Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Minister for that useful illumination. A number of issues arise—I mean no one's placing much emphasis on the fact that the phrase is a te reo Māori word or even te ao Māori. It's the fact that it has not been used before that is the thing that people are worried about and yes it is defined in subclause (3). I suppose I'd just make a number of points to the Minister. The first is that if you read subclause (3) of clause 3 it's all about the environment. So it's the health of the natural environment; … the relationship between the health of the natural environment … the relationship between the health of the natural environment and the health and well-being … the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment; and … the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa." Well there's not a lot there about development and there's not actually a lot there about growth. The Minister waxes lyrically rightly about competitive urban land markets and making room for growth and urban growth—and that's important—and says that land prices are too high and all of that is correct. But none of that is mentioned in—and I see the Hon Phil Twyford nodding. I was going to say "vigorously" but he's not nodding that vigorously. But he's nodding gently—Chris Penk: He's nodding off. CHRIS BISHOP: —agreeing. He's not nodding off; he's very interested in this. But none of those very important matters are mentioned in subclause (3). Subclause (3) is all about the environment. I suppose that if you were stretching things you could say "the health and well-being of people and communities;" but the other various clauses that surround subclause (3)(c) are all about the environment. So the first concern is that the purpose of the Act is to uphold a series of environmental outcomes and then you get to the next bit which is "The purpose must be achieved in a way that—… protects the health of the … environment;". Now as the Minister will know "protect" has been defined by the courts in King Salmon as a particularly specific thing. "Protect" is a particular legal term and post - King Salmon the threshold for protecting the environment is a higher one. So the Minister says that well once you've sort of satisfied the biophysical limits you can fill your boots and do whatever you like except much of the development that we want in New Zealand has an effect on the environment. Hon Scott Simpson: That's not what the courts say. CHRIS BISHOP: It's not what the courts say Scott Simpson says but much of the development that we want has an effect on the environment. So for example we want more houses. We're desperately short of houses in New Zealand. We have uncompetitive urban land markets. Land prices and therefore house prices are way too high and the Government knows this. I just wish they would go back to the work that the Hon Phil Twyford spent so much time in Government developing—which Megan Woods doesn't appear to understand—which is that smashing urban limits is the way to drive down land values and drive down house prices. That's what we need to do. Simon Court: That's right. CHRIS BISHOP: Well Simon Court is nodding away but he should maybe mention that to Brooke van Velden who also seems to think that Auckland has got more than enough housing in Auckland right now when clearly it doesn't which is why 25000 people are on the social housing wait list and we have 10000 families living in motels. So absolutely we need to smash urban limits and go for growth—and that's actually National's policy—but my point is that that has an effect on the environment. To take another most obvious example building wind farms has an effect on the environment. Geothermal power stations have an effect on the environment—they have a noticeable effect on the environment. But the point is that living our lives as humans has an effect on the environment. What the Minister is saying is that subject to protecting the health of the environment it can enable the use and the development of the environment. So I suppose my overall point is that what was basically a balancing approach through the current Resource Management Act (RMA) in which we recognised that having humans living their lives has an effect on the environment and it's about how you take account of those effects and mitigate them where possible but accepting that sometimes you can't—sometimes you just can't. Building a wind farm has an effect. It may result in the loss of birdlife. Geothermal energy has an effect on water and geothermal substructures in the Waikato and various parts of Lake Taupō for example. Building housing has an effect on the environment. It frequently results in more roads being built and those roads go through areas of well farmland—and there's the whole issue of the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land which is a whole other issue which we will no doubt turn to in due course. But building roads has an effect and you know it results in embedded carbon and all the stuff Julie Anne Genter hates—all that stuff—but I think most people would acknowledge that we need roads to unlock land for housing and actually I would argue that an inability to do that over the last 20 or 30 years has resulted in many of the social problems we face today: unaffordable housing and all the things I've previously talked about. So it's all very well to say that you can do whatever you like subject to protecting the environment but the problem is that protecting the environment has been defined by the courts already as being a high threshold. It requires quite a lot of things to happen and this is the problem. Clause 3(2)(b) says that the development and use of the environment "that promotes the well-being of … present and future generations." is subject to paragraph (a) which is protection of the health of the natural environment. So it's only once you've protected the environment—which as I've previously indicated requires onerous action—can you get use and development of the environment and it's wrong-headed. It's round the wrong way. We've gone from what was essentially—I'm paraphrasing and I'm not a legal expert—a balancing approach through the current RMA which no one is defending as being perfect but we've got to deal with what's in front of us and it's been put on the Table by the Government. We've gone from what was essentially a balanced approach or a balancing approach to something that I think and I think many people think looks like an environmental protection statute at the expense of many other things. The Minister I think knows that the legislation we're passing has to accomplish many things. That's why if you read through the supplementary analysis report and all of the voluminous volumes of paper that have been produced about competitive urban land markets and the promotion of renewable energy and all of the things that most of us want—the Greens don't but most of us want—the Minister knows that all of those things are important. And here's the issue: I worry that if we pass this we are going to end up with a statute that makes it nigh on impossible to actually accomplish those things because we will be writing into statute a provision that makes it very hard to actually fulfil clause 3(2)(b) which is the use and development of the environment because we're saying that using the environment and making use of the abundant natural resources we have in New Zealand or the abundant land—we're the size of the United Kingdom but we've managed to design a planning system that has resulted in some of the most unaffordable houses in the developed world. We'll be writing into law a provision that acknowledges those problems but actually makes it impossible to use our abundant resources to develop our economy and our wellbeing which is the buzzword du jour because we've decided that the protection of the natural environment is essentially the—it's not quite the be-all and end-all but it's not far off the be-all and end-all because everything else is subject to the health of the natural environment and the protection of the health of the natural environment and the purpose of the Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao which—as I've said before—if you read through it contains very little reference to many of the other goals the Minister has rightly talked about. All four of the five subclauses in that clause are about the health of the natural environment. Clause 3 is fundamental and I think it is going to sink the whole bill personally because it is absolutely critical and members will know that it's the purpose clause. This will suffuse itself through and diffuse itself through everything that happens through the new regime if indeed it passes into law. The courts will refer back to it decision makers will refer back to it and people will be obliged to refer to it. It's the purpose clause of the whole bill and we've got to get it right and I am utterly unconvinced we have the balance right. I think it will be a disaster in practice. So that's many a contribution there. No doubt the Minister has many things to say in response."