But, hey, it’s Christmastime, the time of goodwill and miracles, and the two men found themselves voting the same way on Tuesday as the House considered and passed the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.
National in general, and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Infrastructure minister Chris Bishop and Mr Brown in particular, have been taunting the Greens for months, urging them to back the fast-track consenting legislation so as to encourage the building of renewable energy sources.
They did so again this week, but the Greens somehow still managed to resist the siren’s call to vote to pass the Fast-Track Approvals Act earlier on Tuesday.
Their objection to that law change is deep-seated and multi-faceted, but essentially centres on the Green perception that it strips away critical checks and balances to ensure any accelerated development clears environmental checks and balances.
The Offshore Renewable Energy Bill is a somewhat different beast. Its intention is to create a legislative and regulatory framework whereby windfarms can be built in the ocean and — possibly more importantly – how they are to be dismantled at the end of their usable life.
Introducing the Bill’s first reading, Mr Brown noted that offshore wind was the most developed offshore renewable energy technology worldwide, that New Zealand had abundant supplies of both offshore and wind, but that there was no regulatory regime for developments.
Given that windfarms have been a feature of coastlines overseas for decades, this is somewhat surprising, especially given that New Zealand has been trying to reduce emissions and reach carbon neutral targets for many years and those plentiful winds have just been puffing around unharnessed.
The Bill, if passed, will create two classes of permits: a feasibility permit for potential developments and a commercial permit for projects set to go live.
“It will complement the environmental consents and other approvals required to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure,” Mr Brown said.
“The Minister for Energy will consider feasibility permit applications and must have regard to any significant risks to national security or public order posed by the applicants, the impact on Treaty settlements, the applicant’s approach to managing existing rights and interests in the area, and the applicant’s compliance record in New Zealand and internationally.”
A major sticking point for such developments has been the attitude of iwi and hapū, given the controversial nature of anything which potentially affects rights and usage of the foreshore and seabed.
Mr Brown noted that not only would applicants have to consult Maori, but so would he or any future energy minister before permits were granted.
The Bill also contains provisions for security arrangements to be put in place so that permit holders have funds in place to cover decommissioning costs so that the taxpayer not be saddled with disposing of a pile of rusty, dusty turbines.
There are also a range of fines to encourage compliance, from a trivial $3000 to a substantial $10 million.
While not exactly music to Mr Willis’ ears, he said a regulatory regime was essential: “We will support this Bill to select committee because we want a rich and thoughtful examination of this Bill.”
After taking a pop at coal, gold and seabed mining, Mr Willis moved on to wind mining, saying while the Greens would prefer onshore wind and solar or geothermal generation as it was faster, cheaper, less resource intensive and with fewer environmental impacts, offshore wind applications needed proper management.
“We are also concerned that the existing Resource Management Act and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act consenting environmental assessment regimes are not robust or effective enough at protecting marine ecosystems or mammals,” Mr Willis said.
“And what about other technologies such as tidal generation? So there are a number of questions.”
But, in full confidence that the select committee process would supply the answers, the Greens – for now – have given the Bill their backing.
You are wrong
As the Fast-track Approvals Bill bumped its way through the House, Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking had a few things to clear up, especially “to make the point to disagree with something that the government members have been suggesting, which is that the Labour Party is anti-development and anti-housing. That is quite wrong – we are neither of those things.”
For the further avoidance of doubt, Ms Brooking described the Act as “a disgrace”, “a terrible process”, “bad for New Zealand’s reputation” and “bad for democracy”.
Not that any of that stopped it passing, mind.
Unified front
Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson had a busy Wednesday speaking on several member’s Bills – possibly wistfully, given his own such Bill has been parked while officials try to figure their way through the Bill of Rights Act issues which emerge from it.
One of the Bills which passed was the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill, a long overdue law change.
As Mr Stephenson said, “It is concerning when you actually have the US calling you out for your slavery offences not being top notch.”
When passed, and it will be some time next year, the maximum jail term for slavery offences will rise from 14 to 20 years, or a fine not exceeding $500,000, or both.
Parliament has now risen for the year but Southern Say will be back next week to assess the year that was.
mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz