Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The first point I will respond to is the question as to whether you go for an integrated management approach—which this Act continues—or whether you have separate environmental protection legislation and separate development legislation. We did consider that as did the Randerson panel.The first point I would make was that when the Resource Management Act was passed it replaced the separate statute approach where you had the Town and Country Planning Act and you had the Water and Soil Conservation Act and 27 other Acts. The Resource Management Act (RMA) repealed 28 Acts. Well if the ACT Party want to go back to that separation of development from—Damien Smith: Two!Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh two! It's going to be very simple under the ACT Party prescription. Very simple.The second point I would make is if the Parliament wanted to have separate environmental protection and development statutes it doesn't resolve the underlying tension sometimes. What happens when a road is needed to go through a wetland—and it sometimes happens? Auckland has to expand their roads—there's nowhere to expand them—into wetlands. So how does the separation of the development statute from the environmental protection avoid that contest? It can't—it can't.That's actually got to be resolved by principles as to how you resolve the tensions between those things. That's what this Act does. It says you know There are some things that are very special that you shouldn't normally intrude into." A wetland could be an example of that if it was a really important wetland but it then says "Occasionally you have to have an exception." and it sets out principles as to when you can have an exception and therefore gives guidance to decision makers as to whether they should make an exception.That assessment cannot be avoided whether you have both of those things together in the same statute or whether you have them in two separate statutes. You can't plan for everything and if the member wants shorter plans and shorter statutes well you can't resolve those tensions. Those tensions exist and you have to set out principles to resolve those tensions.Now the overall length of the statute is virtually identical to the RMA and the fast track because fast track comes back into this and these two things—the fast track and the RMA legislation—are virtually the same. In fact I asked officials to total that up for me. The RMA plus fast track is 992 pages. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) is 977.Hon Scott Simpson: Oh that's a huge saving.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh I know. Well I mean it's a puerile argument if we're actually down to the number of pages. But if you are worried about the number of pages have a look at the UK statute that's much longer; have a look at the Australian statute that's much longer. If that's your test this is better. I don't think that is the right test. But if that is your test—which I think is very superficial—this is better.In respect of the issue of current and future generations we are trying to sustain the environment so that our children and grandchildren don't inherit a despoiled planet. That is no different to what is in the RMA; that principle is already in there. The member—who's a member of the ACT Party—was for nine years a member of the ACT-National Government. They didn't repeal that part of the RMA that said we should be trying to protect environmental values for future generations rather than use them all up for this generation. Now that's not to say that there are not some finite resources that ought to be used by the current generation. Of course there are. Quarries are a good example. We need quarries. Under the new legislation those quarries will be better protected than they are under the old legislation including from reverse sensitivity effects. Also a regional spatial strategy under the Spatial Planning Act flowing through to an NBEA plan could say "We need a quarry in this area. It's ridiculous that we're carting quarry for 300 kilometres when we could get it around the corner." So those sorts of things are actually facilitated by this new legislation.In respect of the member's question about the interconnectedness of the environment the environment and I've previously covered this for earlier members' questions is defined in the legislation to include the natural environment people communities; and the built environment including roads and farms and quarries and you know all of the things that we have in our lives as well as—it's so broad that the environment includes all of those aspects as it must do; as it must do. The natural environment is a subset of that.But in terms of the interconnectedness of the environment of course we are. We're connected with the environment and the way in which we live our lives. I use roads every day. I live in a house. I drive in a car that has steel in it. The idea that you can have an environmental statue or that we would ever contemplate an environmental statute that didn't cater for the needs of people—well how ridiculous would that be? This statute doesn't make that mistake."