"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022652bd56e147d446b8a741883f06aa3b7\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2016\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228e647b2e197b4a4e9e60e9c25d236b09\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2016\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002224953a970989452ebb92ee07220585fc\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eda5048f26554e458cbefafeffee94d7\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2b84b0d78af4da49db827f62a359df9\u0022\u003EHousing\u2014Affordability and Availability\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u0022667524fff19c463cb03be3c8a17edd9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022667524fff19c463cb03be3c8a17edd9d\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that \u201Cwe are seeing a record number of houses being built\u201D, given the current rate of dwelling consents per 1,000 New Zealanders is less than the average under the previous Labour Government, and less than half the record level?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022601cce03dab242ad863250aced917c70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022601cce03dab242ad863250aced917c70\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E It is relieving to see the member today with his clothes on. And the answer to that question is, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022161ab66be9fb4a99ac59dccb3f0e6b72\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t be jealous, John.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229fc9cac1e9d54ab7a23733a1b10972c7\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I know! I was in awe\u2014shock and awe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289b68abd450c46cbb838c7ebbd79f888\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Now, we will get back to questions for oral answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccb5db204e0b422c8dba9615e5d24d24\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: According to the latest Building Activity Survey from Statistics New Zealand, the amount of residential building work in the 3 months to July was the highest since the series began back in the 1980s. That is up 6 percent on the previous record level, set in March this year. It is an increase of 50 percent since 2013 and an increase of over 90 percent since the start of 2012. As I said previously, building consents have been running at the highest level for over 11 years, and we are looking for them to increase further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221cee09be9ee74833950b5d9b75ad976c\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Will he take responsibility for fewer than 10,000 houses a year being built in Auckland when 13,000 are needed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad80434c372941c39c75204cf4236e13\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number of reasons why house numbers have not met the level that is required. Most of those reasons have been around the metropolitan urban limit restrictions, but also the global financial crisis had a big impact on developers not being in the position to be able to fulfil building plans. The good news is that we are narrowing that gap rapidly, and, under very low interest rates and a strong economy, more and more New Zealanders are buying a home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a5f6e8b2ca046b0a6753c5aec92f288\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Are enough affordable houses being built in New Zealand today; if not, what excuse does he have after 8 long years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286c2f912c3b248109a2215b540f1035b\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: There are a range of houses being built across New Zealand, at a range of different prices. One looks at the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme\u2014around the regions, that is being used by a great many New Zealanders. We think it will benefit over 90,000. But even as of the recent data today, over 30 percent of all sales that took place in Auckland in the last 12 months were at $650,000 or less.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229131342e67a7475b85f54d7bda7f2eb7\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: In light of information out today showing that the average house price in Auckland is now over $1 million, just how serious is he about getting more New Zealanders into an affordable home?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc002705fb90447f94d9c097f5ab56e0\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The honourable member answered that himself when he noted the big increase in the number of properties being built under the National-led Government. Yes, it is less than what is probably required, but we are getting very close to getting that number delivered each year. If one looks at the Government\u2019s comprehensive plan, it is everything from releasing public land to extra people being trained in the sector. We are in the biggest building boom we have seen, and this is the largest number of people ever employed in the construction sector. There are more houses to be built, but this Government is helping to assist those houses to be built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228643889d25f14b5b8cb50f7052088d8f\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: What excuses does he make to Aucklander JP van der Westhuizen, who says: \u201CMy wife and I have got good jobs and earn decent money, especially for our age. \u2026 It\u2019s a vicious cycle, rent is so high that you can\u2019t save. The whole DIY Kiwi dream is becoming more and more unachievable. It\u2019s pretty ridiculous.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227c6424ac5844b0ab5e275617bbbf129\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: That would not be borne out by the number of people who are using KiwiSaver HomeStart, which is for first-home buyers. Secondly, what is happening is that, of course, you do have house prices going up in both Auckland and generally around New Zealand, but that is fuelled by extremely low interest rates and also a very buoyant economy. We have one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world, the second-highest employment rate in the world, and one of the lowest unemployment rates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d483180624d94c9c964bba05001f48ac\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that the reason 10,000 Kiwi kids under 15 are now homeless is that he and his Government have failed to fix the housing crisis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212d986d2188a4994b52c0136c88b8799\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I do not accept the premise of the member\u2019s question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2971ffff1d5445aa9fa13c2b7ff4fe8\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a table that shows the result of the Otago University research, showing that 10,000 children under 15 are now homeless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f884bce3e7004a2981d27888471566ff\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Can I just understand\u2014the source of the document is an Otago University research document?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3233f00586f488184b908fa9f3b1fa6\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: That is correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d733d9125b974beb888f1a7aaf46554e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And has it been publicly released by the university?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a30f6a2b79874a65b5ab378729a5df5a\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: I am not aware of how it has been published, because I have got only a hard copy at this point. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2cd2e7500c444778004e4d52d890976\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I would advise members in the future that they will be asked that question and I will expect them to be ready. But on the basis that it has not been checked, leave has been sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f400e038d84401da12dc8c466553e61\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Will any of the excuses he has offered today help a single family buy their first home or help even one homeless child into a warm, safe home tonight?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f51c120de32d44f5864212ddeac92252\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the number of houses being built both in Auckland and around New Zealand has been dramatically increasing in the time since I have been Prime Minister, from 10 a day to well over 40 a day. Just today the Government announced that there will be an additional $24 million going to support community housing providers. There was $50 million allocated in the Budget for emergency support. This is the Government that raised benefits for the first time in 43 years. This is the Government that also allocates over $2 billion a year to accommodation supplements and the like. I think the argument saying that we are not doing anything to help less-well-off New Zealanders simply does not hold water.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002227f17f2c9e864bedbbbc16424fb4428b\u0022\u003EImmigration\u2014Student Fraud and Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e00309f821f74773bc502f238db43c5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e00309f821f74773bc502f238db43c5e\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00222f74e751118947a195b6ee6462ac415f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222f74e751118947a195b6ee6462ac415f\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3d86b40a41f40da9bb6a4eac18b5a7e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: When he said\u2014and I quote him\u2014\u201CI think New Zealand is a far better and richer country for having migration the way that we do.\u201D, why did he ignore the widespread immigration fraud in the Indian student market, which is now reaching into hundreds and even thousands of people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e396bf4d36734f62a24115efe48421c4\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: New Zealand is a better country for migration, and I can think of many examples. I can think of an Indian person who came to New Zealand 44 years ago, set up a business, employed 200 people, and, from time to time, made donations\u2014forgettable or not\u2014to political parties that they thought about. That is all as a result of migration, funnily enough, from India. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254e6db1076b94d76b532f5eeb24cdbf1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The House on my right-hand side will settle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022740418bf03584e08b29f2c4c44d93766\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How sane is an immigrant who would offer $20,000 to have breakfast with him and\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac0d207fd874e73834296590dc990e3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Again, I am asking, for a second time, for a little more respect from my right-hand corner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3b8f7e1540e4bb59f25baad45df6f7b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is he aware of Operation Silver Needle by Immigration New Zealand in Mumbai in November 2014, which found that 90 percent of the applicants were not bona fide and that such organised fraud continues to tarnish our export education reputation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cc69d78135d4bce9659ef4e5ae9d24d\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: In answer to the first part of the question, very. And in answer to the second part of the question, no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235d5c27e9d9143a9a0d574f50a0a0bd4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why did he say that his Government is \u201Cworking for all New Zealanders\u201D when we currently have 15,000 unemployed New Zealand labourers whilst his Government approved work visas for 6,500 foreign labourers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6573d134b9b4a7eb79c06b73c9f0fb6\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Most of that is because of mismatch of labour, so it is required in one part of the country and people are located in the other, or\u2014as I said yesterday on Morning Report\u2014people have a variety of reasons, from being unable to pass a drugs test, or a variety of other factors. So of course Work and Income does everything it can to get people in work, and one of the major changes this Government made was to re-face, if you like, the way Work and Income operates to get rid of the old dole and to replace it with job seeker support, and that has been highly effective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022170fc7eaff994df2b30cb96406383bd2\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How is his Government working for all New Zealanders when his Government has approved dog handlers and dance teachers and over 10,000 chefs\u2014more than the restaurants we have got in this country\u2014as skilled migrants whilst we have 70,000 New Zealand youth not in employment, education, or training?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ce04a4da4504ef38725305a28a5a4e8\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: There is nothing wrong with bringing in chefs, particularly if they are Indian. For some people, it can be very lucrative.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227b5e31b625ec4065aac251e6a36f2de9\u0022\u003ESupport for Families\u2014Tax Redistribution and Other Support\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022 data-id=\u0022a218202f3c774b3ea20bf48a0b9b4027\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a218202f3c774b3ea20bf48a0b9b4027\u0022\u003EDr SHANE RETI (National\u2014Whangarei)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: How is redistribution through the income tax and income support systems helping support New Zealand families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022d5883984c5ba41ad9d139232c6f3f083\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d5883984c5ba41ad9d139232c6f3f083\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Tax and income support is a significant source of income redistribution in the economy, more so following tax changes made in 2010. Treasury has updated its estimates for tax collection for the 2016-17 year. It now expects households earning over $140,000\u2014that is, the top 20 percent of household incomes\u2014will pay 55 percent of all income tax. The top 10 percent of households are expected to pay 37.2 percent of income tax this year, which is up from 35.5 percent when this Government took office in 2008. Families in lower-income households are paying a smaller proportion of tax. The 20 percent of households with the lowest income are expected to pay just 2.8 percent of income tax this year, compared with 3.4 percent in 2008.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c90eeeb7b65544e5b5e4708123a18519\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: What other evidence has he seen showing the tax and income support systems are more progressive today than in 2008?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b43af959ee0241359f14dcb5af2b8aca\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: Treasury has also undertaken an analysis of the net tax paid by households\u2014that is income tax paid, less than the amount received in benefits, superannuation, and Working for Families. This shows the 30 percent of households with the lowest incomes will pay $1.7 billion of income tax, but this is more than offset by the $10.6 billion they are expected to receive in income support. Treasury estimates that 42 percent of households will pay no net income tax\u2014that is, they will pay less in tax than they receive in welfare benefits, Working for Families, New Zealand superannuation, or accommodation subsidies. This compares with 39 percent in 2007-08, when this Government took office. That suggests tax and income support systems are more progressive today than they were in 2008.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd4a056ca9634f19ac1a818311042114\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen any reports of the National Party campaigning to make the tax and transfer system\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230c1d5f188db4868bfb90931dcd889f0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! No, that question is not in order. There is no ministerial responsibility at all for a political party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ff36d4e0a6f4f89a13a31c1969e9faa\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: What steps has the Government taken to help New Zealand families get ahead?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ecfe92cf2144772a5bd03202b4c49d3\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: The economy remains front and centre of the Government\u2019s busy programme, which, of course, includes the Business Growth Agenda, which is helping to create more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders. We are seeing results. New Zealand currently has the second-highest employment rate in the developed world\u2014that is the second-highest. Of every 100 people aged 16 and over, 66 are in work. That compares with 61 in Australia and Canada, 60 in the UK and the US, and 56 across the OECD as a whole. This is, in part, due to the 250,000 jobs that have been added to the economy over the last 3 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221accb1078b9a4986b1f66bb0b16178c9\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: What steps has the Government taken to support lower-income families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221efd375d684e4887aeca2134e43abe21\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: On 1 April this year the Government increased benefits for families with children by $25 a week. It is the first real increase since 1972. We also increased Working for Families payments to very low-income working families by $24.50 a week and to other working families by up to $12.50 a week, and we increased childcare assistance for low-income working families. On top of this, the Government has introduced free GP visits and prescriptions for under-13s, breakfasts in all schools that want it, social workers in all low-decile primary schools, the Youth Service for young teen beneficiaries, insulation in every State house that can be insulated, rheumatic fever prevention, Wh\u0101nau Ora, and now the establishment of a new ministry to support vulnerable children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbc11b760e4f4092837981f3bccadd89\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Which of the following achievements of his Government is helping to support New Zealand families the most: homelessness being the worst in living memory, according to the Salvation Army; 10 percent of New Zealanders owning 60 percent of the wealth, according to Statistics New Zealand, up from 55 percent; or his own admission that incomes are dropping despite GDP growth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228452a64289442d79c2fb334a3e8a57d\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: I would contest at least two of the member\u2019s statements there, if not all three. But in terms of the things this Government is most proud of, it is creating the climate, the job opportunities, and investment in job growth throughout New Zealand that is lifting employment\u2014something like 325,000 jobs now since the global financial crisis\u2014which is bringing Kiwis into work, which is raising their wages ahead of inflation, which means that more and more New Zealanders want to return home from other parts of the world, where they fled during the previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225039fe34f1ae481fa40bf4a238061a99\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: In light of his answers to the primary and first supplementary questions, expressing confidence in the progressivity of the tax system, is he ruling out tax cuts being proposed by his Government before the next election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc6f24e9849f40e2882a84c0cbad8fac\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not ruling anything out today, but I can tell the member that if the Government was in a position to improve the position of income taxes for New Zealanders, we would be looking to do it for all hard-working New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f171489d26524f62bcf3d11c7d9412b5\u0022\u003EState and Social Housing\u2014Homelessness and Availability\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022397223154e9749498aff6eb23feb8416\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022397223154e9749498aff6eb23feb8416\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by her statement in relation to homelessness that \u201Cwe\u2019ve got a demand and supply problem which we\u2019ve been tackling for the last two years\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022 data-id=\u0022a95b1351a8e14d44bdf1f40e65c56413\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a95b1351a8e14d44bdf1f40e65c56413\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ced58f1c3e64879a0ffe459ae36d205\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: How well is that going when the average Auckland house price has now reached $1 million, average Auckland rents have gone up $3,500 in the last 2 years, and social agencies say that they have never seen homelessness this bad?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201f4f32d39344d6cb56274958d266605\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what we have got is a comprehensive work plan where we saw more than $40 million of new money going into emergency housing providers alone; another $3 million that we have made announcements on in respect of the Housing First policy, which will be rolled out in west, central, and south Auckland; and another $9 million that is going into Better Housing Outcomes, where we are seeing tenants who are in both private rentals and Housing New Zealand, in particular, who are being evicted\u2014and so we are trying to get in earlier to ensure that they are not. There is the Housing New Zealand supply pipeline, where we see more Housing New Zealand homes in Auckland than we have had in the last 9 years\u2014we have seen the number in Auckland increase. We are also seeing the announcement, like today, where we are seeing that community housing provider also increasing the supply that it has got.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2b71846284740d195dc81085eceb944\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with the Salvation Army, which says that the Government has deliberately left thousands of State houses empty to justify selling them off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8013ed8bf074f7dadca94c66ad89dbb\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not\u2014not at all. What we are seeing is a massive rebuild programme that is going on, not just in Auckland but throughout the country, where you can see examples of three Housing New Zealand houses being knocked down and then 13 being built on that same site. So we are seeing more houses being built. We are also doing a complete analysis of the pending sales throughout New Zealand, alongside the housing register that is going up in different places. So anywhere with over 100 applicants on the waiting list, or an increase of up to 40 to 50 percent, then we are looking at it to make sure that we have got the right synergies there as far as getting houses to the people who need them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e202a4f56d6f4805bbc841e88a1ac082\u0022\u003EDr Parmjeet Parmar\u003C/span\u003E: How will the $24.4 million in new funding for community housing providers that she announced today help to increase the supply of social housing in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebcfcec6fff24ee6910dd20b301d0f0b\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Growing the role of community providers is a vital part of that comprehensive plan for social housing in particular. We have had the Social Housing Fund, which was very successful; the shoe fund; and today we announced another $24.4 million on top of the $120 million that was in this year\u2019s Budget. That means that we will be able to give a grant of up to 50 percent for new builds and, also, an additional 50 percent on top of the market rent for those who might be leasing. It will make a huge difference in getting some of those deals over the line. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208413022b49b4b4d93bf7b2399416cbb\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Why is she wasting time quibbling with her own Government\u2019s official definition of homelessness, which was developed by the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, and Statistics New Zealand and has now been adopted internationally\u2014or are they all wrong and only she is right?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223204cab8913c4084a95a75f6d4def162\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: To be frank, I do not spend a lot of time on that. Every day I am focused on getting more beds available for the New Zealanders who need them. That has been the key focus of this Government. We can see that supply coming through. We can see an increase in the number of emergency housing beds. In fact, right now we have got a deal out there in purchasing a motel for more emergency beds in Auckland as well as another whole lot of initiatives, including looking at community group houses. We are actually making sure that we are going to be looking at putting others into that as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c1c528ec10b40e9a2a73c56c407a0da\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Does she believe that 69-year-old Lynette Haines of Tauranga, who is renting a temporary cabin in a motor camp because she cannot find any affordable housing, should be regarded as homeless, or does she think that you are homeless only if people are stepping over you in the street?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1d32955fd884d8397fea0ce45d5ce47\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know those circumstances for that particular woman and, as such, where it would be. It is irrelevant. What she actually needs is a permanent home where she can get that kind of access. That is what I am concentrating on and that is what we are making progress on, on this side. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227ccd606b80774fea944d1288fe58c745\u0022\u003ERoad Safety\u2014Safer Roads and Roadsides\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00227b9f53e81a3842c4ab64a51c27416194\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b9f53e81a3842c4ab64a51c27416194\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (National\u2014Taranaki - King Country)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on the Government\u2019s recently announced $600 million Safer Roads and Roadsides Programme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022 data-id=\u00225847895d8cb24fcbba5bb2ffc6126c73\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225847895d8cb24fcbba5bb2ffc6126c73\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Alongside the local member of Parliament Barbara Kuriger, it was my pleasure recently to open the first of the Government\u2019s $600 million of Safer Roads and Roadsides projects. Changes to the high-risk section of State Highway 37 in Waitomo include side barriers to stop drivers running off the road, improved signage and road markings, and sections of the highway have been widened so that drivers who do lose control on corners have more time to recover. These improvements will make it a road more forgiving of human error, helping to reduce the amount of crashes in the first place and limiting the severity of the impact if they do occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e759ddd1a0954432870111463311e04b\u0022\u003EBarbara Kuriger\u003C/span\u003E: What other projects can road users expect to see the Government deliver in Taranaki - King Country as part of the Government\u2019s $600 million Safer Roads and Roadsides programme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7ad43d960184e82990179d61272202d\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: All up, the Government is investing $23 million in six safety projects on rural State Highways 3, 23, and 37 in the Taranaki - King Country area in an effort to reduce serious injury and fatal accidents. The range of improvements to some of the country\u2019s most dangerous stretches of rural road will be a mix of roadside and median barriers, widening centre lines, road widening, improved signage, road markings, and rumble strips. All of these actions will reduce the risk of head-on and run-off-road crashes in Taranaki - King Country and are an important part of the Government\u2019s significant step up in road safety investment to reduce death and serious-injury crashes on New Zealand\u2019s rural roads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c466ca522d5410a9525b171e41fde8f\u0022\u003EHomelessness\u2014Government Response\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022 data-id=\u00227442883307fa46e587a40e7af5cb5547\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227442883307fa46e587a40e7af5cb5547\u0022\u003EJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s policies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u0022955b8e0b79234ac9b1491f885a8a446f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022955b8e0b79234ac9b1491f885a8a446f\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ed8cd8678af4809bc7c218169897ed9\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Does he still feel that his Government\u2019s policies are giving all New Zealanders a brighter future when even his own Minister for Social Housing yesterday admitted that homelessness had got worse on its watch? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b890d007ecaf49ad990ed62cdcdbb737\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: For the most part, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b44e6eebbdc14286ad97030cd741cd6b\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: What proportion of the 42,000 people living in severe housing deprivation will be housed as a result of the $24.4 million package announced today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a2ed6cb639264cddb48affbf6f1d4aea\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The member would need to direct that question to the Minister for Social Housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d748012951b74222a51d615baf5998e9\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Is he honestly saying that on the day that the Government announced $24.4 million worth of expenditure, he has no idea what the specific outcomes of that expenditure are going to be?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac5aac5b3cf2416b85ec2340a8f5714a\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: What I am saying is that I do not wing things, because if I do the member will put in a breach of privilege claim, and if he wants an answer to a detailed question like that he should direct it to the appropriate Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225993e860c3864c41813c5c652fded04e\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by all of his Government\u2019s policies, when sociologist Kay Saville-Smith said at the homelessness inquiry yesterday that in the 30 years that she has worked in homelessness in New Zealand she has \u201Cnever seen a situation like this.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223fe3d601e87145e5b537cbf1ab993abc\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I think she will take confidence, then, in the announcement made by Minister today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229309055c9cbc469aa2ac0e812e333f94\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: When does his Government believe that the number of people living on the streets and in cars and in garages will actually start to decrease?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253856cbcf0664f18aa4ba23e77537385\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot give the member an exact date, but with the work programme I have seen from the Minister I am confident that will be the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c0fe6160a1e47e4b5a2dbf116273768\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Just to clarify, is he really saying that he cannot tell New Zealanders when his so-called comprehensive plan on housing will actually start to work?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0bc8195639d44429e33956633940a1c\u0022\u003ERt Hon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It has already started to work, and that is witnessed by the fact that we are in the biggest construction boom that we have seen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002255c177c1caed461ca6e309ad70815581\u0022\u003EPolice\u2014Radio Networks\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf933c9135d24ca2b465679869fc5cd3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf933c9135d24ca2b465679869fc5cd3\u0022\u003ERON MARK (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022006f8ce5e6ad4d4cbc2e1ce347a3ac28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022006f8ce5e6ad4d4cbc2e1ce347a3ac28\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that the New Zealand Police are the finest in the world, and I am so proud of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dbcca4155f14364930d9bea77e146bd\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: Does she stand by her statement in 2010 that her Government \u201Chas continued to invest in staff and equipment that reflect international best practice\u201D, with reference to the proposed roll-out of new digital radios?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8030e9331134596b692036b45320bf9\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: It was an awfully long time ago, but I am sure I do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eac70402871c47429a9c64fd1fe53154\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: Why, then, if the police secure digital radio network reflects \u201Cbest practice\u201D, are regions outside of the main metropolitan centres still relying on the unencrypted analogue radio network that is being monitored and listened into by criminals?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9845c49357e45eba7b0f4dc27ebca1e\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: There have been a few developments in those 6 years. One of them is that the police now have iPhones. There is cellular network work that is going on with Vodafone to make sure that they are able to be accessed all round the country, and so there is some work going on there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227bbf2a0f5f16447eb98baec84c0fe3fa\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: In response to that answer, accepting that cellphone coverage is still not throughout rural New Zealand, why did police Minister Anne Tolley, in 2013, scrap plans to extend the secure digital radio network for police into rural and provincial New Zealand, reversing your commitment\u2014yours, the Minister\u2019s\u2014in November 2010 that that would happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1c470cd42d44350a46d5155aa603112\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: As much as I would like to be responsible for all the things that everyone has ever done, the fact is that I cannot be responsible for what a Minister has done, two Ministers back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c0cb1139ed14cb883468150de761e25\u0022\u003ERon Mark\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of her Government, could she tell the House how front-line police in provincial New Zealand are supposed to improve burglary resolution rates and prevent crime, while criminals using cheap scanners are able to listen to their unencrypted analogue radio network, allowing them to plan and execute crimes and then make good their escapes before the police arrive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297f4f9ef44b84a5a852bfb15966abe4f\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I think I explained to the member that police are working with their partner Vodafone on actually dealing with this issue around cellphone coverage in rural New Zealand, and there is a plan that is operating at the moment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af06c1e890b14811b907da81a4c41f71\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I let it go at the time, but the Minister got up and said that she is not responsible for previous Ministers. Well, as part of her administration, frankly, there have been Speakers\u2019 rulings that she is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0f9aaee06ee4082aef2e5dbdd299e44\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think when you consider the question, which was why did a particular Minister scrap a programme, etc., and considering the very nature of the primary question that was asked, the question that was then answered is in accordance with the Standing Orders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002297d2ea14ea2a4f1a840c0ddefa1a70d9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I have some clarification, then. Are you saying, then, that a statement from the Minister that she is not responsible for previous Ministers is, in fact, now a change in the order of this House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273cfe6045a4145f38b6cc1e8a2f18307\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that when I considered the question that was asked and then the answer that was given, particularly in light of Speaker\u2019s rulings 191/3 and 191/4, the answer that was given was completely in line with the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221610d1ff4b104e07bef8d0a16492c752\u0022\u003ESchools\u2014Communities of Learning\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022 data-id=\u0022272d5047238b4c229691c1ff2ef83024\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022272d5047238b4c229691c1ff2ef83024\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding Communities of Learning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226e1ead03-bf7f-496a-a02f-ce52859c58c1\u0022 data-id=\u0022e024d12a5e344835869ddb7c56e3f261\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ead03-bf7f-496a-a02f-ce52859c58c1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e024d12a5e344835869ddb7c56e3f261\u0022\u003EHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to announce this morning that more than half of New Zealand schools are now working together in 148 communities of learning (COL). This means that to date, more than 1,260 schools and 18 early learning services have now formed communities of learning, supporting more than 410,000 kids. Twenty-six COLs have set their education achievement challenges, and 30 new community of learning leaders have now been appointed. In addition, almost 400 teachers have been appointed to new roles within their communities. I want to acknowledge all the schools and early learning services that have committed to work together to lift the achievement of all their students.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3918e8226ac41778ebaaccb3882255d\u0022\u003EStuart Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How do communities of learning support achievement for our young people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ead03-bf7f-496a-a02f-ce52859c58c1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299111a2eafd14984a2969c9124058fdf\u0022\u003EHon HEKIA PARATA\u003C/span\u003E: Research and the direct experience of parents show that within schools, the quality of teaching has the biggest influence on whether students will be successful. The communities of learning, resourced through the Government\u2019s $359 million Investing in Educational Success initiative, received additional resources to enable teachers and principals to systematically share their expertise to raise all student achievement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c413e17a8b114afa979b1b10b10d46d1\u0022\u003ESaudi Arabia\u2014Legal Advice and Auditor-General\u2019s Inquiry\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00221fee73a66db54bc3bb662a1286b60b31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221fee73a66db54bc3bb662a1286b60b31\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Can I seek leave, please, to hold this question over until a day when the Minister is present?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002241e9391008884efea6b382fe06243560\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241e9391008884efea6b382fe06243560\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will put the leave, and then the House will decide. Leave is sought to hold question No. 9 over to another day. