Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well here we are coming to the fag end of this Government's time in office. Six years in and we have the RMA 2.0" that's been produced. We were told it would make life easier it would be shorter it would make it easier to navigate and this is how big it is. It's so big it's had to have two massive spiral-bound pieces of collateral to pull it together. There are 450 pages in this bad boy—that's Part 1. Then—let me count this up properly—1011 pages in total. Look even if you are slightly generous and you take out the commentary and the minority views issued by the National Party and the ACT Party and interestingly the Green Party—so it's very clear that Labour will be putting this bill through on their own account. So even if you take out the commentary and a bit of the various different aspects of it you're still looking—Angie Warren-Clark: Oh and the tracked changes. CHRIS BISHOP: What's that? Angie Warren-Clark: And the tracked changes. CHRIS BISHOP: Oh OK and the tracked changes. Well there's not that many of them. But even if you put through the tracked changes you're still looking at a 900-page monster—an absolute "mozza". So the idea that this is going to make it easier for people to navigate I think is wrong-headed. Now that's a slightly trite point in fairness to start my speech on but I think it does illustrate neatly that the idea that this is going to be simpler and make it easier for people to do things is just misguided. It's just wrong-headed. Do the National Party support reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Yes of course we do. We have spent the better part of 15 years trying to reform the RMA. We tried—Hon Dr David Clark: And got nowhere. CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah exactly—we never got the numbers to get it through. We never got the numbers to get it through and now you do have the numbers and you're making things worse than what we have now. That's the irony of the whole situation. Gifted an absolute majority by the good people of New Zealand post-COVID the Government could have done something substantive with their time in office and actually sorted out the RMA and instead what we've got is this dog's breakfast of two bills that will actually make it harder. So we do support substantive reform of the RMA but here's the test—here's the test: we are not going to sign up to any old thing just for the sake of it. There's a real sense from some people mainly in the Labour Party that because we've spent five years and thousands of pages have been produced and Justice Randerson went out and wrote this longwinded report and all the rest of it and the Associate Minister for the Environment sat on the panel—because all this time and energy has gone into it we should just roll over and go "Oh yeah well that's enough work. Let's just pass it." Chris Penk: Sunk cost. CHRIS BISHOP: Well actually that's not the way we make law in this country. As Chris Penk says—in fact that was going to be my next point; great minds think alike Mr Penk—it's sunk cost fallacy. Just because we've spent millions of dollars and wasted time and money and energy and a whole bunch of bureaucrats at the Ministry for the Environment—I shouldn't say bureaucrats—the officials at the Ministry for the Environment have spent a lot of time and energy on it we should just kind of roll over and go "Oh yeah that's good enough." I'm sorry but we expect better and after 5½ or nearly six years of this Government many people are sitting there saying "Is that it? Is that what we've got to show for six years of work?" because the bill will not make it easier to do things. It will not increase certainty it will not increase investment intention it will not provide certainty as to what people who want to use the environment and invest in this country need and I want to go through the exact reason why. Let me start with clause 3 of the new bill—I call it the "RMA 2.0". This is the "Purpose of this Act". Now I didn't think this was possible but this is what happened: the Environment Committee has actually made it worse. The starting point in clause 3 of the bill at first reading was bad but clause 3 is now worse. Clause 3(1): "The purpose of this Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao." That's the purpose—that is stated baldly in black and white. That is the purpose. Now the reason why this is important—and a member over there is nodding as if this is like a good thing. This is a disaster. The purpose clause is the operative clause that suffuses itself through everything under the RMA. So every regional plan every spatial plan every natural and built environment plan everything—every decision will have this suffused through it. Now "te Oranga o te Taiao" is a term unknown to New Zealand law. It's completely unknown. It's not been used before in New Zealand law. Now Parliament makes new laws all the time—that's fine—but I'll tell you what's going to happen with this one. It is that we are going to spend and the country is going to spend the next 10 years or more litigating what that means through the courts the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. We've already had a submission from the Chief Justice to the select committee saying that the courts expect—and this is a quote—"extensive litigation" following the passage of this bill and bills—plural. Now New Zealand is not a wealthy enough country frankly to spend the next 10 to 15 years litigating through the various court bodies exactly what "te Oranga o te Taiao" means. Then we get to subclause (2) of clause 3: "The purpose must be achieved in a way that—(a) protects the health of the natural environment; and [only] subject to paragraph (a)"—the protection of the health of the natural environment—"enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of both present and future generations." So in other words use and development of the environment are subject to protecting the health of the natural environment. Now the word "protect" is important because the courts have defined the word "protect" in a very deliberate way. There's a very high threshold or very strict interpretation as to what "protect" means. It means that the bar to do things is very high. So I know that some members might think "Oh well protect the environment—that's of course natural." but the word "protect" has a particular meaning through Resource Management Act jurisprudence. The importation of that through into the new "RMA 2.0" has a particular meaning that will make it harder for people to do things and that's before you even get into the legal uncertainty created by this phrase "te Oranga o te Taiao". I challenge anyone to read clause 3 of the bill and look at subclause (3) which is about what "te Oranga o te Taiao" means. It means: "the health of the environment; … the relationship between the health of the … environment and its capacity to sustain life; … the relationship … and the health and well-being of people and communities; … the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment;"—and then this is the kicker—"the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa." Well leaving aside the fact that that is a circular definition in and of itself the idea that anyone could look at clause 3 and go "Yep it's going to be easier to build a wind farm or easier to build a solar farm or easier to build"—God forbid—"a new factory or easier to actually develop housing in this country." I'm sorry but there is no show. This bill locks in a completely one-sided view of development and it will make it nearly impossible for this country to achieve the economic growth aspirations that we need to actually grow our economy and provide prosperity and all of the things that New Zealand needs. We are not a wealthy enough country to start saying no to the opportunities that we have and this bill makes it nearly impossible to take advantage of those opportunities. So clause 3 has been made worse by the select committee and it locks in a very one-sided view about our economic opportunities. It overly protects the environment at the expense of development. Actually if you read clause 3 of the bill that is actually the purpose of the bill and in our view that is wrong-headed. There are so many places to go when it comes to criticising these bills—this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill as well. We are up for resource management reform but it has to be reform that will work. It has to be substantive reform that will actually improve the status quo. Our obligation as legislators is to look at things diligently and rigorously and if it doesn't do that then we are duty-bound to oppose it. I haven't commented on the poor process but other members may want to comment on this. The idea that—Angie Warren-Clark: That's because you weren't there most of the time. CHRIS BISHOP: What are you saying? Oh it was good process was it? Angie Warren-Clark: No because you weren't there most of the time. CHRIS BISHOP: Oh yeah well I'm very busy. Some of us have got jobs to do in addition to resource management reform. I sat through many of the submissions and the idea that this was a good process is a misguided one. It was dropped on the House before Christmas 2022 and submitters didn't have enough time. We've come back in the new year and it's being rammed through before the election. National will repeal these bills by Christmas if the Government passes them."