Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Well I was quite looking forward to that speech from Phil Twyford. I thought we were going get a discourse on competitive urban land markets and flooding the market with development opportunities and taking advantage of cheaper land which would drive cheaper housing.Hon David Parker: We've already won that argument.CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Well you might have already won that argument there's consensus across the Parliament around that. It's just a shame that this bill doesn't actually deliver that.Hon David Parker: It does.CHRIS BISHOP: It does not. But I thought we were going to get a diatribe around that but we didn't. Instead we had seven minutes on the somewhat niche topic of trees—niche but important lest I be accused of environmental vandal. But no doubt the Minister will make further contributions as the bill goes through the House because I know that he is all in favour of competitive urban land markets driving better housing outcomes.This is a bill that has been a long time coming to the Parliament. I want to be very serious around this because there is consensus across the Parliament that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken; there's no doubt about that. It has delivered neither better environmental outcomes or better quality infrastructure or faster infrastructure and it has also—and this is the worst bit of it in my view—helped deliver the most unaffordable housing market in the Western World.Now I've been at the Infrastructure New Zealand conference this morning as the Minister has and I heard someone stand up and say Oh the RMA is only part of the problem." Well the RMA is a big part of the problem. I don't think many people who have studied the issue comprehensively would deny that.For 30 years we have tied ourselves up in these labyrinthine planning processes that have managed to produce a social and economic disaster of extremely expensive house prices extremely expensive rents relative to income and now of course around 4000 families living in motels around the country—at enormous fiscal cost to Government; billions upon billions every year. There is consensus that we need to fix the RMA.The question is whether or not this package of bills from the Government does that. I do just have to make a slightly political point: the last National Government spent nine years arguing for comprehensive RMA reform—and David Parker is smiling; I know he's going to say "So why didn't you do it?" The reason we couldn't do it was because we could never get the numbers in the Parliament. The Hon Peter Dunne who sat down on the crossbenches there sat there for three years and would not accept the arguments around housing affordability and around infrastructure provision and around all of the arguments that David Parker is making now. He would not accept those points and he just sat there and point-blank refused to accept the need for RMA reform.Hon Dr David Clark: Nine long years.CHRIS BISHOP: It was nine great years actually David Clark and it's going to be another great nine or 12 years in a year-or-so's time.So we could never get the numbers and Labour opposed all of the sensible changes we put forward to the RMA during that time in Government—and they cried crocodile tears—and now they turn around say "Oh don't worry we've got it all sorted." So we've waited five years and here we go.Look I don't want to be churlish about this but as I say I do just want to make the point politically which is that it is somewhat galling to hear David Parker turn up in this Parliament and Phil Twyford and no doubt Rachel Brooking—she can't blamed for it actually she wasn't part of it so I can't blame her. Anna Lorck is not responsible either—it's David Parker and the Ministers who have been around for a while; it's their fault. They turn around and say "We need RMA reform." Now that they've got an absolute majority they're going to ram it through.Genuinely genuinely serious point: we're going to partake in the select committee process properly there's no doubt about that. Scott Simpson and myself and the other National members and Eugenie Sage who is a very good chair of the Environment Committee I know will do a good job examining the bill but we are sceptical.I want to lay out why we're sceptical. The first is that we worry about the bureaucracy. Now the planning system is already riddled with bureaucracy. Under this new system there's going to be these regional planning committees. There will be 15 of them mapping the existing regional council boundaries clumping Nelson and Tasman together—time will tell how Nelson and Tasman will feel about that."Committee members shall be appointed by the local councils." Now our worry is that argument over who is going to be on each of the committees will take years. Now I've been around long enough to see a few local government bum fights in my time and they can get unpleasant quickly. I do worry that just the actual debate about sorting who is on the committees and mana whenua and which particular iwi is on the committee etc. is going to add to more bureaucracy.We worry about the democratic deficit. Territorial regional councils are made up of elected members they decided the shape of their cities. These are going to be appointed members; voters can't throw them out—at least not easily. Of course there is even more plans that these new committees will have to give effect to. So we worry about the bureaucracy. The second thing is and this is a very important point is legal uncertainty. The purpose of the new Natural and Built Environment Bill will be to "recognise and uphold upholds te Oranga o te Taiao". Basically sustainable management as a purpose in the old RMA has been explicitly replaced by te Oranga o te Taiao. Now I've checked the statute books. This is a legal term that is completely new to New Zealand law.Hon David Parker: It's defined.CHRIS BISHOP: Sure—sure! But it's never been used before there's no case law on the issue it is completely new to New Zealand law and apparently it's been written for this bill and it's in the purpose statement of the bill. So that is going to suffuse its way through the new RMA system—or the new Natural and Built Environment system.Angie Warren-Clark: Yup.CHRIS BISHOP: "Yup"—OK so she's proud of it. OK that's all good. Good to have that clarity. The regional committees the councils the planners the builders everyone is going to have to figure out what this means and apply it. Good luck.One option is that everyone just decides that "te Oranga o te Taiao" just means "sustainable management" which is the term it's replacing. But if Parliament meant that we'd just say that. Parliament is not saying that or at least the Government proposal does not say that. So when Parliament changes the words the courts assume we're doing it deliberately. Now I've already had RMA practitioners approach me and tell me that there is going to be years of legal wrangling over this language. That means more delays more costs more roadblocks for new housing and infrastructure.Add on top of that the requirement to take account of the principle of the Treaty of Waitangi to "give effect" to the Treaty of Waitangi. Now it sounds like a small change but it's not. As any RMA lawyer will tell you there's a big difference between taking account of something and giving effect to it. Now the Supreme Court has recently ruled that "give effect to" means implement and it is a strong directive; that's their language. It significantly strengthens the provision. Our view and our concern is that it will make it more difficult to do things—not easier—and it will let to more legal uncertainty. We want to get to grips with that issue in the select committee; I think it's going to be very important.Now the Government's argument is that the Conservation Act 1987 contains that language; that's true it does. But the Conservation Act is specifically about conserving and protecting resources. It doesn't have to solve the problem of choosing between nature and development. The planning framework for our cities and our environment does have to solve that problem. So the strategy of just transplanting language from a totally different context in our view is misguided.Thirdly we're concerned about the balance in the bill. We're concerned it's too tilted against development and in favour of the environment. Now the Government says this will make it easier to do things. Everyone is in favour of that. But look at clause 3 of the new bill: "(a) enable the use development and protection of the environment in a way that—… (iii) promotes outcomes for the benefit of the environment". Now the emphasis from the current law is very different. This new law is about promoting the environment and only if you can promote the environment and comply with environmental limits and te Oranga o te Taiao will you be able to do things. This is not a recipe for faster and smoother; it is a recipe for argument.Look at all the things that plans have to do: protect or restore ecological integrity mana and mauri of air water soil the coast wetlands estuaries lakes river biodiversity reduce greenhouse gases recognise the relationship of iwi and hapū conservation of cultural heritage protection of customary rights public access to the coast protecting highly productive land plus—plus—the use and development of land for housing business and the ongoing and timely provision of infrastructure services. How can plans achieve all of those things? This is a recipe for gridlock like we have at the moment.The second point I take from that is it's very clear where the balance lies. Look at those things that plans have to provide for. The natural built environment and infrastructure barely get a look in—they barely get a look in. These bills—and this bill in particular—look like environmental protection Acts. They are not pro-development bills. Our concern is that they will not lead to making it easier for New Zealanders to get things done. We oppose them but we'll consider them at the committee."