Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Minister Nick Smith when he said that housing affordability is a major problem was absolutely correct and the Minister's diagnosis of that problem—that it is primarily caused by the price of land—is absolutely correct. We have become a country that is 0.80 percent urbanised by area and yet—and yet—has a chronic shortage of land on which Kiwis are allowed to build and as a result chronically expensive sections that are changing—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to sit down. I will let him start again. I should have indicated to the House—because it is on a note in front of me—that this is a split call and only a 5-minute call although there might have been some other arrangement. But just to make it clear of the time the member does not use the rest of the 10 minutes is available to a National Party member.DAVID SEYMOUR: Just to clarify would you like me to start again?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well yes if the member wants to. I mean it is easier to do it that way. I will just—if the member will resume his seat. Actually when it is a split call it is an unusual arrangement. That is the member can speak for as long as he wants to for up to 10 minutes and then the next speaker gets the balance of the time. But it has been indicated to me that there is an expectation on part of the National whips that the member will take only 5 minutes.DAVID SEYMOUR: OK. Right well on that basis Mr Assistant Speaker I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. The Minister when he stood up and identified housing affordability as a major challenge facing this country was absolutely right. Not only that his diagnosis of the problem was absolutely correct: we have a crisis of a lack of land on which Kiwis are allowed to build. We are a country that is 0.80 percent populated by area and yet has found itself with a shortage of land on which Kiwis are able to build. As a result there are sky-high section prices which is the main driver of housing unaffordability which is tearing apart not only the social fabric of New Zealand but is creating major economic liabilities as well.That is the point at which we agree but after that we depart because this 18th amendment of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 26 years will not do nothing for housing affordability it will not do nothing for the supply of land and the building of new dwellings but it will be so close to nothing that the Minister will have wasted 2½ years of his ministerial time and much of this House's time in bringing a bill that is two steps backward for each one step forward.The fundamental problem with the Resource Management Act is that it is a long list of requirements that councils must consider when they take a role under the Act which means that they end up producing ever more complex plans and ever more complex requirements which stifles New Zealanders from using their property. The fundamental problem with the Act is that it does not assume that people can do what they want with their property so long as they are not harming others. It assumes that people can do with their property only what they are allowed to by the Act and by the bureaucrats who act under it. That is why we have a fundamentally underperforming property market. That is why we have a difficulty with housing affordability in New Zealand. But this Act will not address any of that. It will not change any of the underlying principles. All it will do is tinker just like the last 17 amendments to the Resource Management Act.Telling councils that they have to do it faster and that they have to use national planning templates is not going to remove the fundamental problem that they are forced to consider so many ephemeral concerns when they decide what you can do on your own property. Worse than that the introduction of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is actually going to make the RMA worse.I was talking about this on Newstalk ZB last night and I got a phone call just afterwards saying Kia ora David. I'd like to talk to you about your comments on Newstalk ZB." and I said "Oh OK." He said: "You're absolutely correct. These requirements do not only affect Pākehā they affect Māori too." He said to me: "I don't want to have to go cap in hand to my cousin the elite from down the road who has an agreement with the council that puts his rights ahead of mine." Make no mistake: not only does this bill privilege some people over others by birth it introduces an additional layer of bureaucracy to all New Zealanders who wish to use their property.We have reformed our planning laws four times in this country—in 1926 with the Town-planning Act; in 1953 with the Town and Country Planning Act; again in 1977 with the Town and Country Planning Act mark 2; and in 1991 with the Resource Management Act. You will notice that the frequency of updating our planning laws is about every 25 years and if the next Government in New Zealand is serious about allowing people to exercise their property rights use their land and build housing for the next generation then it will not have Nick Smith tinkering on the 18th amendment in a 26-year-old bill. What it will do is introduce as the Productivity Commission has said a brand new total replacement bill that will replace the RMA which has become completely unworkable. That is why the ACT Party proudly opposes this useless amendment. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I would just say to the member that that last sentence had far too many commas in it."