It certainly feels like that to regular writers of this column, I can assure you. That is not because of any deep and abiding love of planning law — although, surely, it is everyone’s favourite thing.
The final sitting block afforded one more opportunity for the two to square off, and also to set the scene for much of next year’s political debate.
It may be recalled that the other week the government unveiled its much-anticipated replacement for the Resource Management Act.
It is proposing a two-pronged legislative approach, a Planning Bill and a Natural Environment Bill, and each of those Bills received their first readings on Tuesday.
Bishop, not unnaturally, was in a chipper mood as he stood to break a metaphorical Champagne bottle on the bow on the vessel of many months of legislative drafting as it set sail on the parliamentary sea.
"I am genuinely very proud to be here, moving this first reading. It is the culmination, just before Christmas, of two years of hard work, along with many ministers in the government and, of course, my erstwhile under-secretary, Simon Court, from the Act party," he said.
"This has been very much a team effort across the coalition, when it comes to planning and environmental reform. We have worked together cohesively and coherently."
And, unlike some recent planning legislation, New Zealanders would get to have a full and frank say on it he emphasised: the environment select committee would be given extra time to give the Bill full consideration.
So, what does the blessed thing do?
The Planning Bill creates a separation of development projects: those which do not have an environmental impact (and it is debatable whether any of those asserted to can claim that distinction) and those that do.
The Planning Bill concerns the former and has housing and infrastructure delivery in mind: examples include home renovations or re-consenting for existing industrial uses.
"We estimate we can cut consent volumes by up to 46%," Bishop enthused, before tempering his optimism slightly.
"Now, that’s an estimate. It’s been done by officials. I’m sure the environment committee will want to test that work over the course of their consideration of this Bill."
Yes, indeed, environment committee member Brooking said, we certainly would. But, unlike other planning Bills you may have seen, she was not going to throw up the barricades and declare you shall not pass.
"We, the Labour party, are the grown-ups in the room over this and so we will be supporting sending this to select committee," she said.
Not, you understand, that she did not have reservations. Much of it, she felt, was "unnecessary and oversimplifies an idea that development does not impact the environment and that you can neatly put the environment to one side."
Not was she impressed with the envisaged lesser role for mana whenua in the process, or the emphasis on private property rights and regulatory takings, or the possible requirement for councils to compensate for protections in the Planning Act on heritage and landscape for that matter.
It was not all bad though: "Having stronger compliance, monetary enforcement, these are good things as well. So there is a lot that this government has replicated in these plans but, obviously, with some very important differences; differences that we will discuss at the select committee."
The Natural Environment Bill, on the other hand, National knew that Labour was even less enthused over — although still intending to vote for it to go through to select committee.
Bishop put a brave face on it though: "It’s really pleasing to see the Labour party recognise, despite a bit of heat and light in the last debate — and, I suspect, in this one too — that that this is a big step forward. It picks up on some of what’s been developed in the past, it changes it a little bit — or it changes it quite a lot actually — and it is a big step forward for the country.’
The Bill proposes to set legally binding limits to protect human health and ecosystems stemming from use of fresh water, coastal water, land and soils, and indigenous biodiversity.
So far, so much pretty well what we already have ... but the key difference is what Bishop termed "proportionate regulation".
"The intention of the Bill is to permit or allow more use of the natural environment, within limits. The new system is about bringing common sense back into planning decision-making."
And, he hastened to add, the new system would incentivise efficient resource use, innovation and reducing of environmental harm, as well as offering protection for indigenous biodiversity.
Huzzah. But, as predicted by the minister, Brooking did indeed have a blowtorch ready to apply some heat to the debate.
"I am worried," she said, with her best worried voice and expression. "I have many worries about this Bill that, like the other Bill, we do want to take to the select committee and interrogate."
In no particular order, and probably not exhaustively, she was worried about the adequacy of biodiversity protections, that "bottom lines" for environmental protection were meaningful and actually enforced, and just how the Bill in question would work alongside the Planning Bill.
"I am disappointed that these Bills lack ambition for improving our environment, but I do want people to submit on them and to demonstrate the changes that will enable us to stop the pollution that prevents us from swimming in rivers, from eating our mahana kai, and having safe drinking water," she concluded.
Not that Southern Say does. While Parliament is now in recess, there are a couple more columns to come to wrap up the year.
