12. Question No. 12—RMA ReformHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA ReformQuestion No. 12—RMA Reform12. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes.Hon James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the fast-track bill I want a thorough and transparent process."?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.Hon James Shaw: How does introducing legislation with such extraordinary ministerial powers under urgency less than an hour before it is due to be debated in the House with two critical schedules withheld from public scrutiny meet the standard of "thorough and transparent"?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well how do I count the ways? Firstly the Government announced that we were doing this back in late January early February. I made that a public announcement and we published the framework and the design of the scheme. That went out to all and sundry—iwi; post-governance settlement entities; environmental NGOs who've been voluminous in their criticism of it but we'll take that as read. The public has had many chances to engage on this. Officials have been working away designing the bill. The bill has been introduced albeit yes under urgency to meet the 100-day commitment to get it into the House and the reason why it's under urgency is to send it to a committee as soon as possible so the public can have their say on this extremely important piece of legislation. There are a number of other examples that I could point to.Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that are on the secret Schedule could include coalmines deep-sea mines and projects that have already been turned down by the courts—SPEAKER: No. Can I just say—you refer to a secret schedule. We heard earlier in the day there's nothing on the Schedule. So don't use language like that.Hon James Shaw: How can he justify limiting public consultation when projects that will be on the Schedule could include coalmines deep-sea mines and projects that have already been turned down by the courts on environmental grounds whilst overriding protections for fresh water and indigenous biodiversity?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I justify it in the same way that the previous Government introduced the COVID-19 fast-track regime which included 17 or maybe 19 projects listed in the Schedule that were automatically referred to an expert panel. That member was a member of the Government that supported that regime in the last Parliament. It's very similar. Actually we've been even more transparent in the sense that we are running an independent process for projects to be referred to the Government to insert in the bill. In the last Parliament the COVID-19 fast-track regime a bill was presented there were 17 projects listed in the Schedule and those projects got referred to a fast-track consenting expert panel.Hon James Shaw: Is he aware—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Just give yourself a minute while the House composes itself.Hon James Shaw: Can you advise me whether the House is composed enough?SPEAKER: Well actually wrong choice of words—it's never likely to happen. But carry on anyway.Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that one of the key differences from previous fast-track legislation is that the ultimate decision to approve or decline projects will now sit with Ministers rather than with independent experts?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. That's a key design choice of the regime. We're proud of it. We're determined to cut through the red tape holding this country back and to get on with building things this country needs.Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament under urgency with little public scrutiny—SPEAKER: Sorry. You can ask that again. How many times do people have to be told to be quiet while questions are being asked before some people spend quite a bit of time out of the House?Hon James Shaw: Let me count the ways.SPEAKER: That's not helpful Mr Shaw—you know that.Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that rushing legislation with such extraordinary executive powers through Parliament under urgency with little public scrutiny creates a risk that any of the projects that are approved as a result of this bill could find themselves subject to future scrutiny which could include the loss of the consent possibly without compensation?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well a couple of points to make there. Firstly the bill is not being rushed through Parliament. The bill is being read a first time this afternoon and if it meets with the House's approval it will be sent to a select committee for consideration. It will go to the Environment Committee. I've got full confidence in the chair of the Environment Committee and actually the Environment Committee to do a good job. There will be a full public submission process. Prior to the bill being introduced into the Parliament there has been extensive consultation on the design parameters of the bill. There's been extensive engagement with iwi and Māori groups; I've been meeting with them regularly over the last few weeks alongside Minister Potaka. The simple reality is that this will be one of the most well consulted on bills and regimes in recent history. To the member's second point in throwing around language around cancellation of consents without compensation I would just say to the member he needs to be very careful in relation to comments like that. I think all members in Parliament have an obligation to bear in mind sovereign risk to New Zealand and the way in which projects happen.SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that it is not for the executive to pre-empt Parliament. There is no bill and so the suggestion that it will be read this afternoon does pre-empt Parliament. It's a fine point but none the less one that should be taken into account by Ministers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how seriously he takes the threat malignant as it is that people who make under the process passed by this Parliament legal application for a permit should be threatened that when the Government changes they will not be compensated for their construction that was allowed and permitted in the first place?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think the Acting Prime Minister makes a good point and I just repeat what I said before which is that I think members generally need to be careful when it comes to threatening things like the leader of the Green Party threatened in his supplementary question."