Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. National will support this COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill at first reading to select committee. I note that it was shortly before question time before copies of this bill were made available to the Leader of the Opposition and our environment spokesperson Scott Simpson which has left very little time for members of this side of the House to have a good look at the bill. Such a short speech by the Government member which is surprising because you would think they are so proud of this bill but maybe they haven't had a chance to read it either. I was doing a little bit of research as I was waiting for the full 10-minute call of the member opposite but that was not to be. Thirty seconds went by and here I am on my feet but I'm very ready and willing to make a contribution.We do support this bill. It is eerily similar to the legislation that so effectively allowed infrastructure after the Canterbury earthquake and Kaikōura earthquake—to allow the infrastructure to take place. I think particularly about the Kaikōura earthquake because it was an effectively singular event with a number of aftershocks of course causing just catastrophic damage to the roading network in particular. I've always been full of admiration in the few times I have gone up and down State Highway 1 through the works as to how very quickly the sweeping descending bridge was constructed. It started with a good consenting process and I think having seen the response particularly along that coastal road which needed to be brought back up and running that forms the basis for our support.However I do have as do my colleagues just a few questions around this COVID recovery bill—well apart from the fact that we really haven't had an opportunity having been occupied by debating the climate change bill to look at it which I don't think is great process. I'm looking forward to a very good select committee process because I would expect that the Environment Committee will open for submissions will hear what people have to say. This is exactly the kind of bill which deals with large amounts of Crown funding which is going to need the opportunity for a range of people to have a view and I fully expect that the select committee process will allow for that. Well I would've expected that but I'm not entirely convinced that the passage of this bill is going to be any better than some of the other COVID response bills and other pieces of legislation like the forests trading bill which have proceeded through the House with unseemly haste. So I do hope that won't be the case here.I'm going immediately to Schedule 2 of this bill where there are 16 listed projects. Those are projects that effectively have gotten over the line. There is a variety of projects in there a number relating to projects in Auckland and Judith Collins has outlined some of the detail around that. There is a papakāinga development in the Chatham Islands there is a Picton ferry terminal redevelopment—all good projects but it just makes me wonder a little bit about: why are there only 16 projects in Schedule 2? It just seems that while the Opposition might've had only a very few hours—let's see eight hours maybe from the time I'm on my feet—to have a look at the bill the Minister for the Environment has been developing this bill I'm assuming for quite some time. So I'm very curious as to why there are only 16 listed projects in this bill.A question was raised which I think is worth just examining a little more closely and that is: why is it that the Government with the full support of Treasury established the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission in 2018 a couple of years ago? I was having a look at the website and got a bit into it but what I can see so far: the Infrastructure Commission is there to—what every Government says—provide good infrastructure. All of that's all good stuff because we know that infrastructure is very important and we have an opportunity now post-COVID to build some really robust good infrastructure. The Infrastructure Commission itself doesn't build the infrastructure but it provides a framework and criteria against which various projects can be evaluated. So it's a planning function from what I can see. There needs to be a long time frame for a planning function and it looks like the Infrastructure Commission has a 10-year planning time frame and a 30-year planning time frame. That's very acceptable because that's what local government is required to do as well.But what puzzles me is: where is that rigour and that planning and that vision in this bill? I can't see it and that is why I'm so very interested in the select committee process. That's why I think we need a good select committee process so that those submitters—and there were many who submitted to the establishment of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission—have then the opportunity to come along to the Environment Committee and make effectively if you like a cross-submission on this COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. I think that their input will be valuable in terms of—they had a look at the Infrastructure Commission in terms of planning what was required what are the resources how does it fit in to the country's agenda and the Government's agenda versus 16 already-announced listed projects which are already embedded into Schedule 2 of this bill.Given that there are a vast number of infrastructure—I could think of a number of infrastructure projects that I would like to see progressed in New Zealand. Given that there are I guess over a thousand of those projects why did these lucky fortunate 16 win the lottery and find themselves in Schedule 2—Matt Doocey: Eleven.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Eleven? Well yeah it's interesting isn't it? Well see there's another confusion: my colleague is saying 11 but I've got Schedule 2 here in the bill. Schedule 2 sets out 16 listed projects with the name of the project the entity authorised to undertake etc. etc. So there we go. There is another question where we will need some time in the select committee to clarify because I too have heard 11 and I'm reading 16. So—what is it?—marry in haste repent at leisure."I do hope this bill through this process is not going to fall victim to that because National does support in the first reading this bill but as I do say we have quite a few questions to ask and I very much look forward to a robust and very satisfactory select committee process because if the Government does not provide for that then it is absolutely failing in its duty to craft good legislation. I'd argue and I'm sure my colleagues would argue that tinkering around with the Resource Management Act (RMA) as David Parker has already done once this term is not effectively going to give us good planning legislation. I acknowledge this is a post-COVID measure and we support it on that basis but I very much think that the Minister should be giving the bulk of his time to doing what he undertook to do which is a review of the RMA as a whole."