O'Connor Greg; Williams ArenaClauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this part Mr Chair. It has been a lively debate and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his discursive approach to it—Chlöe Swarbrick: Discursive!ARENA WILLIAMS: —and in answering questions. I love a discursive approach Chlöe. I encourage you to take a call Chlöe Swarbrick. Clause 1 has an amendment in my name that has been tabled. I hope the Minister will give it some consideration. The amendment is to change the name of the bill from the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill to the Resource Management Return to the 2022 Position Bill." This is a serious amendment; it is not a silly name. What I am trying to highlight here for the record is that how we name this Act is important and to give some of indication to the decision makers who rely upon the statutes to make decisions about what resource management regime they're following because the difference between the 1991 Resource Management Act and our current position in law is significant. We've traversed that well in the committee but what I'm wanting from the Minister is an indication of whether he will accept my amendment to the name or—Hon Chris Bishop: Just read it out again.ARENA WILLIAMS: —I can read it out again for him in a second—whether he will consider this name change or make it clear to the committee in an answer to my question what time period he is seeking for decision makers under these Acts to use because it's certainly not 1991. We've had conversations in this committee about what we are returning to here. The law has moved on and it would be useful for the Minister to give us an indication on that.There is a second clause amendment in this part with an amendment in my name. It would amend clause 5 of Schedule 1 coming into force on the day that is 18 months after the rest of this Act but allow clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 1 to come into force on a day that is nine months after the rest of the Act. So the change there is that the Minister's repeal bill would come into effect mostly with that nine-month period; this is allowing the operative part—the clause 5 part—to repeal the whole Act at a later date. I think what I'm really getting to here and what I'd like the Minister to consider in my amendment is whether there is any reason given that he has some interest in allowing select committees to inquire into which parts of the three Acts that are being amended by this bill—you know those parts that it is worth building bipartisan support for and keeping on the statute book and whether there is any reason why there shouldn't be a time extension of the operative parts of those Acts to remain in effect while we make that consideration. I've heard the Minister say that he wants to return to the old system now but it would be useful I think for the House and the way that we make law in this House to be able to consider what should be kept in a select committee setting while those parts remain in force. So my questions are really about the period of time and there were some good contributions by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking about the difference between the 1991 regime and the 2023 regime that we find ourselves in and that includes not only the law as it stands on the statute book but also those changes that have been made by the courts since then. There were also some contributions that the Hon Peeni Henare made particularly about those changes that the courts have made in the way that we would consider the hierarchy of values when we take those into account around things like kaitiakitanga and the role of iwi and hapū in things like consenting decisions. So it would be really useful for the Minister to consider my two amendments. I hope he will give me one amendment. I've been trying for three hours now. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you Madam Chair. I've been pondering the member's suggestion. It has a certain logic to it but just because the Act is the 1991 Act doesn't mean that people think the law is as it was in 1991. As the member knows the Resource Management Act has been amended probably hundreds of times in the last 30 years which might speak to fundamental design problems in the first place—Hon Rachel Brooking: That's right; that's why we fixed it.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well we're on a very narrow part of the debate now; you're not going to get me back on that but good try and there are many other Acts that have been amended hundreds of times. So I think we'll stick with the wording as it is but not a bad idea. In relation to the second question I don't think we need to alter the commencement provisions to do a process of working out what we want the additional things we want to keep from the Natural and Built Environment Act. We'll work through that in due course. I'm attracted to the idea proposed by the member previously about getting a select committee to do a bit of the heavy lifting on that. If the member wants to be—I don't know is the member part of the Environment Committee? Arena Williams: Draft me in; you're on the Business Committee.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well you know there's 123 MPs; I don't know what every committee MPs are on. I'm still getting to know the new members. There's not so many on the Opposition benches but there's quite a few on the cross benches from the Greens.Hon Kieran McAnulty: So no interest; hasn't got to know his colleagues. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no there's 123. I hesitate to make this point but I wonder if you know the name of every MP in the Parliament? Hon Kieran McAnulty: I do.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh righty-o OK. It's big talk for a Wednesday morning. Anyway so good ideas but I think I've answered the questions."