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00225bba94157c914354842f8f23bec41296\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225bba94157c914354842f8f23bec41296\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his statements in this House regarding a $4 million payment to a Saudi Arabian businessman that \u201Cthe New Zealand Government was also exposed to a legal claim for up to $30 million\u201D and, when asked for an example of a similar payment, \u201CI cannot point to any such example\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022 data-id=\u00222b2b5961bedf401b9cc9cb0699683bbd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b2b5961bedf401b9cc9cb0699683bbd\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, when the quotes in the member\u2019s question are considered as part of a full response that was provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022701bf4505be64c459f721639c9ceac1a\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: When he said the Government was exposed to a legal claim, had he been provided any legal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to that effect or to the effect that a legitimate cause of action existed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022268d2aa0356348d9870ed9b9cb46744a\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister would have had access to an analysis of legal risk\u2014because that is what we are talking about: a legal risk, not a claim that had been formulated. And when one is dealing with legal risk, one has to take into account a number of factors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5d4e495bb3f43a9afb90df74bfe3db3\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Minister resisted, for over a year, disclosing whether any relevant legal advice did in fact exist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cc981a12d924c07b37104d361625983\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: Ultimately, I would have thought that the fact of legal advice and its contents were matters for the Attorney-General to determine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a0ed358349949abad2ee22ab26e6dac\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took that to be a claim that legal professional privilege questions are for the Attorney-General. That is not what is at issue here. It is not what the advice was; it is whether any advice existed. I think the Minister should be asked to answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022777ce91186294e0b82baf6c5c7fd868d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. I think that on this occasion the Minister has answered it\u2014clearly, not to the member\u2019s satisfaction. But the essence of the question, as to why the Minister resisted disclosure, the Minister certainly answered that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248d51bd8ba5d430db4ba7f124c64e45d\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Did any such legal advice exist?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f15325928bc429a847f796fee98edc6\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: I have not actually seen any legal advice, because I am holding the fort, as it were. But the point is that there was an assessment by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade dealing with a range of matters, and, ultimately, it was a risk assessment that needed to be determined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab1caa834a3a4d48af6ff6ce3d82bba4\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Has anyone in MFAT, including the Minister, been provided with any part of the Auditor-General\u2019s draft report on her inquiry, over a year long, into the Saudi sheep deal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f43c3a3e32204c67885b8a13bf72fcf7\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: The member in his question seems to be suggesting that the Auditor-General is taking an unduly lengthy period of time to determine this matter. The member should know, because he is an experienced member in this House, that the Auditor-General is an independent officer. She will conduct an inquiry, and then a draft report will be given to those who are affected, to enable them to comment so that natural justice questions are determined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8f1a4cf68dd451f8ca1df2c2ecdc88c\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The essence of that question\u2014and there were not two parts to it\u2014was whether anyone in the ministry had been provided with a draft of the Auditor-General\u2019s report. I do not see why the Minister cannot address that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226584f6edd2724f1f8d86d172fd04a972\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The difficulty is that the question then included a comment from the questioner that the Auditor-General had commenced this inquiry \u201Cover a year ago\u201D\u2014I think were the words the member used. [Interruption] Order! The Minister took the opportunity to respond to that part of the question. If I can have more concise questions, I think it helps the House deliver the answer. On this occasion I will allow the member an additional question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296de9717905c4aa29fc0215ca6d4ef7b\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered the question I asked or even addressed it. The point as to the length of the report was not a question about whether it was a year long; it is an undisputed fact that it is. The question was\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6f6e84e80a14295b4cc600444a0e8b0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! If the member would only refer to Standing Order 380, it states that supplementary questions need to be concise. The member himself put in a qualification about the length of time taken for the report. That gave the Minister the opportunity to then latch on to that part of the question. If it was not there, it would not have been able to be mentioned. To advance the cause, I have given the member an extra question. I would advise him to use it, otherwise we will move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb519b5268d14974ae2ca652e2993452\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had not heard that when I took that point of order, I am sorry. Has anyone in MFAT, including the Minister, been provided with any part of the Auditor-General\u2019s draft report on her inquiry into the Saudi sheep deal?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b3ee27b44f84f50bc38af922b92102d\u0022\u003EHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know. However, in order to try to be helpful to the member, I did outline the standard procedure that would be undertaken by the Auditor-General making an inquiry along these lines.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222fac1e8aedad4fe1958f8391431e6a2b\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to consider whether that is an acceptable answer, given that when Ministers are answering on behalf of other Ministers they are expected to be able to answer reasonable questions from the Opposition. I think that in the context of this controversy, that is the sort of question I would expect the Minister should have prepared for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9ba74c9090e48e497300809848868dd\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e58f708f4ba1413296f37131c8cc5e60\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I think that when you do consider this, as I am sure you will, you will reflect on the comment made previously by the Minister answering the question that did outline the process, which makes it abundantly clear that the Minister answering the question today could not know that answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246025e49429c4ae79ca70babf0031e5a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think the important thing is that the Minister is acting on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was asked whether the draft report had been presented to MFAT and/or to the Minister. The Minister, acting on behalf, took the position that was clearly his honest view: he does not know. That is an answer given. I would certainly prefer that answer to one that then led to a discussion later about whether we had had somebody misleading the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f44a5346a6d24e6b9d110fca92256c76\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7 to Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229dc203b3-21b0-4d4a-a530-746504e05f20\u0022 data-id=\u00221f705978c38547c68ca12a5c56f840a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229dc203b3-21b0-4d4a-a530-746504e05f20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221f705978c38547c68ca12a5c56f840a2\u0022\u003ERICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wanting to question your previous ruling on the matter of ministerial responsibility\u2014and you reference Speaker\u2019s rulings 191/3 and 191/4, which relate to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6d2b26ec76c486ca4dc0b2a2d3d5d5d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Can we just have this a bit more clearly\u2014speak into the microphone. Perhaps if we have the Speaker\u2019s rulings the member wants to refer to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229dc203b3-21b0-4d4a-a530-746504e05f20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b14c5f20ac0b47f78b9345ad426dc6a1\u0022\u003ERICHARD PROSSER\u003C/span\u003E: They are Speaker\u2019s rulings 191/3 and 191/4, which you referenced in response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters\u2019 point of order regarding ministerial responsibility and the questioning between Ron Mark and the Minister of Police. Those points do relate to a Minister not necessarily having knowledge of what went on prior to their taking up that office, which is fair enough. But I believe that the Rt Hon Winston Peters\u2019 point of order was to do with responsibility itself, and Speaker\u2019s ruling 170/5 by Speaker Smith says \u201CJust because a Minister may not have been present at the time does not relieve a Minister of being answerable for what took place.\u201D, referencing that a Minister was asked about a decision that occurred in his portfolio before he became a Minister. I am curious\u2014even given the circumstances, the fact that the Minister may not have had knowledge does not relieve her of that responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002236c4c2a6d316429e9aa65828505f6fa5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236c4c2a6d316429e9aa65828505f6fa5\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will have a look at the points the member has raised, and, if necessary, I will come back to him, if I decide to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002226223306665843c2a1eb3af7f4cf370a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226223306665843c2a1eb3af7f4cf370a\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been reluctant to raise it because I always worry that someone is going to say that it is just me who cannot hear things, but it does appear that the sound system in here is rather quiet today. Certainly it was earlier, when members were asking questions over there, and when you spoke just a few seconds ago it was also very, very quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022cf05e82ce5ed42f09889e2d1cc9e767d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cf05e82ce5ed42f09889e2d1cc9e767d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will certainly make sure that we have a look at the sound system immediately, and I thank the member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002289fca787056c4e7a8813123e98338e37\u0022\u003EBuilding and Construction Industry, Auckland\u2014Growth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022 data-id=\u00222b9ca63b63524a18ad7edf0666c92b80\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b9ca63b63524a18ad7edf0666c92b80\u0022\u003EKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm reports that building activity in Auckland grew by 32 percent in the last year to $6.9 billion and how does this compare historically in inflation-adjusted terms with previous highs in construction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00225471f05f56fb4280b07d6923e6d73b30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225471f05f56fb4280b07d6923e6d73b30\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. Statistics New Zealand reported that annual building activity in Auckland grew by 32 percent in the year to July and is now at the highest level ever. This is the fifth straight year of growth. Residential construction activity in Auckland has been growing at 25 percent compound since 2012, and activity is now more than three times that when National came to Government. The current $6.9 billion per year compares with $3.8 billion at the last peak, back in 2004. In inflation-adjusted terms the current level of activity is 43 percent higher\u201443 percent higher\u2014than the highest level in the last 25 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4d48e93fcb542439c77586a0398eabf\u0022\u003EKanwaljit Singh Bakshi\u003C/span\u003E: How does the current boom in building activity compare with that in 2004?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277858c7d60d743819bad91acd6f4c025\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The first difference I noted is that it is 40 percent higher in real-value terms. The second difference in today\u2019s building boom is much broader. It is not just residential activity; it includes record levels of commercial, industrial, and public infrastructure buildings like schools and hospitals. The third difference is that the number of dwellings built in 2004 was boosted by 5,000 apartments, many of which were as small as 30 square metres and in the next year were banned. [Interruption] The final difference, even if I use the numbers in 1974 or the numbers in 2004, is that it was only a boom for a year or two. We have had 5 straight years of growth of over 25 percent and are projected to achieve over 13,000 homes per year in the next 3 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f552cfb6f0d47cba8e807c2f930677c\u0022\u003EKanwaljit Singh Bakshi\u003C/span\u003E: What proportion of new building consents were in special housing areas in each of the last 3 years, and what impact would it have had on growth if they had not existed? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224886d5312879478c9096d748b6189955\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The number of building consents in special housing areas made up 6 percent of consents in 2013, 9 percent in 2014, and 14 percent in the last year. This growing pipeline reflects the time it takes from an area being zoned residential to getting the resource consents, getting the infrastructure built, and then getting the houses consented. The Auckland Council projects that over the next 10 years, 50 percent, or 45,000 homes, will be in those special housing areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b680e93182e41c683f222677b83cde0\u0022\u003EFreshwater Management\u2014Farming Practices and Water Quality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022 data-id=\u002284ab4125ca364d87b7eeb9de93818c74\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002284ab4125ca364d87b7eeb9de93818c74\u0022\u003EEUGENIE SAGE (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied that the Resource Management Act 1991 is protecting rivers and groundwater from pollution; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00227623bd11cba843adb4100b8924e89e42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227623bd11cba843adb4100b8924e89e42\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E As I said in my Lincoln University lecture last week, the Resource Management Act (RMA) is generally working well in cleaning up point-source pollution\u2014the likes of town sewerage systems, dairy sheds, and factories\u2014but is not working well enough in the area of dealing with diffuse pollution, such as runoff from farms, as well as in urban environments. That is why the focus of the Government\u2019s freshwater reforms, including the national policy statement, the stock exclusion rules, the clean-up funds, and the implementing of good management practice are very much focused on that new challenge around diffuse pollution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228707e8578bdf4e68afc9aafcf7107539\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: Is it acceptable that the Hawke\u2019s Bay Regional Council allows intensive feedlots like this, with no need for a resource consent and no monitoring, given the amount of pollution that rain can flush into the Tukituki River and groundwater from land uses like this, in this style of farming?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022708d044b4e5f4afa9a529bf36b709121\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I would caution the member against connecting the difficulties in Havelock North directly with intensive farming, in that, actually, that area has a far lower level of intensive farming as compared with other areas\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b2c563c22f9a4dbc93c0fc820bf41737\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002293024fd13145429ba7bd536844c1fd7a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and, secondly, I would note the data from GNS Science\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222736bddd10b449c0b86479deb0c20f0b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235d2ba9eed0d458a806e84df19b266fe\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: I was not attempting to link Havelock North, and the gastric outbreak there, with this activity. I was simply asking a straight question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204ed5730c2694c7d85d914735caea9cd\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: But that is then a debatable matter. The Minister is choosing to answer it. I will allow the Minister to complete the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0d1209fbcaa492f84a34c26539e461a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I note, in respect of the serious issues around the water supply in Havelock North, that the GNS Science analysis showed that the contaminated water was only 1 year old and was likely to be surface water, in that the aquifer water in that area is 50 years old. That would suggest it is an issue of the integrity of that well, rather than something for the Green Party to try to use as an issue, without evidence, to blame on farmers in the area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022891c6d95537a4d6d960f5fc5233250e9\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister\u2019s proposed changes to the national policy statement for fresh water require regional councils to properly control intensive stock farming like those feedlots, or will he let intensive agriculture off the hook yet again? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9e6f01750b647689080c88130cf0b03\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: We are the first Government to have a national policy statement putting requirements on regional councils. When we came to Government, there was not a single catchment anywhere in New Zealand in which there were any restrictions on intensive farming\u2014not one. There are now at least eight where intensive farming is not allowed, and there are a further 15 catchments as a consequence of our national policy statement where they are limiting nutrients from intensive agriculture.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229888d4f95abb4ceb99faf2fd7fdc74a2\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: Does not his Government\u2019s failure to have strong and effective national policy under the RMA, which regulates land uses like this, allow those who benefit from these land uses to shift the costs on to the community through dirty water, dirty rivers, and dirty groundwater?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222184ddd7ec2446c0b5c69d39d7397900\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I would ask where that member was when she was on Environment Canterbury and it did nothing? Where was the last Labour Government, which did nothing for 9 years? I would point to the fact that at least we have a national policy statement on freshwater management, and we have a further programme with the national regulations around stock exclusion and the tighter rules around nutrients, where we are actually setting national requirements to improve the quality of our fresh water. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc9b8ccbdb06461e9e95494ac8062299\u0022\u003EEugenie Sage\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table rule 6.3.2 from the Hawke\u2019s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan, dated 1 October 2015, which allows the use of land as a permitted activity for feedlots and feed pads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8b74099178043568987828931eae7cb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will accept that it may be more difficult than normal for members to obtain that, and, therefore, I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022879e804e90b844e8b6a07486be53fe57\u0022\u003EPolice Resourcing\u2014Burglaries and Workload\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022b365ca42414944bbbaceeb7e2446134a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b365ca42414944bbbaceeb7e2446134a\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E To the Minister of Police, how many additional staff hours will it take for Police to attend every reported burglary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022cbd28219332c48eb805afc79fc031ee0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cbd28219332c48eb805afc79fc031ee0\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E The additional staff hours required will, of course, depend on the circumstances of each reported dwelling burglary, which, of course, is what the member should have referred to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aed75fca01e9442c8aeae3df5e1dad55\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! As Mr Brownlee pointed out earlier, we have clearly got a problem with the microphones. The question that was just asked has not been heard well. It is certainly through no fault of the Minister, I assure you; it is the level of chatter that is occurring in some parts of the Chamber that is not helping. I am going to invite the member to ask the primary question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u002274dc8a21501445a5a1e81b6e63ce23bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274dc8a21501445a5a1e81b6e63ce23bc\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour\u2014Napier)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: How many additional staff hours will it take for Police to attend every reported burglary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3f106e2590a43b689eac4859e2ef35b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call the Minister\u2014the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I have asked for quiet and I would be grateful if you could also cooperate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022511713337b894c1bb50b614e3f73afce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022511713337b894c1bb50b614e3f73afce\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E The additional staff hours required will, of course, depend on the circumstances of each reported dwelling burglary, which, of course, is what the member should have referred to, rather than every reported burglary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022255e032993ca4a1d83049324dd03ef82\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: Is she really telling the House that she has instigated a major policy requiring the police to undertake significantly more work, and yet she has no idea of the implications for the hard-working police officer on the front line?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022683d387c75de465c8644d3d09e4be0d8\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, of course not. That member may have missed the excellent press release released by the Commissioner of Police on 27 June 2016, when he noted that it was his policy that dwelling burglaries would now be considered a priority offence and not a volume crime as was acceptable under the previous Labour Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228773c4b795af418d90ce949b4d2bc34a\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: What does she have to say to the police officer who said to the New Zealand Herald \u201Cwe\u2019re expected to keep crime [rates] down, burglaries down [when] there\u2019s way more people, way more crime\u201D, considering that she has now required this officer to do more work without any more resources?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd45653d794b49faac76853bf495aad2\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Given that the police commissioner is the person who set in place the policy\u2014and, by the way, I fully agree with that decision of his\u2014I would say to that police officer that he or she should be very pleased that they have a Minister, a Government, and a commissioner that support them, as opposed to that member, who attacks the police quite personally at almost every opportunity he has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285315730f17b415fbcf3bffbc030ca74\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: In response to that, when 60 percent of police say they do not have enough training, almost 60 percent say they cannot deliver on the promises they make to the public, and almost 60 percent say they have too much stress in their job, how can she load them with so much more work without an increase in police numbers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fdace8a893c448c973e4c346292c7a8\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, so many questions, and the answer is actually quite easy, really: the police are backed 100 percent by this Government. We have put on 600 extra police and there is also $400 million extra from the Budget than the police ever had under a previous Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc804b0b015a4b29971f3090bd5f4775\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: When she announced this policy, was she actually aware that burglaries in our communities have increased by around 8,600, or 14 percent, over the last 12 months, to over 70,000 burglaries per year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280a24aceda2148ea9c56b29bc4d1c5ee\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know how many times I have to tell that member, but the policy decision was actually announced by the Commissioner of Police on Monday, 27 June 2016, at 4.04 p.m. I am happy to provide that member with a link so he knows where the police website is. But, having said that, I can also tell him that, on average, in the 12 policing districts there are eight dwelling burglaries a day. Police already attend 70 percent of those, on average, and, actually, I think dwelling burglaries are very important. They are a home invasion, and people should expect a response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270e82ee19ebf4b9c9d14e44d288de13c\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: So if the police attend 70 percent of burglaries at the moment, they are going to have to attend another 30 percent\u2014where are they going to find the resources to undertake this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022faf538c869ca4ab6b40f65ddad2ab7a0\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: The commissioner has assured me that they can, and I am sure they will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225d61d4193c7642d3a27a7b49b06de80e\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002262a388a3a7b7400b8f9a91c11ad9f768\u0022\u003EBurglaries\u2014Increase\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022277d8b0c44c44637bbf266fe76029ec6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022277d8b0c44c44637bbf266fe76029ec6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have received a letter from Stuart Nash seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the increase in the number of recorded burglary victimisations by 14 percent in the last 12 months. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible and it must relate to a particular case of recent occurrence. The urgent debate procedure is not intended to address a continuing problem such as burglary statistics\u2014[Interruption] Order!\u2014which do not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence, and I refer members to Speakers\u2019 ruling 210/5 and Speaker\u2019s ruling 210/6. On this basis, the case raised does not meet the test for me to set aside the business of the House today. The application is, therefore, declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f0ad9bb283244347a9251fe290617af7\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f8d507105d0d466ca121aa3b77900dde\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022816c7a369c3c42e0bba2554cebdd47e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022816c7a369c3c42e0bba2554cebdd47e4\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill will allow the extension of special housing areas\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290d2b6028d814cba90b4d1c941e80ed1\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbe9dcf6de1048e08de85d573382395c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! It is very unusual, but on this occasion a point of order has been called. I will hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ab3f96789544bf6acd1743181f9031b\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: The reason I am calling a point of order is that this bill has been introduced as an omnibus bill under Standing Order 263(a) when it is not an omnibus bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe reason I say that is that it meets neither of the two requirements in Standing Order 263(a), and the first point is this: the topics of the two amendments are not interrelated, and the term \u201Cinterrelated\u201D, according to the dictionary, means \u201Creciprocally or mutually related\u201D. That means each of the amendments must demonstrate either some reciprocity within a purpose or some mutuality of a purpose, and, in fact, these two measures do not do either of those things. One deals specifically with time limits for special housing areas, and the other deals specifically with offer-back provisions when State housing land is sold, so there is neither any reciprocity in purpose nor any mutuality of purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe second reason is that the other requirement is that it should implement a \u201Csingle broad policy\u201D, according to the Standing Order, and, in fact, one purpose in this bill is the development of land for sale and the other affects social housing policy and, especially, the sale of it. So one policy relates to the development of land for sale, and the other to the sale of State housing land. Neither thing is related to each other at all in any policy context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249653b0cc42149e0bdddcd3b5e396a83\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b1708a7cbf644adb6d2cb011b2cab87\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I need no assistance, and I do thank members for offering their assistance. My office and I had a good look at this earlier today. The bill does two things in order to increase the supply and the affordability of housing. It makes amendments to the Special Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and, secondly, it amends the Housing Act 1955 to clarify how the Public Works Act 1981 applies to the disposal of State housing land for use for housing purposes. Both relate to the stated purpose of increasing supply and affordability of land. It is in order and it does comply\u2014[Interruption] Order! If I hear an interjection like that again, I will be asking for someone to leave. I am ruling that it does comply with Standing Order 263(a).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9d62925755945eeb2b46bc29e4410f0\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fde807cbeae44943860699c1674b0eb2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just before\u2014I need to clarify that I have ruled quite categorically on whether this bill does comply. The member is absolutely free to raise any point of order on another matter unrelated to this. But if the member rises to his feet and continues now to argue, when I have given such a categoric ruling on this matter, that in itself will lead to disorder and I will consider very carefully whether I would be asking the member to leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f36764cd2284928830b263fefb7cf9c\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: It is a new matter regarding whether or not a bill that is introduced under Standing Order 263(a) can be considered to be \u201Cimplementing a single broad policy\u201D when there is in this bill, in Part 2, in fact, an amendment that relates largely to the Public Works Act and does require no obligation for land freed up under that to be used for housing. So there is no obligation\u2014so the outcome of this is not even related to housing in the end. There is no obligation for that land to be used for housing, so the only way, in my view, that this can be seen as an omnibus bill is to create such a wide definition of \u201Ca single broad policy\u201D as to be meaningless.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce9d3d9c5b944e81a99aabe204e64372\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7d7d3dffedb4461a1d55ff34b9dd642\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0cb6e3500ca495e85066035386add22\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I think the two previous speakers failed to understand the interaction between\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268dadf32a5004500b662e6423e0e953f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! If I hear that member interjecting on a point of order again, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ce054ad0ddd4c6c9fcc85d5df4f78a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Standing Order 263(a) requires that amendments deal with an interrelated topic. I would deal, for instance, very specifically with the very first special housing area in Weymouth, which is also exactly the land that is affected by the Housing Act provisions that are covered for in this bill. If we take one of the largest housing developments in Auckland, in Hobsonville\u2014actually the largest housing development currently in Australasia\u2014it is both a special housing area affected by this bill and it is also affected by the Housing Act. In fact, that interrelationship applies to over 30 of the special housing areas. So I think the reason for the points of order is that members have not understood the connection between special housing areas and the Housing Act 1955.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285bf1b00c3d246408069920ef22a2ea0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have spent some time on this matter. I have given a ruling. It is not a ruling I gave lightly. Although I accept that members do not agree with what I have stated, we are moving forward. I have accepted that the bill does comply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278ccdb25310b49d8b9b11b739ed99b66\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: I think in that exchange there has been ample demonstration of the particularity that might be required to support the motion. What I will say, though, is that this bill extends provisions for affordable housing that have been very successful to date, and I look forward to members of the whole House who have concerns about affordable housing offering their support for it, but I of course recognise that, given the previous exchange, there are likely to be spurious reasons why people will not support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216545ddf11d44718add4f988b489e409\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has set down a procedure for a Minister moving urgency to describe the nature of the urgency and why it is urgent. It does not allow for the Minister to then use that as an opportunity to pre-empt what Opposition members may say and to take a flick at other members of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00220fa530604c1d439a8396a6c74f1e03f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220fa530604c1d439a8396a6c74f1e03f4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! No, there is certainly no need for the last part of the Minister\u2019s statement to be given. What this is is a chance for the Minister to explain the reason for urgency. He has done that. It is no longer a debatable motion, and I will put the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002226b50fce27a44ab7a43ca07be2971d18\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000215\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u2019s Statements\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000216\u0022\u003EChamber, Lobbies, and Galleries\u2014Clocks\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022aacf98cfbfa847e29675ab222b50f8c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aacf98cfbfa847e29675ab222b50f8c4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Just before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith, I do just want to point out to members that clocks have been added as a guidance to members. They will show the speaking time remaining. Although they are there as a guide to members, ultimately, the presiding officers will have complete discretion as to when to start a speech and when a speech concludes. I apologise for interrupting the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220c5a05593cb1428a94de0c55510fd839\u0022\u003EHousing Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ffb83b255f5a45a4835a5ff58723d059\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1700b57667a40f395e29f0e88215e09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1700b57667a40f395e29f0e88215e09\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill is about ensuring a smooth transition to the Auckland Unitary Plan, it is about extending the tool box of special housing areas to regional New Zealand, and it is about making the law clear in respect of Government housing programmes on publicly owned land. I do find it ironic that members of the Labour Opposition, who over the adjournment have been crying for a state of emergency over the issue of housing, are now saying no, they do not want to vote on a bill that will make a material difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill builds on the very substantive work of the Productivity Commission. In 2012 its report concluded overwhelmingly that our land-use planning system was at the core of New Zealand\u2019s issues in respect of housing. I note that since 1990 the increase in house land costs in Auckland has gone up by 350 percent, compared with inflation of 71 percent and building costs of 78 percent. Those figures make very plain that it is the issue of land-use planning that is at the core of the challenges around housing affordability in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThere was a huge dysfunctionality between the regional council and the district and city councils in Auckland, which were not able to agree on whether Auckland should go up or out, and so the very first and important step we made as a Government was to merge Auckland into a single council and require it to develop a single plan. The process of writing a plan for the city of Auckland would normally take a period of 7 or 8 years, noting that it would be the largest plan in New Zealand\u2019s history, covering over 500,000 properties. It is actually a tribute to Mayor Len Brown; his deputy, Penny Hulse; the independent hearings panel; and the Auckland Council that they have successfully concluded that process and that next Friday Auckland will have a new plan, one that succeeds rules that were written more than 20 years ago.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe walked a fine line in the legislation between ensuring that process occurred as quickly as possible and also ensuring people had a fair say, and we determined that, in the interim, housing could not stand still. That is why we made provision for special housing areas. There are 154 of those that have been approved, and 1,342 houses were built and completed by the end of June. There are 2,208 building consents that have been approved, and resource consents for 6,700 sections have been approved. It is interesting to note that in the 12 months there would have been no growth in the number of residential consents and new homes built were it not for the 1,100 that came through the special housing areas process. That pipeline is growing, as evidenced by the fact that in the first year it was 6 percent, in the second year it was 9 percent, and it is now 14 percent. Next year it is scheduled to be over 20 percent and for the year following 30 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThat brings me to the key provisions that are provided for in this bill. The first issue is around transitioning from those special housing areas over to the new Auckland Unitary Plan. Of those 154 special housing areas, there are eight for which there is doubt as to whether the plan-change process will be concluded by next Thursday. Without this bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022407a5e0b126540a085af2b48a6de75e0\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: When did you find out? Why has it taken you this long?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3d6f0268f9e408fb7c6a118e7542410\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014those 8,000 homes would not be able to progress. Mr Robertson interjects\u2014when did we know that? Well, actually, we still do not absolutely know, because there are independent hearings panels that are independent and are currently considering housing in those areas. Equally so, we did not know until the unitary plan process was complete, because we did not know what areas had been zoned as residential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat this bill does is ensure that those 8,000 homes can proceed. I note that these provisions have the very strong support of the Auckland Council. I would say to members of this House: if you are genuinely concerned about housing issues in Auckland, why would we send those eight significant developments\u2014for 8,000 homes\u2014back to the beginning of the process?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhen we brought the special housing areas process to Parliament it was very controversial\u2014there was concern in local government. What is interesting is that I have had a number of letters from councils around the country, like Queenstown\u2014and my meetings last week in the Bay of Plenty, and meetings in Christchurch\u2014and also in areas such as Auckland and my own constituency, where local governments recognise the pressures around housing that they now have in their areas. Although they are supportive of the Government\u2019s additional programmes of work\u2014the Resource Management Act reforms, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the urban development authority\u2014they want to make progress now and they want the tools of the special housing area Act extended.