SpeechJAMI-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.