritage, strengthening economic, environmental, and social resilience—there's a long list there, which does give a wide ambit of things to be taken into account by the Minister. The primary issue, though, still will be whether it will bring forward employment.





Hon 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.





Dr 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.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Part 2 is all about fast tracking, and I will use my inside voice—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The microphone is working—the microphone's working.
Hon NATHAN GUY: It is; it's an open and live mike, yes—inside voice required. Part 2 is all about fast tracking, as I said, but you may not have heard that!
I want to focus specifically on clause 16(1), which is about referrals of a project requiring ministerial sign-off by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation. So I'm particularly interested—and we transgressed this in the committee stage, or the whole committee—because we've got a time frame on the panel, and it's roughly about two months, give or take, that the panel has to make a decision.
There's no time frame on Ministers. So you could end up in a situation where you have a Minister—let's say the Minister currently in the chair from the Labour Party and the Minister of Conversation from the Green Party. Now, both of those Ministers may not necessarily agree to the specific project that's being requested to be called in, and it relates to coastal marine area, this one. So what safeguards can the Minister or what reassurance can the Minister give the committee that there won't be filibustering going on between one Minister, who might be from a different political party but still in Government, who requests more and more information from officials to slow down the process, when this whole bill is about fast tracking and securing jobs and growing our economy?
I have a real concern that you could have an example—and we saw it with different Ministers over the last 12, 18 months with the Waihī mine, where one Minister agreed and the other Minister didn't. So I'm concerned that this clause here about referrals of projects, clause 16(1), where—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm really sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for the dinner break. The House will continue this debate at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you've had a good dinner like I did with my lovely family. Anyway, now talking about this bill that we are debating this evening, which, to remind those listeners, is the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill.
I had a question that I'd like to put to the Minister and I'll just recap on that. He's one of the brighter ones in Cabinet, so I'm sure he's taken it down, but just in case he's forgotten during the dinner break, it was around Part 2, clause 16(1), around whether, if there was a delay at all, hypothetically, between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation around, basically, getting agreement on a coastal marine area, what safeguards would the applicant—might be the council, might be a particular industry, private company—have that that process didn't take forever and a day? And if one Minister—let's take an example at the moment. We have a live example. Minister Sage is Minister of Conservation from the Green Party, and Minister Parker from the Labour Party—let's say that they don't agree. So I would be concerned and keen to hear from the Minister what safeguards would be in place to ensure that one Minister just didn't continue to get more advice and more advice to slow down this process.
We've had an example of that occurring reasonably recently, where Ministers didn't agree, and that was to do with the OceanaGold application to take over a farm—what's commonly called the Waihī mine up North, where they wanted to put tailings on a particular farm, from my memory, and Ministers didn't agree. So I'm keen to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker, what assurance he can give myself and others in the Parliament this evening that this fast-track bill won't be delayed unnecessarily if one Minister doesn't agree, continuing to go backwards and forwards to get more advice and, actually, slowing down what we all want, which is jobs in our communities on the back of COVID-19? Thank you.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. There is concurrence required between the Ministers of Conversation and for the Environment in respect of a proposal in the marine area. The member will be aware that there's precedent for that, and he would have had experience from when he had fisheries responsibility in respect of various other things that have happened in the marine space that require concurrence between the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation. But in respect of these, I don't think many applications are actually going to be in the marine area, but some will be. The way in which—
Hon Nathan Guy: You could have a salmon farm one. That's a live example—farm switch.
Hon DAVID PARKER: The way in which the Government is able to reach conclusions around those areas is actually illustrated in this very bill, where at page 38 there's a map of one of the projects that's in the listed projects, which is Picton Harbour, which includes areas in the marine area where parties in the Government have been able to agree that that's an appropriate project for listing.
In respect of time lines more generally—sorry, so with—
Hon Nathan Guy: It was more about two Ministers not agreeing and one filibustering, taking forever, and seeking advice.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, with concurrence, it's always possible for one Minister to withhold their agreement—it's always been the case. So there is no time limit around that. But more generally, there's a list of other Ministers that I, as Minister for the Environment, have to consult with, and they are listed—I just had it there but I've managed to turn the page—and there is a 10 working-day period. For the listeners, this is on page 17, in clause 21(6). It says I've got to consult with the various Ministers listed there, and they've got 10 working days to reply. If they don't, I can proceed anyway. If they do so late, well, so long as I haven't taken my decision, I can receive their input late, but if I've already made by decision, it's too late.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask David Parker, the Minister in the chair, about a specific project in Schedule 2. I want to ask him about what happened to Ngāwhā. The reason I want to ask him what happened to this is because it goes to the Minister when he makes his decisions for referring projects down the line. I want to understand why it was that we ended up with a project in Schedule 2 in his bill that was purely for a hole to be dug in the ground for what he himself said earlier was a water storage project, but, in fact, it wasn't, because it was just a hole in the ground. What I'm after is what went wrong—why was it that the Minister didn't include the water or the water-take consents in that? 
What I'm trying to understand is his thinking when it comes to referring projects down the line, because, no doubt, there will be water storage projects that will want to be referred. I know Dargaville is in a similar situation, and there will be other places around the country as well that will want to put projects to the Minister for him to refer, and I'm keen to get an understanding of what went wrong. We fixed it up in the Environment Committee. The National Party helped Jenny Marcroft with her amendment, because they didn't have the support of the Greens, and we helped them get that through. It's very, very important for the people of Kaikohe. 
But what I'm trying to understand here is what happened? Why did the Minister leave out those consents and then change his mind at select committee? Like I said, I'm only trying to understand that so I can understand more about projects that get referred, and I've got some more questions. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm happy to answer that question. At the point that it went to select committee, we didn't have agreement from the Green Party for the inclusion of water. The New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party thought water should be included, but at that stage, the Green Party weren't convinced. They sought more information. We obtained an assessment of the environmental effects. On that basis, they thought it was appropriate that the Kaikohe water project be included, and therefore the select committee chose to do so, which is why it's now listed in the schedule. 
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I think you can, then, understand our point, the point that Michael Woodhouse—not Michael Woodhouse, sorry—Nathan Guy was making before, which was about when there are going to be projects referred that include around the coastal marine area, there is going to be—[Interruption]—it's late—potential conflicts between the two Ministers. As he mentioned, there can be delays, as we've already seen in the bill, so that's what we're concerned about. But I'll carry on because I think I've made that point. 
I want to go back to what the Minister said earlier about not wanting to choke the system, which goes a way to explaining, I guess, in the mind of the Minister, that he understands that there are a number of projects that could be put in Schedule 2, more than the 11 that were put there. I guess I want to ask him, if he knows that there were a number of projects that could be in Schedule 2, and if we are in such a dire economic state and we need to stimulate the economy and stimulate job growth—and he knows that there are a number of projects—why didn't he, in that case, make extra capacity? Given that we're in the worst economic situation of our lifetimes and he knows that there are lots of projects that could have been included but that he didn't include because he said that he didn't want to choke the system, why didn't he just build extra capacity? 
Then he went on to say that there are a number of panels that could have been convened. Well, if that's the case, why not put more projects in? 
What we've been saying the whole way along, Minister, is that this is a wasted opportunity. These 11 projects, they're not terrible on their own; in fact, some of them are quite good. But they don't offer any significant economic value down the track. 
I mean, I asked him earlier, and he didn't answer the question. We've got the northern sky path in there, which is a great project—happy with that. But when you put it up against something like a second Mount Victoria tunnel or a motorway extension, or something that's going to offer significant economic value down the track and significant economic returns, other than just, you know, the SkyPath—which is good, and we're all in favour of it, but as I think people have pointed out, it lets people of Takapuna get in their lycra and cycle across the bridge. Those two things aren't—it's difficult to see why he's put in the Northern Pathway and not another project, which we've got many of on the Table, that would give us significant economic value. 
The question I asked earlier—the question that he hasn't answered—is how did he come to the decision on these 11 projects and not on some of these projects, which would deliver significant economic value and significantly more jobs? As the Minister mentioned earlier, all of these projects together are only 1,700 jobs. I know there are wider jobs that will be created, but it's actually 1,700. That's not that many. That's fewer jobs than Air New Zealand has lost. So I'm really keen to get the Minister to answer how he came to those Schedule 2 projects, why they're in there, and why some of these ones that have significant economic value and far more jobs weren't included. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to say that the reason for that can be seen in the contrast between the discretion that the panel has in respect of listed projects compared with other projects. If members care to refer to clause 32 of Schedule 6 on page 95 of the bill, you'll see that the panel can decline a listed project on only two grounds: one, which is at subclause (1)(a), says that "the panel considers that the granting of a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement, with our without conditions, would be inconsistent with any national policy statement, including a … coastal policy statement;" or "(b) … the panel considers that granting a resource consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement, with or without conditions, would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement." So those are the only two bases upon which a listed project can be turned down. 
We were not and are not confident enough. We haven't gone into each of these very worthy projects that might be put forward by way of list. We haven't gone through them enough in this preliminary process to conclude that that should be the limits of the ability of the panel to turn them down. 
We were satisfied in respect of those listed projects that are in Schedule 2, based on advice that we had from the ministry, that they were appropriate for that limited discretion to turn down, but that's not true in respect of all of the other listed projects, and if the members in the committee—I think most members would agree that the panel needs more discretion than that. Otherwise, in effect, this bill would be consenting a whole raft of process without any adequate consideration of the environmental effects. 





