Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you for that opportunity to respond to a couple of points that the Minister Nick Smith has just made. At face value he is correct that the only way you could use new section 360D inserted by clause 105 is to strike down regulations made by council. But I think what the Minister does not understand—this is a systemic problem about the depth and level of thinking that he has brought to this whole reform process—is that it is about what is the long-term equilibrium.It starts out that the Minister can veto some things that a council would like to do but once a Minister has that power the long-term equilibrium is one where the Minister can also suggest to the councils that perhaps the councils should do other things that the Minister likes in order that he not use his veto power on other things that they like. If anybody doubts that they need only look at the relationship between the President and the Congress in the United States Constitution. The fact of the matter is that introducing ministerial power by regulation to strike down plans and planning decisions made by councils is the beginning of a long and winding road towards an erosion of our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand.But that is very much the difficulty with so much of this resource legislation—the Minister tends to think in static terms. He thinks about what he can achieve by simply dictating that a certain template will be used dictating that a certain standard—as he likes to call it—will be used or dictating that a certain measurement system will be used when he is not getting at the real problem which is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is already a long list of requirements that must be met by councils and as a result councils eager to meet the many statutory requirements put on them by this House end up taking so much constituents' time. If we wanted to make a better RMA we would be reducing the size of it not enlarging the size of it. We would be reducing its complexity not increasing its complexity as this bill does.But seeing as this is where we are I will start where I left off before. As I mentioned I have an amendment eerily similar to the one more recently submitted by David Parker in this Committee. It would require a prohibition on urban growth boundaries. There is no question that we have a situation in New Zealand where we are 0.8 percent urbanised and yet we have created a shortage of urban land upon which New Zealanders are able to build. That is the primary reason why we have a shortage of housing and why we have sky-high house prices and why we have housing-driven poverty in New Zealand. That is the fundamental problem and this amendment laid out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 I have put up on the Table—just in case you would like some variety; one by a different David—so that we can get rid of these urban growth boundaries which have stifled the supply of land for New Zealanders.I just say to Phil Twyford if he really wanted this bill to have passed on 6 September last year all he had to do was pick up the phone. If you want to pass something in this House you have got to hustle. You cannot send someone an email and call them 2 hours later and say Why didn't you vote for my bill?"; you actually have got to hustle. Pick up the phone and call me next time Phil. I know you have got my number now.I have got another Supplementary Order Paper on the Table now—Supplementary Order Paper 273. What this would do is change some of those principles sections which are so important. Those are the ones that regard the protection of private property rights. That would be inserted into a new section 6(i). We need the effective functioning of the built environment including the availability of land to support changes in population and urban development demand. If we are going to have so many considerations so deadly to development and we cannot take anything out let us put some positive things in. Let us put the efficient provision of infrastructure into the principles of the Act and let us put the efficient use of development of natural and physical resources including the benefits derived from their use and development into the Act. Let us put some positive values into the RMA that will actually help a new generation of New Zealanders build homes if that is the best that we can do.I have a number of supplementary order papers—let us just call it Dave's emporium. There is Supplementary Order Paper 273 if you would like to supercharge infrastructure and improve the principles of the Act Supplementary Order Paper 274 if you would like to get rid of urban growth boundaries Supplementary Order Paper 266 if you would like to get rid of iwi participation arrangements and if you would like to improve other aspects of the bill I am sure I have amendments for that too.But it does fill me with great sadness to stand here tonight and look at the Minister a fellow engineer who has had so much time to improve this critical issue—perhaps the most important issue facing New Zealand—and I have to say that the Labour Party the enemy of free markets and usually the people who have the fewest ideas about how to make public policy better for all New Zealanders is making more sense on this bill than the Minister whom I usually support. That is a great shame. It is a great shame that in the last year Nick Smith would not pick up the phone and talk to us about how we could have made this bill better. For a year's time—since 13 April last year—John Key Prime Minister as he was then knew that he had the votes to pass the Resource Management Legislation Bill with United Future and ACT. But he made his choice on behalf of National and he went with the Māori Party. He went with iwi participation arrangements and he went with Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.I have actually never been able to understand how it was that the Labour Party won six out of the seven Māori seats. It certainly could not be on individual talent with the rare exception of Peeni Henare. But while Peeni Henare was speaking I came to understand it. I came to understand the priorities for Māori that the Māori Party has vis-à-vis the Labour MPs—or at least Peeni Henare; I am not sure about the others. On the one hand you have Māori seat representatives who know that with only 40 percent of Māori owning their homes the most important priority is not to ensure that the elites and the elders are consulted or have the right to go to a council and ask that they be consulted—Mr Chairperson I am speaking to my Supplementary Order Paper 266 in case you had any doubt. Their most important priority for Māori in New Zealand and poor Māori in New Zealand especially is to actually start building some homes so that we can reduce poverty and increase health. Yet the Māori Party in its participation in this particular bill rather than helping us to build more homes has dragged out this legislation for 2½ years and it has actually failed to negotiate a bill that would do anything substantial to improve the performance of our land markets and make housing more affordable.Nick Smith said one thing that is right: there were not enough numbers to reform the principles section of the RMA. That means that he could not get any support from the Māori Party to reform the fundamental sections that underpin this Act. He could not get its support to change the way that we do land use regulation in New Zealand. He could not get support to change the abundance of land on which New Zealanders—Māori and Pākehā alike—are allowed to build because he could not find any support in the Māori Party for just about anything other than ensuring that there would be mandatory consultation and iwi participation arrangements or Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—call them what you will. The only support he could find from the Māori Party was from the elites.So thank you Peeni Henare. I finally understand why it is that despite the dearth of talent vis-à-vis Marama Fox six out of seven Māori Party seats are won by the Labour Party which is focused on the needs of urban Māori and the real economic needs rather than the spiritual ones.That is in conclusion a very sad resource management legislation bill but if members are concerned about making it better at this last-ditch attempt—particularly my friend Marama Fox who I know deep down is concerned about making housing more affordable for Māori—then come to Dave's emporium. Come to Dave's emporium where we have Resource Legislation Amendment Bill amendments that will put property rights infrastructure provision and land supply at the forefront of the RMA and will remove the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe provisions which are seriously damaging to the constitutional arrangements in this country. Thank you."