Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I have several questions for the Minister for Urban Development. The first question was in response to a comment that the Minister himself made with regards to a question from another member around Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. To paraphrase the Minister noted that the Hon David Parker was well advanced in his RMA reform work—I do paraphrase. Does that mean that Minister Parker has been in receipt of the independent report into the Resource Management Act; and further to that has the Minister himself seen that report? If not to both parts of that question then is in his knowledge David Parker advancing an RMA bill or RMA work ahead of receiving that independent report which was due to land on his desk I understand at the end of June? There will be a great deal of interest so I just pose those questions.The reason I ask those questions is because my colleague Erica Stanford has raised an excellent point around RMA reform and the greater context within which this Urban Development Bill sits. While it does provide in the Minister's view a consenting process for large-scale and complex projects there are provisions for that in the RMA. We all are dissatisfied with that—that is completely understood—which is why David Parker and ministerial colleagues did commission an independent report into the RMA has expressed the view that there needs to be a wholesale reform of the RMA and has told the House in the past that I understand he awaits the report with interest; well as do we.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I wonder if the member would like to move on to the Urban Development Bill now.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh thank you so much. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'd appreciate it.Hon JACQUI DEAN: That's exactly what I'll do. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much for your advice. In the context of this Urban Development Bill I do think the RMA and its development does bear referencing because it is going to be the statute that will still be in effect for every other project apart from the post-COVID RMA consenting projects and these large-scale and complex projects which fall within the purview of the Urban Development Bill. So we have in effect a chocolate box mixture of legislative pathways into development. I want to know before I move on to more detail on this bill how those different chocolate box selection of pathways which are being developed—there's the COVID19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act we've got this Urban Development Bill and we know we've got another bill well advanced; thank you very much Phil Twyford for alerting us to that. So we are very interested in how business will regard that. These are the people who are the ones going to be investing in our economy post-COVID and if they have such a great selection of consenting tools to choose from is that going to add to certainty for investment? If there's one thing we've learnt in New Zealand it's that stable Government—which we haven't got now—and certainty in providing certainty as I say for investment does not seem to be prevailing in this country either with a mix-match of different types of let's get around the RMA" solutions rather than advancing reform of the RMA. Well I see that's happening but we'd like to see the report first.So that is my first question and I have more to ask."