Bishop Chris; O'Connor GregCHRIS BISHOP (National): The question before the House is not Is the Resource Management Act (RMA) bad?" because you won't find many people who will defend the RMA; the question before this Parliament with this bill and its long passage is: are the bills that the Government has put before the Parliament better than what we have now? That's the question. And the answer is a demonstrable no. And that's the reason why the National Party will oppose the third reading of this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill and if we are given the privilege of governing the country after 14 October we will repeal both bills by Christmas.You won't find anyone on this side of the House defending the Resource Management Act but we are not going to sign up to a mammoth labyrinthine piece of legislation just because David Parker says he thinks it will work. Actually we've closely scrutinised it and analysed it and our view is that it will make it harder to do things in New Zealand. It will not lead to things that are "faster cheaper and better"—to use his language. It will make it harder to do things it will make it harder to use the environment and it will make it harder to protect the environment and therefore we will oppose it.This is all very well to rail against the RMA as Mr Parker the Minister for the Environment does. The question has to be: is what the Government's proposing actually going to work; will it be better? And our view is the answer is no. So the National Party is not just going to go along for the ride with the Government just because they've produced a reform package. If the reform package is retrograde and bad then we in the National Opposition would not be doing our duty if we were to vote for it.Actually just because a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money on it doesn't make it right. I acknowledge that there's been a lot of work gone into it—I see the Associate Minister for the Environment Rachel Brooking who was on the Randerson review panel is here—and a lot of people have worked hard on it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work. That's a classic sunk cost fallacy. This is how we get ourselves into trouble—we spend a lot of time on something and we just keep on going and going and going even though we're heading in the wrong direction. And that's actually how we've ended up in some ways with this position today.So our view is: better to cut and run now; better to stop all work on this because it is fundamentally flawed. That's why we're going to repeal it by Christmas. And some people have said "Well why don't you just let it sort of start and let some have a good look at it?" The reason why—the reason why—it has to be repealed forthwith is that there is a 10-year transition window and there's an army of officials working away on all the things that will happen once the bills pass and we have to stop that immediately or as quickly as possible. So that is why we will get it off the statute box and make it very clear that the new Parliament is not going to have any truck with what has just passed.Let me go through the fundamental objections. The first is the purpose of the bill the Natural Environment Bill—clause 3. The purpose—the sole purpose—is "to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao." That's it. That's the purpose of the bill—to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.Simeon Brown: What does that mean? What does that mean?CHRIS BISHOP: Well Simeon Brown says "What does that mean?" That is actually defined but that's another problem—I'll come to that.The second point is that the purpose must be achieved in a way that protects the health of the natural environment. Now the word "protect" is particularly prescriptive and directive. It's a strong word. "Protect" means protect. "Protect" means you have to go out of your way to look after the environment. Only subject to the protection of the environment can you use and develop the environment. So the purpose is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao—and I'll come back to that. That must be achieved in a way that protects the natural environment. Only if you can do something in a way that upholds te Oranga o te Taiao and that protects the environment can you use and develop the environment. That is a licence and a charter for doing nothing.So our objections as David Parker says are not about the fact that the bill is long even though it is and complicated even though it is; our objections are fundamental. The starting point for the bill is wrong. The whole starting point—clause 3—infuses itself throughout the rest of the legislation. The system outcomes in clause 5 have to give effect to the purpose of the bill or ensure that the bill is given effect to. It suffuses itself through the national planning framework and the regional plans. The starting point the most core piece of legislative architecture in the bill which will become an Act is wrong—it is unbalanced.For David Parker to say it is "widely supported" is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The Environment Committee heard submission after submission from people up and down the country from widely different political persuasions and different economic perspectives. The support for the bill was actually scant. Support for RMA reform is comprehensive and substantive; support for this bill and this package of bills is thin on the ground actually. So the idea that it is "widely supported" is nonsense. The purpose of the bill is misguided and wrong.Secondly the whole approach is naive. Mr Parker thinks that the bill can do everything. On the one hand he says it's going to allow for ample land supply and stop the nimbies and it's going to allow for infrastructure provision and fast track. And on the other hand he says "Oh and at the same time it's going to be this enormous boon for the environment"—make it harder to do things protect the health and wellbeing of natural habitats and indigenous biodiversity and all the rest of it. He thinks that it can do everything. Actually the lesson of the RMA is that you can't—you can't—do that in the one piece of legislation. So the whole approach is naive and misguided.Everything has an environmental impact. The using and developing of the environment has an impact on the environment but things that help the environment impact the environment. To give an obvious example wind farms have an impact on the environment. You put in pylons and concrete and all of the work and all of the things that go into wind farms on land—sometimes that will cut across areas that have you know birds and forests and lakes and all the rest of it. Likewise with height. I mean the most obvious example is not actually wind it's hydroelectricity which has an enormous impact on the environment. But why do we do it? We do it because we want to harness our natural resources in order to provide sustainable renewable electricity. So all of these things have an impact on the environment and the bill pretends that they don't and that's the problem. The worry is that the courts will decide that new wind farms or hydroelectricity—or anything actually for that matter—has an effect on the environment that doesn't protect it and it will make it harder to do things. So the approach is naive.The third point is this will inevitably lead to endless litigation. What does the word "uphold" mean in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao? What does that mean generally? And yes it's defined in subclause (3) of clause 3 but that takes you not very far. Most of the subclauses in clause 3 are essentially tautological. Most of them don't actually advance things and help the courts define what it means. And I encourage people to listen to the exchange in the committee stage between Tama Potaka and the Minister who went through some of the nonsense talked by the Minister in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao.There will be litigation as a result of this. We are not a wealthy enough country to have endless fights about words in Acts when it comes to doing things in this country. This will be a stumbling block for development and people said so in the committee. Contact Energy turned up and said this bill will be the single biggest barrier to decarbonising the New Zealand economy. In contradistinction to what the Minister's just said the Wind Energy Association said it will be harder after this bill passes to build a wind farm—harder not easier. Well these are the guys who actually built them. So it's all very well for David Parker to say "Oh yeah we want to make it easier."—everyone's in favour of more wind energy. But these are the experts turning up and saying "We've read your 900 page monstrosity and we think it will be harder." It's not easy enough now but it will be harder.The national policy statement on renewables which actually would make a difference which the Government's farted around on for six years not developing isn't even in the national planning framework. It's not even in the first national planning framework. The thing that would actually make a difference they haven't bothered to do.So the purpose is wrong. The whole approach is naive. It will be litigated. It's a stumbling block for development. We oppose and will repeal it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended until 2 p.m.Sitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2 p.m."