5. Question No. 5—RMA ReformHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA ReformQuestion No. 5—RMA Reform5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that No projects have been selected yet for the fast-track process"; if so will he commit to providing an opportunity for public scrutiny of the projects when they are selected for Part A of Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): In response to the first part of the question yes. As we've said a number of times both publicly and in the House no projects have been selected for the fast-track process. Cabinet has made a decision to set up a thorough and independent panel process for the selection of projects to be included in the schedule of the bill. In regard to the second part of the question the public currently has the ability to submit to the select committee considering the bill. Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the projects in the schedule of the bill. The member might be interested to know we have based the process on the COVID-19 fast-track legislation introduced by the previous Government in which Cabinet delegated to David Parker decision making for what projects were to be listed in the bill upon introduction. These decisions were made without any public consultation prior to the select committee.Hon Marama Davidson: Has he received any advice about options for providing public scrutiny of projects to be listed in the legislation and if so what was that advice?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Not currently.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement "We're open to constructive changes on the fast-track regime to ameliorate some of the concerns that people have" and if so will he support sending the bill back to the select committee to allow for scrutiny of projects?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. And in relation to the second part of the question no.Hon Marama Davidson: Did he check with any of his Cabinet colleagues about potential or perceived conflicts of interest before deciding to send the letter on the fast-track bill on 3 April?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Speaker the member like others in her party has made much of a courtesy form letter that went to 200 organisations some of whom are interested in fast-track some of whom are not interested in fast-track. So writing a letter to someone which is essentially a press release letting them know that the fast-track process is open does not raise any concerns like the member is raising.SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear that this House is not a place for speculative accusations. It's not a place for making general statements in the nature of an accusation. The Standing Orders deal with that very very clearly and I will act on them. I think that line of questioning has been well and truly dealt with over a period of two days and it should now cease unless there is a specific action that is part of what is publicly known.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister—not to be speculative in this case—is it a fact that no member or Minister or party in the Government has taken $350000 illegally from a charity as is the fact publicly known now?SPEAKER: No—I think in the interests of progressing the point is made and no further comment.Hon Marama Davidson: Was he made aware of a conflict of interest by Minister Jones which disclosed $50000 was donated to New Zealand First from entities with a connection to Kings Quarry before he sent the 3 April letter inviting Kings Quarry to apply for the fast-track process?SPEAKER: No—I'm sorry—I'm not accepting that question and I'll tell you why I'm not accepting it. Because there are general activities that a Government engages in. For example the conservation ministry or the environment ministry sent out a form letter relating to some particular policy. Would the expectation be that a party that might have received some funding from one of the organisations receiving that form letter should cause all of their members to disclose? I think there are clear rules around disclosure; there are clear rules around Cabinet pecuniary interests and I think trying to pursue it in a general way in which is sort of like a—what's the term where you just go—Hon Shane Jones: Star Chamber.SPEAKER: No no. No please—I'll come up with a term. Where just digging around to try and find something is not an acceptable use of the House's time or House procedure.Hon James Shaw: Point of order. Beg your pardon. Mr Speaker in the previous Parliament I remember a whole series of questions that came from the then Opposition where they would ask the same question every day. I'm thinking for example of the Hon Mark Mitchell's questions of police Ministers about crimes reported on one date versus a number of crimes reported on another date and the same question was essentially asked week after week after week. There has never been an attempt by the Speaker to rein in what questions could be asked just because those questions had already been asked and the House had already been informed of those answers. So—SPEAKER: Well I would agree with you. If that were the case it would be appalling. What I'm ruling on is the content. It's quite a different matter and I'm happy to discuss it with anybody who likes in the context of Standing Orders.Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to reducing the concentration of powers in Ministers under the bill after concerns were raised by the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about the proposed decision-making approach?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the bill is currently before the select committee and we'll be interested to see what the select committee reports back. But as I've said publicly we're open to sensible changes—as indeed all Governments are when a bill goes through select committees. So we're open to sensible changes but I can tell the House two things: the core of it will remain—it will be a one-stop-shop process in which all of the relevant permits are dealt with at the same time—and it will be a genuine fast-track process. The clue's in the name.Hon Simeon Brown: Oh thank you Mr Speaker. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Well just wait till everyone's quiet.Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you Mr Speaker. Are there other examples of fast-track proposals operating in a similar way to what the Minister is proposing?SPEAKER: Be a bit careful here.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well I just wanted to make the point which is that we have taken much of the architecture for the Fast-track Approvals Bill before Parliament from previous regimes. For example during the COVID era a bill was introduced which advanced 17 projects included upon introduction added by Cabinet without any public consultation without anyone even knowing what the projects were until they were dropped in the Parliament. We are actually going through an independent process to provide advice to the Government about what projects should be in the bill after it gets reported back from the select committee. [Interruption]SPEAKER: It's a fascinating little exchange. You should take it outside. Perhaps even record it."