Seymour David: Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill but I start by commending the honourable Minister Nick Smith for bringing a Resource Management Act reform bill to the House. Resource Management Act reform is in my view the No. 1 regulatory priority for this country and do not just take my word for it. As the Minister said it is also the view of the OECD the Productivity Commission Business New Zealand The New Zealand Initiative Federated Farmers and so the list of stakeholders who have observed this issue goes on.Resource Management Act reform is important to New Zealanders and one reason is housing. In the 1960s and 1970s New Zealand built eight to 13 residences per 1000 head of population. This century the period of the Resource Management Act that number is 5.3 residences per 1000 of population. That housing shortage has been directly sheeted home to the land-use planning environment—not just in New Zealand but around the world; that is what the international evidence tells us. The shortage of housing has led to a price bubble that now imperils not only equality and equity for New Zealanders but also the stability of our financial system. And if you doubt that do not ask me ask the Reserve Bank Governor.Sadly this bill is completely disproportionate to the challenge facing New Zealand and the level of Resource Management Act reform that is actually required to get the outcomes that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want. It is not reform; it is tinkering. It fails to stop the culture where councils produce as the Minister mentioned 10-metre high stacks of rules and plans for our communities. The fundamental problem and the reason that we get those high piles is not because we lack a template or we lack enough electronic processing—although of course any Government should be doing those things. The fundamental problem is the principles section: the underlying assumptions of the Resource Management Act which say that there have to be 18 different principles—such as the intrinsic value of ecosystems which nobody can properly define—considered in every single plan.And if you cannot define what you want to have in the plan then it does not matter whether it is the central government setting the template or local councils writing the plan—you still have a planning ethos that puts more value in the ideology of the planning profession and third-party objectors than in the actual owner of the property. Among those principles property rights do not appear once. That is something that the Hon Amy Adams wanted to put in Resource Management Act reform and sadly it has not been able to be included in this bill. Even the idea of competitive consenting which would have been an enormous incentive to improve the quality and speed of consenting could not be included in this bill although that would be a very good improvement. I hope to come back for future readings and be able to vote for some of those characteristics in this bill.But not only does the bill at present not solve the fundamental problems it adds new ones. An ambiguous requirement to accommodate natural hazards will add yet another layer of complexity in the plans and the consenting processes that property owners and businesses in New Zealand face when they try to do things with their own property. The new requirement to universally consult with iwi adds another third party that must be consulted when developing one’s own property. This again is not progress towards people being able to use their property efficiently; it is actually another step backwards. And yet we always say this is a trade-off between the economy and the environment. It is not. Most of the red tape most of the principles and most of the conditions that I resent and would like to reform in this Act are not actually environmental. Most of them are about nebulous principles that have nothing to do with the science of the air water and soil purity; of biodiversity; and of the noise and disturbance to people by their neighbours.We want a country in which our productivity growth puts us in the 10 wealthiest countries in the OECD. We want a country where housing is affordable for all New Zealanders rather than a major threat to our financial stability. If an outside observer was to look at this country they would say: “They must do better at land-use planning.” In particular for some of the poorest people in this country who are Māori and who also have the least access to housing—and is it not a shame to see how the Māori Party has held up this legislation? It is very clear to the people of New Zealand who want substantial Resource Management Act reform in the next Government who they have to vote for. On behalf of the ACT Party I oppose this bill in the hope that in future we will have something better and more substantial to vote for for all New Zealanders. Thank you.