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister for the Environment a question about clause 19, "Whether project helps to achieve purpose of Act". Before I asked the Minister about how Part 2 of the Resource Management Act was being reflected in the decisions of the panel; this one is more at the upfront stage when the Minister is choosing to refer something up to a panel. The second line says, "the Minister may have regard to the following matters, assessed at whatever level of detail the Minister considers appropriate," and then there's a whole series of things there—which are great. But I just wanted ask about the effect of the word "may" as opposed to "must"—the level of discretion that the Minister has about whether or not to pay attention to those kinds of environmental and other considerations.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Minister's exercising a discretion as to whether to refer through Order in Council projects to the panel. That exercise of discretion isn't the depth of inquiry that you would expect the panel would conduct when they receive a detailed application. Indeed, the level of application that will be before the Minister is a lot more superficial. None the less, you can envisage it being of interest to the Minister to have a decent summary of what's being proposed and a range of factors that the Minister could take into account if the Minister thought them relevant. An example that I've previously given in the House is that if someone wanted to build a coal-fired power station I don't think I'd be putting it through this process.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Then don't. It's not on the list. 
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, but if it was a referred project I wouldn't be putting it through this list—and the member's question is about referred projects—because I have no discretion in respect of the Schedule 2 process because they're put through by Parliament and not by the Minister and discretion.
In respect of the only mandatory considerations, they're set out in clause 18(2)(a) and (b), which says, "The project must not include any of the following activities": an activity that's a prohibited activity under the Resource Management Act, regulations made under that Act, or a plan or proposed plan; an activity that would occur on land returned under a Treaty settlement where there hasn't been an agreement by the relevant landowner; and then in subclause (c) an activity that would occur in the takutai moana Act and there hasn't been agreement in writing. So those are the mandatory prohibitions, but otherwise it's a matter of discretion, noting that the fact that I put it through there, if I was the Minister for the Environment at the time this was done, doesn't mean that it would necessarily get an approval, although I suspect most of them will.
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you. Then a follow-up question, because in clause 21(6) there's a list of Ministers who the Minister for the Environment has to consult with—either "must" or "may" consult with. So I just wanted to get a sense of, given the level of information that you would expect to receive about an application for referral, recognising that it's going to be thinner than the eventual actual application to the panel, would the Minister—or is the construct or the effect of the legislation to then have those Ministers act as a sort of a, you know, safeguard or a way of sort of providing the Minister for the Environment with information that would be pertinent to those considerations that they may consider under clause 19?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, those Ministers that are listed at clause 21(6) would have 10 working days to give me their views. Some will, on occasions, be positive; some will be negative. If you take the first one, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, in respect of an application for a motorway that was going to adversely affect some historic heritage, might say, "Oh, I'm not sure about this." or "Please be careful that you work round this with conditions." Or the Minister of Housing might come back and say, "Yeah, this is great. We need more houses. Push this one through." So they would give their opinions to me and I take their opinions into account, but it's my decision in the end, as Minister for the Environment, as to whether to refer more projects. 