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThat is the second part of this bill, which will enable those accords to be extended in order for local government and central government to work together on providing additional housing supply and have access to those fast-track methods for bringing in new housing supply. In amending that special housing areas legislation, the only change in the provision is to put extra pressure on the landowner and require that plan changes and resource consents are lodged within 12 months. There is a further, minor amendment to simply make the process less bureaucratic and allow those identified special housing areas to be divided by a plan and plan description, rather than just a description of the title specifically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe third and final issue that is covered in this bill is the issue of the Housing Act and the way in which it is able to bring new houses on stream. That is important. The biggest housing development in New Zealand is in Hobsonville, which is former defence land. If we look at the Weymouth development, which I think every member of this House would say is a great initiative\u2014it was the first special housing area\u2014it also is surplus Crown land. The difficulty is that Governments for generations have assumed that when there is a housing development under the Housing Act it will not trigger the offer-back provisions. How do we know that? Because Governments and Ministers\u2014on Labour\u2019s side of the House; on this side of the House\u2014whenever they have sold properties coming from such developments, have not triggered those offer-back provisions. The clear advice is that it was never intended that the offer-back provisions would apply where there is a housing development under the Housing Act. This bill provides clarity in that area of law, and it is important to Weymouth and it is important to Hobsonville because it provides the certainty that we are able to partner with the private sector and ensure that we continue to grow that important pipeline of new housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EEvery member of this House knows that there is pressure on housing. The truth is that New Zealand\u2019s population is growing faster than at any time in our history. That is because people are voting with their feet\u2014there is confidence in New Zealand and confidence in this Government\u2014but, equally, that puts an onus on us to ensure that we build as many houses as we can and remove any legislative or bureaucratic impediment to more houses being built. That is why I challenge every member of this House to support new houses, more houses, for New Zealanders. This bill, this urgency, is a test as to whether members want to play politics or whether they want to support more houses being built for Kiwi families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u00228d1de9596c3845bc9dd428c34e699f5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d1de9596c3845bc9dd428c34e699f5f\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E You can tell just how serious this Minister is in getting this piece of legislation through, because he is relying on the crack team of Craig Foss to have to usher him along to get the bill through\u2014this is how vital and essential this piece of legislation is. The reality is that the Minister cannot bring himself, even now\u201410 days out from the expiry of the special housing area legislation and having to rush through this piece of legislation\u2014to admit what every New Zealander knows, and that is that we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis. He is just cobbling something together at the last minute, because he has suddenly realised that the dream of special housing areas is about to fly out the window with so few special houses built\u2014he has got to do something about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EI do not know how he persuaded his Cabinet colleagues to take the time of the House to pass this through under urgency when he has known, when he will have known, when he did know, that the legislation that we are now amending was coming up for expiry only 10 days away\u2014only 10 days away. This urgency in this House for this piece of legislation is an expression of the complete and utter shambles that housing policy is in under this Minister for Building and Housing and this Government. That is what this is about. This House is taking its valuable time at this important time of the year to sweep up after this Minister yet again because of the total shambles that his policy is in. Every effort he has made, every policy he has introduced on housing, has completely turned to custard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EYou look at the special housing areas and you look at the number now that are being offered for sale on TradeMe for land banking\u2014they get the special housing areas, and yet some developers have no intention whatsoever of fulfilling the criteria and actually getting houses built. The whole condition of getting expedited consenting processes was that these developers with this special status would actually get houses built. But that is not happening in far too many cases. It is true that the Minister says there are a handful of them, they have got their applications lodged, and they have just got to bring it on a bit\u2014this is with 10 days to go before the expiry of this legislation. There are far too few houses being built on special housing areas, and that is the problem\u2014they have gone to land bankers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe reality is that we have a chronic shortage of housing in Auckland and in other parts of New Zealand, and this Minister and his Government have failed to deliver for the thousands of New Zealanders struggling to get their first home. Let us not be mollycoddled by the figures that both the Minister and the Prime Minister have been trotting out. Let us be very clear that the 9,651 houses consented in the last 12 months are below the 12,000\u2014nearly 13,000\u2014consented in 2004. That was at a time when Auckland\u2019s population was much, much smaller. So on a per capita basis, the building programme right now is way behind\u2014absolutely way behind. If you have a look at what Statistics New Zealand says, and its analysis of the number per thousand people\u2014sure, it has risen to 6.3 in the last 12 months from the low of 3.1 in 2011, but that is still only half what it was in 1974. That is the real measure\u2014number of houses per thousand people\u2014and this Government is way behind.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EIt is a comparative issue, and it is about New Zealanders\u2019 prospects about getting into a house. It is no longer just any house, because plenty of builders are building the big, expensive, McMansion, million-dollar-average houses\u2014plenty of those. It is that those on modest incomes are working hard, sometimes at more than one job\u2014couples with several jobs between them\u2014saving hard, working hard, chasing that Kiwi Dream, but they cannot get it. They cannot get it, because this Government does not care about affordable housing. This Government does not care about affordable housing. This legislation will help five\u2014five\u2014out of 154 special housing areas. We know that of the other 149 there are plenty that are just being land banked. That is all they are. There is no serious programme\u2014there is no serious programme\u2014to accelerate affordable house building under this Government in New Zealand today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EWe could support this first part of this legislation, because at this stage anything\u2014the smallest thing, the smallest skerrick of anything\u2014that will help get one extra affordable house, I have to say that we have to support it. We would have to support that. But that does not explain or justify why the Minister has included these other provisions on the offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act. That is completely unrelated to anything to do with special housing areas and getting more affordable housing built. It is not needed. The provisions are not needed to achieve the objectives that he has of using special housing areas to get houses built. It simply is not needed. That assumes, of course, that even if these other special housing area applications are approved by the council after this legislation passes it will lead to more affordable housing very quickly\u2014even assuming that, the Public Works Act provisions are not needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe reality is\u2014and I want to hear from David Seymour from the ACT Party about this, because I think that the good burghers of Epsom will be very interested to know what is potentially happening to their property rights. Those who lounge back in the leafy streets of Epsom and Parnell, wondering how their investment properties are going, they will be wanting to know whether or not any property they own, or that they have an interest in or have had an interest in, that has been purchased under the Public Works Act\u2014whether they are going have the right to get it back, because under these amendments they will not. Their rights will be traduced. Private property rights will be traduced in these provisions. It is not standard practice for the Labour Party to champion the cause of private property owners, but in the absence of the Government, and, so far, in the absence of the ACT Party, we have to. We have to, because nobody else is, and we ought to take that sort of measure very seriously. This House should not be passing legislation that traduces those rights quickly or inadvisedly or expeditiously just because we have a Minister who has performed so woefully in his portfolio that we are down to desperate measures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe reality is this: New Zealand needs a genuine, comprehensive housing plan to fix the housing crisis. We need a housing policy and a housing package that is going to get more houses built, including, if necessary, in Clutha-Southland but certainly in the many other areas around New Zealand: Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Taup\u014D\u2014as I discovered the other day\u2014even up the K\u0101piti Coast, parts of Wellington, Nelson, and Queenstown. New Zealanders are looking for an answer. They are looking for leadership on the issue of housing\u2014genuinely affordable housing\u2014because those on modest incomes, those on reasonable incomes, who work hard and save hard and do the best they can, no matter how hard they try, cannot get their foot on that bottom rung of the housing and homeownership ladder. That too we should be concerned about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThis piece of legislation, the first part, adds a mere skerrick, a mere iota, of difference to that objective, but that is all. But the other part, the second part, the offer-back provisions, will not help one bit. We are opposed to those, and so we cannot support this legislation in its current form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThere remains a possibility, I hope, that during the passage of this bill through the House under urgency the Minister might come to his senses, his colleagues might come to their senses, David Seymour might come to his senses, and say: \u201CYou know what? We all agree there is a housing crisis. We know something has to be done. We do need those special housing area provisions, as small a contribution as they will make to the housing crisis, but we do not need to traduce private property rights and create a constitutional crisis that we just don\u2019t need.\u201D If that happens, we could support the legislation but not in its current form\u2014cobbled together, in a hurry, because this Minister is so desperate to prove, once again, that he does not have to get absolutely everything wrong. Well, he is on a hiding to nothing on that already, so let us just be honest about it. Let us just be honest about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThis legislation, if it confines itself to the special housing area issues alone, we can support. In its current form, we cannot because it takes unnecessary steps that will add nothing at all to additional housing affordability, and while that is there, this legislation cannot be supported and will not be supported. I simply urge the Minister to look carefully and listen carefully. If we want to do the right thing for New Zealand and the housing crisis, it will not be in this bill in its current form.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u0022e167daff7d7949b28c55a49d8aa740b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e167daff7d7949b28c55a49d8aa740b4\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call in this first reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is going through all stages. First, I want to acknowledge that this National-led Government has a comprehensive plan for housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e2bc61987f94a76ad2a708d632f7eb9\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e6cde57c512449fbdfb990faf35dfbe\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. We hear the heckling. But here is the proof of the pudding. Over there, on that side, the spokesperson on housing has often confirmed the comprehensive plan. When we think about the devolution of stock into the community housing providers\u2014it was at the conference where the Labour spokesperson on housing turned around and said \u201CWe support this. This is a good idea. We should do this.\u201D, and then, all of a sudden, when we were doing it, he disagreed with it. When it came to the metropolitan urban limits, the Labour spokesperson on housing turned around and said \u201CNo, this is not a great idea. We shouldn\u2019t attack this.\u201D, and then, all of a sudden, when we were addressing the metropolitan urban limits, he changed again. Why? Because he saw that this was a comprehensive plan. We know it is comprehensive. We know it is making a difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThis Housing Legislation Amendment Bill does two things in particular. It extends two Acts, which we think is important, and it also puts a time limit on the consenting process. We think that is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe previous speaker talked about the whole issue around the crisis. But if the speakers on the other side have actually done their homework, and I hope that they have, they will realise that this issue has been bubbling up since 1974. In fact, a previous Cabinet Minister in the Labour Government, the Hon Dr Michael Bassett, was commissioned by The New Zealand Initiative to write a report. The report was called Priced Out. In that report he talked about when housing became unaffordable in New Zealand. Inside that report, he clearly states that this is an issue that has been happening since 1974. Why? Because we have not been building to projected forecast growth in New Zealand over that period of time. We know that that has been happening for quite some time, so we think that is really important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EAlso, although the little mumbling and ground-grinding over there\u2014[Interruption] Yes, maybe he needs to listen. If he has read the Productivity Commission\u2019s report, what does it also say? It says that one of the critical issues is around the slow process of consenting. The special housing accord allows for us to fast track the consenting so that we can ensure that we can address the issue. What does it say? It says that the issue is around supply. This housing issue is around supply. We think that this is critically important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe National-led Government wants to extend the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act so that more special housing areas can be established and are appropriate for those different areas as well. We know that currently in Auckland, which is one of the most difficult places, there are 213 special housing areas\u2014at least 140 of those are in the Auckland area\u2014and that is making a difference. This will allow for the capacity of nearly 70,000 homes\u2014almost 65,000 of those are in the Auckland area. This becomes critical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWhen people have talked about the metropolitan urban limits, and if we talk about Auckland in particular, where this becomes a critical issue and the housing accord and this bill become of greatest importance, the metropolitan urban limits came in 1999 under the Auckland Regional Council. It was an arbitrary line that was drawn. We know that from that period of time we could see the challenges that were happening. In 2008 Gordon Copeland, who was a member of the Commerce Committee, went up to Auckland. That committee conducted an inquiry. It clearly said that the metropolitan urban limits were allowing for land banking, hence the reason why this bill becomes critically important in addressing that issue as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThis legislation will allow for a variation of applications, begun but not completed under the law, to continue when a district plan becomes operative. We know that the current unitary plan will come into place on 16 September this year, so that is the reason why it is important for us to extend that and to allow for the opportunities for that development to happen. We know, also, that when we think about what currently exists, we think about the incentivised process of this plan and why that becomes important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWe can look at some of the numbers\u2014the construction growth. The number of homes being constructed per year, in areas with housing accords, has grown from 10,599 in the year to June 2013 to 18,693 to June of this year. We know that it makes a difference. We see that is important. I commend this bill and look forward to the ongoing debate in the House under urgency. I commend this bill, at its first reading, to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7329e6d0d2a4105a6a5ff34d93da6da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7329e6d0d2a4105a6a5ff34d93da6da\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek your guidance. As this bill has been introduced to the House under urgency, obviously a few of us are playing catch-up to be able to prepare. There is a regulatory impact statement on the Table, around Part 1 of the bill, but there is no regulatory impact statement dealing with the matters in Part 2. I request your assistance and your guidance. Should we expect one of those, or just blunder on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u002285aba146576245acb50e6a74644cd4e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285aba146576245acb50e6a74644cd4e2\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is a matter for the Government, to provide that documentation to support its urgency motion. Challenge the Government on it. No doubt it is a point for debate. Let us hear it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u002239a0aa38b2e54e448824318d2854c73d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002239a0aa38b2e54e448824318d2854c73d\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E This is obviously not a bill that Government members are very proud of\u2014when we see the stellar collection of front-bench heavy hitters who have turned out to support Dr Smith on this bill! The second member to speak from the National Party benches, Alfred Ngaro, could not even sum up a 5-minute contribution. All the heads are down. They are embarrassed because this bill is just the latest in a string of fiascos that pass for housing policy under this Minister. The image that I want you to entertain is of the Hon Dr Nick Smith standing out in the middle of a paddock somewhere in west Auckland, bewildered, and pointing in all directions, saying: \u201CWe\u2019re going to build houses here, folks.\u201D That Minister is outstanding in his field. He is outstanding in his field. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EOne of the great contributions that he has made to housing policy in the last couple of years has been a minibus tour where he took hapless members of the press gallery on a never-ending magical mystery tour of cemeteries, electrical substations, and a long list of other scraps and remnants. The Governor-General\u2019s residence, Government House, even appeared on a list of Government properties that that Minister used as the basis for his now famous promise to this Parliament that he had 500 hectares of vacant Crown land that he was going to use to build housing. So that is great\u2014look, you have got to give it to this Minister. He has provided more entertainment to this House in the last couple of years, in the form of his housing policies, than anyone could have realistically hoped for. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThis bill is yet another patch-up job designed to mask the failings of Nick Smith as the Minister for Building and Housing. His incompetence is not a reason to put this House into urgency and to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers\u2019 money to ram through a bill that simply should not be considered under urgency by this House. The bill has two main parts. The first is to extend the special housing areas legislation by 3 years. At a pinch, we might have voted for that\u2014at a pinch. The special housing areas are a flawed, inadequate, underwhelming policy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022675a358dda6049279dcf4b02136f3bd8\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: You voted against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de3d34ba70164f35bf6e2613ab34fd1b\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: We voted for it at the first reading, but when we actually had a serious look at it, we realised how hopeless it was. It is the centrepiece of the Government\u2019s supply-side initiatives. How many houses has it delivered in 3 years, in a city of a million and a half people? There are barely 1,300 completed houses. Under this National Government, a shortfall of 42,000 houses has accumulated while National has been in office. That shortage is getting worse by about 4,000 dwellings every single year, and the best that this National Government\u2019s policy of special housing areas can deliver is 1,300 houses over 3 years. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThis bill is the last whimper of Nick Smith\u2019s special housing areas policy. But it is something at least. It is better than nothing\u2014which is why we would vote for it\u2014but not by very much. The best thing that can be said for it is that it will save eight developers. Eight special housing areas in Auckland will be saved from cost uncertainty and the inconvenience caused by Nick Smith\u2019s failure to properly think through the transition issues as the special housing areas legislation died and the Auckland Unitary Plan came on stream. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EOn its own, we would, at a pinch, have voted for Part 1 of this bill, which extends the housing accords and special housing areas legislation. But, as Andrew Little said, the second part\u2014which deals with offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act in relation to Government land being used for housing purposes\u2014is a whole different kettle of fish. Not only do we believe that there is no justification at all for this provision being considered under urgency but it is actually a really bad idea. I think it might be quite interesting to put some bets on the table that this bill and these provisions in Part 2 will be the next Nick Smith fiasco in a long line\u2014a long, honourable line\u2014of fiascos.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENick Smith said that he is just trying to clarify\u2014and no doubt he has got advice from Crown Law, and I would ask the Minister to table the advice from Crown Law on this\u2014the position that the Government is not required to observe the offer-back provisions in the Public Works Act to former owners of land when it is changing the designation of Government-owned land and making it available for State housing purposes, which is interpreted extremely widely by this Government. He is saying the position is that the Government is not required to offer back that land if it is being used for housing purposes. Well, my question is this: if the law really does say that he is not required to hand it back, then why is he ramming through a bill under urgency\u2014all stages? Why is he doing that if the law is clear and is not an issue? Because the Minister has brought this bill to the House, and because he is ramming it through under urgency, it is very clear, actually, that he is taking away somebody\u2019s property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe are not lily-livered on this side of the House about powers of acquisition and the need to prevent land bankers from gaming the system and standing in the way of large new developments that will deliver thousands of new dwellings in the public interest. But if you are going to take away people\u2019s property rights, then, for goodness\u2019 sake, think about it seriously. Do it in a way that is transparent and open, and subject this bill to the proper scrutiny, expert advice, and public submissions that a select committee process would bring. Do not ram it through the House under urgency. It is a serious matter when you are taking away someone\u2019s property rights, so treat it seriously, treat the citizens of this nation with the respect they deserve, and do it in a way that is thoughtful, careful, and considered. There is no possible reason to take these provisions through the House under urgency in 24 hours and to deny the people of New Zealand the right to have this bill given proper scrutiny. This is the \u201CMinister of Housing Fiascos\u201D. This is the next fiasco that is coming down the pipeline, and, no doubt, in a year\u2019s time we will be back in the House to clean up this mess. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe great fiasco of Nick Smith and vacant Crown lands was not so much that he produced a list that had Government House, electricity substations, and the Mangere Lawn Cemetery on it. The real fiasco was that he completely failed to consult important stakeholders like Auckland iwi on his plans to deny them their right of first refusal under the collective redress agreements in T\u0101maki-makau-rau. He thought he could get away with it. I do not know what advice he took on that, but he blundered on ahead with his plan and was humiliated by Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua and other members of the T\u0101maki Collective, who took him to court and forced him to do a\u2014it was not so much a flip-flop; it was more a double backflip. He had to negotiate a humiliating climb-down that gave them rights to be development partners and all sorts of commitments about the provision of affordable housing in those developments, which he would not even offer to Auckland Council when he was negotiating the housing accord. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIn this bill, he has had to recognise that that was an ignominious defeat. Not only did it cost tens of thousands, even $100,000 or more, in legal costs to the Crown but his Crown lands policy was delayed by months and months and months. What he has had to do in this bill is say that nothing in Part 2 of this bill will have any impact on collective redress agreements, but he is intending to deny previous owners of land their rights under the Public Works Act to an offer-back provision. This bill should go to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022 data-id=\u0022831a1cd9096647d0a17c5bb265846462\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022831a1cd9096647d0a17c5bb265846462\u0022\u003ETODD BARCLAY (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill\u2014and it is also a privilege to speak after Phil Twyford, given his positions on housing in New Zealand creating a fiasco of their own. This is the guy who called for a national emergency on housing, but will not support urgency on important housing legislation. I have been a strong advocate for an extension of the special housing areas because my electorate has benefited considerably from seven special housing areas to date, and because of this legislation, which I hope will pass, we will benefit from another, hopefully, up to half a dozen special housing areas\u2014an additional couple of thousand houses coming on board in Queenstown, which is considerably important. Phil Twyford was opposed to the HomeStart initiative, but has expressed supportive comments in the past. He also wanted a capital gains tax\u2014now he is opposed to that. Phil Twyford was also in favour of selling State houses, but is now opposed to it. He has got more positions on housing than anybody else.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022\u003EThis is an important piece of legislation. It is a great bill, and if he were to talk to any developer, any community housing provider, any home loan business, or any business in any of the fastest-growing areas within this country, he would know that they are also in support of this legislation. If he had been down to Queenstown\u2014which he has\u2014instead of just going up on to the ski field and having a great time, if he had actually talked to the Community Housing Trust there he would have found out that we have benefited by over a thousand new houses in the Queenstown area, delivered only under special housing legislation. We have had seven special housing areas under this, and we hope to see some more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u2019s Public Works Act provisions are not needed; that is another example of how out of touch those guys are around housing in New Zealand. We have got a perfect case in point in my electorate at the moment, where the Housing Act is preventing, possibly, the onsale of Government-owned land to be used for worker accommodation and affordable housing simply because a former owner\u201420, 30, or 40 years ago\u2014can put up his hand and say \u201CI might quite like that piece of land.\u201D Actually, that land is necessary to use for special housing and worker accommodation. This provision that we are passing today enables that demand to be met very quickly, so it is a privilege to be able to support this legislation. I want to congratulate the Minister on all his hard work in this space and thank him on behalf of my electorate for facilitating more houses being built. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u002281248d6afd9b4edf83ca3e9abb15ed68\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281248d6afd9b4edf83ca3e9abb15ed68\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E One million dollars\u2014the average house price in Auckland today reached $1 million; $1 million to buy a house in Auckland. This Government has driven New Zealand\u2019s housing into the ground. It has stripped away from ordinary New Zealanders the ability to secure their future for themselves and their children by driving up housing so it is so expensive that in order to buy a home in Auckland the average price is now $1 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnd what do Government members say about that? Are they concerned about that increase in the cost of housing in Auckland? Are they worried that young families are being locked out? Are they worried that teachers, firemen, people who work in the Fire Service\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b0a70fd027949cab931708953d0fa14\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: The police.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225391859a32cd4eaaad028397b1cf1039\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and the police, these people who are essential to our communities across the country, in Auckland cannot afford to buy a house in the city that they love and serve? Are National members worried about that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWell, no, and that is obvious today because, in response to the $1 million average house price announcement, we end up spending a whole day debating this ridiculous bill that will not solve the housing crisis. If they were genuinely serious about making sure that people who work in the Fire Service, or teachers, or principals of schools, or nurses or doctors\u2014these people who serve our communities in Auckland\u2014were actually able to live a decent life in a secure home in Auckland we would not be passing this bill, we would be dealing with a genuine comprehensive plan to make sure there was affordable housing in our biggest city so that ordinary New Zealanders had a genuine chance to own their home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EInstead, we are dealing with a piece of rushed legislation that is poorly thought out, that strips away the property rights of some, in order only to extend what has been a failed policy in Auckland. The special housing areas (SHAs) policy has failed in Auckland and this legislation is designed to extend that failed policy because this Government has no other ideas about how to fix New Zealand\u2019s housing crisis\u2014a crisis that has seen homelessness increase beyond all measure over the last few decades\u2014and it is seeing young families and elderly people locked out of securing their future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe special housing areas have not delivered in Auckland. Of the 157, 97 have no building on them; two-thirds have no building on them. They are simply sitting there, and do you know why? It is because land bankers and speculators are making a huge amount of money by sitting on these special housing areas that Nick Smith and the Government have allowed them to have cheap. As I understand it, only 1,300 buildings have been built. That is a ridiculous failure by this Government over the last 3 years. Special housing areas have helped many speculators and many land bankers increase their wealth while hard-working families, young people trying to secure their future, and older people trying to secure their retirement are locked out of housing in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is a continuation of Government\u2019s housing failure that this is how we have to spend our time: dealing with this bill. It will not solve the crisis and, indeed, it could make it worse by extending special housing areas and not dealing with the land banking issue that they create. This bill is nothing but a band-aid on a wound, a housing wound that ordinary New Zealand families are having to carry every day. I think that \u201Cfiasco\u201D is the right word for this Government\u2019s response in this legislation. We are in the middle of a homelessness crisis, the nature of which we have not seen for decades\u2014for decades; a $1 million average house price in Auckland, State housing still being sold off while the waiting list for State houses grows and grows, and the only response is this rushed piece of legislation, poorly considered and desperate to keep the special housing areas going.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhy is that? It is because the Government\u2019s only solution is to allow more private developers to have access to land and have access to fast-tracking consents. That is its only solution. It is taking no responsibility for its role in being able to provide housing itself through a comprehensive build programme that New Zealanders are desperately crying out for. The Government knows that it can be much more engaged in actually building affordable homes. Instead, its solution is to allow land developers, speculators, and land bankers to make more money off this crisis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhat does the bill actually do? Well, what the first part does allow is really in response to just eight developers in eight special housing areas that are halfway through their consenting process\u2014so they are nearly complete but they have not completed their consenting process. If the special housing areas legislation expires on 16 September, as it is set to do, then those eight developers will have to restart their consenting process over again. There is an argument that says it would be worthwhile extending the time period to allow those eight developers to get their consents through\u2014as long as, of course, they were actually required to build, and it was not just another attempt, another opportunity, for Nick Smith and National to allow more land banking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIf that was the case, that there was certainty that they would build, there is an argument that says we could use urgency to allow for that extension of time. Perhaps we could have a day of select committee. We could hear from officials and from those affected so as to be able to know that we have all of the information right and that when we were passing a law through urgency that that law would be properly considered, properly constructed, and effective. This is because a large part of the problem with urgency, of course, is that most of the law we pass through urgency is useless and full of mistakes. So that is an argument for saying that part of the bill could be justified with a short period for consultation with the public and those affected. I would have listened to that argument and taken it seriously if it had been put to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe problem is that the bill also does other things that do not need to go through urgency and that actually do need to be properly considered. These are the two areas. The legislation extends the failed SHAs for another 3 years and it does not protect against land banking. The provisions in this little bill do not protect against land bankers. It gives the Minister for Building and Housing more powers and sets a time frame, but there was already a time frame in the previous legislation. It does not prevent land banking and that is one of the major problems, the major failures, of the SHAs in Auckland. Neither does this bill improve the percentage required to be for affordable housing. So the problem for SHAs is that we cannot guarantee that there will be a significant provision of affordable housing through these special housing areas. This bill does not require more affordable housing from those special housing areas. It, again, provides wealth acquisition opportunities for the speculators, but will not deliver affordable housing for the thousands of New Zealanders who need it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225577939481e74f44a8555888e9287745\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s rubbish! Just rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268e34ac30ff44fea989e92759212a1c7\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister keeps saying it is rubbish, but there is nothing in his bill that is going to improve the provision of affordable houses in those SHAs. It gives him more powers; it does not provide any more certainty to New Zealanders who are desperate for this housing because they are in such dire straits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnd of course we have the offer-back provisions, which provide real concern. Nick Smith says that there are no M\u0101ori who provided that land for use for housing and who would be the first people under an offer-back provision to be offered that land back. He does not know that for sure. He does not know that for sure, but he says he does not think there is any\u2014and we are supposed to accept that from Nick Smith, who thinks that birds pooing in rivers is more important and more dangerous than cows pooing in rivers. This is not a man with a great sense of perspective about what is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe cannot support this bill in its current form. We do expect there to be some changes over the course of today and tonight\u2014perhaps a splitting of the bill. But as it stands it is ineffective, it is a waste of time, and it will simply increase the risk of land banking and a lack of affordable housing in Auckland. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3eab1b276c94b4a9db5c44744dfb104\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3eab1b276c94b4a9db5c44744dfb104\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E How dare that Minister over there, the Minister for Building and Housing, claim the success of special housing areas when after 3 years we see 1,300 houses having been built. Now we have a panic measure to expand that by another 3 years. That will not help the situation, because success will not result from a failure; it will just be more failure. This Government should not be allowed one more day in power when it has made such an unholy mess of housing in New Zealand through its own actions. It is this Government\u2019s actions that have actually caused the housing crisis, and it is this Government\u2019s inaction that has failed to remedy it. In addition to all of that, you have a situation where as a result of an open-ended immigration policy\u2014which actually does create significant demand, despite denials by the Government\u2014it then has to panic to provide more homes when that could be avoided by having a sensible immigration policy and a genuine strategy for building homes in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe housing policy that is actually claimed to be a comprehensive housing policy is none of that. It is nothing at all like that. It is getting worse. The effects of it are getting worse through Government inaction, and the need for this particular bill is just evidence of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ELook at the results in Auckland, where people are actually leaving in droves because they cannot buy houses there because of the prices. They cannot rent there because the rents are too high, and between 2008 and 2013, 32,184 of them left Auckland for Wellington, Waikato, Canterbury, and elsewhere, while 3,000 less than that number went there from those areas. So there is actually a drift away from Auckland because of these problems. The problem with that is, as Shamubeel Eaqub said: \u201CThe challenge for a lot of people is they\u2019re not able to get the same kinds of jobs or job security in other parts of New Zealand.\u201D That is probably why it is only a third of the people saying that they have actually considered it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIt is actually worse than that. It is worse than that because, in fact, while 32 percent of Aucklanders want to move out because of housing pressures, another 36 percent would also go if they could get adequate employment in the other regions. That outflow is actually hurting Auckland\u2019s economy. As Alan Johnson of the Salvation Army said: \u201CThere\u2019s people leaving Auckland in bigger numbers than ever because of the house prices. It will undermine the city\u2019s competitiveness. People doing lower-paid jobs, particularly in the service and construction sectors, need to be able to afford to live in the city.