Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): So the Minister has moved that Parliament be given only 13 days—that is that this bill be reported back Monday week. Now we're not talking about a simple bill; we're talking about a bill that spans out to 249 clauses 79 pages and when did Parliament get to have a look at this bill? After 1 o'clock today. And the Minister justifies this incredibly concentrated process on the basis of COVID-19. But here's my question: didn't COVID-19 arrive three months ago? What's happened in the last three months? Why is it that inside the Government the squabble between the Labour Party the Greens and New Zealand First was allowed to have three months to work out what their policy position is but the Parliament is given less than two weeks?Here's my problem: across the House I have revenue Minister Stuart Nash. He introduced one of these COVID bills. He told us what was in the bill except it was wrong—it was completely different. Parliament faced the enormity of passing a bill completely different to what the entire Parliament thought was in it.Hon Stuart Nash: No it wasn't. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it was. The Minister says it's not. What actually happened was a bill that provided for an IRD loan scheme worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the Minister across the House—doing a similar matter of urgency—did not even know or read what was in his bill. This is a far more complicated and bigger bill. Now members on this side of the House are sympathetic to ensure that it is passed through the House prior to the election. We want to see these projects advanced. We want to see actually many more able to enjoy a fast-track process of consenting under the Resource Management Act. But what we find offensive and wrong is that I'm sorry 13 days of scrutiny of such a complicated piece of law is a joke. The idea that the public is going to be able to have any realistic input into a bill that only came into the public arena this afternoon that by Monday week the select committee's going to have to call submissions hear submissions hear officials and report back to the House in 13 or 12 days is just not credible. I'll make a bet: there'll be mistakes in it; it'll be a hash—David Seymour: No—no!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It'll be like the tax law. Well I have to tell you—I say to Mr Seymour: if there is any area of law that is complicated it's the RMA. When you've got 70 pages of it—Hon Member: Too complicated.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Too complicated and I agree with the member—too complicated. But the idea that we can pass 130 clauses and get all the detail right is asking for trouble and is going to result in mistakes and mistakes around major infrastructure projects involving millions of dollars of cost for taxpayers' money.So I just ask the next Labour speaker to explain why Parliament's being given 12 days when the Government's had 100 days. This issue's been around for a very long time. The nature of the COVID emergency didn't just come up yesterday it didn't come up last week; it's been an issue grappling our country since March. It is disrespectful to the parliamentary process to allow such a short period. It is perfectly possible to have this bill passed prior to the general election without the nonsense of select committee process that's being recommended with this motion.