Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes Mr Assistant Speaker. I move That the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This is the second phase of the Government's substantive reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA). It is the largest package of reforms since the original Act was passed 25 years ago. The success of the Government's first phase of reforms is witnessed by projects like the Waterview Connection like the Kapiti Expressway like major roading programmes in Christchurch and like the new power stations that have been able to be consented in a far more crisp way.This bill is particularly focused on addressing the long-term issues around housing. It is a litmus test for parties in this Parliament as to whether they are serious about addressing the long-term issues affecting housing supply and affordability. This Parliament is full of MPs who want the omelette but are not prepared to break the egg. Unless we address the core issue of opening up land supply reducing the time taken to get consents reducing the cost of land subdivision and enabling the construction of infrastructure we are not serious about addressing New Zealand's long-term housing supply and affordability issues.The evidence of the connections between the Resource Management Act and the housing issues are overwhelming. Eighty percent of the real increase in the cost of a home today as compared with 25 years ago is in the price of the section. I point out that the average section was worth $100000 in 1990 in Auckland and the most recent average is $500000. You are not going to build a starter affordable house if the price of the section is that expensive. Here is the further evidence: why is it possible in Christchurch to buy a home of 150 square metres for under $400000 when the same home in Auckland would cost over $700000? The building materials cost in Christchurch is about the same. The cost of labour in Christchurch is about the same. The cost of the consenting process is about the same. The core issue is that the average price of a section in Auckland is $500000 and the price of a section in Christchurch is $190000.In Christchurch we used the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to overrule the RMA and to substantially increase the supply of land and that is why rents have dropped in that city by 8 percent over the last 12 months.Hon Ruth Dyson: Rubbish! That is such a lie.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is why in that city homes are so much more affordable.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will ask Hon Ruth Dyson to withdraw and apologise.Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The core Act that governs the creation of sections is the Resource Management Act. It is not just the Government that is calling for that reform; the New Zealand Institute the Reserve Bank and Treasury are and the Productivity Commission has produced two substantive reports. Similar issues in the UK where house prices are similarly at ratios of eight times those of incomes have been inquired into. The report in the House of Commons in the last couple of weeks—a 400-page report—said exactly the same thing.This is a test of leadership because whether it be the issue of superannuation or RMA reform members of this side of the House and particularly the Prime Minister are prepared to deal with the long-term issues for New Zealand whereas members opposite are far more interested in playing short-term politics. Mr Little and Mr Twyford have acknowledged that tight urban limits have been at the core of New Zealand's housing issues and when we have the very bill before the House that will make a difference they vigorously oppose it and that is a lack of leadership. If Andrew Little was really up to the cut he would take the sort of measure that John Key did on the issue of smacking when Labour was in the Government and be prepared to address these long-term questions.When it comes to the issue of housing these are not new issues. I remind members opposite that house prices doubled under the former Labour Government and homeownership declined in every year that they were in Government. If there was a quick easy fix it would have been done a long time ago. What we need is a systematic long-term reform of the very Act that drives the creation of sections and is at the core of those major issues in New Zealand's housing market.There are 10 very specific amendments in this bill that will make a material difference. The first is that this bill specifically includes a new function and requirement on councils to ensure that they provide a sufficient supply of land for development and for growth. Secondly a key weakness of our current planning system is that it takes so long for plan changes. Auckland has been functioning for the last 20 years on a plan that was drafted in 1993 when its population was 600000 fewer. The streamlined planning provisions in this bill will enable new land to be able to be zoned for housing in a matter of months rather than the many years of the current law.This bill quite specifically removes appeals on resource consents for residential activities where a land has been zoned for housing purposes. That too is a key change in speeding up the process. We have a very confusing regime for developers in that we have councils able to charge both financial contributions under the RMA and development contributions under the Local Government Act. Those two regimes do not make sense. They create uncertainty they can result in double-charging and it is sensible in this reform that we require those two provisions to be integrated.This bill provides for planning standards. It does not make sense that across this country we have over 50 definitions on how you measure the height of a building. We have across this country more than a thousand different categories of zoning of land that makes development a nightmare for those people that are trying to build the buildings for jobs and the buildings for houses. Those planning standards that are provided for in this bill will make a real difference.The changes to the Reserves Act that enable you to be able to integrate the changes to reserves with planning changes in resource consents—there are thousands of homes in which that is exactly the circumstance of which this bill will provide for a better process. You cannot build houses unless you have infrastructure. Right now there are difficulties with the Public Works Act in terms of being able to bring infrastructure on stream and the sensible more generous provisions for those people whose property is required for infrastructure while speeding up the process makes absolute sense.There are the new boundary provisions that enable homes and those issues to be resolved more quickly. There is the issue of fixed fees. There is the issue of having the capacity to be able to even waiver the need for a consent in minor cases.There are far more reforms and bigger reforms. There is the issue of natural hazards that was an act of neglect in it not being including in the original law which was recommended by the Royal Commission and we need only look at a subdivision like Bexley to say that natural hazards should have been at the front end of the decision making in those areas. There are the new collaborative requirements. There are the new provisions in this bill that provide decommissioning plans for those activities in the exclusive economic zone. There are the new provisions requiring the fencing of streams and rivers and lakes in New Zealand so that we might have cleaner waterways.I want to acknowledge the Māori Party. Yes it has advocated strongly for the iwi participation agreements that are in this bill but it is a party that is prepared to deal with the issues that are at the core of housing rather than simply playing politics. I also note the substantive issues in this bill about bringing together the different processes for national direction whether it is a national policy statement whether it is a national environmental standard or whether it is those 360 regulations.There have been cries of foul that this is bill is going to remove the powers for communities to be able to have a say. Here is what I have to say to the Parliament. Why should it after Parliament has regulated and set a standard for earthquake-prone buildings—