Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can I start by correcting the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Twyford. The policy of having a certain quota of houses for sale in a new development below a certain price level is not exclusionary zoning; it is called inclusionary zoning. Let us just talk a little bit about what that policy is and why it does not work.The best summary of inclusionary zoning is that it is a narrow tax designed to achieve a broader public policy purpose. Let me just expand a bit on that particularly for the benefit of Grant Robertson who is already shaking his head with confusion something that he has been quite used to doing throughout his life. If the Government is to make a rule that a certain proportion of dwellings within a development have to be sold at a given price that rule will only be binding—i.e. it will only have an effect—if the price level that is set is lower than the price that the developer would have otherwise sold that particular dwelling for. The only effect of that could be that the developer loses revenue on their overall development in order to achieve compliance with the law even though they do not necessarily achieve any wider public policy purpose.What we are talking about is effectively the same as imposing a tax on a particular developer in order to achieve the wider public policy purpose of making housing available for people in all price brackets. So then you might ask the next question: what will be the effect of imposing that narrow tax on developers the very people whom we wish to bring housing into existence in order to solve the shortage of housing? Well we often discuss in this House the effect of taxes on behaviour and we often hear from the other side of the House that we should have higher taxes on bad things such as tobacco because when taxes are higher less of the behaviour that is taxed will take place.On this side of the House where we respect savings investment and hard work we often lament that high taxes discourage those activities. But if we follow the consistency of principle that both sides of the House sign up to at different times then having a tax on developers could only lead to—wait for it—less development. This is how stupid the policy of inclusionary zoning is. It deliberately imposes a discouragement—a tax—on the very people society needs to bring forth housing development in an effort to bring forward more housing development for the people who need it most.Only Metiria Turei who has just told me that she did not pay attention in fifth-form economics could bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee tonight that will have precisely the opposite effect of the intention that she purports it to have. And as I have said in this Chamber—it seems like too many times in the short time I have been here—it is not good enough to make public policy with good intentions. Sometimes the softness of the hearts of the people making these proposals extends that softness all the way up to their heads. We need to properly analyse the outcomes and effects of public policies rather than purely their intentions and the intention of inclusionary zoning will not be matched by its outcomes. Therefore I cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 210 which Metiria Turei has put forward.I will just shuffle through and see whether there are any others from Metiria Turei that I might not support. Actually we might leave that for another call but I hope it is very clear why I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers relating to inclusionary zoning and neither should any member in this Committee who has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart. Thank you.