Graham Kennedy: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6210] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Before the dinner break I offered a broader philosophical view of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and I was disposed to describe the different philosophical orientations of our parties using the imagery offered to us by National over the last several years in criticising the Labour Government for developing the nanny State. I am wont to extend that imagery to characterise the rest of us and I do so with a view to throw light on where we differ at a basic philosophical level and where in practical terms it comes to mean different decisions at the margin of political judgment. I recalled that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers is best described as the robber baron State while National which makes up the Government is best described as the cowboy State as it wishes to assert ultimate freedom to desecrate if necessary in the name of economic growth with scarcely at most a modest concern to clean up the environment. I believe that mistake will be recognised within the first 3-year term of this Government. Cowboys riding high in the chaotic rodeo of New Zealand polls do get thrown sooner or later—and I think sooner rather than later. 
If we turn the same spotlight of imagery upon ourselves in the Green Party how are we best described? I can think of no better description than that we embrace the concept of a holistic State; we wish for a holistic inclusion of all human activity in harmony with the environment. That is the philosophical difference that motivates us as opposed to National and it prompts us to oppose this amendment bill in its current form. To us the environment is paramount and it must be protected. This central assertion does not in any way preclude the development of a healthy and vigorous economy a vigorous economy based on innovation productivity and yes efficiency. But it does preclude strip mining the proper protection of the environment which we believe this bill runs the danger of doing. 
All parties agree that there needs to be a Resource Management Act that reflects the recognition of the need to protect the environment. In practical politics we differ at the margin between economic growth and environmental protection. At the margin is where our fundamental differences in philosophy are displayed. If in doubt National and ACT would engage in economic growth even where the environment is in danger of damage. So I believe would Labour when tempted. If in doubt the Greens would desist from a proposed economic project on the basis of the precautionary principle strictly applied. That is why the Greens oppose this bill. These differences strike at the overarching issue of our times—that of sustainability. We believe that our approach results in a sustainable planet and a sustainable nation. We believe that the National and Labour approach—the Nat-Lab—results in a planet that is sliding dangerously to irrevocable depletion climate instability and potential political strain. 
I now ask where in all of this are the Bluegreens. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is a good question. Where are the Bluegreens? Let me offer a series of statements from National’s Bluegreens. The first statement states: “clean air clean water … ought to be achievable in New Zealand within one generation.” Who got us into this mess? National prides itself on having had the reins of power for the majority of the last 50 years. Who got us into this mess in the first place? The second statement states that New Zealand “rivers lakes and streams [should be] swimmable fishable and in good ecological health … groundwaters [should be] drinkable.” I ask members who got us here. Who got us into this mess? The third statement states: “Attractive liveable cities that are easy to get around are hugely important both for quality of life”—correct phraseology—“and [for] economic competitiveness.” Well that must explain the extraordinary roading expenditure that we are now facing.