5. Question No. 5—EnvironmentCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 5—Environment5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Cabinet minute that stated now is not the time for regulatory uncertainty … or to impose new costs on businesses and households" and is he confident that the Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Bills are consistent with that statement?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes and yes. The repeal and the replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) will make the planning system better faster and cheaper for businesses and households. There is much more cost and uncertainty under the existing RMA than there will be under the new system. The regulatory analysis which was independently prepared and tabled in the House with the bill shows savings for businesses and households of 19 percent per annum compared to the status quo. This is around $150 million per annum and billions over time.Chris Bishop: Why is he pushing ahead with bills that will make it more difficult to build wind farms as stated by the Wind Energy Association and are the biggest single barrier to decarbonising our economy as stated by Contact Energy?Hon DAVID PARKER: There are some fair detailed points in those submissions that I'm sure will be considered by the select committee but many years of work have gone into these reforms. There have been reviews by the Property Council Infrastructure New Zealand the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association the Waitangi Tribunal Local Government New Zealand the Randerson review the select committee inquiry on core provisions the efficiency review by independent experts plus the current select committee process. Everyone's working hard to take into account the likes of those submissions and further improve the bills based on the very detailed and thorough submissions received. But it is time to finish the job and drive it through.Chris Bishop: How will the inclusion of everything consented under the new RMA having to uphold and protect "te Oranga o te Taiao" an entirely new legal term contribute to regulatory certainty?Hon DAVID PARKER: The new purpose statement makes it clear that after natural biophysical limits are achieved development is enabled. We've stripped out amenity matters of subjective taste as opposed to biophysical outcomes from the purpose of the Act and we are both better enabling development as well as adequately protecting the environment. The definition makes that clear.Chris Bishop: What does he say to submitters on the RMA 2.0 that have warned like the Chief Justice of "extensive litigation following the reforms" and how on earth will this help make it easier to get things done in this country?Hon DAVID PARKER: The legislation is taking care to carry forward the most important court decisions that arose out of controversies in Marlborough Sounds where the King Salmon decision in the end after many decades of uncertainty under the RMA found that there is a hierarchy: the Act; then national direction the planning framework; then plans. That hierarchy is both preserved and made clearer under the new regime.Hon Grant Robertson: Why does the Minister think that after six years he will be able to show a reform of the RMA whereas a previous Government had nine years and wasn't able to do it?SPEAKER: Order! I rule that out of order."