Bishop Chris; Pugh MaureenHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I can deal with these questions relatively simply. In relation to cost-benefit no we haven't done a cost-benefit—Hon Grant Robertson: Oh outrageous.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well yeah. It's three minutes to 10 o'clock. I mean there are so many things I could say about cost-benefit under the last Government but I'm not going to.Hon Grant Robertson: No you just decided not to do one.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well no because we sought a mandate to repeal this legislation and we received that mandate and we are doing it.In relation to the second question I do not and we do not accept the analysis that the member has raised around the $2.58 to $4.90 which I think he mentioned as the return.Hon Grant Robertson: Ask the officials.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well yeah. Well no doubt we'll be discussing it. I don't accept the analysis that was presented.Hon Grant Robertson: You just don't accept it.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well no I don't. I don't accept it. I don't accept it. Again if the member wants to point to Ministers ignoring official advice there are many examples from his time in Government that we can point to but I won't.On spatial planning which is more substantive the member does make a good point. Spatial planning is important and we do want to develop a robust regime around that. We do want to see fewer plans; we do want to make it easier to streamline. There are a number of issues with the spatial planning regime as advanced by the previous Government as is contained in the Spatial Planning Act (SPA).The first is that the member talks about a reduction in bureaucracy but actually the regime would have set up new layers of bureaucracy through regional planning committees and what not to create that. Again it goes back to the point I made before about the intention being a good one; the outcome not necessarily being created by that. So I do say to the committee and say to the member that we are interested in regional planning and spatial planning but getting that regime right is important.The other thing that should happen is it should be done in a coherent way. The last Government had the three waters regimes going on at the same time as the Spatial Planning Act was being passed at the same time as the future of local government was throwing all of the local government sector into a spin about what the future of planning was. You know all three things have some merit as things that Governments do often do but getting some kind of structural coherence around that I think is important. I'm not trying to be overly political; I'm just making the point that coherence is important. So that deals with that.Everyone wants to see fewer plans and faster decision-making under the RMA; I think we're actually aligned around that it's just we disagree that the Natural and Built Environment Act and the SPA would have delivered that. That's fine; reasonable people can disagree. We sought a mandate for it and now we are proceeding to implement it.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the time has come for me to leave the chair. The committee will resume at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10:01 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. (Wednesday)