\u201D Is that not putting it in a nutshell? So the fundamental problem, as we all know, is that housing in Auckland is actually unaffordable, and, worse than that, it is still a runaway problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe failure to deal with that is all based on this Government\u2019s neo-liberal belief in the market as being a way of solving these problems. It seems to think that blaming local government and providing more liberal planning laws will somehow result in a solution to these problems. Of course, it is, as I have said, exacerbated by an open-door immigration policy. And it is caused by Ministers\u2014three of them, in fact\u2014who are simply not on top of their jobs. They simply do not know how to do this; they do not know how to solve it, and they should all resign. In fact, the whole Government should go and let parties into Government that can actually deal with these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIn the context of such comprehensive policy failure\u2014and that is what it is\u2014New Zealand First will not support this bill. In that context, New Zealand First will not support this bill. There are two reasons. The Government is hanging its hat on one primary action: these special housing areas. New Zealand First does not have a problem with special housing areas in themselves. We do not disagree with that. That is OK. It is actually consistent with New Zealand First policy. But, in fact, it is not enough, because all it does, as I have already indicated, with local government agreement through housing accords, is to define land available for housing. It does no more than that\u2014and because it does no more than that it does not necessarily result in more houses being built and, especially, it does not result in more houses that people can afford to buy being built. Therefore, it is a failed policy and for that reason\u2014because it does not go far enough, it does not do enough\u2014how could New Zealand First possibly agree to such measures to extend it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EAfter 3 years of failure, and because of the Government\u2019s failure to actually invest in housing rather than just provide for these areas, we have a continuation, and we will continue to see a worsening housing crisis in Auckland. Without actual investment in the purchase of land and the development of land by the Government, this problem will never cease, because the market cannot\u2014cannot\u2014provide what is needed in New Zealand. And that is no surprise\u2014that has actually been the case for a very long time in this country, and it has not changed. Why this Government thinks it will, I cannot possibly imagine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe pathetic 1,300 house result will, actually, continue. Maybe it will do a little bit better than 1,300 over the next 3 years, but that is such a drop in the bucket it does not even begin to address the housing crisis, especially in Auckland. New Zealand First\u2019s housing policy is much better than this\u2014and I can see the Minister grinning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286109aef0c214ee1af0ff3f640a06f1f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m laughing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc6d46456d5045909b6cd5f5c17ee47d\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: Look at him laughing. He should be laughing at himself, because we can see his policy in total failure, and yet he will not listen to anybody else. The fact is that New Zealand First wants a housing commission to do the strategic planning that this Government does not even consider to be necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ESecondly, New Zealand First would establish Kiwi Housing to buy and develop land on a scale that this Government has not even considered, to ensure modest homes are built for modest prices, and to allow easy term repayments for people who wish to buy them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe second and unrelated part of the bill is to change the law\u2014not to confirm it or clarify it, as is being claimed\u2014to change the law to allow the sale of State housing land without offer-back provisions. That is the normal process. Those offer-back provisions are the normal process under the Public Works Act because they protect the rights of people. Those rights should always be respected and should not be done away with simply because this Government is in panic mode over housing in New Zealand. That is not good enough. People\u2019s rights are worth more than that. We will not support that provision for that reason alone.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIn addition to that, the fact that the Government is looking at this actually demonstrates its failure of strategic planning and implementation. If it had looked forward enough, done the planning, and had a decent strategy, it would actually have the time to buy and develop land without having to do these short cuts and without having to compromise people\u2019s rights.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to point out some of the words that the Government claims justify this. On the end of the justification are the words \u201Cwhere the disposal is necessary to achieve the Crown\u2019s housing objectives.\u201D Well, what are those objectives? The Government claims they are to build more houses\u2014but this is State housing land. It is social housing land we are talking about, and the objective of the Government is actually the sell-off of State houses in the absence of a genuine and comprehensive programme for the building of more State houses. It is also their objective to fob off State housing to community organisations, many of which are actually not capable of doing that job, simply so that this Government can minimise its involvement in social housing. For all of these reasons, there is no possible way that New Zealand First will vote for this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022 data-id=\u0022bedb8289693b47c1884c06d401517d28\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bedb8289693b47c1884c06d401517d28\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for the opportunity to take this call on the first reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I am taking a short call to support this bill. To that member who just spoke, Denis O\u2019Rourke: yes, people are coming to New Zealand. We are attracting people from all around the world because the economy is doing so well under this National Government. Unemployment is 5.1 percent\u2014below 5.5 percent when compared with a year earlier. Wages are rising faster than inflation. These are the reasons why people are coming to New Zealand. We are attracting international students to come to New Zealand, we are attracting tourists to come to New Zealand, and we are attracting economic migrants who are looking for better opportunities\u2014they are coming to New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EIt is a contrast to what was happening under the previous Labour Government when people did not want to live in New Zealand because they could not see any scope, and they could not see any opportunities for themselves and their children here. They were moving overseas to live and work, and that is why we did not have this pressure that we are experiencing under this National Government. We are a very fortunate country to be in this position, where people want to come and live here in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003ENational does not have a blame policy like the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party. Talking about the median house price\u2014like the Green member Metiria Turei, who spoke before, did\u2014this means that there are houses of higher and lower value than the price of $1 million. It does not mean $1 million is the minimum house price; it means it is the median house price. It does not mean that there are no houses available for less than $1 million, or that houses are not available for more than $1 million. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EThis Government has been working hard to improve the supply of houses by signing housing accords, by establishing special housing areas, and, also, we are very keen to reform the Resource Management Act. That is why this legislation is important, because this is to extend the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 so that more special housing areas can be established as appropriate. I support this bill and commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u0022cba57be2b60a4d3aad7ec7c0c0199349\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cba57be2b60a4d3aad7ec7c0c0199349\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I am standing to oppose the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is being rushed through this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EIt is very clear\u2014it has been clear for quite some time, actually\u2014that this Government has lost control. It has no handle on the housing crisis, and has no handle on the extent and the scale of homelessness in this country. It is forever continuing to try these band-aid, mop-up bits of legislation to make it look as if it is serious about addressing this very serious issue, which New Zealanders understand is serious. It is trying to make it look like it is addressing the core part of the problem of homelessness and the housing crisis, and it is using mop-up, band-aid legislation to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI liken it to imagining that there are houses on fire, and the Government is, firstly, denying that they are on fire, and, secondly, rushing to try to put the fire out with half a hose. The Government\u2019s mop-up bits\u2014its band-aid legislation\u2014are not even fulsome enough to properly address the emergency status of what is happening, let alone going anywhere near the deeper, fundamental, core problems that are causing more and more people to become homeless. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis is why, in question time today, John Key could not commit to ending homelessness\u2014it is because he cannot. He does not want to promise that. He could not even say what one of the submitters at our hearing in Kait\u0101ia just last week said to us, which was: \u201CThis should be the last generation of this country to be impacted by homelessness.\u201D That is a goal\u2014that is a goal. This should be the last generation in this country to experience homelessness\u2014any insecure tenure. That is a goal. Today in question time, New Zealanders, our Prime Minister could not even commit to that. He has left our New Zealanders out in the car, cold; in the garage, crouched up, cold; and at the park, cold\u2014that is what he has done to our country: he has left our people in the cold. And he cannot even promise to get them back in the warmth. He cannot even do that. Today in question time, folks, that is what we confirmed from this Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThat is why these failed pieces of legislation are failing. It is because they are not addressing the core roots of the problem. The Government is trying to mop it up to make it seem like it is doing something. This special housing area (SHA) legislation\u2014oh, it went so wrong. The developers asked why they would want to bother ensuring that even 10 percent of housing was affordable\u2014that is all the SHA legislation, even as it is, guarantees as affordable. It is only 10 percent; the developers do not even want to agree to that. They are not into that 10 percent being affordable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ENow let us look at this word \u201Caffordable\u201D. It means 75 percent of the median. Does this Government understand that, even at 75 percent of the median for Auckland, it is still not actually affordable? Does the Government get that? New Zealanders do\u2014New Zealanders do, I tell you. This is why real solutions are needed\u2014for example: capital funding, a capital gains tax, banning non-resident sales and buyers of homes in New Zealand, and the Government building affordable housing where our families and our people can pay a weekly amount into the capital of owning their own homes, without needing to have a deposit. Those are real systemic and enduring solutions, not this SHA legislation, which has already failed\u2014it has already failed. So, no, we are not going to support this bill, because it is half a mop and it is half a band-aid. The country is on fire and it is half a water hose. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022 data-id=\u00225970507e91ed4c83bd357b6af5f23946\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225970507e91ed4c83bd357b6af5f23946\u0022\u003EJENNY SALESA (Labour\u2014Manukau East):\u003C/span\u003E M\u0101l\u014D e lelei. M\u0101l\u014D e \u2019fakakoloa \u2019a Aotearoa \u2019aki \u2019e lea faka-Tonga. Happy Tongan Language Week, Mr Assistant Speaker. The theme for this year, 2016, is enriching Aotearoa with the Tongan spirit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EThank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take a short call on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. It is unfortunate that we are discussing this bill under urgency, because I believe that housing is such a crucial issue that it should be going through the actual process and we should actually take our time and allow the public to make submissions on this bill. It is legislation being proposed that is the latest string in a fiasco proposed as housing policy under this Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EHaving a roof or a home is a basic human right, but, unfortunately, it is a basic human right that is not afforded to so many, to thousands of our people, especially to our children. We know from Otago University that in the 2013 census figures there were at least over 41,000 who are homeless, and we also know from this analysis that 10,000 of them are children under the age of 15. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EI see too many of these families in my office. They come in the cars that they live in. Some of these mothers ring up and say: \u201CI don\u2019t have a car, but I\u2019d like a house to live in. Can you please come and help?\u201D. Many of our staff members do not really like to go and do house calls, but when you get a phone call and you are talking to a mother with five kids, seven kids, or sometimes nine kids, and they tell you that they do not have a car, they do not even have the bus fare to get to your office, you get in your car and you go and you help those families out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EJust in the weekend I got a call from one of my teachers in \u014Ctara. This is a teacher who had been looking after five kids. This teacher no longer taught these five kids, but the eldest of these kids was now 16 years old, and she was attending a school together with her eldest son. This family was homeless. This teacher said that she felt responsible. The son had told her that they had been homeless for quite a while. This family was a working family, but they were made homeless because the landlord sold the property. I see too many of these families that have been homeless because the landlords have decided to sell the house, and there are not enough State houses to help these families. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EIt is an indictment on our country, Aotearoa New Zealand, that it takes a family like this to reach out to the member of Parliament, then for the member of Parliament to have media involved, before a family like this actually gets to access a house. This is a fair country. We used to be so proud that we were an egalitarian society\u2014well-known internationally for being an egalitarian society; for looking after our own, especially our vulnerable families\u2014but we live in a day and age when this is no longer the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003EJust today we were told that the house prices in Auckland are over $1 million. But we also know from the statistics that 80 percent of the houses sold in \u014Ctara last year\u2014in my electorate of Manukau East\u2014were sold to investors. When we know that \u014Ctara houses are being sold to investors, what that means is that investors have to recoup their costs. Whom do they recoup these costs from? It is from our tenants and most vulnerable families\u2014the families who can least afford to pay these rents. Six years ago rent was only about $230 for a three-bedroom house in \u014Ctara. Today, 6 years on, it has doubled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d14b1afe-2069-41e4-96fa-c8dc81a991a4\u0022\u003ESo why is it that we are seeing so many homeless families? It is because the rent is out of control. In general, more than 50 percent of people in Auckland rent, but when we look at vulnerable families, we see, for example, that 82 percent of Pacific families rent, either from private landlords or from the State. Is this bill, the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which we are discussing under urgency, going to deliver for any of these families? No, I do not think so, because the affordable houses that the Hon Nick Smith talks about are houses that are $500,000 or $600,000 and above, and that is not affordable for many of our vulnerable, poor families. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u00221e6ec6edfbb14483912d9468b048853b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e6ec6edfbb14483912d9468b048853b\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E No one else seems to be bothered to take a call. If there was nothing else to describe Nick Smith as a Minister for Building and Housing and his policies, we have seen two emblems of them today. The first of those is that he is now the \u201Cmillion-dollar Minister\u201D. That is Nick Smith\u2019s lasting legacy to the people of New Zealand\u2014that the average house price in Auckland is a million dollars. I want to be clear about what that will get you in Auckland: a million dollars in Auckland today will get you a two-bedroom brick-and-tile in Mt Roskill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa96c9755d8a4e6bab599e565f7a0e1c\u0022\u003EMarama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Is that all?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7f88f5cd15e485d97e5d984fd1fbb4f\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: A two-bedroom brick-and-tile in Mt Roskill is the million-dollar dream of this Minister. That is a disgraceful legacy to New Zealand, to see housing go so far out of the reach of hard-working New Zealanders\u2014the primary school teachers, the firefighters in Auckland who cannot afford to live there anymore. It is a city with a housing market out of control, and for 8 years all we have had from the National Government is denial\u2014a denial that there is a problem; an excuse; a person to blame; an organisation to blame\u2014anyone other than this National Government stepping up and taking responsibility. Today Nick Smith can say \u201CI\u2019m the silver medal winner for New Zealand.\u201D, because New Zealand has the second most overvalued properties compared with rents and the second most overvalued properties compared with incomes in the OECD. That is what we have reached under Nick Smith: a housing market that for most young New Zealanders means the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home, being part of a community, and providing security and stability for their families is slipping away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe National Government comes to the House today with the second of the emblems of Nick Smith\u2019s time: yet another piecemeal, tinkering, small measure that the Government brings forward and then says: \u201CYou\u2019ve got to do this under urgency.\u201D It is an emblem of the catalogue of incompetence and of the chaotic and damaging housing policy of Nick Smith, to bring this bill to this House under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI want to state right now that the Government should accept a Supplementary Order Paper from Phil Twyford to split these bills in two\u2014to split up Part 1 of the bill, which says that these special housing area provisions need to be extended. This is because\u2014and I will return to this in a minute\u2014there is at least a small amount of value in that proposal, albeit it very small. But Part 2 of the bill\u2014which actually has nothing to do with Part 1 of the bill, and they should not even be together at this point\u2014should go to a select committee. What is the urgency, Dr Smith? What is the urgency for Part 2 of the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a97025435b64f50bf5c5a7819ac60b9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Getting houses built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bbe009d62fe488ca54a068304679ff8\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CGetting houses built.\u201D, he says. You have had 8 years and you have not shown any urgency. Why today, on a provision that is significant? The provision is significant because it takes away the rights of certain New Zealanders. It could be justified; we need a debate about that. There is no way that a piece of legislation like this and as important as this should be blithely brought through under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI went looking for the regulatory impact statement on this matter\u2014on Part 2 of the bill\u2014and found nothing on the Table of the House. But we do have the departmental disclosure statement on the bill as a whole, and it makes for disturbing reading. That is because Part 2 of this bill changes the process in terms of the right of offer\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e84bc28eab2b494fb1b015cf792dfffb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: No, it doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b339ba48f264bb8a2db933fd44db4ff\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it does. Why are you putting it up, Dr Smith, if it does not change the process? Why is it in the House? Why are we all here? If you are not doing anything, why is it in the law? He does not know, does not have an answer, and has not got a clue about what he is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EWhat is worse is that in the departmental disclosure statement the Government is required to answer a series of questions\u2014all departmental disclosure statements have to answer these questions. It says: \u201CPart Four: Significant Legislature Features. Compulsory acquisition of private property. 4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?\u201D. Answer: \u201CNo\u201D. That is what the Minister and his department are telling his officials\u2014he says: \u201CNo.\u201D Is that not precisely what you, Dr Smith, are trying to achieve with the bill\u2014to say to people who may have had a right of offer back that they no longer do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EWell, if you do not like that one, we will go further down the page in the departmental disclosure statement to where it says: \u201CSignificant decision-making powers. 4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person\u2019s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?\u201D. The answer from the Minister: \u201CNo\u201D. He says: \u201CNo.\u201D That is categorically untrue, Minister. You have misled your Cabinet colleagues, because that is precisely what this provision in Part 2 does\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cd2b58b5aef46bb92f80f9b6be5cb6d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265f13ea125784cce8fbb5aa7a1442c46\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and if it does not, why is it here? Why have you put it in the law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022106fd79b63d1406498ee3ac6c9dc6288\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Read it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227766f984cbf646248da2595a3e8a7b3d\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Read it? I have read it, Dr Smith, and what it does under Part 2 is it changes the way in which some people may believe that the Public Works Act applies to them in this law. Now, Dr Smith, this is the problem, because what should be happening at the end of this debate is that this piece of legislation should be going off to a select committee. Maybe, just maybe, we can accept that Part 1 of the bill cannot do that, because\u2014despite being warned by Phil Goff in May that there were going to be problems with the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan\u2014Dr Smith has waited until 6 September to come to us with an urgent law because the whole provisions around special housing areas expire on 15 September, so maybe Part 1 passes the urgency threshold. Part 2 does not pass the urgency threshold.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESo, Dr Smith, here is your chance: split the bills in two. Part 1 comes through; many parties in this House will be able to support that. Part 2 goes to a select committee, and the public will actually get to make some submissions on a fundamentally important change in law around whether or not there are offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act. The Public Works Act\u2014and everyone in this House will have had some interaction with it during their time as a politician or beforehand\u2014has a hierarchy in it. It has a process for the return of land, or the offer back of land, to the original owners. If that is changing\u2014which, presumably, is the only reason you would put something in a law, because if it is already the law you do not need to change it\u2014that deserves proper scrutiny. That is a major change. That is about people\u2019s property rights, which Dr Smith claimed today are not affected by this clause. They quite clearly are, Dr Smith. You have misled your Cabinet colleagues, and it is time to actually have a proper debate about this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe special housing areas promised so much from Dr Smith. They promised that they were going to be the panacea for Auckland\u2019s housing crisis, in particular, and yet we have seen such little action from them\u2014around 1,300 actual houses. During the period of time when National has been in office, the deficit in housing has gone up by over 40,000 houses and 163,000 extra people have arrived in Auckland during that time, and the Government has failed to keep up. In 2016 we are going to see, what, around 9,600 houses built. That is still well below the 13,000 houses that are required. If you look at it on a population basis, we are getting around 6.3 consents for every 1,000 people, yet we need it to be up at around 13 or 14 consents, which is what happened when the Labour Government under Norman Kirk took this seriously\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0b35c011cee4315acfd13367eeb470e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Did not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200b671169e9e4f2a85cc5c52a1c77eac\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: It is exactly what happened. We took this seriously the last time, when Norman Kirk was the Prime Minister, in the 1970s. What we needed\u2014and if we were to be here under urgency, it would be to have a comprehensive housing plan to build affordable homes, to crack down on speculators, and to actually build more State houses and not, as this Government does, avoid doing that because it is, in the words of the Dominion Post today, \u201Cfundamentally averse to building \u2026 state houses.\u201D Those members have got their ideological blinkers on and that is bad enough, but if you add to that pushing through under urgency a fundamental change to the Public Works Act and how it applies, it is a disgrace to use urgency this way, from a failed and hopeless Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022d81d36f635cb41b681e9120868f988d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d81d36f635cb41b681e9120868f988d2\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is my pleasure to take this call on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill and yet another tool in National\u2019s tool kit in its comprehensive housing plan. There are now 213 special housing areas (SHAs) across New Zealand. They are in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, Tauranga, the Western Bay of Plenty, Selwyn, Tasman, Nelson, and Queenstown, and they have the capacity to build and provide 70,000 homes. We need to protect these SHAs and provide for more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EWorthy of note in this bill is that it sets time limits on lodging resource consents and plan variations, which, in turn, encourages developers to begin building in special housing areas quickly. Consents must be lodged within 12 months of an SHA being gazetted. If this bill does not progress, the SHAs listed above will lapse and the developers will need to restart their plan change process under the Resource Management Act. This could delay that housing coming on stream by at least 2 years and, potentially, up to 5 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EThis Government is serious about building houses, and this bill is an important part of improving the supply of land and providing the tools to get houses built. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1a37d93d60946e1b8924154af894ca8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1a37d93d60946e1b8924154af894ca8\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I call a member, I am just taking a little advice as to whether we alternate or whether we\u2014because, of course, National\u2014sorry, I have muted my own mike. I am just taking a little bit of advice before I call a member. I have seen the two members who have called. I am taking a little bit of advice. There is a Business Committee decision as to the order of calls, but it does not take into account when a party chooses not to take a call, as happened earlier. So I am just getting some advice as to whom I should call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc4e2a41b880451691977b806a004a1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc4e2a41b880451691977b806a004a1f\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI (Labour\u2014Kelston):\u003C/span\u003E We are highly opposed\u2014as you will have heard formerly from my colleagues who have spoken, not just from the Labour Party but also from the Green Party and New Zealand First\u2014to the fact that the Government has made the decision to put this bill through under urgency. We have been trying to get some urgency over the housing issue for at least the last 2 years and we have not got any urgency on things that matter, including\u2014can I just mention\u2014the issue of homelessness, where we tried to get the Government to agree to do a cross-party inquiry into this very important issue. Instead, we have had to do it in partnership with the Greens and with the M\u0101ori Party because the Government did not see a need for that to be urgent. But here we are today, considering something in urgency, basically because Nick Smith\u2014again\u2014has made a shambles of the housing situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI just want to say\u2014and I have been yelling it out from the backbenches over here\u2014that, actually, I think Nick Smith will go down in history as the worst housing Minister New Zealand has ever had. What a legacy\u2014what a legacy for him to leave here. It is part of a string of fiascos that pass for a housing policy under the Minister, and yet we still have to listen to that Government\u2014every time those members stand up in the House\u2014say that it has a comprehensive housing package. There is no comprehensive housing plan that the National Government has going on. The plan\u2014the only plan\u2014that New Zealand needs from the National Government is a commitment to building houses. We do not need a pipeline and we do not need a consent, because we cannot live in a pipeline and we cannot live in a consent. We need actual houses, and we have not been given them so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EAlthough Labour would vote for the first part, which is extending the housing accords law here, we think it is untenable, actually, to push the second part, with changes to the Public Works Act, through all stages under urgency. If both parts\u2014as we have said earlier\u2014are included in this bill, then we cannot vote for this bill\u2014and, actually, I think my colleague Phil Twyford did put up an amendment trying to split the bill, but that has not been supported. My understanding is that it has not been supported by the National Government. So easy\u2014we could so easily support part of this; we just cannot support the second part\u2014it would be so easy for the Minister to just split it in two so that at least he could get some consensus in the House for part of what he is trying to do. But we cannot commit to the second part because we do believe there needs to be some public scrutiny on that, particularly in respect of what we are dealing with there\u2014that is, basically, changes to the way in which the Public Works Act applies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI want to talk just a little bit about where I have seen that specific part of the Public Works Act applied to my own electorate, and that was with regard to the Waterview Connection. We know that as part of the Waterview Connection a whole lot of properties were purchased from Housing New Zealand as part of the Public Works Act process\u2014and also private houses\u2014so that that particular motorway could be built; then, in the end, actually, a whole lot of them were not required. You know, as New Zealanders we can have peace of mind that, actually, the first port of call in terms of offering those houses for purchase back was actually to Housing New Zealand, because it had sold them as part of the Public Works Act process in the first place. Unfortunately, in that situation Housing New Zealand did not purchase the houses back\u2014it should have\u2014Housing New Zealand acted as if there was no need to recoup that housing, and then those houses ended up going up for private sale.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EBut we know that if there was a responsible Government, then that measure is actually a very sensible measure to have in place. That housing was not required for the roading project. It should have gone straight back to Housing New Zealand. Housing New Zealand had the opportunity to purchase it back. Unfortunately, in that situation, it did not\u2014but I am happy that at least that safeguard was in place, and I do not want it to be messed with, particularly given that we have not had any time to actually scrutinise what is being proposed here by the National Government. In fact, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, it does not seem like National members have actually had time to scrutinise what is in front of them for themselves. In fact, Nick Smith seems a little bit confused about what is actually in this bill, and we are concerned, actually, that perhaps the way in which Nick Smith has communicated this to his Cabinet is slightly misleading. But, given that this is going through under urgency, we will not have the opportunity to scrutinise it to the extent that we need to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EEarlier, people who have been on their feet on this side of the House talked about some of the issues that we are facing in respect of housing, and, actually, we have made it really clear that this is a priority for Labour in Opposition and Labour when we are in Government. I just want to say that it has been really disconcerting to see the response that we got from the National Government on a number of issues. Particularly, let us start with the fact it denies there is a housing crisis in the first place. And then, yet, we get responses back from them like the one I got back from the Minister for Social Housing, who states that it takes 155 days to house someone who is homeless\u2014155 days to actually house someone who is homeless\u2014who is living in their car, living in a garage, living under a bush somewhere; it takes that Government 155 days to house them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI have had difficulties even getting a definition out of the National Government in respect of what homelessness is. In fact, when I asked the Minister for Social Housing what the definition for homelessness was I got a response on the day that the response was due saying that she needed more time to be able to provide that answer. More time to be able to provide a definition for homelessness? We just have to wonder what the criteria that we are working under are, and whether the Government even knows what is going on. And then we hear, through a University of Otago study, that there are approximately 41,000 - plus people who are homeless in this country and the National Government says that it does not believe that figure\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254986ead7012474f9d499d5e999810bb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s crap.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022073e1ac9a8e541f29300312a313e6007\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that that figure is not correct. Oh, actually, I think I just heard Nick Smith say that that figure is crap. Well, actually\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290d5dfb4a6094fb98a1e3cb479e4888d\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I probably should have pulled the member up, but I do not want it repeated back and forth, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224262aa8eacd04292be14a0a070828309\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: Sure. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Actually, we see it every day in our electorate offices, particularly those of us who live in electorates that have people who are living on lower incomes. As my colleague Jenny Salesa said before, it is not just those who are on benefits\u2014although we are concerned about those people who are homeless\u2014but there is also a growing number of working poor who cannot afford to put a roof over the heads of their family and are living in cars. That is concerning to us, but what is really concerning is that it does not seem to be concerning to the National Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThis bill, as I said earlier, is another step in this shambles that has been the Government\u2019s housing accords. It demonstrates, yet again, the Government\u2019s incompetence on housing. The Government was well aware that some of the special housing areas could lose their ability to continue under the new Auckland Unitary Plan before the housing accords legislation was even passed\u2014and yet now it is pushing through legislation with only 10 days to go before D-day. This could have been considered in a more responsible way, but the Government has not thought forward, it has not been organised, and here we go again in the chaos that is the National Government\u2019s supposed comprehensive housing plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThe housing accords have failed to deliver new housing, with only just over 1,000 houses actually completed in Auckland after 3 years, yet the Government now proposes to extend them for another 3 years. They have also been a goldmine for land bankers\u2014I think my colleague Marama Davidson was talking about this before\u2014with only 57 of the 154 special housing areas actually having building consents in them, so far. If the Government was serious about delivering more housing, it would actually adopt Labour\u2019s KiwiBuild plan to build\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e414940b6e3a40cca719d8ac590159eb\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a joke\u2014it\u2019s a joke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b441e0d02cf4fb3893e60717fa2e7a1\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014100,000 affordable houses. It is not a joke when a political party has a plan to build more houses in the midst of a housing crisis, Nick Smith. That is not the joke. The joke is that that Minister refuses to listen and acknowledge that there is a housing crisis in this country. That is the joke. The joke is that that Minister has brought the bill to the House under urgency because he was not organised enough to get this through the proper channels earlier on, when he should have. That is the joke, Mr Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229feb47c317b340ddba9da8cb6c7a05f7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f67809ab41594de1969600c2467050d2\u0022\u003EPoints of Order\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022423a9fb2ed674e8cb1dd9fd7539a6598\u0022\u003ELeave to Divide Bill into Two Bills\u2014Housing Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u002272c77cf5d83a470d8e967d2bfd94ce25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002272c77cf5d83a470d8e967d2bfd94ce25\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the bill to be divided into two bills, as described in my amendment; for the bill containing Part 1 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill to be set down for second reading forthwith and for the bill containing Part 2 to be referred to the Social Services Committee to be reported by 25 November 2016.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa911ae961d14c0a9bf8faf414ce1f96\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa911ae961d14c0a9bf8faf414ce1f96\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that process? