Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Part 5 is quite an important part because amongst other things it sets in place what is the fast-track consenting process—that's in clause 152AAA(1) but it then goes on to refer to Schedule 10A and 10A is quite a long schedule: Part 2 of Schedule 10A describes in significant detail the fast-track consenting process and I've got to say that if there is one part of this proposed legislation that we think is a good idea then it's this. But my concern is that notwithstanding the provision for a fast-tracked consenting process if members of the public were to take a look at the Schedule 10A it still looks like a really complicated process with lots of hoops to jump through lots of things to take into account and an awful lot of rules that surround that process. So my question to the Minister is: how can he be sure that this concept of a fast-track consenting process that is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 10A is going to be as effective as he might hope it would be and given the rules and red tape and prescriptive nature of Schedule 10A how can he be sure that fast" actually means fast; that the process of consenting can be quick and efficient not too costly and available when is necessary?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Because the public can rely upon the record of the Labour Party as being the infrastructure party that have not just funded infrastructure. We've consented infrastructure up and down the country in a way that the prior Government could never achieve including through the passage through this Parliament the fast-track legislation in response to COVID—which this is based on—through which we have proven that fast track has on average taken 15 months out of the consenting process sped up consents and saved money. Now how do you do that? You actually do need to have some parameters around when you can and can't use it and if you do use it how you deal with the matter. Essentially those matters are normally dealt with on the papers therefore you have to prescribe what papers have to be presented to the panel that takes the consent decision and who has a right of input to make sure that you are changing the process rather than the underlying environmental test because fast track under this Government has not changed the environmental test—it's just made their process more efficient. That carries on into the new system.At the moment fast track under the COVID legislation has expired. Interesting to hear from ACT and National parties saying that they're going to repeal this legislation because fast track goes with it too. The only additional suggestions I've had in respect of fast track from the National Party are to put everything through fast track; that would make it slow track because the system would gum up and additionally fast track is not appropriate for every proposal—there are some things that are so contentious that actually public rights of input including at public hearings through normal processes should be preserved. There are other process tracks for those sorts of things including direct referral to the Environment Court or to the Environmental Protection Agency where public hearings are held."