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Oh thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon Nathan Guy: This will be a great call.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah. So I just have a question for the Minister, a clarification really, because he made several statements earlier in this debate which don't seem to line up, as far as I can see. The first statement that the Minister made was in reference to a question that I had posed to him around his estimation of the number of projects that would approach for referral into the fast-track process. The Minister, in answer to several questions, said it was, effectively—and forgive me if I paraphrase, Minister, but I think the answer, essentially, was that it is hard to tell; there are a number of tracks that consent applications can go down, but it, essentially, is hard to tell the number of applications that might come to the panel for referral. As part of that answer, the Minister said that the chair of the panel always has the opportunity to increase the number of panels to hear applications, which is logical, and, yes indeed, it's in the bill. 
Then, in terms of Part 2, there was a conversation, quite a lengthy conversation, around referred projects, and members, I hope, throughout the House have a number of Supplementary Order Papers tabled, and also not tabled, where they are proposing a number of projects to be inserted into the bill into Schedule 2. One of the comments the Minister made at that time with regards to those referred projects and why he didn't feel he could support them—paraphrasing again, Minister; forgive me if I haven't got it quite right. But the comment he made at that time was "We don't want to overrun the system." So my question is: which is it to be? Is the system being geared up to deal with all-comers, or is there going to be some other filter residing in the Minister's office that we are unaware of?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It is a bit of both. I don't want to clog the system up at the start while we get it up and running. I've got great confidence in Judge Newhook to run an efficient ship. He's done it very well as the head Environment Court Judge for the last few years, and he's going to be setting this up. But I do want it to get a way on rather than trying to manage too many things at the start. But there are other complications in some of these projects. You know, some of these roading projects that I don't know the detail of, they'll involve the acquisition of land that's not owned by the roading authority, and that, in the end, will probably be the cause of delay, not planning issues. Now, this doesn't change the Public Works Act, so there would be little point putting things on a fast track through the fast-track Resource Management Act processes here if they didn't have the land on which to do it. So, you know, there are those sorts of complications that we want to have a check on as projects come into the system.
I think I've referred pretty well to the roading projects and bridges and other transport projects, but I don't feel I have addressed Jami-Lee Ross's amendment in respect of Auckland water, and I do want to take some time to explain why the Labour Party will not be voting for that Supplementary Order Paper. Now, the issues in respect of Auckland's water are serious. They have had a large application for 200 million litres per day extra out of the Waikato River. They already take 150 million litres a day. They've, in addition to that, recently had a consent for 25 million litres per day for winter water, when the flow in the river is higher, and they're midway through and just about completed a transfer of 25 million litres per day summer water—it's not quite summer water; it's additional water at lower flows—as a transfer from the Hamilton District Council.
Once they get that water, they will have as much water as they can use for the next year or so. Indeed, they haven't completed yet the upgrade to their pumping infrastructure out of the Waikato River to use that full 25 million litres per day. When they do, that will enable them to reduce the draw-down of their reservoirs, reserving more of their reservoirs for next year. 
Hon Nathan Guy: What's the cost of that, Minister, that water?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost of that water is nil in terms of the water. The cost of pumping it and treating it makes it the most expensive water that Auckland already uses; a multiple of times more expensive than the water they draw from the reservoirs. That was a point made by Mayor Goff at a meeting I was at yesterday. 
Hon Nathan Guy: Is there a payment to iwi?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, there is not a payment of iwi for the water— 
Hon Nathan Guy: Of any kind?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Of no kind. The Waikato River Authority eschewed the idea of paying for the water, although there is an acknowledgment that if Auckland's taking from the Waikato region, they should contribute something back to the environmental projects in the area, which is likely to come to the Waikato River Authority and be matched one for one by extra spending on environmental outcomes by the Waikato River Authority. 
If I come back to the issue of the 200 million litres per day consent, in our view that's not something that should be listed. That's, essentially, forced through as a listed project for a number of reasons. One is it's actually not clear that it's the right outcome. In fact, I think the likely outcome for Auckland is that they will get the extra 25 million litres per day all year round. They'll probably get another amount between 50 million and 100 million litres extra per day of winter water when the flow is higher. But the question as to whether they should get that amount additional in respect of when the river flows are lower is a difficult question, because it comes at the cost of the people in the Waikato catchment, comes at the cost of farmers, comes at the cost of other commercial users. And in respect of farmers, it disproportionately comes at the cost of Māori owners of underdeveloped Māori land in the Waikato catchment. I think it would be unwise of this House to push that consent through this route. It is complex. That's why I've called that particular application in and put it to a called-in panel, board of inquiry, through the Environmental Protection Authority, and Auckland Council is happy with that outcome; so are the Waikato Regional Council and so are iwi.
There is a further complication in respect of that relating to Treaty issues, because, of course, the Waikato River Authority was set up as a consequence of various Treaty claims by iwi that have been settled on different parts of the river—initially Waikato-Tainui and then other tribes with relationships to the river, higher in the river—and there would be a danger of creating a real hurt amongst the Treaty partner if we were to rush and override their interests here. So that's why we won't be supporting that particular SOP, even though we agree that it is important to get extra water for Auckland. I make the final point again that even if we did that, we actually wouldn't be giving them additional water that they could use, because they haven't got the infrastructure to use more than the 25 million litres per day extra that is coming to them.
Jami-Lee Ross: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'll allow Jami-Lee Ross.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there are three issues there which I hope I may be able to respond to the Minister on: firstly, whether it's the appropriate mechanism—I can ask questions to get it in line, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can ask questions, yes. The Minister's in the chair.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: You lost my train of thought. The questions I'd like to put to the Minister on the three issues he raised were whether this is the appropriate process, whether Auckland should take as much as they're asking for, and also whether the Treaty issues can be overcome in this particular legislation.
I guess the first question to the Minister, on whether this is the appropriate process or not and why he came to the view that he did, is around the certainty that the different processes provide. Unless I've got this absolutely wrong, my understanding—the Minister can answer for me—is that this bill gives far greater certainty to any applicants or local authorities that are included in this legislation, because the streamlining process, which is all designed around ensuring there's greater economic opportunity and greater job creation, gives far greater certainty of outcome than the call-in process. Am I wrong in thinking that the call-in process still has far more checks and balances and far more hoops that applicants have to jump through when it comes to applying for things, and therefore this process does give the Auckland Council more certainty? That's the very reason why Mayor Goff made the submission that he did to the Environment Committee in the first place.
The second point, or question, I want to ask is around the actual—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we have them one at a time?
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Do I get more opportunities?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, you will.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: OK. Great.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I suppose, again, it's not a cut and dry answer for that, because page 95 of the bill, at clause 32 of Schedule 6, says that a panel may decline a consent application or a notice of requirement for a listed project if the panel considers the granting of a consent or confirming or modifying a notice of requirement would be inconsistent with any Treaty settlement. That issue would still have been before this panel, so it could have turned it down. So there wouldn't have been absolute certainty. But the member is right that Resource Management Act Part 2 considerations about what is the right balance outside of Treaty considerations would have been beyond the purview of the panel, and I don't think that would be right in respect of this particular application. 
I think what Auckland needs is security of the water it needs for the facility that it's expanding at the moment, which can pump 25 million litres per day extra, which they're going to get. They may need some other winter water for next year, by which time they may have invested in more water infrastructure, and it's likely that they'll have the consent for that, without me calling it in and without this panel hearing it, within the next two weeks, which is faster than this would handle it. In respect of the summer water over and above that, that's a very contentious issue, and it shouldn't be dealt with via this process.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): I realise that the capacity and how much Auckland needs is a contentious issue that he raises, but I say to him—I ask the Minister—why is he, effectively, criticising the Auckland Council for requesting 200 million litres of water a day when we say to local authorities all the time, "Forward plan. Go and make sure you've got your plans ready for future growth and future capacity."? Let's bear in mind that Watercare applied for this seven years ago. Seven years ago they were projecting their long-term need was going to be 200 million litres a day. They've fronted up seven years later to the select committee and said, "We need 200 million litres. Put this in the fast-track consenting bill so we can actually get the opportunity."
Why now do we question whether the Auckland Council is doing what probably is normally the appropriate thing in forward planning over the amount of water that they need? It seems like it's far too picky and criticising the council unnecessarily when they're actually putting their hands up and saying, "Our city is growing. Our infrastructure is not up to scratch. We need to do something about it. We want to put in a consent for 200 million litres." Because the problem they may have is that, if they get their extra 25 or extra 50 and then in five or 10 years' time they come back and go, "Ah, we need more again.", we have to wait another seven years or hope that a Minister calls it in. Why is he now criticising the Auckland Council for trying to do the right thing and forward plan?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I haven't criticised them; I'm just saying that they're not necessarily right to get it all from this source. I think that there's been great progress made in the last couple of weeks, maybe in part because of the pressure that was brought upon the system by Mayor Goff's application through this process, that's true—that that's sort of triggered a conversation. It's also had a bit of pushback, which has triggered some other conversations which needed to be had. I think we're on the way to solving these issues, to the extent that they can be solved, and I make the point again that Auckland this summer will have no more capacity to pump than the 25 million litres per day extra that they already have in respect of winter and will get for summer.
The final point that the member made is that they might come back for more and say they need more in the future. Well, that's possible, but every additional amount that they take from the river, assuming that the current minimum flow regime is proper—and we're in no position to judge that here—comes at the cost of someone else who wants that water. There is a feeling within the Waikato region that, although they want to help Auckland, they don't want to go so far as to prejudice either the river or their own commercial or municipal interests long term. I think it's very interesting that this conversation has opened up the reality that already the water that they take from the Waikato River includes treated waste water from the Hamilton and other towns that lie along the banks of the Waikato River. Therefore, effectively, the water that Auckland is taking at the bottom of the river and treating, once it's pumped to Auckland, includes treated waste water.
I think, once people think about that, they might actually be able to contemplate that they need to do more with the large amount of waste water that is already treated in Auckland and discharged to the Manukau but could be treated to a higher standard and recycled. I suspect that's part of the answer long term for Auckland, and I don't think, within the 10- to 15-day period for submissions that would have been enabled if that was a listed project under this particular piece of legislation, those very complex issues could have been properly sorted through.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Chair. The final question and point that arose out of the Minister's first response is around the way in which this bill treats the Treaty requirements in the Treaty clause. I realise the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which was part of Part 1, also has an interaction with Part 2. The reason I'm raising that now, under Part 2, is because Schedule 6, clause 42 is around appeal rights. Paragraph 42(1)(e) provides that "any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public."—meaning that, if there was an SOP that went in around the Auckland water issue or other water-related projects that might be referred by the Minister or might already be in the Schedule, how does the Minister see this particular part of the Schedule interacting with the previous decision of the committee around the Treaty clause, whereby, effectively, now the committee has set up, by including the stringent Treaty clause, where decisions must be consistent with principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—has opened up, under Schedule 6, clause 42, the ability for an iwi, say, that has a greater interest in a project over and above members of the public, to in fact challenge these consents and hold them up by doing a point of law appeal because they're of the view that a panel made a decision that was not consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi?
So my question to the Minister is: why has he chosen this series of appeal rights and this series of decisions around the Treaty clause when I'm sure, given his extensive legal knowledge, particularly as Attorney-General, he will know that these clauses, the way they will interact, will, in fact, open up the door for appeals against these projects which is over and above what the Resource Management Act (RMA) already allows? Why has he said, effectively, here's the set of projects—here's this legislation that we think is important and it's going to fast track things—but, by the way, we're going to put some extra clauses in there which means they could, ultimately, be challenges and slowed down more than they otherwise would, because now this law will have more stringent RMA Treaty provisions than the normal RMA does? How does he see that interacting in the future?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Auckland water project, well, I don't think it will have any effect. We have been working through those issues over recent months with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, and others. But, in respect of the broader point—because they won't be listed in the Act; assuming that the Supplementary Order Paper isn't voted up, which is a choice for the committee, not for me—with respect, the member is incorrect that appeal rights are going to be broader than they would be under the existing legislative framework, because, under the existing legislative framework, you have an appeal on the facts; here there are appeals limited to points of law and/or judicial review. If you wish to bring judicial review as well as an appeal on the point of law, you have to go to the court, and unless the court allows you to argue those separately, which I don't think they normally would, they have to be heard together. So it's an appeal on points of law and judicial review.