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d0e1de339d37474c8482e17805000085\u0022\u003EHousing Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221c2d8a3d27ec4ad18cd9a0a94dd51e53\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00229502ac4846084d029bb4276d443c427b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229502ac4846084d029bb4276d443c427b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a litmus test as to whether people want houses to be over people\u2019s heads or whether people just want to play politics and play rhetoric. The frank choice for this Parliament is that this bill will get more houses built. What I find so extraordinary from members opposite is that they set up inquiries and they demand that the Government takes a state of emergency on housing and puts the whole country into some civil defence crisis, but they are not prepared to come down to this Parliament and support a practical bill that will actually get houses built. But I am not surprised\u2014I am not surprised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI will tell you why I am not surprised. Every single time that legislation that will actually get houses built has been before this Parliament, members opposite have voted against it. What happened to the HomeStart scheme? They opposed it. What happened to the fast-tracked unitary plan? They opposed it. What happened in terms of Resource Management Act reform? They opposed it. What happened in terms of the legislation to provide for special housing areas? They opposed it. And now I ask members opposite\u2014and let us talk real facts\u2014how many houses were being built when this Government came to office? The number had dropped to a low of just 12,000 homes across this country. That is the lowest level\u2014the lowest level\u2014of houses that were ever built in my lifetime. The lowest number ever was what this Government inherited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWell, let us look at how much housing has grown, because, I will be frank, I am proud of my record. This is a graph of the number of houses built in every year back to 1922. In my first year as housing Minister, the number grew by 21 percent. In my second year as housing Minister, the number grew by 23 percent. In my third year as housing Minister the number grew by another 20 percent, and the latest figures show growth of 29 percent. Here is my challenge: tell me during which Minister\u2019s watch there has been faster growth in the number\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c61bceecabb4317b17994675c56190a\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I just want to ask Mr Faafoi not to bring the Speaker into the debate, especially in a disreputable way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb8cdfd9a23643fbbc72a826f0ebe821\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I have got a simple question, Mr Faafoi: name me a Minister under whom there has been stronger growth in the number of houses being built than over the last 4 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221736a76fd6ce40bf810809ca691ab5c8\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Over the last 4 years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227a3a1ae6a864f1aa785b8d77bffacf7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Over any 4 year period\u2014tell me a period when you have had 4 years of more than 20 percent compound growth in the house-build rate. Tell me any name in any period when there has been faster house growth than in the last 4 years. They are silent because they know there has been phenomenal growth in the number of houses being built over the 4 years. In fact, the truth is that there has been a faster increase in the rate of house building over the last 4 years than in any period, going back to 1922. There have been 29,000 homes built in the last year, and that rate continues to grow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen I have the contribution from the member: \u201CWell, Housing New Zealand should get on and build some houses.\u201D Well, here are the facts, guys: in the last year 1,100 homes have been completed by Housing New Zealand\u20141,100 finished; that is not consented, but finished. What was the maximum number of houses that were built during Helen Clark\u2019s years? I thought they were the people who loved State housing. Actually, they got less than half that number. The very best number that Labour achieved in a year was 640 homes. Hang on a moment\u2014this Government has built more State houses in the last year than any Government in 25 years. So I ask members opposite why they will not support bills that will get houses built. If they are genuine about wanting to get people out of cars and into houses, why will they not support bills before this House that will actually get houses built?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us be practical. I want to draw your attention to a very specific press release from Sir Noel Robinson\u2014a very credible gentleman. He wants to build 500 houses in Papakura. Well, anybody in this House would know that that is an area where there is very high housing need. Those 500 homes will not be built\u2014will not be built\u2014according to his press release, without this bill. Five hundred homes, quite specifically, will not be built without this bill. Sir Noel Robinson has spent $2 million on developing his site in Bellfield Road in Papakura. He is committed to building affordable houses, and so I ask members on the opposite side of the House whether they want Sir Noel Robinson to build those 500 houses or not. In voting against this bill at the first reading, they are showing themselves to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to come, quite specifically, to the issues around the Housing Act, because Governments since 1955 have been doing housing developments under that Act. When those houses have been built, Governments of both National and Labour\u2014and even New Zealand First\u2014persuasions have sold those constructed houses to New Zealanders. There is some doubt\u2014there is a question mark that has been raised\u2014as to whether houses that have been developed by Housing New Zealand, or developed in Weymouth, or built in Hobsonville, have to be offered back to the previous owner. That would be totally contrary to what every Government has done since 1955, and I will tell you why it matters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ERight now, I am in the private market to secure partners\u2014partners with M\u0101ori, partners with building companies\u2014to build thousands of houses on Crown land in places like Manukau, places right through Auckland. Would a private sector partner invest hundreds of millions of dollars if there is a question mark as to whether they can sell those houses that are completed? That is why I say to members opposite that if they are serious\u2014serious\u2014about addressing New Zealand\u2019s housing issues and enabling us to build houses on that Crown land, they should support this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI ask members opposite where they are going to build those KiwiBuild houses they promise. Where? They have said that it will be on Crown land. If they oppose this bill, they are, effectively, saying that they would need to offer those blocks of land back to their previous owners and not be able to develop houses on them. In other words, they could not build the very houses that they promise that they will be able to deliver. So I say again to this Parliament: stop the politicking; support the policies that will actually get houses built for Kiwi families. There is only one answer to homelessness, and that is to build more houses. Parties that want houses built will back this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022d900d17041c645858ca6ffb335cafebc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d900d17041c645858ca6ffb335cafebc\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E Well, that was like a Punch and Judy show without Judy. That was quite a rant that we heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, passionately defending his record. He is much loved by political cartoonists, is Dr Smith. I think it is because drawing him must be such a satisfying task for the nation\u2019s political cartoonists. But I am sorry to say to the Minister that he has become, really, a symbol of failure in this Government\u2019s housing policy. He has come to embody the fiasco\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6d153c450fb4f6b82fa02fad0dfb0fb\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I regret interrupting the member. I just do want to warn the member interjecting from my right that his interjection is a reflection on me. He is referring to a matter that is solely mine, and the width of this debate was set by Mr Speaker right back at the beginning. It was very clear that it is a broad debate. So I do not want that sort of reflective interjection, thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266fdcaeb926b4c54a5bc78f86459f120\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: This Minister measures his success as building and housing Minister by comparing the rate of residential construction with the depths of the global financial crisis, when demand collapsed in the economy, and, basically, the building industry went dead for at least a couple of years, and many of our skilled tradespeople left the industry and left the country. That is Nick Smith\u2019s benchmark for success: the depths of the global financial crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EBut notwithstanding all of the bluster that we heard from Dr Smith, it needs to be pointed out that we are still building, in Auckland, fewer houses per year than were being built in 2004\u2014fewer in Auckland than were being built in 2004, and fewer than were being built in the time of Prime Minister Norman Kirk in the mid-1970s. The picture is even more grim if you compare the current build rate with a per-thousand population. Because of the rising population, we are now building fewer houses than at many points over the last 30 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel estimated recently that, under this National Government, the shortfall of dwellings in Auckland has built up to the tune of 42,000 dwellings. That is the scale of the shortage that has built up on Dr Smith\u2019s watch. It is currently getting worse by about 4,000 a year, because only about 9,600 new dwellings are being consented annually\u2014you can take 10 percent off that, actually, because the actual build rate is generally about 10 percent less than the consenting rate. So probably only 8,500 dwellings are being built every year in Auckland, when the city needs at least 13,000 just to keep up with population.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to say a couple of things about the special housing areas. Part 1 of this bill extends the special housing areas out\u2014from the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas legislation\u2014by 3 years. So I want to ask the question, really: what is the benefit of the special housing area legislation? We know it is the Government\u2019s main policy when it comes to trying to increase the supply of new housing. The special housing areas are only lines on a map\u2014little zones that, basically, attract fast-tracked consenting. That is all they are. There is no guarantee that houses will be built, and we can see from the numbers that, over 3 years, 154 special housing areas have been gazetted but little more than a third of them, actually, have building consents being issued. After 3 years of this policy, little more than a third of them actually have building consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat we can see in the special housing areas is that they have actually been a magnet for land banking. They have encouraged land banking by providing the fast-tracked consenting status. By giving them a kind of special status as special housing areas, they have actually encouraged land banking. You can see one example after another of special housing area land being marketed by real estate agents for land banking\u2014I kid you not. And what did Dr Smith do a couple of months ago when he was asked about land banking in the special housing areas? He said: \u201CYep, there are 14 special housing areas where they\u2019ve been given their resource consents. They\u2019ve got special housing area status, but they haven\u2019t even applied for building consents.\u201D He promised that he would write a stern letter to those land bankers and threaten them with the full force of\u2014well, I do not actually know what he threatened them with, but he certainly sounded very intent when he was being quizzed about this on television\u2019s Q\u002BA programme. It turned out that he wrote only four letters to the land bankers\u2014four letters\u2014and if you read the letter, it was not really a threatening letter to the land bankers; it was much more of a wet bus ticket where he encouraged them to go and have a conversation with the council. That must have been pretty scary for those land bankers!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe other thing about the housing accords that we know is that very few of them have any real affordability requirements. Len Brown and the Auckland Council, basically, browbeat the Government, in the Auckland Housing Accord, into giving them the power to require that up to 10 percent of new dwellings be affordable, but, actually, in most of the other housing accords around the country\u2014in Wellington, in Nelson, and in Tauranga\u2014Nick Smith and his officials point-blank refused to allow affordability requirements to be included in those housing accords. So, as a result, very few affordable houses have been built, because in an overheated and undersupplied market what happens, of course, is that the developers choose to build more expensive houses so that they can make bigger profits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo the special housing areas have been underwhelming. They have made very little difference. No one can say with any certainty whether or not they have actually resulted in a net increase in the number of houses that have been built. At best, the special housing areas might have accelerated the development of some houses that were already in the pipeline.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe would vote for Part 1 of this bill to extend the special housing areas, in order to ease the transition problems caused by the poor drafting of the original housing accord and special housing area legislation, which, as has been pointed out in this debate, would cause some cost uncertainty and delay to eight developers in those special housing areas in Auckland unless this legislation is extended. If the bill did only that, then we would have been willing to support it. It is not much, it is no genuine contribution to fixing the housing crisis, and it is resulting in very few houses actually being built and even fewer affordable ones, but we would have been willing to support it, as modest as it is. But we cannot vote for this bill while it includes Part 2, a provision that would take away rights that people have under the Public Works Act, that former owners would have, to have Government land that is being re-designated for the purposes of State housing\u2014it is taking away their right for that land to be offered back to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt was very, very illuminating in the first reading debate of this bill when Grant Robertson pointed out that if there was no change required, if the Government already had that right, unfettered, to be able to use the State housing designation to either dispose of land or to use it in housing developments and not have to offer it back to former owners under the Public Works Act\u2014if the State already has that right, why are we here? Why is it in this bill? Why is this bill being rammed through under urgency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241874dd9a7dd4739a14925482bf1b131\u0022\u003EJono Naylor\u003C/span\u003E: So that you can understand it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022197d1922c6af4992a6f434364e23ae89\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just think the member is being frivolous, if not insulting. There is no reason that we have heard offered in this debate, from the Minister for Building and Housing or from National Government members, why Part 2 is in this bill. The Government says it is clarifying the powers it has to do this, to ignore the offer-back provisions in the Public Works Act, but if that right already exists, if the Government already has that power, why is it legislating it? Why is it pushing it through under urgency? We believe that when you take away people\u2019s property rights, as this bill does, then you should at least do it in a careful, deliberate, and thoughtful way and subject the bill to the normal scrutiny, expert advice, and public submissions that you get in a select committee hearing. Why is this bill being rammed through under urgency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EFinally, I want to say that this bill epitomises the kind of piecemeal tinkering that has characterised the Government\u2019s so-called comprehensive housing agenda, which is not comprehensive at all. It is simply a whole lot of reactive, half-baked policies that are making very little difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u0022edeedabf92d64b48a705c300418e998d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edeedabf92d64b48a705c300418e998d\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on the second reading of this bill. I just realised, as the member Phil Twyford was speaking\u2014I came up with a good fund-raising idea for Mr Phil Twyford. Because of all the flip-flopping, he should have a pair of jandals called \u201CPhil\u2019s Flip-Flops\u201D. It sort of goes on and off, on and off, as a fund-raising idea. Why? Because the reality is that that is what we have, even from that speech. In the first reading, Labour members stood up and said: \u201CWe oppose this bill. However, if we separate the bill, we can support the first part but not the second part of the bill.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe first part of the bill is, obviously, the amendment to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, which would allow for another 3-year period, and yet Phil Twyford went on in his speech to continue to bag all of the things about the special housing accord Act in itself and what it enables: the fast-tracking of consenting to allow for rezoning for those particular areas. On the one hand, Labour says it supports it; but on the other hand: \u201CHang on, it\u2019s not that great. It doesn\u2019t work. But we\u2019ll go back again and we\u2019ll support it.\u201D If he would just make up his mind\u2014but I actually think that greater than Havaianas could be \u201CPhil\u2019s Flip-Flops\u201D. That is a good fund-raising idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThat is the sort of speech that we are hearing from the other side. He knows\u2014when it came to the LVRs, the loan-to-value ratios, he said: \u201CNot a good idea.\u201D All of a sudden, Labour members came in: \u201CIt\u2019s a great idea.\u201D Metropolitan urban limits\u2014not a good idea, but all of a sudden it is a great idea. Devolving stock into the community housing providers\u2014what happened? \u201CIt\u2019s a great idea\u201D, and then \u201CNot a good idea.\u201D\u2014flip-flop, flip-flop.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThis is a comprehensive plan. The special housing areas are not the silver bullet, but they add to the tool box that we know is important in addressing these issues. As for the tool box\u2014why? The Productivity Commission report states that \u201Cconsenting and the slow process, we know is critical. We know it\u2019s not the whole but is one part of the reasons why we need to build.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221951e704eb3e47c68418cdf96703da26\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: Table this comprehensive plan. Don\u2019t just talk about it\u2014show us it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e70a2542e7e4071b30abe3509ef4a27\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: So, Mr Denis O\u2019Rourke\u2014you want to say \u201CShow me the money. Show me the houses.\u201D, so let us talk about this. In June of this year, 2016, the special housing areas\u2014let us talk about the results: 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 new sections have been created, and 7,170 new sections have been granted resource consents, out of the 154 special housing areas in Auckland. We know that is good news, we know it is making a difference\u201426 have been built on capacity of 29,800, 15 have earthworks under capacity, 5,300, and 88 are in the same stage of the planning process. That is not just talk; those are results. They are facts. That is what is happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI know that it is not happening faster; we want it to happen quicker as well. Actually, the points that were made by previous speakers, that only 25 out of the 154 special housing areas have not had consents or plan changes lodged, 16 of which were declared in February and May of this year\u2014hence the reason why, when the question was \u201CWhy do we need to put this under urgency?\u201D, we need to ensure that we extend the period of time, that is critically important to this bill, and we think that is important as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EHere is the other thing about what it will do: it will allow for plan variation for applications that have begun but are not completed under the current Act to continue when a proposed district plan becomes operative. We know that the unitary plan, now that it has finally gone through the Auckland Council, allows for that; hence the reason why the extension will imply that as well. The other thing that I think is important, which maybe gets missed, is that it will also encourage and impose the fact that the consenting and the lodging of those consents for housing must be done within a 12-month period of time. We think that is important. It will be able to fast track the ability to say that if you are going to apply for a special housing accord area, then you need to enact that within a certain period of time. We think that is important as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWhy the 3 years? House prices continue to rise and the supply of housing continues to lag behind demand. The extension of this by 3 years will allow for additional special housing areas to be established, and it will provide a faster housing development and increase housing supply. We think that is critically important as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI just want to finish off my speech here, in the second reading, by talking about some of the results that we think are critically important around this area. Again, this is part of a suite of tools that we think are important. There are 85,000 new houses to be built in this term of Parliament, and 40 houses are built every working day. When the National Party came into Government in 2008, there were, on average, 10 houses being built every day. We know that it is making a difference, exactly at 40 houses being built every working day in Auckland. This is four times what it was when National was elected in 2008. Over 2,000 homes are to be built on Crown land. We have freed up land in Auckland and in Christchurch. We know that it is making a difference. We think this is important. We see it as pragmatic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI know that Mr Phil Twyford supports it, because he has said so. It is only the second party that does not support it. But when we talk about this bill and what it is enabling us in regard to building more\u2014to the demand\u2014we think it is making a difference. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u00223d5757faa6a64191a4e1b5cea956158b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d5757faa6a64191a4e1b5cea956158b\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI (Labour\u2014Kelston):\u003C/span\u003E That speech was a little bit disappointing. I just want to point out the fact that, firstly, I do not understand what he was talking about with regard to saying that my colleague Phil Twyford has flip-flopped. He has not flip-flopped on anything. We have been quite assertive in respect of our housing plans. The same cannot be said for that side of the House. Alfred Ngaro talked about some random fund-raiser that Phil Twyford should have. Well, actually, the fund-raiser that that member has been involved in is selling our State houses. What kind of a fund-raiser is that, Alfred Ngaro? He should be ashamed of himself. I am sure there are a whole lot of people in the electorate of Te Atat\u016B, which he is trying to win off the current electorate MP Phil Twyford, who do not support the decisions that he has made, alongside his Government, in respect of selling State housing that has been built up over generations, by generations of New Zealanders. He sold out. OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ECan I just say that one of the really disappointing parts of this, given the fact that we have been given the responsibility by the public\u2014we are elected representatives and we are here to scrutinise legislation, to make sure that we are giving New Zealanders the best deal possible. It is really concerning that we have only half a regulatory impact statement here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThere are two parts to the bill. We have made it really clear that we do not have any major issue with Part 1, apart from the fact that it has not been that effective to date, but that does not mean we would necessarily throw it out. But we do have major reservations about Part 2. The only regulatory impact statement we have is for Part 1 of the bill, which we on this side of the House would have no problem voting for if it was split off by Part 2, which actually does need further scrutiny.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI want to talk a little bit about Part 2 and speak to some of the reservations that we have. Basically, with Part 2 we are looking at the Public Works Act and the offer-back changes. Clause 10 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill amends section 15 of the Housing Act to state that sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act do not apply to the sale of State housing land. A specific subclause states that this change does not affect the right of first refusal under any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed. Minister Smith has advised us that the purpose of this is to prevent a situation where the Crown develops housing on land and, upon completion, a person decides to use their offer-back rights to purchase the completed development. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThe Minister has given us his assurance\u2014I am not sure how much that counts for\u2014that this provision could be used only for developments and would not be used for the sale of existing State housing stock held by Housing New Zealand. The Minister has argued that this change enhances the rights of M\u0101ori, as the right of first refusal is protected and the removal of the offer-back provision means that there is greater ability to negotiate agreements with M\u0101ori for housing developments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4b53d7707e347bfb5f7af38b104755e\u0022\u003EMeka Whaitiri\u003C/span\u003E: How many have entered into agreements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223dcfb1ddf1d241c599815413162d8bef\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague Meka Whaitiri has asked how many M\u0101ori, how many iwi, have entered into agreements. But I also want to say that on that side of the House the Minister is arguing that this enhances the rights of M\u0101ori. The M\u0101ori members on this side of the House, and the Labour Party in general, do not think that is the case, so we will not be supporting it. But also, let us look across the floor. We did notice, at the end of the first reading, who did not support this bill. Not only did the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party vote against this bill at first reading but the M\u0101ori Party did too. That is the political party, in partnership with the Government, that is supposed to be advocating for M\u0101ori. So here they are saying that, actually, when they vote against it\u2014what that says to us is that they do not believe that that enhances the rights of M\u0101ori either. We on this side of the House already knew that was the case, but it reinforces that that is the fact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ELabour has concerns that this provision will not give M\u0101ori the protection that the Minister says it does, and that the provision could be used to make it easier for the Government to go through its State house sell-off. The Government\u2019s claim that this is merely a clarification is tenuous, given the Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua incident. As part of the Government\u2019s Auckland surplus Crown land programme, the Government sought to use the Housing Act to circumvent Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua\u2019s right of first refusal under the T\u0101maki Collective deed of settlement. Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua challenged this in court, and the Government ended up settling the case in order to stop the legal action. That the Government was willing to settle in that case shows the law is far from certain, and this situation could apply to an offer-back provision, just as it could for Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua\u2019s right of first refusal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe cannot support a provision like this going through under urgency. We need it to be properly scrutinised. It is disgusting that the Government has tried to circumvent the proper process here by not allowing it to go to a select committee and by trying to wrap it up. The Government does have a habit of doing this\u2014putting something that we will not support or that we do not want to support, and that it knows we will not want to support, alongside something that we would not mind supporting, in an attempt to try to get us to sell out and, basically, agree to the whole thing. In this situation, we are not going to do that, I say to the National Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EWe have been really sensible with our advice and with our proposal, on this side of the House, by saying to the Government to just split the bill in two. Split the bill in two, and then, even though we have some reservations about Part 1, we can support Part 1, but we cannot support Part 1 with Part 2 alongside it and with that being part of the deal. It is a dodgy deal, and we will not be supporting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EIt was disappointing to hear Nick Smith at the beginning of this second reading debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, because he seemed to take his whole 10 minutes, or at least 9 minutes and 55 seconds of his 10 minutes, just trying to justify his track record. What that says to us on this side of the House is that he is feeling really sensitive right now. I am sure that even some of his colleagues are a little bit critical of the fact that he has done very little to address the housing issues that we face in this country. I am sure that his colleagues are coming under pressure from some of their constituents as well. When looking at some of the developments that have or have not happened under this National Government, those members should be a little bit concerned about what is happening in their electorates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EActually, it is quite timely that the New Plymouth MP is here, because one of those developments is in his electorate. Eight years ago the New Plymouth community was told that it was going to get a redevelopment, that Marfell was going to be redeveloped. Over that time it has had houses pulled out, it has got houses that have been boarded up, and now, 8 years later, nothing is happening there. Eight years later there is no additional housing. There is less housing than there was 8 years ago. When we put in an Official Information Act request to try to find out where the Government is at in respect of this housing development, what we got back was a report that says that, actually, it has decided there is no real need for any more State housing in this area and also it could not find a partner to partner with, so the Government has decided that this probably will not go ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EActually, in the context of the housing crisis that we face in New Zealand, with over 41,000 people homeless, and in the context locally there, or the emergency shelter telling me it has had a 33 percent increase in the last year in people needing emergency shelter because they are homeless, I find it really difficult to comprehend that that member for New Plymouth and that National Government can say that there is no need for any further Housing New Zealand development in that area, and to leave it empty, like a ghost town. If you go there it is so eerie. We know that there are so many families that do need homes in that area, but they have been neglected by their local member, Jonathan Young. They have been neglected by the National Government, which continues to make excuses for not building houses, when all it needs to do is build them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ESo my advice to Nick Smith is to get rid of the pipeline, get rid of the consents, get rid of the anger that he is clearly carrying and the sensitivities that he is carrying about the poor job that he has done in his role, and actually just get on with building some houses. That is what we proposed on this side of the House. The National Government would do itself a service if it just picked up Labour\u2019s KiwiBuild policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u00220aec13cb156249ed92b9e9d72b38a38d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220aec13cb156249ed92b9e9d72b38a38d\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E I was privileged enough to sit down at a wedding a couple of years ago, and I happened to be sitting next to a mutual friend who was a builder in Auckland. The wedding was in Palmerston North, but he was down there from Auckland for the wedding, and I said to him: \u201CWhat are the challenges that you really think are facing us, in terms of the challenges that we\u2019re facing with rising Auckland housing prices and otherwise?\u201D. He said it was pretty simple to him: it was the restriction of supply brought about by the changes that the Auckland City Council had made to the district plan. He said that what we do need to do is get the process moving a lot quicker, and get it so that we can actually get more houses built. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EIn 2013 we had the special housing areas put in place, and what that enabled us to do was\u2014as a short-term measure at that time\u2014fast track housing development and address those constraints on housing supply. It has been successful in that, to the point that we are actually seeing a huge number of houses built compared with what was happening before those housing areas were put in place. We have seen a huge number of consents being processed since those were put in place. It does not just happen instantly\u2014that houses are magically built. I know that those members on the other side of the House think they can have a policy where they wave a magic wand and houses will simply appear, but it does take a process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EThese special housing areas have been successful in speeding up the process. There is still a need for this to continue over another 3 years. So, quite succinctly, the primary purpose of this bill is to extend that for a longer period of time so that we can remove that constraint on housing supply in Auckland and help get this moving a lot better for those people in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00220da53fdfe96445369d46216ac8e194bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220da53fdfe96445369d46216ac8e194bb\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I watched the Minister stand and do quite a bit of shouting and try to justify his failures based on a reflection on history. But, of course, every Minister will stand and fall on their record, and this Minister\u2019s record\u2014along with the other two Ministers who are also responsible for housing. So the three Ministers in this National Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236648135da4d45a8b77ba55dbea90f4c\u0022\u003EMarama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Three? All of them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f4848cb02144e6a9065e8c73968c8d2\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: They assigned three. Well, arguably, that is why we are in such a disaster. It took three of them to create the legacy of the highest levels of homelessness we have seen in a generation\u2014Nick Smith can stand on that record. The lowest rate of homeownership that we have seen in a generation or two\u2014Nick Smith can stand on that record. The record high prices, where the average house in Auckland now costs $1 million\u2014well, Nick Smith can certainly stand on that record.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e821b687a6e4d3886f1807d3336cfb2\u0022\u003EMarama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Well done!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d61eaec4d14845ccaa54488827f8926e\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, well done, Nick Smith! Increasing rents to the extent that ordinary families are being driven out of rental properties and into homes in cars, and garages\u2014Nick Smith can stand on that record. He can stand there and argue about history all he likes; New Zealand will look on his time as Minister\u2014his history\u2014and rightly judge his failings as a housing Minister against the record that he has created. For all of the posturing and the shouting that goes on, that is his record, and what is his response to that record? His response is this bill: a continuation of a failed policy in Auckland, and the removal of property rights from a wide range of New Zealanders, none of whom he could identify when asked about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo his record of failure will continue, and it would just be a usual political issue, I guess, that you would expect of this National Government, except that it is not Nick Smith who suffers; it is thousands and thousands of New Zealand families, young New Zealanders, and elderly New Zealanders, who are all looking for secure, decent, and affordable homes to live in. In a country as rich, beautiful, and resourceful as ours, this Government has somehow driven our housing to the worst possible state we could expect, where so many New Zealanders can now not afford to rent a home or to buy a home. That is the record of Nick Smith, the other two housing Ministers appointed to oversee the debacle, and this National Government as a whole. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI do want to just, in my time in the second reading\u2014time that we would have spent, had any of this gone to a select committee, talking about the effects of this legislation on New Zealanders. We would have heard submissions from people involved in speculation: people who are developers, speculators, and investors. We would have heard from families who live around these areas who are concerned about the extent to which they were locked out of consultation because of the fast-track consent process that is built into the special housing area legislation. We would have heard from those who had provided land to the State for housing areas and other public works, who were going to be declined the ability to have the offer back\u2014so who would not be offered back the land that they had gifted or provided to the State\u2014and about the effect of this bill on them. We would have been able to make a much better assessment of the impacts of this legislation on New Zealanders, because we would have talked with New Zealanders about the bill and its impact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThat is what the select committee process is for. That is the core of the democratic approach to legislation that we have built in this country\u2014that we in this room might make the final decisions, but we do it after consulting with the country, which is impacted by the decisions that we make. That is our core function as members of this House of Representatives\u2014that we go out and speak with our people about the laws that we are intending to pass. But, of course, that is not happening with this legislation, because, despite the fact that these are substantive issues and we could have spent some time talking with New Zealanders about them, National will not allow those voices to be heard. National has shut down the debate with the public about the impact of the special housing areas and the need for real solutions to the housing crisis. National shut down\u2014or tried to shut down\u2014the homelessness inquiry. The Opposition took that on board itself and went out and spoke with New Zealanders, and now National is trying to shut down any real analysis of the impact of the special housing areas on New Zealanders\u2014their failings, and even, potentially, their advantages. