For many MPs this recess week has offered the chance for a much-needed rest following an exhausting week of overtime sitting under urgency.
At the crack of dawn Monday, the committee was up and Zooming in from around the country for hearings on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, although if she had had her way Ms Brooking and co would have been doing no such thing.
The Labour MP had spent the previous fortnight struggling with committee chairwoman, National’s Catherine Wedd, through the rarely-used medium of Parliamentary Questions to Members, about why only 11 days had been allowed for public submissions on the Bill.
Labour’s position, and it has some validity to it, is that standing orders require a parliamentary vote to sanction a report-back deadline of under six months, and that in this case no such vote was conducted, let alone won by the government.
National’s position is that the committee (which the government has a 5-4 majority on) had approved the timeline for consultation so everything was all right and there was nothing to see here, especially as the government had very publicly said it intends to pass the Bill by the end of the year.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee described the process by which that the truncated consultation period was arrived at as "a gap or a loophole in our standing orders" so there probably is something to see here: it will be up to the Standing Orders committee to do the looking.
The Bill, ostensibly, is aimed at streamlining the process for any potential challengers to the supermarket duopoly, whereby they might open stores to bring in some much-wanted competition. Few people would quibble with that — and Labour itself discussed potential changes along these lines when last in government.
However, RMA Minister Chris Bishop let the cat out of the bag during the Bill’s first reading by adding that the legislation would also "improve the application process so it’s more efficient for all fast-track projects".
"All" in this context is a big word, and the Opposition (including Ms Brooking in a fiery speech in reply) was quick to raise the spectre of the Bill being a stalking horse for the indiscriminate, unchecked building of anything and everything.
"I’m deeply disappointed, once again, by this government’s continued cynical approach of combining something that’s a little bit good with something that is disastrous,"she concluded.
Despite having less time than normal to prepare, the forces for and against the Bill still managed to marshall themselves in double quick time.
A full dance card of submitters awaited the committee on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, with plenty in the South interested in the early Monday morning evidence of Santana Minerals chief executive Damian Spring.
Santana are, of course, the firm bidding to open up a gold mine in the Bendigo-Ophir area of Central Otago, and which had that application accepted for fast-track approval panel consideration later that very day.
To say the least this has been, and continues to be, a hotly contested and controversial proposal. It is, in many ways, the distilled essence of the wider philosophical debate between "getting stuff built" and "protecting our environment" — to boil the competing arguments down to three words apiece.
Mr Spring, with a lovely Bendigo vista as his backdrop, told the committee that from the firm’s experience several aspects of the fast-track system were not operating as envisaged.
"We welcome the proposed amendments in the Bill which are designed to speed up the process such as changes to consultation requirements, the structure of completeness checks, invitations for comments, decision timeframes and appeal rights," he said.
"These changes will go a long way to addressing the delays currently affecting eligible projects and we strongly support them."
Mr Spring also suggested that "further pragmatic amendments" would ensure that the Fast-track Approvals Act was "fully realised".
They included changing the "Section 30" process (which concerns applications where there is an existing consent for the same activity) as it was currently causing unnecessary delays, making road stopping easier, and that a project not meeting a bottom line or National Policy Statement should not automatically rule it out if "the impacts may be outweighed by significant national or regional benefits".
However, what riled some committee members — who, lest we forget, were carrying out a form of community consultation — was Mr Spring’s suggestion that the opportunity for public comment on fast-track proposals was always meant to be limited.
"It’s important that any additional invitations are made only where the panel considers some are necessary for decision making and that such invitations are targeted, relevant and directly material to the decision at hand," he said.
Green MP Lan Pham, getting in ahead of Ms Brooking’s own question on the same point, asked if limiting public comment could come at the cost of undermining a firm’s social licence to operate in a community.
Mr Spring replied the amendment was intended to ensure the panel received "appropriate" comments from authorities and regulators, "and that those comments cover the issues that are generally raised from the public — such as for example dust and water — are adequately addressed by those authorities, then that should be where those written comments should come from".
He then lauded the level of community engagement Santana had done in Central about its proposed project which, to be fair, has indeed been considerable.
"We continue to welcome those conversations for all members of the public to understand what a proposal is about."
There is, of course, the pesky matter of what do so about members of the public who are quite certain that they understand what a project is about, and whose comments might not pass the "appropriate" test.
If that is delay or democracy is for Parliament to decide.