Hon 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.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Previously, Minister Parker reiterated the criteria for the selection of some of these projects, and I'm just concerned that there may be something missing in those criteria which he identified. I particularly want to comment on his last statement that his number one criteria for project selection was bringing forward employment. I want to give a few examples of projects that may miss out on that, and then seek some explanation why and if it's actually taken into account, because I don't see it, actually, in the criteria he gave. 
Now, these are all projects in Whangarei that came to me already pre-screened by Whangarei District Council and commissioners. So, you know, we could talk about our favourite projects; I support them in the first instance because they come to me at the request of the community, and I use them by way of example to then point out the particular hole which I don't think the Minister has addressed. The construction of a marina is a key factor for Whangarei District Council. We have Hurupaki School which is needing an upgrade, and Green Bay School which is needing an upgrade. We have the Springs Flat roundabout that needs to be done. It's quite different to some of the other things we've talked about tonight, but it was already agreed by the New Zealand Transport Agency. As the Minister said, the land is already purchased; it's just the consenting, which this bill is to help. Green Bay High School also has an upgrade, and there are some of the roading changes in Whangarei which are conducive to bringing traffic towards the Hundertwasser Wairau Māori Art Centre, which is a project that both this Government and the previous have worked very hard on. 
Now, here's the hole that I'm concerned about. I look at the criteria that the Minister listed, and I look at these projects put forward for Whangarei, and I say, "But what is our current unemployment rate?", because the Minister has said that his number one agenda is to bring forward employment. I'm seeking to ask whether he will take into account the fact that while everyone is all very worried about double-digit unemployment, Whangarei hit that months ago. We tend to go down fast and rise slowly, so the dreaded double-digit unemployment is already with us. We lead the regions, unfortunately, in that race to the bottom; it's the nature of our economy, tourism particularly being hit. So I'm asking him: with these projects that I've highlighted here that are important to the Whangarei economy—and the Northland economy, I would add—I did not see in the criteria that he mentioned any context of the level of unemployment in the particular regions that the projects may be positioned towards. So I'm seeking some reassurance from him: are these projects within the scope of the criteria, or not?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the school upgrades, I'd be very surprised if they need a resource consent. I would have thought the designation that already applied to an existing school site would allow modifications to a building without a new resource consent. On occasions, that might be different. If that was the case, and it wasn't going to just sail through—I suspect it would sail through, normally, very cheaply and quickly, without recourse to this sort of legislation. I would be surprised if those projects actually need a resource consent. They'll need a building consent, but they won't need a resource consent, in a lot of cases.
In respect of roundabouts, if members wish to look at the list of permitted activities, this is the third track. This is works that have been permitted in rail and road lines owned by the rail or road operator—the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail. Permitted activities include, at clause 11(2) of Schedule 4, safety upgrades of level crossings, roundabouts, and the like. So it may well be that that's already a permitted activity. If it's not a permitted activity, then it may well be that under the relevant district plan it's already something that's easily allowed. If it's neither of those things, then application could be made to the Government for progressing that as a preferred project by Order in Council. 





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. The three projects that are the subject of tabled amendments in my name would require a resource consent. Before I ask the Minister in the chair, David Parker, to comment on the merits of those as listed projects, I just want to check something that he said in response to the Hon Jacqui Dean about why there were only 11 listed projects in Schedule 2. In his answer, he referred to clause 32 on page 95, in the sense that there are very narrow grounds for declining them and therefore the Government had to be cautious in the projects that it put in. I'm paraphrasing; I don't want to misunderstand him—
Hon David Parker: Yeah, that's fair enough—yeah.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Minister's acknowledging that I've got that right. Well, it strikes me that that's a circular argument, because the very criteria that are grounds for the declining of a consent application are also set by this legislation and by the Government. So, therefore, in order to broaden the number of projects that could come into the schedule, the Government was free to broaden the criteria for declining. Now, I completely understand why one would need to be cautious about that, but if I could also ask this question: it strikes me that these listed projects are likely to tick the boxes when it comes to clauses 32(1)(a) and (b). I doubt that the Government would've put any of the projects in if they were subject to Treaty claims, or inconsistent with settlements, rather, or if they were in conflict with a national policy statement. Would that also be true?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): If it were obviously so, we would not have put them in, but it is also true that we haven't gone into these in the detail that a panel will once they receive a full application. So it remains possible that notwithstanding that we don't have that understanding of them at the moment, there are aspects of them that could infringe those provisions and therefore, on that basis, could and should be turned down—but not so far as I'm aware, based on my current knowledge.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Minister. I would then make the point that there is an opportunity here. So, firstly, not all 11 necessarily could get through the process as set out in the bill when it becomes law, and therefore there is an opportunity to expand the number of projects, comfortable that even if they're on the schedule, they may not get through, but if they're not on the schedule, they'll never get through as listed projects. Indeed, to be able to do that, we would need to come back to the House and amend primary legislation in order to add to the list. Now, the National Party believes this process has merit. We have passed legislation ourselves that provides for a fast-track consenting process through things like special housing areas and so on. So we're not averse to the process, but I'm just surprised that it's so narrow.
Now, I want to come to the three projects—and test the merits or otherwise of that with the Minister—that are subject to tabled amendments in my name. The Minister quite rightly refers to clauses 19 and 20, I believe—no. What was it, Minister, in terms of the criteria for getting through? Oh, yes, it was, clauses 19 and 20 on pages 14 and 15. I simply ask the Minister whether, in his view, the Dunedin Hospital redevelopment project, which has been the subject of a painfully slow development process—the indicative business case was approved by the previous Government in April 2017, and three years and two months later, we still haven't had any word that the detailed business case has even gone to Cabinet, much less approved. I would believe that, actually, that project ticked many of the boxes that are laid out in clauses 19 and 20 in terms of the social and cultural wellbeing of the community that it will serve. I just wonder if the Minister could comment on why, if that is the case, such an amendment lacks merit for inclusion in Schedule 2.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the Dunedin Hospital project, that certainly could be considered as a referred project. I'm not sure they've done all their land acquisition yet. In fact, I think—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: They're nearly done. I think there's one more title to go—one to go.
Hon DAVID PARKER: They're nearly done. So maybe that's the answer: once they've done their land acquisition and they know where they can build the hospital, they can—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's not a reason not to put it on the schedule, though.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, yes, it is. It is a reason not to put it on the schedule, with respect, because until you know what land you're going to build it on, you can't apply for a resource consent to build it on your land.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'll just finish on that point, then. This does somewhat undermine the utility of this legislation when it's passed, if indeed absolutely everything has to be wrapped up in a bow before it goes through a fast-track consenting process. The train is on the track, and what the Minister has just said is that absolutely all of the carriage needs to be hooked up, all of the coal is in the boiler and we're ready to go, the passengers are on the train, and only then are we going to set off. This, if I use that metaphor, strikes me as an opportunity to put those projects into the schedule, such as the very worthy Dunedin Hospital project, which runs the risk of a longstanding delay if it cannot be subject to some kind of efficient process for consenting. Yet what the Minister has just said is everything, lock, stock, and barrel, needs to be completed before it comes on the schedule. That rather undermines, I think, the benefit of this and reinforces the point that National Party members are, through their tabled amendments, making: that, actually, not only is this good for now but it could be an enduring practice in a post-COVID world to get some of these stimulus projects up and going.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I'm pleased to inform members that staged projects are actually permitted through this. You can apply for stages of a project. So if the applicant in that case wanted to bring forward an interim application in respect of the parcels of land that they already had control of but didn't have it all under control and weren't sure where they wanted to put the later stages, they could come and seek, through the Order in Council process, for that to go to panels in stages. Again, I'm not sure in that case how difficult it's going to be to consent that hospital. I know that area well; it's on the old Cadbury's site, most of it, and that's already got a big building on it. It may well be that they don't need a resource consent like this because it's something that'll fly through council in no time flat.





