Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you. I'm happy to take a call on this and can I firstly congratulate the member Mark Cameron on having the bill drawn from the ballot—quite a feat to achieve as a new member I know. I have to say that the member who's just resumed her seat Barbara Kuriger I've worked closely with in select committee and I appreciate her efforts for sure but on this it may come as no surprise that we will have a divergent view than the one that she has expressed. I want to just note that my parliamentary colleague Rachel Brooking who otherwise would be making comments on this particular bill—and I'll try and perhaps channel some of her thinking in this particular space shall we say.But what I would say is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has always actually provided for a nationally formed set of rules that effectively will provide some environmental standard. This bill as it currently stands doesn't try to change any of the fundamentals of the RMA. Members opposite I know have alongside me and others just completed the first phase of a number of days' worth of submissions and that's because the Environment Committee is currently considering an exposure draft which is part of a longer-term form of RMA reform. I think it's really important that that is considered in the context of what is currently before this Parliament because it has actually been a really insightful and interesting opportunity to hear from folk right around New Zealand whether they be from the regions or whether from metro areas or elsewhere. They are certainly feeling free to share with the committee what their views are around that but what I would say is that this bill as it currently is presented would actually permit a variation in standards across the region where we're hearing a desire for regional collaboration in that space. I think there is more thinking to be done in that particular space as well.In terms of the role of regional councils the assumption is I guess that there is a need for resource consent unless particular activities are largely permitted either in a plan or indeed actually in an environmental standard. Nothing in this bill fundamentally will change that. Actually instead what the bill will seek to do is limit what a national environmental standard (NES) actually would do in terms of where it would apply. In fact it goes further in that it would essentially repeal part of a current NES. So if the rationale actually is to have decision making at a regional level—and I agree that you know regionalism and the importance of regional councils and others working together—this bill doesn't actually provide for that because there is as my colleague the Hon David Parker has already indicated actually a role for national direction.It's actually well accepted that there is that role in the Randerson report which is forming part of this process around RMA reform as well. In this particular case actually the NES in question is important to actually go on and address the degradation of waterways because we all want to have waterways where we can swim where we can gather where we can collect kai and have a wonderful time as well. So it will come as no surprise that that's actually something that the Labour Party has held quite firm to over many years and is on a path to do something about. It is obviously part of the essential freshwater programme as well and that's an important piece of work but so also is that sense of national direction. Whether it is as Minister Parker has said in the national policy statement space in the NES space or potentially at a localised level through regulations they are very important.What I would say is that this bill will allow for an exception to what I guess the NES could apply to. It would go on potentially to revoke regulations particularly stock exclusion regulations of 2020 and parts of the NES that would relate to intensive winter grazing but also the application of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser to what would be pastoral land. So in conclusion I think it is important to acknowledge that farming activity is important but it can also at times have adverse consequences and therefore appropriate mechanisms instruments and regulations need to be put in place but that they are considered to be fair that they are considered to be consistent and that they at the end of the day meet a need that is obviously there. So on that basis I will not be supporting this bill.