Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can I apologise for the intemperate address from the member for Dunedin North or Dunedin South or whichever one it was—David Parker. He is a little bit intemperate because he got called out at a debate on Saturday morning but I am sure that he will recover soon enough. It was beautiful. Scott Simpson was there. It was great fun. He really lost his rag.Anyway back on the issue at hand I want to respond to some of the comments that the Minister made which really I think could be best summarised as putting lipstick on it and thickly. He was at great pains to stress for instance that there will be a schedule of fees and a simplification of planning templates and measurement techniques as if these reforms noble and perhaps useful as they are are really equivalent to what is needed in Resource Management Act reform; as if these reforms or these amendments are going to be any more effective than the previous 17 times that the Resource Management Act has been amended in its 26-year history.The truth is that the amendments to the Resource Management Act that were proposed by Amy Adams in 2012 and 2013 were far nobler and far more substantial than anything proposed today. Those reforms accepted that the crux of the Resource Management Act is the principles section—Part 2 sections 5 6 and 7. It is those principles that underpin the Act and create so much of the mischief that is an enormous handbrake on the New Zealand economy and in particular upon our housing market. By refusing to reduce the level of requirement and stipulation placed on the councils which are those persons using powers under this Act he has ensured that nothing that is done no amount of lipstick that is put on no amount of attempting to reduce the way that councils impose upon citizens when they try to meet the overly onerous requirements in sections 5 6 and 7 and no amount of tinkering at this point is going to fix the fundamental problem. If there was going to be serious reform of the Resource Management Act it would not start with trying to constrain the way that councils behave while addressing the issues or addressing the requirements placed upon them by the Resource Management Act; it would have been somewhat more substantial.But not only is this reform ineffective it is actually a step backwards. I am at pains to understand why it is that despite having had for almost a year since 13 April in 2016 when Peter Dunne and I went to Prime Minister John Key as he then was and put before him the option of passing this legislation without the Mana Whakahono a Rohe clause or iwi participation arrangements as they were at that time Minister Smith has pushed on and will include arrangements within this legislation that are not just—as he has attempted to sell it—the possibility that it will be easier for councils to know whom they are supposed to consult when it comes to plan making. And they do not just pertain to plan making any more either. They now give iwi in the rohe of a particular council the ability to initiate an iwi participation agreement and an expectation that when planning is done—and perhaps even when consenting is done—there will be within 30 days of a council election a new arrangement initiated between the local iwi and the council.That was the expectation in the iwi participation agreement and now under this new post - select committee version of the bill the expectation is actually that the iwi themselves can initiate—not just expect to have initiated but initiate. So what this means for democracy in New Zealand is that we are going to have a one person one vote election followed by a totally undemocratic arrangement where some of the most important decisions in the community are put under a new arrangement.Marama Fox: It's not undemocratic. It's not undemocratic.DAVID SEYMOUR: Marama Fox is here saying: It's not undemocratic." Well if one person one vote is not democratic then I do not know what it is; if having some people with greater influence over the political process by birth is not undemocratic then the fact of the matter is that I do not know what undemocratic is. This arrangement is absolutely wrong and I know that every backbench National MP and front-bench National MP is getting it in the neck at every single electorate meeting they go to. Scott Simpson is nodding maniacally but he knows it is not true. I know they are getting their email boxes absolutely filled because New Zealanders recognise that this is a substantial departure from our usual constitutional arrangements. It is effectively introducing co-governance to the entire country and that is wrong.I have an amendment to the bill Supplementary Order Paper 266 that would remove all of the clauses in this legislation that establish Mana Whakahono a Rohe. It would remove those clauses for the simple reason that they are wrong. I am very flattered and I look forward to the support of the New Zealand First members who have submitted an almost identical amendment but they have got one of the sections wrong. So if New Zealand First members do pass their amendment they will be amending a section they had no intention of amending. So I recommend to members that if they are inclined to remove Mana Whakahono a Rohe from this legislation they vote for David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper 266 rather than the New Zealand First amendment plagiarised by Denis O'Rourke.But why stop there? I am in total agreement with Denis—oh with David Parker. That was close but let us never get that close. I am in total agreement with David Parker when he says that giving ministerial veto to a particular Minister over the plans of councils when they believe that there is a conflict with other areas of legislation—no matter how noble it may be in the mind of the current Minister if he was a real custodian of New Zealand's laws and traditions he would be thinking "What about the next Minister?" because the people who passed the Economic Stabilisation Act in 1948 did not anticipate Sir Robert Muldoon or the abuse that would go on under him using that legislation.I would put it to the Minister that new section 360D is a major mistake and the last-minute negotiation with the Māori Party dubious as it may be to exclude only some types of crops are far far away from the kind of lawmaking people would like to see in this House. The fact of the matter is that those members have been sold a pup and they actually have not excluded what they think they have excluded but that is why you should not make laws at the last minute just because you got called to account because the National Government was bullied in public to reject the ACT - United Future option. So we need to get rid of these section 360D powers. It is wrong for a Minister to be able to override the law. I have another Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 275 and that amendment will remove the section 360D powers so resented by people around New Zealand.But I have one more Supplementary Order Paper which has been sadly plagiarised by David Parker most recently—most recently. I did not say he was the only person who plagiarised it; he is just the person who has plagiarised it most recently. That particular amendment Supplementary Order Paper 274 which has been on the Order Paper or at least associated with this bill all week—unlike David Parker's johnny-come-lately effort which was tabled at 4.36 p.m. today—would do a number of things. It would remove the rural - urban boundaries which have created a famine of land on which New Zealanders can build houses."