JENNY 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.





BRETT 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.





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 38
New 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 1
The 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





MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just as we approach voting on Schedule 2 of the bill, I just draw the Chair's attention to Standing Orders 307(4) and (5) and ask for your consideration and views about the appropriateness of grouping together and testing some of the amendments that have been put forward in this schedule, given the similarity of many of the amendments. It's my view that the committee is unlikely to support them, and that testing might be helpful in terms of the committee understanding whether they do have the support of the committee.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I thank the member for drawing that Standing Order to our attention. I can say that I have given that some consideration. The difficulty that we have is that some of the amendments—well, the amendments in themselves cover quite different areas of the country and projects and types of projects, and we might find that there is a difference around the committee of support for different projects. The difficulty of trying to group any of those projects in a meaningful way might obviate some of that support. So I am ruling that I will not be grouping them.
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Well, the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker, said earlier during the debate that the Labour Party would not be supporting any of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that contained additional projects to be inserted into the primary legislation. And given the numbers in the committee, that would suggest that all of those SOPs are going to fail. So I would propose, actually, that what Mr Woodhouse is—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There is no Standing Order that would support the Chair taking such a position. Actually, Parliament makes the decision. That's the difficulty. OK, let's get on with it.
Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order, if I may—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There is no point of order. You raised a point of order; I've ruled. That was not a point of order, because there is no Standing Order that would cover that.
MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order, in that case, and I accept the previous ruling, and the point that you made in that previous ruling was a valid one, which is that many of the projects are in different parts of the country, so this may attract different support across the Chamber. That being the case, one way through which is consistent with Standing Order 307(4) would be for the amendments to be taken by member, noting that the amendments that have been put by members do tend to be concentrated in a particular area. So they're taken member by member; that would deal with that point, and I ask for your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Again, I understand that and I have given that some thought. For some members, it's easier than others, but, again, there is a variety of types. You know, normally the Standing Order refers to where you can literally group something together that is similar, so we've talked across horticulture whether it's stone fruit, walnuts, you know; you can get a logical grouping. It seems a bit unfair and not quite covered in the Standing Orders to then take it by member, even though there might well be a geographical correlation. I think we're better to get on with it and see how we go.





