Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on this Natural and Built Environments Bill. Although I wasn't on the select committee—it's a long time since I've been on the select committee; I sat on it many years ago and was actually the chair but anyway—it's an opportunity to talk about this particularly in relation to building construction which I have a role in.As my good colleague Hon Scott Simpson noted we will be supporting the bill but there are some serious concerns about the bill at this stage and hopefully they will be addressed. The big issue really is that everyone in this House—and I think virtually in New Zealand—agrees that we've got to have something that's empowering that can actually allow things to happen. We need rules that are simple to understand simple to enforce but provide adequate protection. When you have developers incurring an estimated cost of about $1.3 billion a year in terms of trying to get consents for new projects trying to build new homes which are so desperately required you know that there is something seriously wrong. Of course this is the outcome of the Randerson Report that led to a suggestion of three bills—splitting into three—we were keen to do two. But this bill and this exposure draft that we're discussing today obviously had some very serious limitations. As Scott Simpson noted in his speech a 20-page report with glaring omissions and just simply areas where there is no detail at all. That's obviously something that's wrong and many of the submissions agreed with that and said we should be looking at both this part and the second bit that the Minister's going to bring before the House around the adaptation piece which will be looked at and progressed separately but later. So without seeing the totality of the reforms it's pretty hard to see whether in fact they're going to achieve the outcomes which we want. At the moment there would be a great deal of concern that we don't actually that we're going to just end up making it more complicated spending a lot of time and not achieving the outcomes.So I found it fascinating when I was just looking through some of the notes. Even organisations around the Environmental Defence Society the society has one paragraph of positive aspects—one paragraph—and 30 pages of outstanding comments and suggested improvements to the bill. What the dickens is that? That shows that Mr Parker has not been doing his work as well as he might—which is unusual—and not preparing this as he should because if you're going to put up a major reform make sure you get it right so that people can understand it. Thirty pages of concerns! This is the Environmental Defence Society. This is not some right-wing organisation; this is something that is deeply concerned about the environment as all of us are including me. Some areas of interest for them—purpose. They've got concerns with the purpose. Well actually I was looking at some of the other submissions and I think everyone has concerns with the purpose—it was very unclear. The environmental limits they've got concerns with environmental outcomes—well gee isn't that what we're trying to get to? National planning framework content and plans the relationship between the bill and other elements—these are just some of the key big headings that they've raised. That just shows you that we have got a lot of work to do on this issue. As my good colleague Stuart Smith noted clause 8—which is a major piece of this proposed legislation—again has some major major issues that need to be dealt with. Broadly I was just looking at some of the other issues—The bill is so broad that it threatens uncertainty over what activities are legal". Jeez! That's a pretty worrying statement. "The definition of environment in clause 3 is so broad that it encompasses almost any social cultural economic and environmental outcome." Wow! Mr Parker you've got some work to do on this. Thank you very much."