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo when we make decisions about this bill today, National can be assured that it does not know what the effect of this bill will be. National members will vote for this legislation not knowing what the impact will be on New Zealanders, because they have deliberately chosen not to listen to New Zealanders\u2019 views. That is the value that the National Government holds for our core democratic processes here. The National Government does not want to hear from New Zealanders about the impact of this legislation; hence we are in urgency for this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI just want to put on the record the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the Green Party is putting forward on this legislation, as we move from this debate into the Committee stage. Just very briefly\u2014we will go into them in more detail in the Committee stage of this bill. The first of the SOPs deletes clause 10, which is the clause that relates to the disposal of State land. That is the clause that will mean that people will not be offered back the land that they have given to the State for a public purpose. We want to delete the clause to protect New Zealanders\u2019 property rights where they have provided land to the State for a particular purpose but this National Government does not want to give it back to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere is a second SOP, which amends section 14 of the original legislation. Section 14 of the original legislation defines a qualifying development. Section 14(1)(d) says that a qualifying development will not contain less than a certain percentage of affordable housing. It is a little bit oblique as to what that percentage is, and it is certainly oblique as to what the definition of affordable is. So my SOP will change the original legislation to say that, in effect, the definition of affordable housing is a price at, or less than, four times the median household income. Four times the median household income\u2014it is described as a \u201Cmedian multiple\u201D in economic language\u2014is a way of describing affordability in a technical way. It allows for some flexibility in price because it is related both to income, the median household income, and to the price of housing. Four times the median household income has been supported, actually, by the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, as being about right for an affordable house. But there is no obligation in the special housing areas for homes to be provided at or below that price, and that needs to be changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EFinally, the third SOP will change this bill to allow for the eight current developers and the eight special housing areas in Auckland to continue with their consent application process but will not allow for any further special housing areas to be developed. The reason for that is we must not allow this failed policy to continue in Auckland until there are provisions to stop land banking. Unless there are provisions to stop land banking, allowing more special housing areas in Auckland will simply drive up prices, create wealth for land bankers and speculators, and not deliver actual affordable homes for New Zealanders to live in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo we have three SOPs on the Table. They deal with the core concerns that the Green Party has with this bill. We invite members to consider seriously those SOPs and to support them if they agree with us about those concerns. We will at least try to fix this legislation even though National has done such an appalling job initially. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u002248712cd2d3434e9c8bcc5fa9a2615f71\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002248712cd2d3434e9c8bcc5fa9a2615f71\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I want to begin by taking a look at the speech given by the \u201CMinister of Houselessness\u201D, Nick Smith, because nowhere in his speech does he say why another 3 years of special housing areas (SHAs) without Government investment in land-purchasing development, in Auckland in particular, could work. Nowhere does he say in his speech how another 3 years of SHAs, while low-quality open-door immigration is taking place, could possibly work\u2014because that is what is happening. Seventy-thousand people per year net are coming into this country\u2014a number that is equivalent to the size of a city like Nelson coming into this country\u2014but there is no care about the fact that they are going to drive demand for housing, drive up prices, and drive up rents. Nowhere in the Minister\u2019s speech was there any reference to the problems caused by overseas purchasers, who, in this country, are still free to buy land, to speculate, and to land bank. Nowhere were any of those issues referred to in the Minster\u2019s speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EHe just does not care\u2014and the truth is that National actually has no strategy whatsoever that deals with those issues, or any other. Its members\u2019 pretence that they have a comprehensive housing strategy is utterly ludicrous. Nobody in this country believes that, and the more they say it the more they will show how dishonest they are being about all of that\u2014and that is the truth of it. The truth is that the National Party under the likes of Holyoake, for example, used to be the party for a \u201Cproperty-owning democracy\u201D\u2014those were his words\u2014in New Zealand. But no more\u2014no more. This is not that National Party; this is some neo-liberal monster that is no longer fit to govern this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI also want to talk about the M\u0101ori Party. Why are its members not speaking in this debate? Why is it not attacking National, and why is it not actually fighting this fight? I cannot understand that, because this legislation, which is being fast tracked today through all of its stages, is aimed at flogging off State houses and is failing to provide a strategy for the building of new homes in New Zealand, whether for purchase or for rent. It is doing so without consultation or proper scrutiny through the select committee process. So I want to hear from the M\u0101ori Party members on all of these things because I think the M\u0101ori Party is speaking, if it is speaking at all, with a forked tongue. On the one hand it promotes Treaty rights and says it will protect Treaty rights for M\u0101ori in this country, but it is failing here and now to fight against a bill that actually removes those Treaty rights because it removes the offer-back provisions, which would otherwise be claimable under current legislation. Irrespective of the Minister\u2019s claims that that is not the case, that is actually the truth about the matter. So I want to hear more from the M\u0101ori Party members, and I want to hear them show up like the rest of us and fight against this bill. They are not doing so and I deplore that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe Minister has also claimed that he is just clarifying the law when it comes to those offer-back provisions and he says there is no actual law change. Well, if it is necessary to pass this bill to amend the law, then\u2014hello\u2014it must be a law change; therefore, the Minister can only be wrong that the Minister is not attempting to change the law to make sure that those offer-back provisions can never apply. That is what New Zealand First objects to, it is what the M\u0101ori Party should be objecting to, and it is what other parties object to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe bill is a panic measure by a Minister not on top of his portfolio\u2014and when did this Minister suddenly realise that time is running out for special housing areas? Why, within 10 days of the termination date, is he suddenly bringing this bill to the House if there is a comprehensive housing strategy? Surely it would be a better strategy than that\u2014if there was one\u2014but we all know that there is not one. What there is instead is plenty of evidence of a failed strategy. In fact, there is no strategy at all and plenty of evidence of an absence by this Government of any new ideas at all. All it can come up with is an expansion of a current, failed policy, which over 3 years has actually delivered only 1,300 houses\u2014less than a drop in the bucket as far as Auckland is concerned. So there it is: a panic measure to do little or nothing and to crush people\u2019s rights in terms of the offer-back provisions along the way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EJust to summarise New Zealand First\u2019s position: first of all, it believes that there is no justification for the law change\u2014and that is what it is\u2014to remove the offer-back provisions. There is no need for that whatsoever. All it does is to feed on this Government\u2019s panic and need to be seen to be doing something. That is not in the interests of New Zealand; it is certainly not in the interests of people who actually might claim those rights and might claim them for very good reasons. That is what a democracy is about. It is about protecting people\u2019s rights\u2014and that is not what this Government is doing. It is doing the exact opposite and it is not good enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ESecondly, the need is not only to increase the time for the SHAs to work\u2014if they ever do\u2014but for the Government to actually invest in the purchase of land and in the development of land, and not just leave it to private developers to do so. The reason why that is so important and why that is a core part of New Zealand First\u2019s housing policy is that the private market will never meet the needs of New Zealanders in this day and age, as far as housing is concerned. The Government must take part, with direct investment and direct development of housing in New Zealand, especially in Auckland, so that we get enough housing, on time, in the right place, and developed in a way that people can afford, with modestly sized houses saleable at modest prices and with Government assistance to purchase.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First\u2019s policy is to sell sections over 25 years, allowing a purchaser to get a first mortgage to build their own home. That is just a common-sense policy\u2014but do not ask this Government to listen to common sense. All it wants to do is to continue with its failed policies that are never going to work. So we in New Zealand First oppose both parts of this bill, unlike the Labour Party, which I now hear is quite happy to support the first part but not the second. I am disappointed in that, because I would have hoped that the Labour Party would have seen that, actually, you need to do more than just have failed SHAs; you need to have Government investment. Labour has said that; yet why did it say to this House that it would support the first part of the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea5ecff724274d5aa35926eb0592f377\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s better than nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022030d3e9f75fd415da39b4626f5f1f543\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: It is better than nothing? It is nothing. It is not better than nothing, Mr Twyford; it actually is nothing. So the Labour Party is supporting nothing. That is wonderful. Well, I think the Labour Party should take another look at all this. The Labour Party should take another look at why it would support the first part. We in New Zealand First do not. We will not have it. We insist on much better than that. We insist on a policy that does not just provide an extension of a time frame for a failed policy. We want to see Government investment. We want to see real commitment by this Government to housing in this country. That is why we will not support it: because we want much better. And we want people\u2019s rights to be protected, as well. We will not vote for this bill, because it does not do either thing that it proposes to do in a way that we could possibly support, and New Zealanders should not accept that either.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022 data-id=\u0022c751c2aa85db4a34ac4d78b0e43ea902\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c751c2aa85db4a34ac4d78b0e43ea902\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to take a call to speak on the second reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I am taking this call to support this bill. First, I want to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, for his dedication to improving housing supply and affordability. We know the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 was meant to be a short-term measure to fast track housing development, and that is because we are committed to addressing the issue of housing supply and affordability. These issues of housing supply and affordability are not unique to us. Yes, these issues that we are facing here in New Zealand are not unique to us. These issues are actually a sign of a country doing well\u2014a sign of a strong, growing economy. Yes, these issues are signs of a strong, growing economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EI am a list MP based in Mt Roskill, so my interest is in Auckland. Along with other parts of the country, Auckland has made significant progress since starting its housing accord. Since the start of the Auckland housing accord, 33,000 sections have been created and dwellings consented\u2014that is 33,000 in Auckland. So the extension of the Act is important because it is about housing supply and affordability, it is about keeping that momentum going, and it is about allowing the transition to the unitary plan in a smoother manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EThe unitary plan is important to Auckland, and the independent hearings panel did a huge job. It was a huge task. It did it in time, which was great. The unitary plan is crucial for Auckland\u2019s future. We want to see this momentum keep going, and it is really important that we support housing supply and affordability because this industry, through construction of residential places, is not just about housing supply and affordability but is also about supporting the creation of several jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EIf the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party are keen on stabilising house prices, then they should support this bill. On this side, we are fully committed. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ffc5c14b99c2414a9adde381470848cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ffc5c14b99c2414a9adde381470848cd\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson\u20145 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u00223c8207d3a11643dc956b2887bdf6b067\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c8207d3a11643dc956b2887bdf6b067\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E So, yes, I am here for the second reading. I am still not supporting the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill\u2014that has not changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221aa9edd933274b4f97c8d1d0cd9f568e\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s only been an hour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4ef5462b5d24eb1be8f613e16d232e0\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: I know. Actually, by the way, before I carry on, who was it who riled up the Minister for Building and Housing? Was it you, Phil? I think it might have been Carmel or Denis. Actually, it was probably Metiria. Who riled him up? Someone riled him up. He got up and he felt it necessary to defend the houses being built and the consents. He is such a good Minister, he got up and said: \u201CBut look at the houses I built; look at the consents I agreed to.\u201D Those are his measurements of success. Those are not measurements of success. That is not an indicator of how well our country is doing, when you get up and have a little rant about how many houses you have built\u2014just a raw number; it was not even in any context. He did not even talk about the number of State houses that the Government has either flogged off and not replaced or, in comparison, the number that have been left to rot and are currently empty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EIf we had gone through the proper democratic process for this bill, we would have heard from submitters. We would have heard from people, including those like the ones that the Greens and Labour and the M\u0101ori Party heard from in our homelessness inquiry. They were very clear when they said that all of the Government\u2019s proposals to date, all the of the Government\u2019s actions to date, and any of the proposals\u2014including the little panic one we had yesterday from the Minister Paula Bennett to try to sort of make her look sympathetic to us wrapping up our homelessness inquiry\u2014were inadequate. We would have heard submitters saying how woefully, woefully inadequate these band-aid attempts are, including this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo because we have not heard from them, I wanted to make sure that I brought their voices and their say into this House of Representatives. As my co-leader Metiria Turei just pointed out, that is what we are. We are supposed to be representative of our country, not just of developers and not just of overseas speculators, whom this Government is continuing to enable to build more wealth, while our own beautiful people, our beautiful people whom I love\u2014do you love them, Government? Do you love our people?\u2014are the ones in garages, crowding in houses, or just even renting homes that they could easily be shoved out of at any time. You know why? Because the housing market is amazing! Owners\u2014because of this Government\u2014are able to flick off a house in Auckland and also give as little as 90 days\u2019 notice to be able to do that to any family, to any tenants, and to any renters, because they will get a massive profit. So it is preferable to be able to shove our people, our beautiful New Zealanders, out of their rental homes and out of their secure places rather than to actually allow houses to be a home where people can put down roots.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis bill does not do anything to address that\u2014this bill does not. In actual fact, the attempt to specifically address land banking in the special housing areas only goes so far as to impose a time limit for consent applications\u2014that is it. It does not actually put any time limit on the actual building\u2014just for getting a consent in. It is a half again: half mop, half band-aid; a half-a-fire hose attempt at fixing this crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EJust very quickly, in my last minute, even the Cabinet papers admit that this was a rush, because the regulatory impact statement did not even cover the entire bill\u2014that is how rushed this was. Also, Mr Smith, the Minister, oversold this to his own Cabinet. He said that if this bill was not rushed through, it was going to prevent 3,000 homes from being built; then this morning he had to concede that that figure was actually 2,000. What is going on? What is going on, Minister? I do not know what is going on\u2014you are just overselling legislation to your own Cabinet. I will just leave it there. Thanks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u00227a372612152349d483b8dffbf59f59cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227a372612152349d483b8dffbf59f59cc\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. Was it not fascinating to listen to the last minute of the speech by the member who just resumed her seat, Marama Davidson, when she actually got on to addressing the bill, instead of being a bundle of self-righteous fury with nothing constructive to add, no solutions, and no real understanding of what is being debated by other members? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWhat I would like to address is the fact that these housing markets that we have in New Zealand are dysfunctional. The number of houses built in Auckland in the past decade is 20 percent fewer than in the 1990s, despite very strong price signals that the supply of housing in Auckland needed to rise. That is a dysfunctional market. Unfortunately, over a long period of time\u20148 years now\u2014this Government has done what the Government before it did: nothing substantial to change the dynamics of that market. These special housing areas, I am sorry to say, are an island of fantasy in a sea of dysfunctional markets. They symbolise a belief that the Government can somehow wish away the dynamics that have led to dysfunction in our housing markets in a few small areas, and suspend all of the things that it has not fixed anywhere else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EOf course, if the Government was serious, there would be serious Resource Management Act reforms, serious reform of the laws around building and land use planning, and a serious consideration of the fiscal incentives that councils have. At the moment, councils get most of the cost of development while central government gets most of the revenue. So it is not surprising that councils are unwilling to do, or allow, a great deal of building in their jurisdictions, or that we have a shortage of supply\u2014an inelastic supply\u2014of housing, rising prices, and all of the social, economic, and financial problems that that creates. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIt is with some regret that we sit under urgency supporting this bill, which is really tacking on this\u2014should we say\u2014an island of fantasy in a sea of dysfunctional housing markets tonight, in order that we can carry on with the few projects that have actually succeeded. This is not to mention the various perverse incentives that have come out of the special housing areas to date. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EPart 2 is considerably more concerning. If Part 1 is merely not very effective, then Part 2 of this bill, both in terms of property rights and in terms of procedure, should be of great concern to New Zealanders. What it says is that this Government, or any future Government\u2014and, colleagues, sometimes that is one thing we need to think about\u2014can take land, acquired, perhaps, under the Public Works Act for one purpose, and then develop housing on it and dispose of it without any of the normal safeguards of right of first refusal to the original owner. I am a bit surprised that the Labour Party and the Green Party and New Zealand First are opposed to that; generally speaking, they want the Government to be developing housing through any means necessary. Oddly enough, it is the National Government\u2014from the party of free enterprise, occasionally\u2014which appears to be proposing that the Government be able to ride roughshod over normal property rights in order to build low-cost housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIt is a topsy-turvy world, but I think one thing that is going to be very clear is that the Committee stage of this debate, or of this compressed reading, is going to be very, very interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what Supplementary Order Papers are sitting on the Table that might ameliorate the difficulties we have, as a House, with aggregating New Zealanders\u2019 property rights in due process under the Public Works Act in a single night of urgency, particularly when members on my immediate left think hard about what that might mean in the hands of future Governments. I am not quite sure where that Committee stage is going to land, but it is somewhere that members need to focus their attention very carefully, because to start aggregating safeguards of New Zealanders\u2019 property rights in the middle of the night under urgency is not the way that the ACT Party believes we should be doing things in this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003ESo with those comments, I will resume my seat, supporting this bill in its second reading, but I think there is the potential for things to evolve a little bit as the night goes on. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022220eee59b264451ea201867f73edcc7e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022220eee59b264451ea201867f73edcc7e\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill at its second reading. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today, and in recent weeks\u2014even in recent months\u2014about the need to provide more housing in New Zealand. Yet, when this opportunity is before the House on an issue we are all agreed on, the need to provide more housing, the Opposition cannot bring itself to support a bill that provides the very tools that we will see maintaining the momentum, making land available, and getting houses built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EIn a strong and growing economy, which is managed ably by this National-led Government, we are seeing more and more New Zealanders staying home and coming home\u2014such is their confidence in this country now, and in this Government. However, National\u2019s comprehensive housing plan is further complemented by this bill. We understand the need to ensure that this bill is passed through this House, because we want to support more Kiwis getting into their homes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EThe Hon Nick Smith can be rightly proud of his role in achieving the highest number of houses being built in this country, and the passage of this bill through the House is essential to supporting more new houses for Kiwi families. I support this bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00222e20cd4bd30347fd95002af2a5b5061d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e20cd4bd30347fd95002af2a5b5061d\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call. Peeni Henare\u20145 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022 data-id=\u0022fbd56ab72fee4079a700e88406ab94d7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fbd56ab72fee4079a700e88406ab94d7\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE (Labour\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise in the second reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. Just for a brief moment there, Mr Seymour surprised me, and I think it goes back to his days at the TDC Sawmills in Whangarei, where he actually saw the benefit of working alongside a union to make sure that he got the contract he deserved while he was working there. So when you are ready, brother, come\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af964ce9a2484a3aa9e958eb7167830f\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3bca0fe20c340c4ad1821cb10b16dea\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: What is the personal explanation about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223848ed5ca884a44a323ff9d8dbdb828\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: No one at that sawmill was unionised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeb9f4728bbf43a698bbe5275b26c974\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No. No, I will not accept that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022557afcc3b131495d875619f8b8462984\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much. Look, I heard the Minister this evening talk about the Acts that have happened in his generation. What that spoke to, to me, was the inability of this Government to actually look into the future for future generations. I consider the Millennials. I am one of the younger members of this House, and I think sadly about my generation, who, it is well known, struggle to get into the housing market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288e23f0e37734b719c5d6af14b234d08\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Can we just talk about the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ee0aa35d74b4e0391bc9b6c93f43db4\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Seymour, I would love to talk to the detail of this bill, but, having rushed through this process, I am sad to say that there is just a sheer lack of consultation, a sheer lack of strong review, to allow us to debate this properly. We have always pushed for this to go through the right process. Let us look at other occasions where we failed to go through the right process. I think about a place in T\u0101maki-makau-rau. People today call it Ihum\u0101tao; its original name is Te Ihu o Mataoho. A failed process led to a long protest from the people of Ihum\u0101tao. A failed process meant that under the guise of social housing, under the guise of needing to build more homes, people had their rights transgressed\u2014people had their rights taken away from them. The people of Ihum\u0101tao suffered from this Government\u2019s poor process, and here we are again, going through this particular bill, rushing it through the House, not allowing the democratic process for iwi, for M\u0101ori housing providers, and for the homeless to have their say on this particular bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EI recently asked the Minister of Finance written questions about what kind of consultation this Government had undertaken when it decided to sell off the State housing stock. \u201CWhat Urban M\u0101ori authorities, if any, has the Minister consulted with in regards to the sale of Housing New Zealand properties under the Housing Amendment Act 2016?\u201D Answer: \u201CNone,\u201D. \u201CWhat Urban M\u0101ori authorities, if any, have expressed an interest in purchasing Housing New Zealand properties under the Housing Amendment Act 2016?\u201D Answer: \u201CNone.\u201D \u201CHow many Housing New Zealand properties have been sold to iwi under the Housing Amendment Act 2016, if any?\u201D Answer: \u201CNone,\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022281f3f7a65ed491dbc9c902687a2d283\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you once again for this opportunity. Before the dinner break and the excellent chicken curry, I was making reference to the faults around process. I talked about the State housing sell-off and the engagement with iwi and M\u0101ori housing providers, and how the answer to all of the questions I posed was \u201CNone\u201D\u2014no consultation, no sales to those people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ETo Part 2\u2014and I want to pick up the point that Mr Seymour made. Actually, with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi and the right of first refusal, those who have already settled, Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua ki \u014Cr\u0101kei and Te Kawerau \u0101 Maki\u2014theirs are just two of the Acts of recent times that come to mind, where their rights will be protected under their right of first refusal. This House has already mentioned how that particular process was also fumbled by this Government. We know that Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua were refused the right of first refusal. They took that to court, challenged that decision, and the court found in their favour. Now their rights are protected, and good on them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EBut I want to pick up the point Mr Seymour made about those who do not belong to those iwi collectives, those property owners who were there many years ago when their land was acquired under the Public Works Act. Where are their rights? Where are their rights? As much as I have advocated for the rights under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty settlement process that takes place in this House, it is important to remember in this conversation that the housing crisis affects everybody, so it is important that we look after their rights too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EJust in conclusion, I stand here on behalf of the Labour Party, and, of course, we look forward to the next stage of this bill. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00224298959a96744b08b0a77e4857230a04\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224298959a96744b08b0a77e4857230a04\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I call Meka Whaitiri\u20145 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022206534f033a84d2092d3dae54fb1cfc7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022206534f033a84d2092d3dae54fb1cfc7\u0022\u003EMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour\u2014Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti):\u003C/span\u003E \u0100, e Te M\u0101ngai o Te Whare, t\u0113n\u0101 koe, e ng\u0101 mema o Te Whare nei, t\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. When I got word from our whips that we were having urgency, I was quite excited. I thought I would come down and hear that this Government is finally listening to the cries of Labour and many of the people we represent and introducing a bill that addresses KiwiBuild, for example; building a 100,000 affordable homes. I thought: \u201CJeez, I will be coming down and standing up in support of that, or a bill that would eliminate speculation in our housing market, maybe\u201D\u2014that would have been a good idea\u2014\u201Cor what about extending the brightline test for another 5 years so we can take the pressure out of the housing market?\u201D. I thought I was coming to the Chamber to stand up and support that. But, alas, when I came to the Chamber and read the bill, I thought: \u201CThis is unfortunate.\u201D Generally, when we get to the second reading of a bill, we have had the privilege of taking the bill to a select committee. There are areas of this particular bill\u2014and others have covered them; we have got two areas\u2014where it would have been advantageous to the Government to hear from people who are most affected by this bill. This Government, the Minister himself, has denied those very people the opportunity to present, and there could have been an improvement on the bill, like many submitters actually do. But we will never know, because we are hearing this bill under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022\u003ESo when I look at the information we have got in front of us, I want to reference my contribution to Minister\u2019s Nick Smith\u2019s own Q and A on the Beehive website. Under \u201CHousing Legislation Amendment Bill\u2014Q and A September 2016\u201D, a question he answers is: \u201CWhy has the Act been extended by three years?\u201D. Of course we want to ensure there is transition coverage for those who have started the process, but I thought that if you were going to extend it, you would actually take the time to understand the extent of the problem that we are trying to fix. Under the Minister\u2019s own question: \u201CWhat happens to SHAs that have not lodged consents for qualifying developments before 16 September 2016?\u201D, it says that those that have been gazetted before 16 September 2015 and have yet to get consents will be disestablished. Those that have been lodged after 16 September 2015 have 12 months to lodge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022\u003EThat sounds all very good, but when you get down to the end of the Minister\u2019s answer, it says this: \u201CI have discretion to extend this time limit for new SHAs if I believe best endeavours have been made\u2026\u201D. That for me undermines the decision that councils have around giving those consents. Then I looked at: \u201CWill other Housing Accords be established?\u201D. Of course, I am a proud member of Ikaroa-R\u0101whiti and we have housing issues that are real in the regions. That was the other reason why I got excited about this bill. I thought: \u201CFinally\u2014finally\u2014this Government was going to deal with the issues in the regions where we are struggling to house our people.\u201D By way of example, 377 homes in the Hawke\u2019s Bay have been flogged off\u2014377. How many have been built since National has been in Government? Seven\u2014seven homes. There is an absolute need in our regions, and when I look at this bill, it does not even address the opportunities that are real in the regions. I wanted to come to this House to fly the regional flag, because this Government seems to forget about our regions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022073496a0-73b7-426f-97f8-916bd542b0fa\u0022\u003EFinally, in the minute that I have left, I want to make a short contribution about Part 2 of this bill. I support the calls from this side of the Chamber that it is too important not to go to select committee. There is only a very short explanation from the Minister\u2019s very own question and answer around why we need to change the Housing Act. I have read the clauses in the bill. It talks about the fact that existing Treaty settlements will be protected, but what about the future ones? I listen intently to all members on that side of the Chamber to hear how we are going to safeguard future Treaty settlements under this piece of legislation. So that is why I stand in support of Labour on this particular bill. It goes well short of addressing the housing shortages we have throughout this country, and if the Government was listening, it would separate the bill and we could address it appropriately. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022 data-id=\u0022bff799310f614a84bdecb140ed6c91f6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bff799310f614a84bdecb140ed6c91f6\u0022\u003EKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to speak and contribute on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, mentioned that the Government does not have any plan, but I would like to clarify that this Government has a comprehensive plan to address the issue of housing supply and affordability, and the issues associated with our strong, growing economy. It is very important, we need to understand, that this economy is growing, and more and more houses are required because people are staying here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003EIt is important to understand that we have to free up the land so that the builders can build the houses that are much in need. With this bill, we will be able to free up more land and help builders to build a house. It is important legislation, and we are looking forward to this vote from all sides of the House, but unfortunately the Opposition is not at all happy to support such legislation. Opposition members keep complaining about it, but they do not want to support the Government when it is taking steps to address it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224e4019cb44dc4d128a26c2af609b27bf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226a25e23432cd40488c8231d39a6b9974\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f6b703269e4498b9630655978032347\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9f845b0453944dda5a2e294305a07c6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9f845b0453944dda5a2e294305a07c6\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E It is great to be taking part in this Committee stage debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to address one of the major concerns that we have on this side of the House with not only this bill but the whole special housing areas policy, and that is the very weak affordability requirements that are at the heart of this policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to address my comments to a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table. The first is in the name of Metiria Turei and the second is in my name, and both of them make a proposal about how affordability requirements could be better incorporated into the housing accords and special housing areas legislation. But I think it is important to understand the context of this, and the context is a debate that we have been having in this Parliament for some time, really, about the best way to deliver affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Minister\u2019s view, if I may characterise it\u2014and I invite him to take a call on this and put me straight, if he wants to\u2014is that the only real way to deliver sustained improvements in affordability is by increasing the supply of dwellings in the market, and in an innocent, fifth-form economics textbook kind of way, he rejects the idea that actually building homes that are affordable might help. He considers that to be, I think, an unnecessary distraction and, really, the focus should be on increasing supply. There is an irony that members will have noticed, which is that a Minister who places such great store on increasing the supply of houses has so signally failed to do that during his time as housing Minister, but what we have seen as the accords and special housing areas have been rolled out is that with the first one, the accord with Auckland Council, there was quite a lot of debate about whether there should be, in fact, the ability of the council to require that special housing areas should have to deliver a percentage of affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThere was some pressure on the Minister, I think, from within the Parliament and some pressure from Auckland Council, and at the last minute he conceded\u2014I think it was possibly in the Committee stage or at the select committee\u2014that, yes, the Auckland Council, under that accord, would have the ability to require that 10 percent of homes in special housing areas be affordable. We have always taken the view that that is extremely modest\u2014in fact, far too modest\u2014because the market, on its own, is delivering about 5 percent of new dwellings in the so-called affordable range. Students of history will know that only 30 to 35 years ago, actually, the market was delivering about a third of all new dwellings in the affordable range, and that is one of the really crucial indicators of how badly out of whack the housing market has become, because so few houses are affordable\u2014about 5 percent. So, anyway, that was the situation with Auckland Council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIn some of the other accords\u2014and I am thinking particularly of Tauranga\u2014the mayor and council officials directly asked the Minister to insert affordability quotas into their accord so they could require that a certain number of homes in their special housing areas be affordable. The Minister point-blank refused. He and his officials said: \u201CWe\u2019re not interested in that. We\u2019re only interested in increasing the supply of homes. We\u2019re not interested in requiring developers to provide a share of new dwellings that are affordable.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat we know\u2014and this completely kind of busts out of the fifth-form economics textbook from which the Minister\u2019s thinking is derived\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a225edd1014c53838254979c918c28\u0022\u003EClare Curran\u003C/span\u003E: Year 10.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919486f97c80440db356a65f03bcadaa\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014year 10; thank you\u2014is that in an overheated, undersupplied market, developers will always choose to build more expensive dwellings because that is where they make bigger profit margins, and that is the story of Auckland in the last 10 years. If you look at the apartments that are being built in Auckland at the moment, 99 percent of them are at the luxury end of the market. Very, very few of them are affordable. If the market was in perfect balance, and if it was a perfectly functioning market, yes, the market would\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002274b4f4db3c93448eb34fdca5362fdc7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274b4f4db3c93448eb34fdca5362fdc7b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to engage. I note that this is a bill that is going through all stages, and so I do want to be able to engage in a proper debate about the issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe first thing I want to challenge Mr Twyford on is that in his opening comments he said that I had been singularly unsuccessful in growing residential investment in New Zealand. Well, let me actually give the numbers from Statistics New Zealand. In my first year, 2013, the growth in residential investment was 27 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c16b3c64e164864b52dbe34856b0074\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not all about you, Nick.