Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. National does support the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill. We're now at the second reading and our most excellent colleague Erica Stanford started out the debate for us in the second reading by thanking very sincerely the officials who had assisted and led the committee—a bit of both really—through the very truncated consideration of this bill. As Erica Stanford mentioned the committee met by Zoom every day bar one which was Sunday for the last week to get this bill back in reasonable shape and a lot of credit needs to go to the officials particularly as they had just immediately come off hard at the heels of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill which had more or less the same process. So our officials are working extraordinarily hard and bill drafters; can't forget parliamentary counsel who also have been working on this bill and we do thank them and we can't thank them enough—I don't believe we can.So yes we consent to this bill. It is a bill very much in the form of the Christchurch Canterbury earthquakes recovery legislation and the Kaikōura recovery legislation which allowed physical works to be done. There are a number of features in those suites of legislation which enabled both of those communities—or all of those communities because there are a number of small communities in Canterbury—to find their feet. It was the physical works—getting those physical infrastructure works going—which not only addressed those infrastructure problems but gave the community heart. I would suggest that we are united in this House and we do support this bill as I said. We've united this country to see that work was being done without the delays which we all are frustrated by under the current provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in terms of consenting whereby projects can be in the consenting stage for a number of years. In fact we have a good example right now of Auckland Council being I think fifth or sixth in line for their water-take consent from the Waikato Regional Council and the regional council is saying You're in line and it'll be years." So there's no argument that the delays in consenting for major projects the like of which Auckland Council are experiencing—there's no denying that there is an issue here in New Zealand with the Resource Management Act. It is frustrating. On this side of the House in the nine years we were in Government we brought forward a number of RMA amendment bills to the House to achieve what this bill is also attempting to achieve—which is a timely consideration of consents—but we did not ever get the support of the then Opposition parties in this House who are now all of them sitting on the other side in the Government and who are now suddenly so enthusiastic about RMA reform. So in this bill—this very bill—we have those elements of the RMA which have been demonstrated to work so very well in times of need—earthquakes—and now we have the same situation where we have a country effectively brought to its knees by a virus. The question then arises as to Schedule 2 of this bill which contains the listed projects and those are the 11 identified projects which are in the bill which will go straight to the RMA consenting panel for consideration for consent. They will have something like up to 20 to 25 days to come back with a decision. They can go back to the project promoters to ask for information. But essentially this is a very efficient process which does provide some protections that sit in the RMA. So this bill fits nicely within the RMA.But the question has to be asked and I do hope the Minister in the committee stage of this bill will be prepared to answer questions—questions such as: we know that fast tracking projects will be of benefit to infrastructure projects and we have identified with the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group 1924 submissions for projects. So that's nearly 2000 projects that have been identified to the Government. They come with a combined value of $136 billion. So there's no shortage of projects out there. And there's more: I have some projects of my own that I would wish to promote through the process of this bill. So there's no shortage of infrastructure projects to be considered potentially through the auspices of this Act once it has passed. So the question is: why are there only 11 identified in the bill itself. Those are the listed projects and of course there is a mechanism but it's a slightly longer mechanism for other projects to be referred to the consenting panel. So I think it is a question: why only 11?I think the answer really lies in the dysfunctional nature of this Government where the coalition members and confidence and supply partners have such very fractious relationships and there is a fair degree of horse trading that has to go on. So we get infrastructure projects which are deemed so necessary to be included in Schedule 2 and yet when you have a look at them they are cycle trails. One just has to wonder at the benefit in terms of the purpose of this bill in getting infrastructure up and running in New Zealand. But that is a question for the Minister to answer in the next reading of this bill.The next question I have is: where is the Infrastructure Commission in all of this? It was an issue that was raised in the first reading of this bill and that is that the Government established the Infrastructure Commission only a few months ago and yet here we have a whole other legislative process which has the function of identifying and fast tracking essential infrastructure projects with the purpose of building infrastructure and creating jobs. So what then for the Infrastructure Commission? Has that been set aside? Do they intend to repeal that? I don't know the answers to that. But surely any decent Government any decent policy development process should have cast itself around for what are the options for addressing this problem of COVID-19 and we need to get the country moving and we need to provide jobs which we agree with. So one of the options surely could have been and should have been using the Infrastructure Commission and possibly that could have been a part of this RMA fast-track consenting bill. I am surprised and a little mystified as to why it isn't but again that is something that this committee can raise in the committee of the whole House when Minister Parker is in the chair.I also note just casting my mind forward because it is interesting to do that that there are a number of tabled amendments to be considered in the committee stage of this bill and this is the opportunity for the Government to really show its commitment to infrastructure in New Zealand. I expect the Government I expect Minister Parker and the Government—all the parties in the Government: the Greens New Zealand First and Labour—to support each and every one of these infrastructure projects if they are to be true to the spirit of this legislation. So I'm expecting great success in that regard with these tabled amendments which are now sitting before us on the Table. I have a number relating to my electorate and very quickly I really very much would like to see the Ōrari bridge double-laning in South Canterbury. That's a very worthy project. Now if that could be dealt with in this fast-track consenting process that would be great news to the locals as would the Kakanui bridge renewal. So that's just two projects—that's two bridge projects. We've got infrastructure projects—lots of jobs; good value to the locals. But there's also safety improvement projects. So I'm going to put these to the Government and I do hope that they meet with the Government's agreement."