Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you Madam Chair. I certainly agree one of the things that constituency MPs in urban areas know is that trees play a much larger role in day-to-day politics than most people ever imagined before they were elected. It is very important to get the balance between people who want to be able to go about their business and clear trees that are a nuisance to them and people who view trees as quite rightly a very valuable part of their community's character in balance.But I want to return to the Minister David Parker's earlier comments because he received an invitation to debate policy and then he resorted to a personal attack calling me some sort of name that I've never heard which probably reflects his generation getting on a bit. Then he said that—he didn't actually give any examples of why he thought he was right; he just said that there was very good analysis done. Well that you know in debating terms is called the appeal to authority fallacy. But I'll put the invitation to him again. The analysis that he's got says linear extrapolation: when we had this much upzoning five years ago in Auckland we got this many more houses so if we keep upzoning we'll get more houses in proportion. That's what the analysis says and I want to ask the Minister why he thinks that's true. Is he not aware that just about anyone you talk to who's actually in the business will tell you that there are other constraints that the amount of zoned land is no longer the problem at least in Auckland and at least in Hamilton who submitted the same thing?What they're saying very clearly in the select committee and to people who take the time to go round and talk to developers and councillors and listen to people who are urban planning experts in the business—what they consistently say to us is actually there are now other constraints. If they're right then the Minister is wrong in his contention that he's got very good analysis. Or perhaps the analysis is very good but it's just very limited because all it's done is analyse what the effects of upzoning have been in a past time.Then the Minister said Oh there's very good cost-benefit analysis." I mean let's be clear: 150 pages; three pages were on infrastructure and it was an extrapolation of a 2016 paper from MRCagney that was probably written by my old mate Stu Donovan when he was there which said in general people being closer together is cheaper infrastructure-wise ceteris paribus—everything else being equal. But what they didn't go into was some of the things that have come up from the select committee and let me just give you one example. You know the reason why some areas are zoned for great intensification under the Auckland Unitary Plan and others aren't is because those specific locations not generally extrapolating a five-year-old study—and Michael Wood he's kind of knowingly looking up because he's a committed local MP too; he didn't lose a seat to Jacqui Dean in 2005 and he's saying actually he understands that these localised nuances—yeah he knows—are important.Actually there are areas where the independent hearings panel when the Auckland Unitary Plan went through said "Look you know we understand why you're advocating for lower density there because it will be less efficient to have to serve that area and this area. So let's have high intensity here and low intensity there."Hon Michael Wood: Oh desperate stuff.DAVID SEYMOUR: That's what the independent hearings panel found time and again. You know that's what people who actually work in councils are actually involved in urban planning actually do infrastructure say. Michael Wood says it's desperate stuff. Well here's the question: let me ask Michael Wood—here's the opportunity—does Michael Wood not think that the independent hearings panel got it right? He's walking out—he's walking out. That's unfortunately the kind of courage that the Labour members have for the fight here.So I give the Minister another opportunity. He should stand up and ask the question—stand up and ask the question—Hon David Parker: Point of order Madam Speaker. The member's comments about the Minister just then were out of order for two reasons.DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order the Minister has a point but what he might also like to consider is that it's contrary to the Standing Orders to heckle while walking around the Chamber. So why don't we just call it a draw?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to that point of order David Seymour the Minister was actually on his way out of the Chamber and I agree that it is actually not a good idea to be calling on and saying that someone is out of courage. The Minister's probably got other meetings to get to. As you see this is the time that members come in and out in terms of changing who is actually on duty in the Chamber. Can I ask the member to in his 27 seconds finish the speech that he was making on Part 1.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well certainly Madam Chair. So really the opportunity is there for the Minister to explain not including the three pages of generic material that were tacked on to the 150 pages he talks about on infrastructure—to actually explain what analysis he has that zoning constraints are the binding constraints on building new homes in cities like Auckland and Hamilton because he hasn't answered that question yet and it's critical to the whole premise of Part 1 that introduces these planning intensification instruments.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm sure the member won't mind me saying that he obviously hasn't read any Oscar Wilde in his life so perhaps the better saying is he doth protesteth too much. The infrastructure bogeyman that the member raises is well addressed in the cost-benefit analysis and I thought was also addressed by the Infrastructure Commission. It's so simply addressed. It doesn't need a 20-page dissertation to know that more dense forms of living are generally cheaper to service and that's what the cost-benefit analysis says. It said yes local water or sewage infrastructure might be slightly more expensive sometimes—not always but sometimes—than a new development at the margin of a city; that's true but roading expense is less public transport expense is less and overall infrastructure costs are lower. The Infrastructure Commission essentially said the same thing and then made the point: to the extent that there are infrastructure costs born of having to house more people the infrastructure cost arises from having more people not from the planning code."