Dean Jacqui; Bishop Chris; Parker DavidNATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL In CommitteePart 1 Purpose and preliminary mattersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12 Purpose and preliminary matters". The question is that Part 1 stand part.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We intend to spend a bit of time on this side of the Chamber on Part 1 because it is fundamental to the way in which the new Natural and Built Environment Act—if it becomes an Act—will operate. I want to start with clause 3 which is the purpose of the bill. I want to ask the Minister about "te Oranga o te Taiao" which states very broadly in clause 3(1): "The purpose of this Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao." I'd like to know from the Minister why the Government has decided to insert into our planning and resource management legislation an entirely new legal term and has the Government thought through the implications of that because there has been some quite noteworthy public commentary around the potential for extensive litigation as a result of this?I have a series of other further questions but as a starting point I want to know about the rationale from the Minister for the insertion of "te Oranga o te Taiao" into our new—potentially new—legislative framework because the select committee actually strengthened if anything this provision and has made it very clear through clause 3(1) that the purpose of the new Act will be to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. I've got further questions around how the use and development of the environment is subject to that. But that's a starting point—question—for the Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you for the question; it's an important one. This essentially adopts the recommendation of the Randerson panel that has since been worked up by the Environment Committee and by officials. The recommendation of the Randerson panel was to change the purpose clause from the Resource Management Act (RMA) purpose clause to "te Mana o te Taiao". When the exposure draft went to the select committee for an inquiry around these essential parts of the bill the recommendation of submitters and the select committee was to change the term from "te Mana o te Taiao" to "te Oranga o te Taiao" and through the development of the legislation the meaning has been further clarified. It is a Māori word but it is a defined term and I don't think the committee should get hung up by the fact that it is a Māori phrase rather than an English phrase.The defined term is intended to emphasise that the purpose of the bill is essentially twofold. The RMA system has failed on both the protection of the environment and the enabling of development. We've seen the problems with the RMA in respect of development show up in the escalating land prices the huge increase in the cost of consenting infrastructure which for a mid-sized project in New Zealand the Infrastructure Commission has proven that the consenting costs—never mind the cost occasioned by delay—have increased to 5.5 percent of project costs for mid-size infrastructure projects. For small projects the cost is about 16 percent of the project cost which is disproportionate relative to the benchmarks overseas.So it's failed on the pro-development side but it's also failed on the protection of the environment side as evidenced by the fact that we've had declining water quality we've seen continued loss of biodiversity—particularly around wetlands but lots of other instances of loss of biodiversity—and the existing RMA system has been ineffective at guarding against cumulative effects. The "avoid" "remedy" or "mitigate" principles of the RMA may have in the end turned generally into mitigate and large numbers of mitigated effects have piled up into cumulative effects that have seen the degradation of water quality.So the purpose of the new Act is to overcome both of those problems and it's achieved by setting out this purpose clause which does have a Māori phrase but it's a defined term and members will note that it's defined to mean in the bill "the health of the natural environment … and the relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life". And none of those are new concepts—"the relationship between the health of the natural environment and the health and well-being of people and communities"; I think we can all agree with that as a House as well. And then "the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment" which is not just a reference to the natural environment but it's also the built environment—agriculture; it's all caught within the broader definition of environment which is set out in the bill. And then the final part of the text is "the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa." That reference to whakapapa was inserted by the select committee—it actually came from a suggestion from Barbara Kuriger who was worried that the prior reference was unclear that this was a reference to the whakapapa relationship or the historic relationship if you like between people locally and their natural resources.Now the purpose of the Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao and it must be achieved in a way that firstly protects the health of the natural environment—that's to guard against these cumulative effects and there are some exceptions to that for infrastructure that's necessary but we can come to that in later parts of the bill. But then having protected the natural environment—and this is a reference to the biophysical environment not matters of personal taste that have bedevilled the RMA which has you know led to a lot of nimbyism. It's about the health of the natural environment. But then subject to that once you've protected the natural environment fill your boots fill your boots—it's saying subject to this "enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of [both] present and future generations.""