Seymour David; Parker DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I think that's a very interesting answer that's well worth getting some more detail from the Minister if indeed he can provide it. We always hold out hope.The Minister has said that introducing the mixed housing suburban standard in lieu of the medium-density residential standard would reduce the anticipated yield of housing by—of additional housing that is—by 31 percent. So you know I'm no mathematical expert but that seems to me that the mixed housing suburban proposal that Simon Court's put up as amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 107 would actually increase housing by 69 percent that's 69 percent additional housing if we get that right. Now of course he might argue that not all of the extra housing we expect will come from this bill. I guess another way he might put it is that he's going to get 69 percent of what he's promised. Then you ask Well what he's promised is actually just a modelled outcome that made an assumption that increasing zoning intensity would yield more floor area ratio at the same rate that the upzoning of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) yielded in 2016." which as we've said many times and the Minister's never answered is a highly questionable assumption.Now I just wonder if the Minister—why he wouldn't be happy with 69 percent increase if it also was more acceptable to neighbours to councils more familiar would actually lead to higher quality urban environments of the type that the Green members referred to? The Hobsonville Point development has some similar features to what this amendment produces such as the 6-metre outlook space outside principle windows. So why wouldn't the Minister want that?Here's the next question for him: what sort of analysis is he relying on when he says that it would only be 69 percent as good as mixed housing urban? What's he relying on there? It's just purely the extrapolation from what happened in the AUP. It's got nothing to do with what might happen in the present time. So if he can explain that then he can explain what cost-benefit analysis he's done with other costs such as shading of neighbours overlooking of neighbours and the undermining of urban design standards that are actually part of the Government's own policies—and part of Kāinga Ora's policies for another thing.Can he explain how the Government chose between the mixed housing urban standard at one level and the mixed housing suburban standard at another level? Because they modelled the increase in housing from both of them so can he explain why he believes that the costs of going to mixed housing urban instead of mixed housing suburban would be greater? And if he can explain why the mixed housing urban zone would be better on a full cost-benefit analysis than the mixed housing suburban zone on a full cost-benefit analysis then perhaps he could explain why he didn't use the mixed housing urban zone? Because if he can explain that then I guess the answer is actually we should amend the bill not to use the medium-density residential zone but the mixed housing urban.But first he's got to explain 31 percent less than what? Is he saying that the mixed housing suburb it'll be 31 percent less than mixed housing urban or less than medium-density residential standards? Once he's explained which one it is what other cost-benefit analysis is he relying on? Just say that actually the mixed housing suburban wouldn't give greater overall benefits including extra housing and better urban amenity for people that want to live in these houses he'd like to see built.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The urban Auckland modelling that the member relies on used a site size of 843 square metres. The sites that are predominant in Auckland are of course much smaller than that on average. The analysis that was done in the bill as was presented to the select committee was based on site sizes of 412 square metres. The additional analysis that the select committee then requested was what would be the effect on the housing provided as modelled when it went into select committee compared with a change to those height-to-boundary rules but still in respect of a 412 square metre site and that analysis was that if the height-to-boundary rules changed to 3 metres and a 45-degree recession plane there would be a substantial unwinding of the intention of this which is to enable the sort of intensification that is already occurring in some parts of cities some parts of Wellington some parts of Auckland but is unable to occur because the choices of landowners are hobbled by restrictive planning rules that do not allow those densities to be built in those areas.I think the language that the National Party uses in respect of this is quite fair and I'm surprised that I haven't heard any of this from the ACT Party. They say that at one level this bill is giving choice to landowners to develop their properties to three storeys with smaller housing units in order to sometimes accommodate an ageing parent or someone who's disabled or just because they want to cut off the back of their section and get a bit of money in retirement whilst enabling someone else to build a house there and live in it. It's not a radical bill; it's an effective bill to address the housing crisis by increasing the opportunities to build houses that have a smaller footprint and a smaller land cost. No one's forced to build them we're just enabling it."