Court Simon; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just want to canvass some of the problems that have been identified to the Environment Committee when it comes to the resource management reforms and Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. We've heard from submitters—including major industries property developers and asset owners—that they're concerned about the cost of having to participate not just in this legislation if it's passed but in all of the consultation all of the legal work they've had to do to understand their obligations. They're concerned about the time it's taking to actually undertake reform of the Resource Management Act. How much time has been lost and wasted? The Infrastructure Commission said it could cost over a billion dollars a year just in consenting alone which is still being wasted as we go through this reform process. They're concerned about how complex the resource management reforms that this Government has proposed are and the uncertainty they introduced.I attended a forum recently of resource management law practitioners. One of the panellists I sat with asked them Aren't you overjoyed that Minister Parker's reform is going to deliver you 10 years of litigation. You'll all be able to buy a new beach house or a private jet with all the cashing-in you're going to do while you work out what these new terms and definitions mean." And they said "No we're horrified. This is the last thing we want. We've spent 30 years litigating what terms mean understanding how to operate under the Resource Management Act. We'd rather have that terrible Act as it is now than Minister Parker's reforms."Minister are you aware that the Ministry for the Environment (MFE)—and this has become clear through a number of pieces of legislation including resource management reforms and most recently the Long-term Insights Briefing from MFE which was developed last year and published in February—appears to have been taken over by people who are obsessed with spiritual animist beliefs. I want to quote you from the Long-term Insights Briefing: "Damage to the environment means"—and no we're not going to be talking chemistry or engineering or floods or storms or slips—"a loss of mauri—the energy or spark of life that permeates all living and non-living things." How is it possible Minister that these beliefs have become so entrained so normalised in a department which is supposed to be solving some of our most difficult environmental problems that their long-term insights policy attempts to craft public policy through the lens of spiritual and animist beliefs instead of seeking science and engineering solutions to our most common problems?Minister do you believe like the Hon Eugenie Sage once said that modern landfills are good landfills or should we instead be seeking technology—like waste to energy for example—to reduce the 3.5 million tonnes of waste that New Zealand buries in landfills every year consigning future generations for thousands of years to deal with those problems? Do you think that looking at those problems through the lenses of a spiritual and animist belief system is going to help us solve those critical problems or is it science and engineering Minister? The ministry that you're responsible for Minister appears to have lost its way.What I want to offer instead Minister is—for your comment on—an alternative focus to that of dividing New Zealanders up into those who are tangata tiriti and tangata whenua and allocating decision-making rights on planning bodies to those based on their ethnicity. Should we not instead focus on property rights on valuing all New Zealanders' taonga equally on upholding the Treaty by actually acknowledging that it guaranteed the Crown's sovereignty and decision making that it respected the property rights of New Zealanders who were here at the time and those who come after and that we're all equal before the court? It doesn't appear to be the case with the resource management reform.Minister have you considered whether some of the common sense and practical approaches set out in ACT's alternative solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature would instead be a more appropriate way to reform the Resource Management Act and deliver more affordable homes with better infrastructure for Kiwis? Minister.Hon Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. This is an annual review debate and it's very specific in its purpose. Considering that last contribution I just ask you please if you could explain whether you feel that was consistent with Speaker's ruling 138/3?SIMON COURT: I referenced exclusively throughout my questions to the Minister—as context—work undertaken by the Ministry for the Environment in the last year—work which the Minister in his capacity is responsible for.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes the Speakers' ruling number that you—just in terms of a ruling to the member it's about the period of expenditure under review and the work that the member actually referred to. I'll just leave it to the Minister to actually answer.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. In respect of the point as to the importance of biophysical as opposed to metaphysical issues I agree with the member that the priority for the Ministry for the Environment is to deal with physical environmental effects. Indeed the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform puts weight upon that amongst other things by stripping out from the high parts of the existing RMA the excessive reference to amenity which went to matters of taste and the focus on physical outcomes. Which is not to say that different people don't have different spiritual viewpoints—I'm personally an atheist. I respect other people's rights to have views that are religious and my atheism can be no more proven than their faith whether it is Christian or other religions.But in respect of the other question the member raised about Māori participation in these issues I would note that one of the complexities that we have to deal with in the reform of the resource management system is caused by existing Treaty settlements that have been negotiated by successive Governments. Some of the most complex in respect of the management of resource management issues were negotiated by the ACT – National Party – Māori Party Government during the last Government when they introduced the likes of the Waikato River Authority and the planning committee for the Hawke's Bay region. We are as any responsible Government would do upholding those Treaty settlements which were part of the full and final settlements that should not be reopened.In respect of the assertion the member makes that this is going to cost more money the cost-benefit analysis actually shows quite the contrary. One of the reasons why so many people support this is that they recognise that going down from over 100 RMA plans to 15 is desirable. Actually many many of the submissions do support it. Well that's probably enough at this stage because other members will have other questions.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member I would just like to let everyone know that we have five more minutes left on this environment debate."