Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. In respect of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) can I begin by thanking the Environment Committee because actually relative to the length and importance and detail of a cornerstone piece of development and environmental legislation the changes that have been made by Supplementary Order Paper today are very small because the hard work that was done by the select committee put in the vast majority of the amendments that were necessary.Now the amendments that are set out in a change-tracked version of the bill which is Supplementary Order Paper 389 members will see as they leaf through that that the vast majority of this text is unaffected by the Supplementary Order Paper. And members will see when they read through those change-tracked versions there that nine out of 10 of them or 90 out of 100—or 99 out of 100; I'm not sure—really are technical changes. There's not much of substance in the SOPs.In addition to that there are three tabled amendments that are in my name that are a page long each. The latest of those was tabled at 3.56 p.m. which was the one that was referred to by the Hon Eugenie Sage. You'll see that they're very very brief tabled amendments.In respect of the fact that there will be some new law as a consequence of the change to this regime you can't change the regime without changing it. This moves to an outcomes-based regime from an effects-based regime. Those outcomes as I have previously described they can't all be achieved at all places but generally we're trying to put heightened emphasis on protecting the biophysical or natural environment. We are lessening the impact of matters of personal taste because we think that's been a crutch upon which nimbyism has rested. And subject to that we are pushing forward development to make it easier to develop.Now even if we hadn't changed the purpose clause and we had just said that the old Resource Management Act purpose clause had to be achieved according to the new outcomes regime of the new legislation that would have thrown up for reinterpretation the existing purpose clause because the effect of the purpose clause would have been different than it is in the new statute because of this movement away from an effects-based regime to an outcomes-based regime. So the idea with respect to members who think that you can actually substantially change your resource management system without having reinterpretation of the same phrase or a substitute phrase for it is with respect incorrect. I've gone through for prior members at some detail how te Oranga o te Taiao works. The change from te Mana o te Taiao" to "te Oranga o te Taiao" as being the term which is defined occurred at the first select committee inquiry on those main provisions of the bill and it's been further refined at select committee to we think make it clearer so that in part the development side of the purpose clause is not complicated by environmental outcomes. Obviously if you're developing you still want to minimise the environmental effects but the part of the purpose statement that relates to development which is the second part of the purpose enabling "the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of present and future generations."—and as I said before "environment" includes buildings and roads as well as animals be they indigenous animals or introduced animals like sheep and cows. We think it's clearer now than it was under the existing statute that we are trying to promote development outcomes so that we don't have a recurrence of these ridiculously high land prices and so that it doesn't cost the earth to consent infrastructure."