Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): What an exciting day. Here we are under urgency passing all these laws. We get the opportunity to talk about the Urban Development Bill and even to listen to the member who has just spoken so knowledgeably about the housing industry. My first thing I'd say to the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Shane Jones is if this was so important—and I'd just remind him that National actually proposed this during the term of office when we were last in power so that's three years ago. If it was so important why has this bill taken this long to get to the House three years later? So that's the first thing. The first thing is that it has been an absolutely tardy response to something that should have been a long time ago and picked up because National had done the hard work on it. The second thing I'd say to the Minister or the member who has just resumed his seat is that building 400 houses hardly makes a big difference to the 30000-odd houses that are being constructed each year in New Zealand. And the Government's efforts of building 400 houses over the last three years is really not part of the scene. The third thing I would say to him is that if he actually understood the housing sector in New Zealand it is particularly unusual—for a start the top 20 builders normally account for about 25 percent of all new house builds in New Zealand. The New Zealand Government over the long term has only accounted for between 1 and 3 percent and 400 houses over the last three years would put that at the bottom end of that spectrum. And the rest—three-quarters of the houses built in New Zealand—are built by one- two- or three-person building firms. So this should be seen in that context. As I said in many cases around the world urban authorities have worked well and there are a number of examples that people have quoted: Melbourne Sydney Toronto—all those sorts of stuff. Normally they work in the context of big catalytic change big areas that have been subject to absolute change and regeneration in an urban sense. We support the principle. We introduced the concept. But the issue with this bill as it's meandered its way through select committees and then there's some form of ministerial intervention over the last three years to slow it down is that it is a cumbersome bill and it has some issues with it as the New Zealand Law Society and as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—a whole raft of people—have identified. It's just interesting even with setting up the specified development project the role that Kāinga Ora has in it. Virtually every aspect is controlled and initiated by Kāinga Ora. The ability for third parties to be having an input in it is quite limited and I think that is part of the issue with this. The thing is that we've already seen the impact of this. We have seen Kāinga Ora going out and poaching consenting staff—in fact their best consenting staff—out of Auckland Council. This is where Kāinga Ora is going to first start this: they're out there in the market paying up to $15000 more per annum to these people to entice them from Auckland Council across this entity here poaching them and putting the rest of the private sector who is trying to build houses in a worse position because now they're finding it hard to get consenting officers. So these bills need to be seen in the modicum of what's going on. But I'd say this: why has it taken three years for this bill to progress to this point? It's a shame on the Government led by Labour but cohabitated with a number of other parties.