Uffindell Sam; Dean JacquiSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll make it a good five minutes. I just want to comment firstly I heard the previous speaker Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki mentioning about encouraging people to make submissions. I would also encourage people to make submissions and I'm sure there will be quite a lot of them. I hear there were quite a lot of them on the three waters legislation—88000 or so. I'm not sure whether they were properly waded through but I would encourage a lot of submissions on this bill. I would also encourage the Minister to make sure that the select committee process can be extended to make sure that all of those submissions can be properly heard whether that is being read or whether that is in person because we should all know this. I mean this is a significant change and it will have a significant impact. I think we've gone over it a fair bit tonight and earlier this afternoon on the earlier bill about how the Resource Management Act (RMA) was not a fit for purpose piece of legislation and how we all had significant hopes that these bills or this trio of bills would you know go about amending that. That side of the House is quite certain that it will and I think everyone over here is pretty aware that it won't.We acknowledge that we have a very expensive housing market in the developed world. We have a lot of red tape we have a lot of bureaucracy and we see this bill as adding more bureaucracy more complexity and more uncertainty to an already bureaucratic complex and uncertain situation.We have argued for fundamental RMA reform for a long time—Angie Warren-Clark: But done nothing about it besides that.SAM UFFINDELL: We do note—we tried; we didn't have the numbers. We will note that during that period Labour did oppose a lot of minor and sensible amendments like removing the requirement to get a resource consent to chop down a tree on one's property. I have a tree that will have to come down on my property soon. If my wife is watching this—Hon David Bennett: Chop it down.SAM UFFINDELL: —she'll know what I'm talking about. Benno's saying Just chop it down." I will do the right thing.But after five years of attempting to make reforms we get to where we are now with this Spatial Planning Bill. We look at what is required here and we do note there is a positive in the formation of the National Planning Framework. We do note that the RMA did result in quite a few policy siloes. But when we look at what will be created in the regional planning committees—and it's been touched on quite a lot today how that is going to create issues. It's not necessarily a democratic process. There have been concerns raised about it being a co-governance-by-stealth arrangement. I'm not necessarily saying that it is but it could definitely give rise to those concerns. These people that will be on this are not democratically elected and they will have the ability to say that this area of land has to be used for this. That is a 30-year call and the reality is that things don't always work out like that. This isn't like SimCity where you can just plan what it is a long time in advance—Angie Warren-Clark: Ha ha!SAM UFFINDELL: —there are a lot of—thanks for the laugh Angie—different actors involved: businesses individuals. They may be a new industry popping up in a certain area. There may be housing development that wants to occur there. The Government may have a different plan around where they want to build some major transport infrastructure. As my colleague Stuart Smith noted there was an area around his patch where it was deemed that it wouldn't be suitable for vineyards and they were certainly proved wrong on that front. I think there is a lot of flexibility and choice that is removed and we end up in a situation where each committee's secretariat—gee that sounds communist—will be dictating effectively what people can build.I think we've got a real opportunity here to do something good in this space. We all acknowledge that we aren't where we need to be. There does need to be more consideration. There probably needs to be a little bit less ideology on the side of the Government and more consultation with all of the stakeholders involved. This needs to be an enduring process. It's no good that this goes through under this Government and whenever a National Government comes in it gets removed or replaced and we're back to square one. So like the rest of my colleagues I oppose this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Duncan Webb—five minutes."