Parker DavidMOTIONSExposure Draft and Terms of Reference for Inquiry on Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper—Referral to Environment CommitteeHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Madam Speaker I seek leave to move a motion without notice referring the exposure draft and terms of reference for an inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper to the Environment Committee for consideration.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon DAVID PARKER: I move That the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper on the exposure draft be referred to the Environment Committee for consideration in accordance with the following terms of reference:1.The purpose of the inquiry is to provide feedback on the extent to which the provisions in the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill will support the resource management reform objectives to:a)protect and where necessary restore the natural environment including its capacity to provide for the well-being of present and future generationsb)better enable development within environmental biophysical limits including a significant improvement in housing supply affordability and choice and timely provision of appropriate infrastructure including social infrastructurec)give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori including mātauranga Māorid)better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards and better mitigate emissions contributing to climate changee)improve system efficiency and effectiveness and reduce complexity while retaining appropriate local democratic input. 2.The select committee is asked to pay particular attention to objective (e) when providing their feedback on point 1. 3.The select committee is also asked to collate a list of ideas (including considering the examples in the parliamentary paper) for making the new system more efficient more proportionate to the scale and/or risks associated with given activities more affordable for the end user and less complex compared to the current system. 4.For the avoidance of doubt the scope of the inquiry is limited to the following:a)feedback on the exposure draftb)feedback on the material in the parliamentary paper that provides rationale for the clauses in the exposure draftc)collating a list of ideas for point 3 above. And that the committee report back to the House with any policy recommendations to the Government by 18 October 2021 and that it have the authority to meet on Fridays during the sitting of the House and during an evening after 6 p.m. on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196.Can I begin by thanking the House for granting leave given that the report-back is in the middle of October and it's quite a complex piece of work that the committee is being asked to undertake. The additional time that that accords by allowing the committee to call for submissions immediately and start getting its briefing from departmental officials I'm sure will be appreciated by the committee.I'm not going to go into a lot of detail but I think there's general agreement across the House that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has passed its use-by date and hasn't really achieved the purpose which was to protect the environment and enable development. In truth processes take too long they cost too much and it hasn't been successful at protecting the environment against cumulative effects. The RMA's theory was that we would avoid remedy or mitigate adverse effects—in the end it's generally been mitigate" rather than "avoid". As a consequence environmental services have been sliced off like a salami having a slice taken off time and again. That's the reason why we've had degrading water quality and it's also failed in its role really in respect of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to that it obviously hasn't enabled enough housing supply to keep up with the demand for housing and that's not the only reason why we have a housing crisis in New Zealand but it has contributed to it. The new legislation moves or proposes to move to an outcomes focus rather than an effects basis and those outcomes are to be specified in the national planning framework which is explained in the explanatory note that's going to the select committee. That will include bottom lines on things like water quality. But for the first time it will also have positive prescriptions in there to require positive outcomes for infrastructure development and housing. Although there is some provision in respect of housing in the current National Policy Statement on Urban Development there will be a more holistic view to this. It works in combination with the proposed Strategic Planning Act which will provide high-level strategic planning by region. The number of plans will chunk down from around 100 to about 14. We say "about" because we're not quite finalised as to what we're going to do in the north of the South Island where there are a couple of unitary authorities. But essentially it will reduce the number of plans from 100 to 14 which is an enormous reduction. One of the requests of the select committee is that they try to harvest everyone's ideas as to how we can drive proportionate processes how we can have a system that requires less consents. Where consents are required the processes that are run to resolve sometimes the inherent tension between development and environment—how can we run processes that are more cost effective and proportionate to the issues that are being considered? I would ask for the support of the House for the motion and I'm interested to hear colleagues from around the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."