Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I will endeavour to respond to each of the points that the member has made and if I fail to address some of the points that are important to him feel free to put them back to me again because I believe there are answers to all of the questions that have been posed. For a start I would make reference to the definition of natural environment" and "environment". Now "environment" is defined in the interpretation section of the Act to mean the natural environment which we all understand; people and communities and the built environment that includes buildings and roads and farms etc.; and social economic and cultural conditions that affect those matters. So the "environment" is as you would expect a very broad definition. The "natural environment" is narrower than that. But when the member referred to "the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment" that is expressly making reference to the fact that the built environment—the farms the industry the roads the trains: they're all an important part of the equation.Now the second point I would make is in respect of the purpose clause. It says that subject to protecting the natural environment—and that's not an absolute: you can't always protect a natural environment; I agree with the member's point there. You can't absolutely go back to some sort of idyllic conception of New Zealand's natural environment pre-occupation or pre-possums who've desecrated our forests or pre-human activity. So it's not saying that we're going to return New Zealand to an idyllic state like that. It's saying that subject to protecting the health of the natural environment—which isn't an absolute—we enable the use and development of the environment that promotes the wellbeing of present and future generations. And that includes housing that includes roads that includes rail that includes industry—that's all in there. How do we do that? The purpose clause is necessarily a statement of generalities; it always is. So how do you put that into practice? Well the member will be aware that the next clause after the purpose clause sets out the means for achieving the purposes of the Act and it says "This section sets out the following key [matters] to achieve the purpose of the Act". And the first is the system outcomes which must be provided for the national planning framework and at a regional level plans. Now I'm not going to go through all of the other subsections of that because the first two are probably sufficient for the current discussion. Those system outcomes are then set out at clause 5 of the bill and they include amongst other things environmental things to be provided for public access recreational use well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people and communities in a way that promotes the use and development of land for a variety of activities including for housing business use and primary production. So the outcomes which sit under clause 5 of the bill expressly provide for those development outcomes. So how does the system do that? Well it does it both through that hierarchy that's set out—both the principles that are set out in the Act. But actually the detail of it sits in national direction through the national planning framework and then in plans. But then of course the member Mr Bishop—I was going to call him Mr Bridges there for a second sorry—says "Well you can't achieve everything all of the time". Well that's quite true; in not every area can you protect the habitat of kiwi and build a house. It's obvious. And the Act says at section 5A that "not all [of the] outcomes are required to be achieved in all places or at all times"—that's in 5A(2)(b). So I agree with that as well but the legislation already provides for that. In terms of the reference to King Salmon the hierarchy of instruments that was found to be effective if well stated according to King Salmon is preserved in the statute. Until the King Salmon decision you could theoretically have quite directive statements in both the Resource Management Act and then in national direction and then you could have some quite grunty words and plans but then someone applied for a resource consent and the lower courts had always said "Well notwithstanding all of that you balance everything". Well what King Salmon said is so long as the hierarchy is clearly stated including a pro-development hierarchy where you're developing things then that hierarchy prevails and you can't just throw everything up in the air again on an individual consent decision and make a balanced decision. You've got to do what the law says which is set out in the Act and then in national direction. Now the national planning framework comes into play here and I'm sure that will come up later so I won't go into that in detail now. But it for the first time includes some pro-development chapters that will facilitate development of infrastructure which of course is also central to housing."