The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 533 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 514 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 522 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 523 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 524 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 525 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 39, Noes 63.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 526 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 527 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 532 in the name of Simeon Brown to Schedule 2 is out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments on Supplementary Order Papers 514 and 523.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in LP16 replace "Northland Regional Council" with "Te Tai Tokerau Water Trust".
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Pou Herenga Tai Opua to Kawakawa Twin Coast CyclewayFar North District CouncilConstruction of a new cycleway next to Kawakawa Opua link vintage railway line. The project will occur next to the existing Opua to Kawakawa railway line.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Ruakaka recreation facility projectWhangarei District CouncilConstruction of a new building on the site of the Ruakaka recreation facility 9 Takutai Place, Ruakaka Whangarei, Northland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Kamo CyclewayWhangarei District CouncilConstruction of a new cycleway in WhangareiThe path runs from the city centre to Fisher Terrace in Kamo via Manse Street, Kamo Road, Jack Street, Puna Rere Drive and several smaller streets in Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Pokeno to Mangatarata projectWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyUpgrade of the 32 kilometre Pokeno to Mangatara section of the Maramarua Highway (SH 2)Along and adjacent to a stretch of SH 2 between Pokeno and Mangatarata, Coromandel Peninsula
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Katikati bypassWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new bypass and intersections along SH 2 in KaitakiAlongside SH 2 in Kaitaki, Coromandel Peninsula 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt Doocey to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Belfast to Pegasus MotorwayWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new motorway from Belfast, where it joins with the Western Belfast Bypass and Northern Corridor Motorways, it will go through to Pegasus, bypassing WoodendThe project will occur on SH 1 and adjacent to SH 1 between Belfast and Pegasus, bypassing Woodend
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Clyde-Alexandra wastewater connection projectCentral Otago District CouncilConstruction of new piping and infrastructure from Clyde to the Alexandra wastewater treatment plantBetween Clyde and the Alexandra wastewater treatment plant, Central Otago 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Hurupaki school upgradeMinistry of EducationRefurbishment and upgrade of Hurupaki school facilities 20 Dip Road, Kamo, Whangarei  
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Construction of marina in upper Hatea riverWhangarei Harbour Marina Management TrustConstruction of a 115-130 berth Marina Upper Hatea river, just downstream of the Te Matau ā Pohe bascule bridge 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Double-laning of Orari BridgeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyUpgrades to Orari bridge on SH 79 so that it includes a second lane On and adjacent to Orari Bridge over the Orari River on SH 79, Mackenzie District
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18SH22/SH1 Drury to Paerata safety upgradesWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of safety improvements along SH 22 between Drury and PaerataThe project will occur on SH 22 and SH 1 between Drury and Paerata, Waikato
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Evan Pass and Dyers Pass guardrails and pedestrian safety improvementsChristchurch City CouncilConstruction of three kilometres of new guardrails and pedestrian safety improvements along Evan Pass road and Dyers Pass roadsAlong and adjacent to Evan Pass Road and Dyers Pass roads
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Four-laning of SH5 and upgrade of Ngongotaha roundaboutWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstructing a four lane road on an existing two lane, 1.6km stretch of SH 5 and upgrade Ngongotaha roundabout1.6km stretch of SH 5 and upgrade Ngongotaha roundabout, Rotorua
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Erica Stanford to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Glenvar Road realignment projectAuckland Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyUpgrades to a section of Glenvar road, Ashley Avenue and East Coast road including: - footpath upgrades- intersection upgrades- the construction of transit and bus lanes- cycle facility upgrades or amendments- the construction of new safety measures.Glenvar Road, Ashley Avenue and East Coast Road, Auckland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Haswell Junction road extensionChristchurch City CouncilCreating a new link between Foremans Road and Waterloo Road on a 16 metre wide road corridor, Construction of a new level crossing, Closure of the existing level crossing and Halswell Junction Road andRealignment of Waterloo Road near the current level crossing At the junction of Halswell Junction Road and Waterloo road and from Haswell Junction road to Waterloo business park and pound road
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Kakanui Road Bridge renewalWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new bridge over the Kakanui river to replace the existing bridge on Kakanui Road Adjacent to the existing Kakanui Road bridge, Oamaru 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Karo Drive undergroundingWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of underground road along current stretch of Karo DriveKaro Drive, Wellington  
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Stuart Smith's tabled amendment to Schedule 2 regarding King Salmon's Blue Endeavour project is out of order as being outside the objects and principles of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18MacKenzie Basin pull over areasWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of new pull over areas, erection of new signage, and safety improvements along SH 8, SH 79 and SH 80 in the Mackenzie basin Along and adjacent to SH 8, SH 79 and SH 80 in the Mackenzie basin 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Maunu Rd / Central Ave / Walton St / Water St intersection upgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency / Whangarei District CouncilUpgrade of the intersection on Maunu Rd / Central Ave /  Walton St / Water StMaunu Rd / Central Ave / Walton St / Water St, Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chris Bishop to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Melling Transport Improvements Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Hutt City Council and Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of a new intersection on SH 2 and new bridge over Hutt riverThe project will occur on SH 2 and the land adjacent to SH 2 in Lower Hutt
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Maureen Pugh to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Moutueka High Street UpgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of safety upgrades and aesthetic infrastructure in the vicinity of High Street MotuekaThe project will occur on and adjacent to High Street, Motueka, West Coast
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Mt Victoria tunnel duplicationWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Wellington City Council and Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of a second Mt Victoria tunnel adjacent to the first tunnel in order to reduce congestion in Wellington cityThe project will occur on SH 1 and the land adjacent to SH 1 between Hataitai and Mt Cook Wellington adjacent to the Mt Victoria Tunnel
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP16, insert:LP20Penlink ProjectAuckland Council, Transport New ZealandConstruction of a 7km road The Penlink (Peninsula link) project is a 7km link from Whangaparaoa Peninsula across Weiti River to join SH 1, and bypass Silverdale
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brett Hudson to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Petone to Grenada Link RoadWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of a road linking Petone to Grenada Between Petone and Grenada, Wellington
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Tim van de Molen to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Upgrade of SH 29 from Piarere to the Kaimai ranges Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyUpgrade of stretch of SH 29 from Piarere to the Kaimai Mamaku forest park including construction of passing lanes, key intersection upgrades, and customer service facilities including rest stops and wayfinding improvementsAlong and adjacent to SH 29 from Piarere to the Kaimai ranges
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Rangiahua Bridge UpgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new two-lane Rangiahua Bridge over the Waihou river on SH 1The project will occur on SH 1 over the Waihou River in the vicinity of the existing Rangiahua Bridge, Northland 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Robert St/Walton St intersection upgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency / Whangarei District CouncilUpgrade of the intersection on Robert St and Walton St Robert St and Walton St intersection, Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Falloon to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Rolleston to Ashburton expresswayWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a four lane expressway along an existing two land stretch of SH 1 between Rolleston and Ashburton, including over the Rakaia Bridge.The project will occur on SH 1 and adjacent to SH 1 between Rolleston and Ashburton
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Falloon to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Second bridge over the Ashburton RiverWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Ashburton District CouncilConstruction of a second bridge over the Ashburton riverThe project will occur on SH 1 adjacent to the existing Ashburton bridge on SH 1 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18SH6-SH8 Junction Cromwell intersection upgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new roundabout on the intersection of SH 6 and SH 8B in CromwellOn the intersection of SH 6 and SH 8B in Cromwell, Central Otago
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18SH10 Kaeo Bridge Upgrade Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyReplacement of Kaeo single land bridge with a double lane bridge and replacement of a roundabout at the intersection of Whangaroa Road The project will occur on SH 10 at the existing site across the Kaeo river and at the intersection of Whangaroa road in Northland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Southern Links Roading Project Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencySouthern Links will include the construction of new roads to:- Link State Highway 1 from Kahikatea Drive in Hamilton City to Tamahere and the Waikato Expressway in the south- Link State Highway 3 from Hamilton Airport to central and east HamiltonThe Project will occur South of Hamilton from SH 1 in Kahikatea Drive in Hamilton City to Tamahere and the Waikato Expressway in the south, and from SH 3 from Hamilton Airport to Central and East Hamilton
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Springs flat RoundaboutWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Whangarei District CouncilConstruction of a new roundabout on Springs Flat RoadIntersection of Springs Flat Road, Pipiwai Road and Kamo Road, Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O'Connor to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Tamaki Drive MasterplanWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Orākei Local Board, Auckland TransportUpgrade of Tamaki Drive including widening and resealing of the roads and the addition of supporting  structures and signage adjacent to itAlong and Adjacent to Tamaki Drive, Waitemata Harbour, Auckland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Te Ngae Rd projectWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Rotorua Lakes CouncilUpgrade of section of Te Ngae Road, Rotorua including resealing of the road, addition of traffic lights, upgrading stretches of two lane roads to four lanes, installing new watermains, undergrounding overhead powerlines, and the construction of new shared pathsStretch of Te Ngae Road from Sala St to Iles Rd, Rotorua
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Terrace Tunnel DuplicationWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Wellington City Council and Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of a second Terrace motorway tunnel adjacent to the first tunnel in order to reduce congestion in Wellington cityThe project will occur on SH 1 and the land adjacent to SH 1 next to the Terrace Motorway Tunnel
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Tirohanga Stream Bridge UpgradeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyUpgrades to the Tirohanga Stream Bridge over Tirohanga Stream on SH 11The project will occur on Paihia road SH 11 over the Tirohanga Stream in the vicinity of the existing Tirohanga Stream Bridge Northland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Unblocking the Basin ReserveWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional CouncilConstruction of any infrastructure to unblock the congestion leading to the Basin Reserve Within 1.5km Radius of the Basin Reserve, Wellington
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Extension of Waikato Expressway to PiarereWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyThe SH 1 Cambridge to Piarere long-term project would make improvements to roads to expand the existing Waikato Expressway from Cambridge through to PiarereThe Project will occur along and adjacent to SH 1 from Cambridge to Piarere in the Waikato
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Maureen Pugh to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Waitaha Hydro SchemeWestpower LimitedConstruction of a new run of river hydro scheme that would divert a small volume of the river into a power scheme tunnel which returns to the river 2.8 kilometres downstreamThe project will be located within and on the true right bank of the Waitaha River between the lower end of Kiwi Flat and Macgregor Creek within the Waitaha Valley, and within the northern half of the Westland District. It is predominantly on Stewardship Land managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC)
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Ara Tūhono – Warkworth to WellsfordWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a new road between Warkworth and Te HanaThe project will occur on land between Warkworth and Te Hana
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Matt King to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Four laning of SH1 from Warkworth to WhangareiWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a four lane highway along existing stretch of SH 1 The project will occur on SH 1 and adjacent to SH 1 between Warkworth and Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to:
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Whangarei wastewater treatment plant upgrade  Whangarei District CouncilUpgrade of the Ruakaka Treatment Plant in Whangarei to ensure it can meet anticipated population growth in the areaRuakaka Treatment Plant, Whangarei
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Dunedin Hospital RedevelopmentMinistry of HealthReplacement of the existing Dunedin hospital and construction of a new Dunedin HospitalOn the large blocks of land on and adjacent to the existing Dunedin hospital including the "Wilson Block", the "Cadbury Block" and the "Cadbury Car Park" 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Dunedin Waterfront VisionDunedin City CouncilThis project involves a redevelopment of the land on the Dunedin waterfront including but not limited to: - the construction and refurbishment of the bridge- building platforms around the north and west sides of the Steamer Basin- Upgrading the sustainable futures building on the north side- Constructing a public open space at the head of the Steamer Basin which could incorporate a playground and a small tourist information centre Dunedin waterfront and adjacent to the waterfront in the land and water between the Cove and Ravensbourne
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just remind the Hon Nathan Guy that votes are to be taken in silence. So not even your indoor voice—none at all.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18New Beaumont BridgeWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyThis project involves replacing the current single lane bridge across the Clutha River on SH 8 at Beaumont with a modern two-lane structure Just downstream of the existing Beaumont bridge allowing the highway to stay in front of the local Hotel, South Otago
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Ōtaki to north of Levin four laningWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Horowhenua District Council, Kapiti Coast District CouncilFour laning and building improvements on a 24km stretch of SH 1 from Ōtaki to North of Levin  The project will occur on a 24km stretch of SH 1 from Ōtaki to North of Levin
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Bream Bay College upgradeMinistry of EducationUpgrade of Bream Bay College facilities Peter Snell Road, Ruakaka, Whangarei  
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road bridge and intersection improvementsChristchurch City CouncilConstruction of traffic signals at the intersection of Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road, and the widening of the adjacent Marshland Bridge over the Styx river At the intersection of Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road, and adjacent to the Marshland Bridge over the Styx river, Christchurch 