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227329de6c154b4179a15342f288e53ff7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, I am simply saying what the record is. It is actually about building houses. I am just simply saying, let us look at the actual record: 27 percent growth in 2012; 27 percent growth in residential investment in 2013; and another 29 percent growth in 2015 and 2016. That is the longest\u2014[Interruption] Well, I have a simple question for members opposite: cite me 4 years when there has been faster growth in residential investment. Tell me the years in which there has been stronger growth in residential construction than in the official statistics from 2013 to 2016.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a5e5ea5548a45249c4d63957f91ac77\u0022\u003ETracey Martin\u003C/span\u003E: We ask the questions; you answer them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba0d2cdd79e24c458ddcde3072a4e12e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Oh! I am making the point that you do not know the answer. So we know now that that is incorrect, and members should stop making that assertion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second thing is the question of how you get affordable houses built. So let us look across New Zealand. Where are the most new homes that are being built in an affordable range? Answer: Christchurch. Actually, if you look at the figures from Statistics New Zealand, you have over 4,500 homes built in Christchurch\u2014brand new homes built\u2014under $500,000. Is there affordability regulation in Christchurch? No, there is not\u2014no, there is not. I say to Mr Twyford, the Productivity Commission\u2014not the Government, but the Productivity Commission\u2014concluded it did not work. The independent hearings panel in Auckland concluded it did not work. Actually, the Auckland Council concluded it does not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo I simply challenge the member and say there is no evidence that shows that regulating house prices is the way in which we improve the affordability and supply. The best means is to increase supply. That is what this bill does. Let us be very clear in this Committee that this bill will enable Auckland to have 8,000 homes sooner\u20148,000 homes sooner\u2014and it is a litmus test for parties in this Parliament as to whether they are part of the problem or part of the solution in terms of growing housing supply in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u002221ec94de41b94783bede50ad0feb3e64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221ec94de41b94783bede50ad0feb3e64\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was saying that I think this is a debate worth having, because there is clearly a difference between, certainly, our side and the National Government benches on this question. The Minister for Building and Housing referenced the Productivity Commission, he referenced the experience in Christchurch, but, curiously, he did not reference the situation in Auckland, where not only are we falling dismally behind in supply and the deficit has accumulated, the 42,000 dwellings that the independent hearings panel estimates has built up on the Minister\u2019s watch not only has supply been such a signal failure but also affordability has been a disaster. We can see that today with the average dwelling in Auckland\u2014not just old Auckland City, but across the entire amalgamated city and the Auckland region\u2014now costing $1 million.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is an absolute disaster. There is no affordability. We desperately need more affordable housing, and I suspect that the Minister is among the kind of dewy-eyed optimists who think the unitary plan, by injecting some greenfield land into the system and upzoning to allow more density in the city, is automatically going to deliver big gains in affordability. There is a lot of smart money and a lot of urban land economists and others who are highly sceptical about that contention and do not believe that on its own it is likely to go anywhere near what is needed in terms of increasing the volume of supply. That is why\u2014because urban land markets are so imperfect and because, for example, there are demand pressures in the real estate market\u2014under this Government\u2019s policy, settings are unchecked, and there are vast amounts of foreign money flooding into the real estate market. There is a whole system of tax policy and incentives that encourage the investment of massive amounts of capital in real estate speculation under this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo because those things are all in place, because we have this massive accumulated deficit in the number of dwellings that are needed, and we will have for a long time to come\u2014in fact, the Minister\u2019s own officials say that the deficit of dwellings in Auckland will not be eliminated before 2030. That is the advice of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials released to Labour under the Official Information Act. The Minister denies it\u2014I know he does not want to hear, because it is bad news for him\u2014but that is the fact, and that is why Labour believes that measures like inclusionary zoning and being able to require a percentage of affordable dwellings is the sensible thing to do. If we care about affordability, if we care about making homeownership and, in fact, renting affordable, we need to be willing to intervene in the market to market to make that happen. We cannot wait until some great nirvana, decades into the future, when we have a perfectly functioning urban land market. That is certainly not going to happen on this Minister\u2019s watch. People cannot afford to wait.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe need affordable housing, and that is why I think Metiria Turei has, very sensibly, put up Supplementary Order Paper 210, which would require a prescribed percentage of affordable dwellings and \u201Cmust include a percentage of dwellings to be available for sale at a price equal to or below the price that is 4 times the median household income in that area.\u201D Four times the median household income\u2014I think the Minister would probably agree with that. He would agree that that is a worthy goal. His eyes are going from side to side\u2014I am not quite sure how to interpret that\u2014but I think, based on the Minister\u2019s previous comments, he would agree that four times the median household income is a good thing. That is why my amendment that is on the Table would require that all future special housing areas\u2014and it would be prospective, not retrospective\u2014that would be enacted under the 3-year extension in this bill would be required to have a percentage of affordable dwellings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Minister agreed to that. He agreed to the principle of exclusionary zoning\u2014that is, a quota of affordable dwellings. He agreed to that in the sweetheart deal that he negotiated with Auckland iwi in the wake of his vacant Crown land fiasco. If it is good enough to put a quota of affordable homes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce01b652e3414d1aba409a7f6ccb4499\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce01b652e3414d1aba409a7f6ccb4499\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Can I start by correcting the member who has just resumed his seat, Phil Twyford. The policy of having a certain quota of houses for sale in a new development below a certain price level is not exclusionary zoning; it is called inclusionary zoning. Let us just talk a little bit about what that policy is and why it does not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe best summary of inclusionary zoning is that it is a narrow tax designed to achieve a broader public policy purpose. Let me just expand a bit on that, particularly for the benefit of Grant Robertson, who is already shaking his head with confusion, something that he has been quite used to doing throughout his life. If the Government is to make a rule that a certain proportion of dwellings within a development have to be sold at a given price, that rule will only be binding\u2014i.e., it will only have an effect\u2014if the price level that is set is lower than the price that the developer would have otherwise sold that particular dwelling for. The only effect of that could be that the developer loses revenue on their overall development in order to achieve compliance with the law, even though they do not necessarily achieve any wider public policy purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWhat we are talking about is, effectively, the same as imposing a tax on a particular developer in order to achieve the wider public policy purpose of making housing available for people in all price brackets. So then you might ask the next question: what will be the effect of imposing that narrow tax on developers, the very people whom we wish to bring housing into existence in order to solve the shortage of housing? Well, we often discuss in this House the effect of taxes on behaviour, and we often hear from the other side of the House that we should have higher taxes on bad things such as tobacco because when taxes are higher, less of the behaviour that is taxed will take place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EOn this side of the House, where we respect savings, investment, and hard work, we often lament that high taxes discourage those activities. But if we follow the consistency of principle that both sides of the House sign up to at different times, then having a tax on developers could only lead to\u2014wait for it\u2014less development. This is how stupid the policy of inclusionary zoning is. It deliberately imposes a discouragement\u2014a tax\u2014on the very people society needs to bring forth housing development in an effort to bring forward more housing development for the people who need it most.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EOnly Metiria Turei, who has just told me that she did not pay attention in fifth-form economics, could bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee tonight that will have precisely the opposite effect of the intention that she purports it to have. And, as I have said in this Chamber\u2014it seems like too many times in the short time I have been here\u2014it is not good enough to make public policy with good intentions. Sometimes the softness of the hearts of the people making these proposals extends that softness all the way up to their heads. We need to properly analyse the outcomes and effects of public policies rather than purely their intentions, and the intention of inclusionary zoning will not be matched by its outcomes. Therefore, I cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 210, which Metiria Turei has put forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI will just shuffle through and see whether there are any others from Metiria Turei that I might not support. Actually, we might leave that for another call, but I hope it is very clear why I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers relating to inclusionary zoning, and neither should any member in this Committee who has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022cab42510aa814210bbc5b08d83362e9a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cab42510aa814210bbc5b08d83362e9a\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E Funny story, actually: I applied at my high school to do economics and they put me in the home economics class because I am a girl. So there you go. There you go, Mr Seymour. And yes, if you had known me in fifth form, you would have had a really fun time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnyway, I do just want to deal with Mr Seymour\u2019s criticism and what he is saying of Supplementary Order Paper 210, which I have on the Table to require that the special housing areas (SHAs) have a proportion of building that is sold at a price that is either at or below four times the median house hold income, which is the median multiple that is used internationally as a general definition of affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe reason why I think that is justifiable to require in SHAs is that those who get access to an SHA get fast-tracked consenting processes. They actually save money\u2014significant amounts of money\u2014and time in the process of developing that land. It is good that they are developing that land for housing, if it is required\u2014because, remember, there is no obligation for them to build once they get access to the benefit of the fast-tracked consenting process. This Government will not require them to build. In fact, even under this new bill they are required only to make an application for a resource consent; it does not require them to get a code of compliance, which is indicative of their having built a property. So these speculators, these investors, and these developers have access to an enormous financial advantage by having their land declared as a special housing area, with no obligation to build but with fast-tracked access through the resource consent process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhat is their reciprocal obligation to the community, whose efforts\u2014through us, as representatives in Parliament\u2014time, and money are delivered to them for free? These developers get access to the special housing areas and the fast-tracked consents. It is a public interest that is delivered to them for free. What is their reciprocal obligation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dafd4e8b61e84ed6b10501efd7713d65\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: They build houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022621c46ab076b47d8ba6f83a7f1401dfe\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: What is their reciprocal obligation back to the public? The Minister says \u201Chouses\u201D, but he is talking about houses that cost $600,000 - plus to buy. That is not in the public interest. It is delivered by the whole of the country for developers to be able to get fast-tracked access through the consent process, save money\u2014considerable amounts of money\u2014in the process, and still, at market rates, sell off those properties. That is not providing a reciprocal responsibility back to the public, who have provided to those developers some access to services and support that costs money and that the developers do not have to pay for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe want to make sure that if there is going to be a gift from the public to these developers, there is a reciprocal obligation for them to provide a public benefit. One of the public benefits that has to be provided as part of any housing development process that is driven by the Government on behalf of the country as a whole is that affordable housing is built and provided. That is the whole point of the special housing areas\u2014that affordable housing is built and provided for sale.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere is no requirement in the special housing areas policy, as it is or under this bill, for genuinely affordable housing to be provided by those developers. The Green Party says that that is part of the deal. You, the developer, get access to this special, fast-tracked process. You get to save money as you do it. You get to make money from quite a big proportion of the properties you build and sell, but you have a reciprocal obligation back to the New Zealand public, who have given you that opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhy is it so difficult for the Government to understand that reciprocal obligation? It should also be understandable by the ACT member. I know he has got a philosophy that he lives by in ACT, and it is great that ACT has got one of those\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f06c3353abd648579c2f8a1454d63e7d\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e092db9600b4fc1acb69a81ac84c652\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I did mean that nicely; it came out kind of not quite\u2014but even in that sense, he should be able to understand that if there is a genuine balance or equitable relationship between two parties to a deal, then both parties need to benefit from that deal in a genuine way. That is part of the philosophy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAt the moment, all of the benefit rests with the developer of the special housing areas. We know that because most of the special housing areas in Auckland have not had any building on them yet. That is because land banking those special housing areas and getting the consents fast-tracked, but not building, provides those developers with a financial windfall that is delivered to them by the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo let us just find a way\u2014a gentle way. It is not going to scare anybody massively. It is not going to make a huge financial imposition on those developers. It is not going to stop further SHAs from continuing. If this Supplementary Order Paper passes, it simply provides a mechanism for making sure that there is some reciprocity in this deal. That is at least the minimum that we should be requiring, as members of Parliament representing constituents who are locked out of the housing market and who are telling us every day that there is a housing crisis and that they cannot afford to buy houses when they need them. This is at least some way that we can make sure their interests are better represented. It is not complicated. It is a small amendment to the existing legislation. It makes it clear what the affordability target is, which the Minister himself has agreed is a good target: four times the median household income. He has publicly said that he understands that to be the right target.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ELet us make sure that when we, as a Parliament, are doing deals to improve housing in New Zealand and to increase the supply of housing in New Zealand\u2014as we know needs to happen\u2014there is a clear target for what affordability means. This is so that everybody who is involved in the deals around building homes knows what they are getting into, with full disclosure about what is expected by the Government in engaging in this deal, and so that it is financially responsible\u2014because, of course, this is not a huge imposition on those developers. It gives them an opportunity to look more comprehensively at their overall building package\u2014how many homes they are going to build and sell for significantly more, and there will be some people in the market who can afford to buy those homes at quite an inflated price\u2014and to make sure that they will be able to make a significant profit and keep on developing. This is not going to provide any chilling effect on these developers; it just slightly changes their price points and how they manage the properties they have got.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is absolutely essential that we get more affordable housing, and the only way to do that is to be clear about what affordability is\u2014which is three to four times the median household income\u2014and to make sure that those who are getting a public benefit from this legislation have an obligation back to the public to build those houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EMore than 80 percent of Aucklanders have said that there is a housing crisis. Well over 50 percent\u2014in some cases 60 percent\u2014of New Zealanders say that house prices need to fall, including homeowners and including Aucklanders. We know that it is a crisis and it needs to be dealt with. This is a small change that could be made to fix at least some of the problems we have with SHAs that are not delivering. It is not expensive. It is not complicated. It is just sensible and it respects the public benefit that these developers are getting. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022 data-id=\u0022ffeb2c5d24944ab28025bf4f47558556\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ffeb2c5d24944ab28025bf4f47558556\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI (Labour\u2014Kelston):\u003C/span\u003E I am particularly interested in the clause of the bill that extends the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act from what was supposed to be September the 19th\u2014was it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a53f817e042a46ca97d3e93a625ecef5\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: 15th.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ad7661a4bd7408c976b8ec632b5b9b8\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: It was the 15th or 16th?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022310a7ce64a094437a2258cfb2006dd57\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: 16th.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dcb6cb27dd94b4cb471ed677cc3f71f\u0022\u003ECARMEL SEPULONI\u003C/span\u003E: September the 16th 2016 to September the 16th 2019. I guess my real concern is how did the Minister allow it to get to this point? So, 10 days out from this particular part expiring, here we are in urgency actually having a debate about this and trying to push it through quickly. Obviously we have had 3 years to think about this, and we have had 3 years to see whether the short-term measure was going to be effective. I mean, when we look at the regulatory impact statement, it does say that it was supposed to be a short-term measure to streamline and fast track housing development and associated infrastructure through the Resource Management Act. Well, we have known for a lot longer than the last week that that short-term measure was not going to be enough and it was going to need to be extended. So I really want to know from the Minister what was the delay? What was the delay in making the decision to bring this to the House to extend this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThere are problems that have been highlighted in the regulatory impact statement in relation to this, problems with regard to what had been hoped to be achieved that has not been achieved, and it is spelt out really clearly here. It does say that \u201CThe principal issue discussed in this RIS is whether to amend HASHAA [to extend the] timeframe to allow further SHAs to be established, and to create new provisions in the HASHAA for a 12-month time limit to lodge consents within SHAs, and ministerial discretion to extend this time limit.\u201D It basically says that there are still consents waiting that need to be put through. The Minister must have already known that they were not going to be completed by 16 September 2016, so why the delay?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI also want to point out that it is not something that has recently come to light. For the last few months at least there has been an ongoing discussion about this. I just want to refer to an article in the newspaper\u2014[Interruption] Thank you. I want to refer to an article in the newspaper where one of our mayoral candidates, Phil Goff\u2014who we think has a strong likelihood of winning the mayoralty\u2014pointed out that this transition was going to be a problem. He expressed his concerns that the Minister had done nothing to deal with this transition. The actual headline is \u201CLegal stuff up could hamper plans to build 15,000 new homes in special housing areas\u201D. He highlighted that on 25 May, and at that time Mr Nick Smith is reported in this article as saying that the Government was: \u201Copen-minded about legislation to effectively extend the special housing area legislation but would not make a decision until it had seen the plan recommended by the hearings panel and the council\u2019s response.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ESo I would like to know from Minister Nick Smith whether or not that is what delayed him. Did he see the plan just yesterday, or last week, hence why he has had to bring this to the House only 10 days out from when it was due to expire, and why we could not give it the public scrutiny and the due process that it deserved\u2014is that why we have delayed to this extent? I just want to know, really, what other special housing area projects are on the cards that the Government had anticipated would get through by the 16 September date that have not actually made it to that mark, so that we are fully aware of the reasons why we do need to extend this for 3 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EI guess we do accept that, despite the fact that what the Government has done here has been underwhelming and has not achieved anywhere near the extent of what we needed it to achieve in terms of actually addressing the housing crisis, it has done something, even if it is just a little bit. For that reason, we want to support that part of the bill. The second part\u2014obviously we will not go into it now, but we do not support it at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003ESo I just want to know from Mr Smith what the delay has been and why we are here, 10 days out from when this expires. Why are we here under urgency? Why was this not brought to the House sooner? Why could we not have had a more robust, formal discussion about this?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8eb4f012cf447f18dd84fb8a2e40b91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8eb4f012cf447f18dd84fb8a2e40b91\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I do want to give a fair answer to the challenge that Carmel Sepuloni has given around the timing of the bill, and I want to take you through the process and the reason for that timing. The eight developments that are at risk and that this bill addresses arise because of two specific factors. The first is that the council and the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel have chosen not to zone them residential. If it was a special housing area and the independent hearings panel and the council decided that they were to be zoned residential, there is no issue\u2014no issue on 15 September. It is a special housing area up to 15 September, and on 16 September it is zoned residential under the Auckland Unitary Plan\u2014no problem. The first thing is that we could not know where it was a problem and where it was not a problem until that process was completed on 19 August. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second issue is that in each of those special housing areas, there is a legal process for the plan change, and that process for the plan change is before independent commissioners. So if you look through each of those eight special housing areas, they are being heard by independent commissioners, whom neither the council nor myself is lawfully allowed to ring up and say: \u201CHurry it up, come on and make a decision before that deadline of 15 September.\u201D There are some special housing areas that, back in April, I was worried would not be through the process but actually are, and are not a concern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EHere is the further point: I think the Parliament would agree that we want these special housing areas progressed into houses as quickly as possible. The more pressure that we can put on those landowners and those councils to get on and get the plan changes and the resource consents and the houses built, I think the better off we are. If, for instance, I had come to this Parliament in April and provided a generic \u201Cget out of jail free\u201D card and said: \u201CDon\u2019t worry about the 15 September date, because I\u2019m going to extend that date.\u201D, it would have had exactly the opposite effect that the Parliament would want, and that is maximum pressure on both the council and on the landowners to be able to do that transition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo it is for those good reasons\u2014we did not know where the unitary plan had completed, we did not know, in each of these areas, where they were going to be finished, and we wanted people working as fast as possible to bring those special housing areas into homes\u2014that the timing of this bill is such that it has been brought before the House today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022 data-id=\u002269174459fe83467ebaac3fb8bfa5e733\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269174459fe83467ebaac3fb8bfa5e733\u0022\u003EIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E My question for the Minister for Building and Housing is: why is it that he is opposing Metiria Turei\u2019s amendment to add new clause 4A as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 210? I assume he is opposing it, because I heard some of his interjections that it would not work, or words to that effect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThe only contribution we have had from the Government side on Metiria Turei\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is from David Seymour, who seemed to take the view that having affordable housing, requiring developers to build affordable housing, was somehow a tax on developers and that it would stifle development of these special housing areas. He expressed that as the Government\u2019s view\u2014that there should be no room for putting requirements in place that affordable housing should be built on special housing areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EI want to explore that a little bit, because if we look at Metiria Turei\u2019s actual Supplementary Order Paper, it is to amend section 14(1)(d). Section 14(1)(d) in the principal legislation says that \u201Ca \u2018qualifying development\u2019 in a special housing area is a development\u2014 \u2026 (d) that will contain not less than the prescribed percentage (if any) of affordable dwellings.\u201D So the legislation as it stands actually already allows for affordable homes to be prescribed in a special housing area. What does \u201Cprescribed\u201D mean? Well, section 14(3) says that the word \u201C\u2018prescribed\u2019,\u2014(a) in subsection (1)(b) and (c), means prescribed for qualifying developments in special housing areas by an Order in Council made under section 15(1) \u2026\u201D. Section 15(1) lists the criteria that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, include in the criteria for a special housing area. Section 15(4) says: \u201CThe affordability criteria that may be specified are not limited by section 9(3)(a) but may include, without limitation, criteria defined by reference to median house prices, median household income, individual income, the median multiple (as referred to in section 9(3)(a)(ii)) or any other matter relevant to affordability as it applies to the district in which the special housing area falls,\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003ESo the legislation actually already takes a small step towards doing what Metiria Turei\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper would require. The difference is, of course, that it enables affordable housing to be a requirement in a special housing area. Metiria Turei\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper would require affordable housing to be built in special housing areas, and has a definition of what affordable housing is. If that is so evil, if that is going to stop developers building in special housing areas, then why was it included in the original legislation? If it was included in the original legislation, what does the Government have against (a) making it a requirement, and (b) setting some definition of what affordable housing is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EIf the Government and the Minister disagree with the definition, which is that it should be no more than four times the median household income in that area, then what is the Government\u2019s definition of affordable? What does the Government actually believe is an affordable home? What is the point of setting aside special housing areas if not to make housing more affordable? If the point is to make housing more affordable, then what is the Government\u2019s definition? If it is not the definition that Metiria Turei has offered, then what is it? We have not heard that from Government members. We have not heard that from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003ESo I would appreciate answers to all of those questions. Why not make it a requirement? Why is having affordable housing so much of an issue if it was already included in the principal legislation? Why not have a definition? What is the definition? So there are four questions there, and I would very much appreciate an answer from the Minister to those questions, because it would certainly enlighten me as to the Government\u2019s position on Metiria Turei\u2019s SOP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u00227665d8c6452b4724acd868a751121e82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227665d8c6452b4724acd868a751121e82\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 in this debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to continue along the theme that a number of my colleagues have spoken on, around affordability. I do want to point to paragraph 10 of the regulatory impact statement, which is on Part 1, which says that three-quarters of the special housing areas require around 10 percent of homes within the development to be affordable. Either way you look at it, special housing areas are a form of market intervention, and therefore I do not think our friend Mr Seymour would agree with those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EI think we really have to question the effectiveness of special housing areas. I do pay respect to my brothers and sisters from Auckland, but there is an issue emerging in Wellington, too. I do not have a special housing area within my electorate. I know that the Government has an agreement with Wellington City Council that does not cover my area, but when you look at the market as it operates in a raw sense in Porirua, you can see the market at the very top end working quite well, if you are a developer. There are plenty of houses in some new developments in Porirua that are around the $750,000 to $1 million mark. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. If you are in that area of the market, construction is going well\u2014that end of the market is booming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EBut if you are at the affordable end of the market\u2014and you can look at defining that however you like, and I do acknowledge Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 210 from Metiria Turei\u2014there is nothing available for you. In theory you could claim that the special housing areas would be able to come in and make a difference, but as we have seen in Auckland that is not the case, and we seriously question whether or not the affordability percentages around the special housing areas are having any effect in Auckland and, if they were to come further south, what they would do to a market such as Porirua.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EAt the moment in this region we have got around 460 empty State homes. In my particular area of Porirua there are 126 empty State homes, along with large swathes of land that used to have State homes on them that the Government demolished. It promised to return some homes to those areas, and has not done a single thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227962082d5f4944be969a923e5a96b2dd\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Halfway, mate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc1b1d11d87b4609a3e585d2b2828bf4\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Seymour has got something to say about that; I do not think it would be helpful. So we have got a market in Auckland that is not working, and a market in other areas of the country that is not working. Although we support the extension of the special housing areas, I think we have to take a good, hard look at the effectiveness of these special housing areas and look at just whether or not they are working and whether we have got a large enough percentage of those affordable homes being built for Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EI do remember at the beginning of the process of the Aotea block being built that there was a proposal that a certain percentage\u2014larger than 10 percent\u2014had to be deemed affordable. That did not happen. What you have got now is that people who have got plenty of money are fine in the Porirua market, but people who have got no money are struggling to get into the property market to buy a house or even find a house to rent in the private market, and there is almost nothing available in the Housing New Zealand sphere. Of the 42 houses that are available in Porirua at the moment, I cannot see why those houses are not being given to families that are on the waiting list. I believe the waiting list as it stands, which was cut down about 2 or 3 years ago, is about 60 families. So we have got empty homes in Porirua and 50 or so families that desperately need them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EI think the extension of the special housing areas might be something that the Government is trying to do to make more affordable homes available, but it is certainly not meeting the demand from those people who want affordable homes. I would suggest that this Committee looks really closely at SOP 210 from Metiria Turei, which defines affordability. Mr Seymour does not like it because it is a market intervention. But if you look at it, if you look at how the market is operating now, it is not working for all New Zealanders. It might work for Mr Seymour and his friends.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a05d14aa44340fa865f7251419e0ad9\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not working for him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e152c3a4b07e4573a3ab6c8baa39a58d\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: It may not be, but it is certainly not working for all New Zealanders. So we have got some serious concerns about Part 1 of the bill and the effectiveness of the special housing areas. We have got even more concerns about Part 2, but we will come to them when the time comes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u002283bf44eb3ae54bc29903e54cb545a940\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283bf44eb3ae54bc29903e54cb545a940\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT): \u003C/span\u003EI believe I may be able to assist with some of the points raised. I do not know whether I will be able to make it simple enough for a King\u2019s College old boy, but I am certainly going to try my damnedest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abeda2fb12b740caa8e86803cc2d5c57\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: Jealousy will get you nowhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223983620599d3458fa222aa97e4241eb0\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Jealous of what? The issue at hand comes down to a clash between two similar but really quite different concepts. One is affordable housing, and the other is housing affordability. On the one hand, when you talk about affordable housing you talk about a certain number of homes being available at a price for a segment of the market. Many of the interventions that are proposed by the political left are what I would refer to as affordable housing initiatives. Let us have inclusionary zoning to try to section off a part of the market at a certain price. Let us have the Government, or some Government-related entity, develop housing, because it will somehow have different means and motives from the private sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e98289293aaf410e90dbc228ac73af67\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly. What\u2019s wrong with that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c0b53cfac16437781d2d6af7605ff4c\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Let us have some sort of subsidy for people to be able to afford housing. Denis O\u2019Rourke\u2014not much gets past Denis O\u2019Rourke. I told the Committee that I was describing the policies of the political left, and Denis O\u2019Rourke has correctly surmised that I am describing his policies. Not much gets past Denis O\u2019Rourke. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe problem with the affordable housing agenda, as opposed to housing affordability, is that you cannot have affordable housing without housing affordability. The reason housing becomes unaffordable in the first place is that there is a shortage of housing supplied to the market, and when that happens, inevitably there is going to be a bidding war, which those with the least income are going to lose. Until housing becomes affordable you are not going to achieve housing affordability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWhat will it take to increase the supply of housing supplied to the market, and therefore achieve housing affordability across New Zealand, and therefore make it possible for there to be more housing that is affordable for those with the lowest incomes? It is interesting to hear Metiria Turei referencing the median multiple measure, which is a measure that has been popularised by my good friend Hugh Pavletich from Christchurch, who is one of the co-authors of the Demographia survey. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI wonder whether Metiria Turei has carefully read those Demographia surveys, and I wonder whether she has spoken to Hugh Pavletich or Wendell Cox. I wonder whether she has discussed with Julie Anne Genter what she has read. What those reports say, in no uncertain terms, is that the reason we have a shortage of affordable housing in New Zealand, as with any other market, is that we have adopted land-use planning laws that constrain the amount of land upon which people are able to build, thereby leading to a shortage of housing, thereby leading to a bidding war that not everybody can win, and those with the least money end up losing and end up with a shortage of housing that they are able to access. