Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to endorse the previous speakers on both sides of the House so far in this debate for their informed and articulate contributions to this second reading debate because this is something of significance in terms of a bipartisan approach to solving the housing dilemma that has been confronting our country now for far too many years and if we are not careful as parliamentarians it will continue to confront us and future generations for years to come.So on this side of the House we are supporting this legislation because simply this is effectively National Party policy and it's the sort of thing that we have campaigned on now for several elections. Indeed as we go through this second reading it's worth recalling and considering what the select committee heard and the submission that was made by a lot of submitters was that the primary problem has been red tape and a confused expensive and convoluted Resource Management Act process that has made the ability to intensify housing in our urban centres extremely difficult. It's made it expensive and time-consuming and so largely the result of that has been that any development that has occurred has been essentially the preserve of the large professional developers. What this bill seeks to do is actually unlock the potential for intensification literally in people's backyards and that's a good thing. It's good because what it means is that for property owners they are going to be able to release the capital asset and equity in their property and in terms of intensifying and building maybe a granny flat or a further dwelling on the backyard of their property this legislation is going to make that doable. It's going to make it easier it's going to make it quicker and they're going to be able to reap the rewards of that investment equity returned to them while at the same time increasing the density of dwellings in our major urban centres.We heard a number of submitters who provided us with terrific examples of quality intensive domestic housing developments in other cities around the world. In fact some of the most famous and livable cities in the world have exactly the type of dwelling that this bill envisages being built in our tier 1 council areas and some tier 2 ones if they want it. The legislation will even provide for other councils if they want to make application to participate in the mechanisms that this legislation provides as well. That too is a good thing because what this bill is all about is—the key is in the name—enabling houses to be built: enabling housing supply and other matters. So the other matters include qualifying matters—the sorts of things that councils and residents in the leafy suburbs want to protect. They want to protect the amenity value. They want to protect historic areas within the area that provide character and those things are important. So this piece of legislation provides that.We heard from a very large number of submitters in a short period of time and they included some 966 submissions—so nearly a thousand—and more than a thousand documents presented to the select committee in a short period of time. We spent a lot of hours on Zoom meetings and sometimes as the deputy chair of the Environment Committee said even on a Saturday. But that was because we wanted to hear from each and every submitter that wanted to participate and I want to join with the deputy chair of the committee in congratulating the chair of the committee the Hon Eugenie Sage for the manner and style that she chaired this committee with. Now it's not often that you'll hear me praising a Green Party member in this Chamber but I have to say that she did an outstanding job under sometimes quite time-constrained challenges. She did a very very good job and so I give her credit for that.Giving property owners the right to build is a fundamental National Party principle because we on this side of the House believe in private property rights and it's been fascinating to see some parties that we thought believed in private property rights actually dancing on the head of a pin and trying to find every possible reason not to support this legislation. It's been a very edifying eye-opening example of I guess parish pump politics at its not necessarily best and others will probably speak about that. Certainly commentators have noticed the academic gymnastics being performed by one party in this House as they try to justify their position in opposition to building houses and to solving and providing enduring cross-party legislation that will give certainty not only to property owners but to councils to developers and to the people who are building and investing in infrastructure around our urban centres. They need to know that the two major parties in this Parliament support and back this legislation and that gives them certainty. It gives them certainty of investment certainty of planning and certainty around the future of what they want to do on their property in their neighbourhood in their towns and in their cities.So on this side of the House we wanted to thank the submitters who provided an enormous range of quality submissions very well-thought-out and very well presented. The bill has come back from select committee as a significantly improved piece of legislation to the one that was debated in this House at first reading and that's how it should work in this Parliament. So on this side of the House we support the second reading and we will do so through to the third reading.