Hon 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.





The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road bridge and intersection improvementsChristchurch City CouncilConstruction of traffic signals at the intersection of Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road, and the widening of the adjacent Marshland Bridge over the Styx riverAt the intersection of Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road and Hawkins Road, and adjacent to the Marshland Bridge over the Styx river, Christchurch 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Tekapo-Twizel Road and Mt Cook Road intersection upgrades Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Mackenzie District Council Constructing safety improvements on the intersection between Tekapo-Twizel Road (SH 8) and Mt Cook Road (SH 80)   The project will occur at the Intersection of Tekapo-Twizel Road (SH 8) and Mt Cook Road (SH 80), Mackenzie District 
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dan Bidois to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Local Parks Kauri Die Back ProgrammeAuckland Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of infrastructure to protect native Kauri from Kauri Die Back DiseaseKaipatiki Local Board Area, Auckland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Roundabout on the corner of SH 22 and Glenbrook road Waka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a roundabout on the corner of SH 22 and Glenbrook road to facilitate the next stage of housing development at Paerata RiseThe project will occur on the corner of SH22 and Glenbrook road, South of Auckland
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Electrification of the train route from Papakura to Pukekohe Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Auckland CouncilConstruction of infrastructure to electrify the train route from Papakura to PukekoheThe project will occur on the train route from Papakura to Pukekohe
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Nelson Inland RouteWaka Kotahi NZ Transport AgencyConstruction of a 7km stretch of road to bypass SH 6 between Annesbrook and NelsonThe project will occur along the railway reserve and St Vincent Street, Nelson
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lawrence Yule to Schedule 2 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 2, after item LP17, insert:LP18Napier to Hastings four lane expresswayWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Horowhenua District Council, Kapiti Coast District CouncilFour laning the Hastings to Napier expresswayThe project will occur on a 24km stretch of SH 2 from Napier airport to Pakipaki, south of Hastings
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 38
New Zealand National 37; Ross.
Noes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Amendment not agreed to.
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 533 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 4 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 5
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 533 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 5 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 6
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 533 and 534 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 39
New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Amendments agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to Schedule 6 be agreed to: 
in Schedule 6, clause 17(6), after paragraph (u), insert:(ua)Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust; and
Amendment not agreed to.
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed.
The Chairperson reported the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill with amendment.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon 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 1,700 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.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Sorry.
SPEAKER: Louder.
ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Pleased to take a call in the third reading of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. While we do support this bill, and I think that's been made abundantly clear, we do want to make the point that this is a massive wasted opportunity. What a lack of vision this Government has for this country. And it doesn't bode well for their plans of economic recovery post - COVID-19. The 11 projects listed in this bill only deliver us directly 1,700 jobs over 11 projects. The Minister had the ability to give us real economic value, and what we got was cycleways chosen over things like Dunedin Hospital, the Katikati bypass, the Mount Victoria Tunnel duplication, the Belfast to Pegasus motorway—all voted down today and not even considered. And there wasn't even anything in Canterbury, those poor people down in Canterbury. The long-term economic value of a cycleway under the Harbour Bridge compared to a motorway, bridges, renewable energy projects—the Minister couldn't tell us today why these projects that have limited economic value were chosen over much bigger, more visionary projects that are going to deliver this country the economic value that we need to get through COVID-19. The fact is that it was the National Party that tried to inject the vision into this bill through our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were unfortunately voted down today.
But as the Minister said today, and has said before, he doesn't want to choke the system, indicating he knows there are a lot of good projects that can go forward to help us get through the COVID recovery. But instead of building capacity to allow us to put these projects through, all we get is 11 measly projects. What a complete waste.
We heard from the Minister in committee stage that he didn't consider other projects, that they didn't even ask questions around other projects or how the economic benefits might stack up—say, a cycle path versus a motorway. The biggest economic challenge of our lives, and it looks like this Government has done some pretty sloppy work and no economic analysis.
Even though they only had 11 projects—even though they only had 11 small projects—they still managed to stuff it up. The single biggest water storage project that is most important to Northland, and they couldn't even get themselves together to get that right. The issue up there was the Ngāwhā Dam. All they did was consent, when the bill was brought to the House, for a hole in the ground not to be filled with water for potable water for Kaikohe or for horticultural projects. Then, finally, the truth came out. Why was that the case? Why was it just a hole in the ground? Well, the Minister made it very clear in committee stage. The problem was the Greens. Minister Sage, earlier in her contributions, said that the National Party doesn't understand MMP. We understand MMP very well. MMP gives us a hole in the ground, a water storage project, a hole in the ground with no water. That's what MMP gives us.
Hon Member: Doesn't even make sense.
ERICA STANFORD: Doesn't make sense at all. Here's how MMP has been working for the Greens. They swallow dead rats every day: Kermadecs, Campbell Island, cameras on fishing boats, and now this bill.
SPEAKER: Yeah, and staying with this bill. Third reading.
ERICA STANFORD: With this bill. The Greens vigorously opposed any Resource Management Act changes, but they still have voted for this bill today, or they will be voting for this bill today, which goes against everything they believe. And when they did flex their little bit of muscle, they said no water in the Ngāwhā Dam. But the Government went ahead and they managed to get that in anyway, with our help. But I have to ask the Minister: why did he not come to us and ask us in the first place to help him get that across the line? Because you know what? There is no way that we would have left Kaikohe without any water; we would absolutely have backed him up in that case. But he didn't come to us instead of just playing politics. 
In the interests of time, I'll skip forward a bit. But what I want to say is that the penny finally dropped for me in this debate that we've been having today. That was that acknowledgement of the fact that the Greens held up Ngāwhā; the penny dropped. That's why we ended up with 11 relatively small-scale projects that aren't going to deliver much economic value to this country. It's the Greens. That's the problem with this Government: they can't get themselves together, they can't collaborate and talk and get better projects, more projects in this bill. I actually feel a bit sorry for the Minister. He probably did actually look at some of the really good projects that we wanted in some of our SOPs, but he couldn't get them across the line because the Greens held him up. It was made very evident in the Ngāwhā Dam example. It's exactly why they couldn't fill that dam full of water, and we had to come to the rescue in that.
That doesn't bode well when it comes to projects in the future that get referred that have anything to do with the coastal and marine area, because the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation have to agree. Well, we've seen quite clearly that that's not going to happen. So if there are any projects that are going to be referred in the coastal or marine area, I doubt very much whether or not those are going to go ahead.
This, as I said, is a massive missed opportunity. It has a huge lack of vision, there are a lack of projects to drive our economy to get us through COVID-19 recovery, because this Government can't get themselves together to get us through. And it doesn't bode well for the future economic recovery with these guys in charge.
With all of that said, I commend the bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a short call on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. 
Erica Stanford, the previous speaker, talked about all of these projects, and National have given us a lot of exercise during the committee stage, bouncing up and down to do party votes. The proposals they put forward, including the four-laning of highways, without any assessment of effects, is exactly the sort of ad hoc lawmaking that National in Government was renowned for. 
To the previous speaker, there were 24 projects which were put forward by Government agencies for listing in Schedule 2 to be on the fast track in the bill. Those projects were assessed against the purpose of the bill, which is to create employment and to be within the context of sustainable management. So they were assessed against the purpose. They were assessed against the criteria that the Minister must use when he or she refers a project to an expert consenting panel, and of those 24 projects, 12 were found to meet those criteria and, therefore, they were put in the bill. So it was a measured process, not the quick process that the National Party was proposing during the committee stage. 
It is a mix of transport projects—road and rail, ferry, and cycling projects—and that water supply for potable water for Kaikohe. These will provide employment, but the Green Party was concerned, as were many submitters, about some key issues: public participation, and the constraints on that; climate change; and the environmental bottom lines and safeguards. So I really commend the work of the Environment Committee for responding to submissions, and the Minister for responding to our concerns, which have been articulated throughout the development of this bill—doing what a constructive Green Party has always done in Government, which is seeking to improve legislation. That work, that negotiation, and the work of the select committee have resulted in changes to the bill which have strengthened the references to Part 2 in relation to the expert consenting panel, which have increased the organisations which are invited to provide comments to the Minister in terms of the fast-track one, and which have also strengthened the references to preventing greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change—so making a stronger reference in the bill to climate change. 
The challenge for any promoters of projects for the fast track will be that they recognise that dealing effectively with natural resources and planning effectively means doing a thorough effects assessment and knowing what natural resources we are dealing with in order to assess effects and then plan and design the project to avoid those. There was one project in Christchurch on the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River some years ago. There's a big loop on that river through Woolston that meant that floodwaters go more slowly to the sea, so the engineers thought they would do the Woolston Cut so that floodwaters would go more quickly. They didn't assess the fact that the saltwater wedge would go further up the river. That led to a much greater tidal influence, it led to the banks crumbling, and it led to trees dying because of that saltwater influence. So the engineers, by failing to take into account basic ecology, then had to build the Woolston barrage to prevent the water going that quickly to the sea. 
So nature needs to be taken into account. The Greens have worked to strengthen the environmental safeguards in this bill. There are still issues that we have concern over such as the fact that it's not councils that are making decisions, but it's the expert consenting panel, and the restrictions on public participation, but throughout, we have worked constructively to improve this bill. Thank you. 





