White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister Bishop congratulations on your role. First of all I'd like to add to the comments of my friend Steve Abel who talked about tree protection and I'd like to ask—I saw a little glimmer of hope there that you had some sympathy with this issue—is there an amendment we could put up on tree protection that might bridge the gap here? Because this is an issue that's really significant out there at the moment and every time we delay it trees get cut down.My other request is that you tell us what kind of economic analysis has been done of the delay itself because my understanding is there was an analysis done by the Ministry for the Environment which looked at this whole scheme which we are repealing in Part 2—all of the Acts—and it looked at the cost and the benefit of the new regime versus the old one. My understanding is that we were looking at over 30 years the system was expected to deliver $2.58 and $4.90 in benefits for every dollar spent—between those numbers—and that it was a 19 percent reduction in costs associated with it or $150 million a year.So we are effectively as I understand it—and I'd like to know if you agree—losing $150 million a year as we delay this process even if the scheme that you develop is in some ways better. So I'd like to know has that analysis been done? I appreciate that you have carved out one part of it which is your fast-tracking process and I wondered what has been attributed in terms of value to that part of it because I do know that the Government has committed to cost-benefit analysis in this area.I also wondered what role the Minister for Regulation will have in the reshaping of this given that you are getting rid of this whole scheme of Acts that's been very laboriously considered by submitters. I was listening to you yesterday in the answers to one of the questions talk about how submitters had made certain criticisms and that you had taken them on board in your decision. But one of the things that I noted was that those submitters had been listened to and the eventual shape after the select committee process had actually reflected a lot of the criticism. So this had been quite a—yeah I'd be very keen—I can see you nodding your head. I'd be very keen to know how you respond to that.Do you think that there was something that wasn't listened to in that submission process that was of particular concern to you that means that you are now repealing what is a scheme that would save the country over $150 million per year on the estimates of the Ministry for the Environment and have you looked at that issue? Because it does seem that even on your own account Minister you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here and that we are going to in a time of cost of living crisis cost people a lot of real hard money. I'm concerned that the kind of cost that we're talking about is adding particularly to the cost of housing in an area like Mount Albert and that we have schemes under way in that area that will be subject to this change and that actually might be complicated.My last question to you is the value of certainty because I've been concerned by the signals that we've been sending out there that every time a Government changes everything gets chucked out and replaced by things very quickly and that that is actually destabilising people's capacity to invest in some things that we need long term: infrastructure and particularly housing which I know we're concerned about. So I wondered if you could give me a comment on your weighing up of the issue of really undermining the certainty we need to get for investors in areas like housing.Finally Minister I have recently been talking to somebody who's a developer who develops around—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Catherine Wedd. Did I get the wrong—Katie Nimon sorry. Hon Chris Bishop: Am I allowed to say something?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh sorry. The honourable Minister. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Can I answer the member's question. Sorry to colleagues across the Chamber I just thought I'd deal with Helen White's questions. It's meant to be a back and forth.So lots to that. Let me deal with them with some conciseness. Firstly to answer the question honestly no there's not an amendment you could put up around urban trees that we would consider. As I've said to your friend Steve Abel the Government's interested in that issue. We'll have a look at it in due course. Happy to have conversations around that.In relation to the economic analysis we don't accept the economic cost-benefit analysis that was done by the previous Government. We do not accept the idea that it would save money. In fact I think the opposite is the case to be honest.In relation to the third question around the role of the Minister for Regulation well he's a member of the Cabinet—a very senior one. He will play a role in that and the future role as to how the Minister for Regulation may interface with the new Resource Management Act (RMA) reform process that I'll be leading as Minister Responsible for RMA Reform is yet to be determined. No doubt the member will find out in due course.In relation to the other comments she made I think her comment about throwing the baby out with the bath water is essentially emblematic of a recurrent theme from members opposite which is that because a lot of time and money was spent on this we should just charge on ahead and it's the classic sunk cost fallacy. I accept a lot of time and money's been spent on it. That's regrettable. But if something is going to lead to worse outcomes for both the environment and the construction of infrastructure and agriculture—Hon Rachel Brooking: Which it won't.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well I know you say that but we have a different view. This is the debate right? So you know welcome to Parliament. If something is not going to lead to the outcomes you want then you've got to throw it out and by definition repealing it is a progressive and sensible way forward.In relation to the member's final point about certainty yep there's a value in certainty and her colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has written to me around trying to get some sort of bipartisanship when it comes to planning. I mean I don't want to get too political about it because this is a committee stage debate and we'll go through part by part but the National now Government has been up for RMA reform for a long time. We could never assemble a parliamentary majority in the period between 2008 and 2017 largely because every attempt to assemble a majority was rebuffed by the Labour Opposition at the time who said that every change proposed to the RMA including around making renewable energy more available and things like that—the Labour Opposition at the time and I accept the member who asked the question wasn't around at the time—every attempt was met with cries of You guys just want to destroy the environment you're environmental vandals blah blah blah." No doubt there'll be a lot more of that over the next few years. So that's the history.Then when the Government changed in 2017 the outgoing last Labour Government parked the issue up for a few years while the Randerson report was under way. Judith Collins—Hon Member: Well that's not called parking up.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well OK. Judith Collins wrote to David Parker and offered the National Party's support for a bipartisan reform effort. David Parker never even wrote back to her. I'll write back to Rachel Brooking but David Parker didn't even bother.So yep I mean we can go back and forth about this. Is there a value in certainty? Yes there is. But I'll tell you what there is a greater value in and that's not doing dumb law and that's what this is because it would make it harder to get things done and harder to protect the environment and it does not make things simpler. Members keep saying "Oh it's a simplification." The Acts that we are repealing are just as long as the RMA that preceded it—900 pages—and in particular in relation to uncertainty it introduces entirely new legal concepts that everyone will have to grapple with over the next decade. That reduces the value of certainty.The RMA has many critics. I am one of them. But at least with the RMA there is well-established case law and jurisprudence around how section 6 and 7 interact around the Treaty clause in the Act around what the purpose of the Act is. So at least there is a value in the case law and we've had 30 years of jurisprudence under it. That exists. That is not something to be easily done away with to go to an amorphous and ambiguous new legal regime which people to the select committee made clear when they turned up will lead to endless litigation and cost that gets passed on to infrastructure consumers."