Hon 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.





DARROCH BALL (NZ First): This is a very common-sense bill, and New Zealand First commends it to the House. Thank you.





JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Mr Speaker, thank you. The running theme throughout this debate has been that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken.
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does it say split call then, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: The speaking order is at my discretion. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS: It's all right. He was a whip after I left, so I didn't get to train him, sorry. 
The running theme running through this debate has been how the RMA is broken and how we haven't had the opportunity in the past to consider legislation which properly—
Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand the speaking calls are at your discretion, in proportion to the representation in the House.
SPEAKER: Yes.
Tim van de Molen: And so a 10-minute call, in this case—I am unsure how that relates to the representation in the House.
SPEAKER: Sorry, the order of speaking is something which there is some general guidance about and which I generally take account of. But, in the end, who I call is at my discretion. I have called Jami-Lee Ross for the five-minute call for which he is entitled.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The running theme throughout this debate is how the RMA is broken. In times of crisis such as this, and when we've had other economic events and natural disasters, it hasn't been fit for purpose, and so Parliament has come through and decided to have special pieces of legislation to deal with projects that we want to fast track as a Parliament and that Governments want to fund intensively to get running. For that reason, it appears as though there's going to be unanimous support for this bill tonight. 
The issue, though, is the Government could have gone a lot further. The Government should have had more projects in this bill to fast track. I don't buy the Minister for the Environment's answer that he gave in the committee, which was that the process would be clogged up if too many projects were put in there. In fact, the Government was the gatekeeper as to which projects got in there. The number one priority, apparently, for this piece of legislation for transport for Auckland, is the SkyPath project across the harbour bridge. Now, I don't know what the other members in the House think, but, as an Aucklander, I'm of the view that there are many other important projects. In fact, the Government's own Auckland Transport Alignment Project agreement with the council, the Government's own land transport programme that they have, has many, many projects which are of higher value and importance to Auckland that should have been considered in this legislation.
I'm also very disappointed in the way in which the select committee and the committee of the whole House kept swapping back and forth with regards to the Treaty clause that's in this bill. Now, I realise that we had some interesting discussion earlier in the evening, but the situation we ended up in was that the first bill that came in, as introduced by the Minister, had a very strict Treaty clause which meant panels had to make decisions consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. The Environment Committee changed it, loosened it, put it back in line with the RMA. The Minister then put up a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which would again flip the Treaty clause back so panels would have to make decisions consistent with the RMA. 
It turns out that the New Zealand First Party was opposed to the Minister's SOP. Now, normally, in situations where the New Zealand First Party and the National Party are opposed to a Minister's SOP, that SOP would have died—that SOP would have failed. I was expecting a sensible decision to have been made whereby we would be debating a bill right now that would have a Treaty clause in line with what the RMA is. 
But it turns out the National Party was voting down in their numbers, and, although a majority of the members in the House, by normal strength, would have been able to defeat the SOP, we now have a Treaty clause in this legislation which I think is too strict and I think, actually, will lead to some issues when it comes to appeals, because, now, appeals on points of law can be made by interested parties if they're of the view that the panel made a decision that was not consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Normally, under the RMA, decisions have to be made where account is taken of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—relevance to them is considered. But, in this case, under this bill, we now have a set up—because one party in the Parliament was voting down earlier tonight—where we will have a Treaty clause which leads to the ability for appeals to be made which could actually slow down the very projects that we want to see.
I also want to say that I do support the arguments that this is too short in time frame. The two-year expiry period should have been longer. The very fact that we're doing this in this way is highlighting the fact that we need better RMA legislation. It highlights that when the Parliament and when the Government wants to see things fast track, we always have to go and pass a special piece of legislation. Well, now we have a special piece of legislation. We have the ability for the Minister to add more projects on. It sounds as though they are more ambitious and they do want to see more projects added on. But why only have the short two-year period? I heard Ron Mark in an earlier debate say that it could be considered where a Parliament in the future may decide to extend that two-year period out to a further five years. It should have been five years in the very first place. 
But the Government's doing the right thing. They've got legislation which is going to fast track infrastructure. I hope they seriously fund important pieces of infrastructure over and above what they've got in the bill so far, because, as it stands, it doesn't show the type of ambition that they've shown in previous projects in the past.
I do want to say to Eugenie Sage: the projects proposed in our SOPs were good ones, often were costed, and often were looked at already.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.





TIM 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.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 93
New Zealand National 37; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.
Noes 9
ACT New Zealand 1; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Bill read a third time.
The House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.