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe economics of it are that simple, and it is very good to hear that Metiria Turei has become a convert to this line of thinking, referencing the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey\u2014something that those of us on this side of the House have long looked to as a guide for making better housing policy. But if we wish to follow in those footsteps, we need comprehensive reform of New Zealand\u2019s land use planning laws. It is not good enough that councils are able to draw a line around a city such as Auckland, such as the metropolitan urban limit, and say: \u201CThou shalt not build beyond that line.\u201D That has created an enormous shortage of land, which has created an enormous shortage of housing, which has left people unable to afford any home whatsoever. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EFinally, we must reform the way that we do infrastructure funding. Presently, the councils cover too many of the costs and central government gets most of the fiscal benefit, and that is why councils are unwilling to build more housing. What this Government really needs to do is reform those underlying fundamentals, not tinker, as Metiria Turei has suggested in her amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022d681a5f5c81b46a5b4dfbdd3ea66fd4b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d681a5f5c81b46a5b4dfbdd3ea66fd4b\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I feel like the parent who has to do the thing that they never ever want to do\u2014to sit their child down and say: \u201CI am sorry, there is no Santa.\u201D So for David Seymour\u2019s benefit, this is the ACT Party equivalent of the difficult parental conversation: the market is broken. It is completely broken. It is not delivering housing to the majority of New Zealanders who want to buy it. It is broken\u2014it is completely broken\u2014so standing up and making semantic arguments about the difference between affordable housing and housing affordability is just perpetuating the purist model that I know David Seymour believes in. I know David Seymour believes in this as an article of faith, but Mr Seymour actually needs to look around and realise that the market is broken. It is not delivering housing affordability; it is not delivering affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EBill English, the Minister of Finance, stood up straight before the Budget and said that in the last 10 years, only 5 percent of new builds have been affordable. He acknowledged it. It was interesting that while Mr Seymour gave his first intervention this evening, Nick Smith was in the chair saying things like \u201CHe absolutely is right.\u201D and \u201CHear, hear.\u201D when David Seymour said that there was no place for an affordable housing requirement within special housing areas, which seemed a little odd to us on this side of the Chamber because it is already in the Government\u2019s law. In fact, they have got a requirement for 10 percent affordability in Auckland now, so it is a little odd for Nick Smith to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EHe then followed it up, brilliantly, with another intervention\u2014I think it might have been when Iain Lees-Galloway was talking\u2014saying: \u201CIt won\u2019t work. It doesn\u2019t work.\u201D Well, it is in his law. Why is it in his law if it does not work? The point is that it is not working because the whole special housing area process is not working. That is the problem. We have got only 57 of the 154 special housing areas with anything actually happening\u2014even remotely close to happening\u2014on them, so the problem here is that the market is broken and it requires an intervention. That is the problem that David Seymour has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EIt is surprising that the Minister is not prepared to back the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in Metiria Turei\u2019s name, because he himself has already started the ball rolling here. We need these special housing areas to be delivering a range of housing, because what we want in New Zealand are communities to develop that are not ghettos, that actually do provide opportunities for people to live in cities close to where they work, and that are not only for those who are the very, very wealthy. That is not what New Zealand was built on. If David Seymour has got a big problem with all of this, he needs to go to any public meeting in New Zealand, which are mostly attended by slightly older New Zealanders, and say \u201CWho in this room got their first house through a State Advances Loan?\u201D, or \u201CWho got their first house by capitalising the family benefit?\u201D. Successive Governments have intervened in the housing market to give New Zealanders a fair go at the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home, and that is what needs to happen here. Here is an opportunity to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe ultimate way to do this, Mr Seymour, is actually a programme where we really intervene in the market to fix it, which is KiwiBuild\u2014where the Government leads the housing development programme of affordable housing, where we do not just leave it up to the private developers, and where we actually say: \u201CHere is a chance for the Government to show some leadership and develop affordable housing.\u201D For the special housing areas, we do not know what the counterfactual is in terms of how many of these areas would have been developed anyway. I know here in Wellington when you look at the list of special housing areas, most of them are ones that were already under way or would have been developed anyway. But we are prepared to give it a go. We are prepared to say: \u201CYep, let\u2019s get in behind the special housing areas and see whether we can make them work a little bit better.\u201D But they are not going to work to deliver affordable housing unless we actually commit as a Parliament to making that happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThat is what this SOP is about. That is what the Government should be delivering on. It has already got it in the legislation for Auckland, so let us make it possible for everyone around the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u0022f781d72ec6dd4a9782d23eeb136a8e48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f781d72ec6dd4a9782d23eeb136a8e48\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E I have to say that at the beginning of that speech by Grant Robertson I felt like I was in a bit of a wh\u0101nau family moment, but happy Father\u2019s Day. I know that you were making out that it was like sitting down your son, and you were doing this to David Seymour. I was not sure what was going on there, but obviously you wanted to school him in what you believe your facts say\u2014what your belief is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI just wanted to respond to some of the comments. Mr Robertson talked about the capitalising of family benefits. I have to say that my family works for one of those, but if we look at the history of that, it actually was initiated in 1956. I ask the members on the other side whether they remember when it was taken out\u20141986. Do you remember when that was? [Interruption] OK. It was actually under a Labour Government, with David Lange, and that is when it was removed. So if you are going to use that as a point of difference, just remember to remind yourselves of your history and your heritage\u2014where you actually come from. It was taken away under a Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EBut the conversation has been around affordability, so we can talk about semantics\u2014and I actually agree with my colleague Mr David Seymour in regard to inclusionary zoning, which is what he talked about. Let us talk about some of the facts, then. The Minister used the example of what was happening down in Christchurch previously. I can remember the wailing and the gnashing of teeth in this House when talking about affordability in Christchurch. We know that rents were high, affordability of housing was in a terrible state, but the intention of this Government, of course, was to ensure that we built to the supply, to meet the demand\u2014these are the facts of what we are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe CoreLogic sales data in regard to home loans and price caps for the existing sales\u2014I will go straight through to the facts of this. This was on 31 March 2016: out of the 7,889 homes sold in Christchurch, 5,009 homes\u201463 percent\u2014were sold for under $500,000. That is right. That is what the number is. In fact, if you go further along, the 5,652 that sold for under $550,000 were 72 percent of the market. That is right. There is the silence of the lambs, because we know we did not regulate the market then and there was no inclusionary zoning. Instead, there was an intention to ensure that we built more to meet the demand. We built more to meet the demand, and you cannot argue with that because those are the facts, that is the reality, and that is what we are doing. The reality is that the special housing accords approach is not the silver bullet. It is one of a range of initiatives that we believe are important to ensure that we meet that demand. We know that is what is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThere was some response in regard to consents, and every time we talk about the number of consents that are out there, which this Government is putting through\u2014we think that is important and we use that as a basis. I want to dispel some of that myth. It was surprising to see, firstly, why would those developers want to spend $10,000 for a building consent and not proceed to build? We think that is important. The special housing accords will ensure that there is a time limit to ensure that they apply for a building consent. If you are spending that amount of money, then the intention is that you will do this. But the census data actually proves this. The number of dwellings in the Auckland regional area from 2006 to 2013 under the census data was 33,777. So when we look at the number of consents, 32,419 falls about 10 percent below that. But if we look at the 6-month lag and we bring that up, that is 33,703. I believe that that addresses the issue, which is that the consenting is a good indicator of the fact that not only does it allow them to build but it ensures that they will build. I think that is critically important as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI just want to finish off with the facts and figures again. If we look at the numbers that are there in regard to March 2016, these facts are actually hard to argue with. So for affordability, of 31,963 houses sold in the Auckland region, 30 percent were sold under $600,000\u20149,638\u2014and 11,840, which is 37 percent, were sold for under $650,000. There is an affordability margin there. Of course we want that to grow, and hence the reason why we are focusing our attention on building more for the demand. Then we believe that what will happen is that we will read out those statistics just like they have been now in Christchurch. Sixty-three percent of the market is affordable. We believe that is important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u00223aa9e6a733404c15b01f3a95b16d60c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223aa9e6a733404c15b01f3a95b16d60c4\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to perhaps get some assistance. I just want to walk through this a little bit. We are talking about special housing areas, where developers are provided with an opportunity to fast track consents. The notion of fast tracking consents would necessarily mean that you could fast track the building of homes\u2014is that right? Am I correct in assuming that the fast tracking of consents by developers means that you can fast track the homes? That is not a difficult assumption to make.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003ESo what I would like to know is this. Of these special housing areas\u2014which have been in existence for about 3 years, which is why we are in urgency right now to pass legislation so that they do not expire\u2014how many houses have been put through the process where the developers have got the consents and they have actually built the houses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0fcca1c42974c55b4a22fa3b45712ca\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: 1,300.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246c93412896e49baaf4835198eb855bf\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Wow! That is amazing! How fast is that? So in 3 years, with this fast-track process, we have built 1,300 homes. That is amazing! And do you know what else\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bc997450bba438294d5fae6b753743d\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: Slow down!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed045adbc1a34153a164807e198cb5fc\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, you are moving too fast! Do you know what else is amazing? What else is amazing is that the Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith\u2014or whichever way the honorifics go\u2014talks about the affordability issue in Canterbury having been wiped out, because the three-headed housing monster over there has been pulling all these levers in Canterbury. I welcome the National Canterbury MPs getting up and challenging this\u2014that the three-headed housing monster has been pulling all these levers in Canterbury and making houses more affordable. The Minister is saying that the Government has intervened in Canterbury and made it more affordable for housing. Well, I just have to challenge that because actually it was R\u016Baumoko who did that. R\u016Baumoko was the one who intervened in the housing market in Canterbury and made it more affordable because we got all this insurance money. We got all this insurance money to rebuild our homes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003ESo when the Minister talks about the Government and its special housing areas in Canterbury\u2014well, we had our leader, Andrew Little, down there only a few weeks ago looking at one of those special housing areas, and what was it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dbeb6fb4bd94a03aa7433f267bc18c7\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Bare land?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c76a3b4fd654857a0d944eb955bf2d5\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: It was a vacant lot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b69d46fec4ea427292ed8d4846fe1b69\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Special.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a66dfa30713443808f1fd7c5516d8a0e\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: It was very special. It was so special that there were ghost houses on it. So when this Government claims that it has intervened in the Canterbury housing market and brought back affordability to the people of Canterbury, I say no, that is rubbish. It was R\u016Baumoko who did that, and the insurance companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EI ask the Canterbury MPs over there on that side of the Chamber to get up and tell me that that is wrong, because that is blatantly not wrong. That is so, so not wrong. When this Government claims affordability in Canterbury, I have to get up and challenge that member on the other side of the Chamber Alfred Ngaro, when he claims all these statistics, which are clearly, clearly not right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EAnd who has the oversight of these developers? There is an example; I want to quote from my own electorate, where developers have been given carte blanche to redevelop Housing New Zealand land. They have taken one property out and they have put five, or six, or 10 properties in. Because we have fast tracked this, because we have given developers a whole lot of power under this legislation, who has the oversight of these developers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EThe example I want to quote in my electorate was where a developer was not given any oversight. He built some homes that sat outside of the boundaries of the recession plane, and do you know who discovered that? It was not the council, it was not Government officials, it was the local people who looked at those buildings and said: \u201CHang on a minute. There\u2019s something not right about this. The sun\u2019s not getting into my backyard like it used to. This building is clearly, clearly outside of the boundaries of this.\u201D So we are expecting developers to actually have oversight of their own developments. In this case, what happened was that building actually had to be taken down because it sat outside of the council consent process. So we have got a cautionary tale right there in Christchurch East\u2014in Christchurch where this Government claims it has intervened and brought affordability back to our housing market, which is clearly not right. So I really challenge this Government to actually live by the affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u002207ee40ee22844808a479f3d4c86cd384\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207ee40ee22844808a479f3d4c86cd384\u0022\u003EJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I am very happy to take a call on this bill. The Green Party believes it is a fundamental right for every person in Aotearoa to live in a warm, dry, secure home\u2014or have the opportunity to\u2014a place that a family can count on, whether they own or whether they rent, to be their home as long as they wish to be there, and it should be affordable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIn the debate this evening there has been a lot of talk about what it is that affordability means\u2014affordable housing, housing affordability, what is the difference? I think it is pretty clear. We do not have to make reference to the median multiple. If people have to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, that is not affordable. So it is not about just first-home buyers, although that is important too. It is about people having access to a place to call home without having to spend more than 30 percent of their income, so that they have enough for all the other things that every person needs to live a good life in this country. The problem right now is that there are too many people for whom this is not available. They have to spend far more than 30 percent of their income to have a place to call home. As we have been hearing over the last few weeks, during the homelessness inquiry that the Labour Party and the Green Party have been running together, there are too many families, young families, and women, and too many vulnerable people who do not have a place to call home, and that is not right. It is not good for any of us in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThis National Government has been irresponsible. The National Government members cannot blame anyone but themselves when they have been in power for 8 years and house prices are completely out of control. Homelessness is at a record high. They cannot point the finger at anyone but themselves. The reason why we do not have affordable housing is that some people in this country are making a lot of money from buying investment properties. They have got no incentive to rent them out or to do them up. Land prices are increasing so fast that they can just buy a house, hold on to it, and make hundreds of thousands of dollars on which they pay no tax. That is not fair and it is not right, and this irresponsible National Government has done nothing about it because those are the people it represents\u2014the people who are making a lot of money off investment property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EYou know, under the National Government, not only is it not easier to buy a first home but it is a lot easier for those property investors to buy a third or a fourth home. The numbers show this: 5 years ago 36 percent of property investors owned three or more properties. Today it is 51 percent of investors who own three or more properties. So people are able to buy houses, but not everyone has access to an affordable home, and that is not right and not fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThere is a whole range of policies that we need to implement to achieve affordable housing in New Zealand. One of them is social housing. It is not rocket science. The Government needs to build more State houses, and everyone in the Opposition has been talking about this. We need to tax all income the same. Capital gains tax\u2014it is fair, and it is only right. Those two things alone are not going to solve the problem.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EAlthough there is a lot of talk about supply, and supply is an issue in some places like Auckland, the reality is that foreign capital is impacting house prices in cities all across the world, and it is really ridiculous for the National Government not to acknowledge this. Basically, in all of the current account deficit countries, of which New Zealand is one\u2014New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US, the UK\u2014they have had huge housing bubbles. In the current account surplus countries they have had flat or very slowly rising house prices. This is because a disproportionate amount of the foreign capital we attract is going into real estate, which is not the productive side of the economy that we need it to go to, and it is making housing less accessible for people who live here in New Zealand. It is not just foreign buyers, although that is part of the issue. The reality is a lot of New Zealanders are accessing foreign capital to get mortgages to buy houses, and that bids up housing prices. You can see this in a place like Vancouver, which is very similar to Auckland. Suddenly it has had a big drop in house prices because it put a 15 percent tax on foreign buyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3a95f88d21948bfa7d1c78cd0b70933\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3a95f88d21948bfa7d1c78cd0b70933\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to address some of the comments made by Grant Robertson, I think, who, sadly, will not be able to hear my comments. Hopefully, he is listening on his crystal set at home. He took it upon himself to tell me that there is no Santa Claus. What a cruel, cruel man is Grant Robertson! But the reality is that there is a Santa Claus. There is a market and, overwhelmingly, it works. If you want to question that, then the first thing you might ask yourself is why it is that the cost of goods that people consume, whether it be cars, whether it be electronics, whether it be clothing, or whether it be food, has gone down relentlessly in real terms, for decades and decades and decades.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThere is one asset that people choose to consume in New Zealand that, strangely enough, has not gone down in real terms, and that is housing. You would have to ask yourself: what is different about the housing market from every other commodity that people like to consume? I will just give you a suggestion that there is no other market that has more intervention by councils and the New Zealand Government than the housing market, because all of those other things I listed are things that can be produced offshore and imported, and that is why we have a competitive market the New Zealand Government cannot touch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EBut what the New Zealand Government is able to touch is the infrastructure and the regulatory environment surrounding land. Those are the things that are regulated by the Government, where there is extensive Government intervention, and, strangely enough, we have found ourselves with a great shortage of that commodity, and at the same time steadily rising prices, which is what has occupied most members and much of the New Zealand public for some time now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003ESo here is the world that works: free markets providing many of the things that we consume, with continually dropping prices and increased welfare for citizens. Here is the world that does not work: the world that is regulated and monopolised by Government, and that is access to buildable urban land and the infrastructure to service housing. That is the world that does not work, and that is the world where we have had increasing prices and a shortage of supply. If only members opposite were able to understand these simple distinctions between a free market and a market where the critical inputs are regulated by Government or monopolised in their provision by local councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EOf course, if it is a Government failure that has led to our difficulties with housing affordability, then what needs to be done is that the Government needs to change its policy approach to those areas of the market that it dominates. This Committee needs to be debating legislation to seriously reform land-use planning, particularly in urban settings. It is not good enough that our Resource Management Act has grown from 400 pages to 900 pages in the last 25 years. It has simply become more complicated. Only Grant Robertson, only the Labour Party, would believe that an activity governed by 900 pages of legislation\u2014the purpose of which is just to set out the rules for another level of the Government\u2019s interventions\u2014was a free market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWhen we do development, we need infrastructure, and the roads and the pipes that make up urban infrastructure are extremely costly to councils, yet the development that councils are in charge of consenting is extremely profitable to central government. We need to renegotiate the deal between central government and local government and actually share revenue to incentivise councils to consent more land. That is the public policy prescription that New Zealand needs. We do not need to fix the free market where it operates. We need to make the inherently interventionist housing market more efficient, and that requires better Government policy. There is a Santa Claus.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u00229e0e51069a4e48259fc1d60b2a69e24e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e0e51069a4e48259fc1d60b2a69e24e\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E The only assertion that comes close to having an evidence base to it in Mr Seymour\u2019s speech just now is his statement that Santa does exist. We have heard a lot about this free market. There are some things about the free market that Mr Seymour has not articulated that I will come to, but perhaps I could reassure Mr Seymour this way: although it is official Labour policy that Santa does not exist, there is a possibility that there may be fairies at the bottom of the garden, and I am prepared to concede that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe thing about free markets is this\u2014if you want to have a free market there are a number of other conditions that have to apply, such as symmetry of information and equality of power, and that includes financial power as well. The reality is that in our housing market right now there is not equality of bargaining power through equality of financial power, there is definitely not symmetry of information\u2014there is asymmetry of information\u2014and all the evidence that is available to Mr Seymour, and everybody in this Committee, and the rest of New Zealand is that our housing market is just dysfunctional. How is it that in a country of 4.5 million people, in a city of l.5 million people, and when the average income is, what, $55,000, $57,000, we have an average house price of $1 million? That is not the mark of a functioning market; that is the mark of a dysfunctional market. So interventions are required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EYou could say the Government has heroically embarked upon housing accords and special housing areas as a justified intervention in the market. Certainly the objectives were good. Certainly the intentions were good. But, actually, when you look at the evidence and the practical effect of those special housing areas so far, they are not achieving what they were intended to achieve. Roughly a third of the special housing areas\u2014only a third\u2014have had houses built on them, which means two-thirds have not. We know that in special housing areas, set aside for the building of houses, including affordable houses\u2014it simply has not happened in two-thirds of the special housing areas and the land available in those housing areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe policy is not working. Noble as it is to say \u201CListen, let\u2019s extend it. Let\u2019s give it another 3 years.\u201D, that will be meaningless without Supplementary Order Paper 210 advanced by Metiria Turei requiring and specifying a proportion of affordably priced houses in those areas. That is vital\u2014that is vital. That has been the missing element in the special housing areas programme so far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThere have been some great projects in which affordable houses have been delivered, and some of them have been in special housing areas, and others have not. The truth is this\u2014the reality is this\u2014the need for affordable housing of a huge volume is now urgent. We now need urgent action to get affordable houses built. Getting special housing areas working properly, and a policy working properly, could be a solution. But it will be a solution only if they deliver affordable houses. It will not be a solution if we just extend the period during which special housing areas can be created and housing accords can continue to be activated, without a statutory mandate for a proportion of those houses to be affordable. That is what is needed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThat is the Labour Party policy proposal. That is the Labour Party comprehensive housing package\u2014to have a housing programme dedicated to affordable housing. That is the desperate shortage in New Zealand at the moment. Young couples, no matter how hard they work or save, cannot afford to buy their first home, and how could they when the proportion of their income\u2014or the multiple of their income\u2014required to buy a house, at least in Auckland, is now pushing 10 times that income? It is out of reach. If we are to stave off a bunch of other social issues, or social problems, further down the track, then the need to get affordable houses built in New Zealand today is utterly urgent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe bill as it stands at the moment, in this part, in Part 1, does not go far enough. We need a specific mandate, as provided for in the Supplementary Order Paper, for a proportion of affordable houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002285f695599d70422aa42b823be3236d3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285f695599d70422aa42b823be3236d3b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I do want to respond on three important points. The first is that members have claimed that you need to get the house price to income ratio back to 4, as is proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I challenge members to reflect on the history. There is actually only one period in New Zealand in which that ratio was less than 4, and that was when interest rates were at 15 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f815ef2c978e44d199980832a1ca0080\u0022\u003EJono Naylor\u003C/span\u003E: How high?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6a72076d7554871a4db945cb8eed9b9\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Fifteen percent. That is the only time. So the point is this: actually, you need to include interest rates in your measures of housing affordability, because, actually, whether it be the interest.co.nz index, or whether it be Massey University\u2019s index, it is absolutely proper to look at the proportion of a person\u2019s income in that criteria for affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second thing is that there is a belief from Opposition members that putting an affordability criterion into each of the special housing areas (SHAs) will help. Let me tell you why that is incorrect. The experience that the Auckland Council has had, and the reason that the Auckland Council decided not to include affordability requirements in their plans\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200dfdaa0dbcf434cab86895755a3bf73\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: They got it wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022136f0457f6a54decb60b8f4b50ce6cb7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will explain why. It is important. It is because the developer has a choice as to whether they use the SHA mechanism or the normal planning process. If you put a whole lot of barriers in the way of the special housing area, the developer will simply choose to use the normal planning process, and you will defeat exactly what you need\u2014more houses being built. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d56f8d0cc7a343309be20b7368314d77\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: So apply it to all developments then.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a10c7bebffa54baca14281c4224f9db0\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Then Mr Twyford says: \u201CWell, let\u2019s just apply it to all developments.\u201D I draw his attention to the evidence and the decision of the independent hearings panel, and I think every member in this Committee would accept the judge in that panel as an expert. Equally so, I would refer to the reports of both the OECD and the Productivity Commission that say those measures do not work, are counter-productive, and actually make houses less affordable, and the evidence is absolutely strong on that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5e3dcc4166e43b8bf6d77d6488e6e0c\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Rubbish! There is no consensus on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233366d0f6d0044f4886ec9659534102a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Effectively, what Mr Twyford and Mr Little are saying is \u201CNo, the Productivity Commission got it wrong. No, the independent hearings panel got it wrong, and no, the Auckland Council got it wrong.\u201D, whereas the Government is saying: \u201CActually, the research shows it does not work.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me give a very practical dimension. The original Auckland Council proposal was that if a housing development was more than 20 houses, it required a block of affordable houses. What the developers who were doing an 80 section block did was divide it into 19 section lots to be able to avoid that provision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bffc3cb5975d4253bfdf223b4f18c453\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: There are ways of dealing with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227166993f18844092b275c4f1dc06bc9a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: And he says: \u201CThere\u2019s ways of dealing with that.\u201D Actually, when you come to do a housing project, it is often the case that you will slice it up because of the capital costs of doing the investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI will respond to one last point. The members have said: \u201CWhy is it that the Government insists on price points and affordability on the Government\u2019s Crown land programme, but not in the special housing areas?\u201D. There is a very good reason for that. When the Government owns the land, it can set the conditions about what occurs on the development, but if the land is privately owned, actually, you cannot force people to invest. If you have got a block of land, for instance, that is typically worth $10 million, and it is going to cost $30 million to build the infrastructure and to convert that into sections, I challenge Labour members to say how you will force people to invest that $30 million. That question they cannot answer. That is why those provisions do not work. That is why, actually, increasing housing supply is the key. This provision will do that, and Labour\u2019s opposition to these provisions shows that it is more interested in playing politics than actually getting roofs over the heads of Kiwi families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022347609b8f7f84125a3233dc37bd52a7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022347609b8f7f84125a3233dc37bd52a7d\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I want to begin by making some comments about what the \u201CMinister for Houselessness\u201D said about affordability of housing in Christchurch because it is a most inappropriate example to use. As some others have indicated, the reason is that in Christchurch, as a result of the earthquake, huge amounts of Earthquake Commission and insurance money went in, and, as a result of demolitions, there was a lot of land that became available for building both in the central city and in the east. In addition to that, a lot of people simply moved out of Christchurch to areas immediately next door, like the Selwyn and Waimakariri districts. So the issue in Christchurch was not so much a land supply problem; it was actually, much more, a house supply problem because land always was, and still is, available. So you cannot use the Christchurch situation as a valid example of proving the effectiveness of Government policy. It is just not applicable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhat is applicable and what is core to this issue is affordability, and that cannot\u2014and I challenge the Minister for Building and Housing on this\u2014just be solved by supply of land. There is a lot more to it than that because affordability refers to appropriate-sized sections for modest homes at prices that people can therefore afford. What is actually happening as a result of the free-market approach\u2014which is really the approach supported by the Government\u2014is that developers like to build larger homes on large sections because they get larger profits from doing it. It is no good the Minister shaking his head, because I have looked around in all parts of New Zealand, especially in Christchurch where I live, and tried to find a modest-sized home on a modest section for a reasonable price. It is very difficult to do. What is available are plenty of large expensive homes on large sections. So the market does not really solve the affordability problem as a result of just opening up supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EAffordability also refers to access to terms of purchase that people can handle, and that is the thrust of New Zealand First\u2019s policy. It divides the purchasing of a section\u2014that we would assist them to do\u2014with the building of a house, and if the security for the section is at second priority, people can still go out, therefore, and get a loan for a house on first mortgage and build their own home. That is the approach that we want to take. But affordability also\u2014and this what the objective is of some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have before us\u2014applies to the total cost, whether it is within the range of people to finance or not. It is really as simple as that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ENow David Seymour seems to think that the market will look after that as well, but that is not true\u2014that is not true. There are so many people in this country who will never be able to finance their own home under current conditions. It is not just a supply issue; it is beyond that. It is an affordability issue. So just extending the time for special housing areas (SHAs) is not actually going to be enough at all. So I would like to ask the Minister: why has the Government not done more than just extend the period for SHAs in this legislation when there are so many other things it could do, not just to assist supply but to assist the problem of affordability?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EFor that reason New Zealand First will support Supplementary Order Paper 210, because we would support anything that would assist that issue, although we do think that our policy is better than that set out in Supplementary Order Paper 210. Nevertheless, it is doing something positive, so we will support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe Government, obviously, has no better ideas. It is just going to vote against that but not put anything in its place, and that is unsatisfactory. David Seymour seems to think that the market is going to be enough and the market will look after everything\u2014just give them a free hand and away they will go. That is no way to address affordability. It will be a failure, as the Government\u2019s policy and proposals are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u002298585028b8d0453a9820dd8de2932ec5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298585028b8d0453a9820dd8de2932ec5\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E First, I just want to thank the Ng\u0101puhi whanaunga over here, the member David Seymour, for paying, apparently, so much attention to my speeches, often, and including tonight. In one of his earlier contributions I think he said something about my female fury righteousness. He has called me the Donald Trump of New Zealand, and he plays violins after I get up and speak, very often. Then tonight he gets up and he talks about the free market\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253b9f149116f46b5bf11617d189da605\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is engaging in a hearty debate, but she has also accused me of attacking her in a sexist way, which I have not done and would not do, and I think she should withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fada28869684b269ef5325d60823320\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! If the member has taken offence by what the member has said\u2014[Interruption] I am on my feet. If the member is offended by what has been said and takes personal offence, he can ask me to intervene.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c49487ff01e84d8f9b17e2252021b9ef\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I would not attack another politician on sexist grounds, and I am offended by that accusation, and I think she should withdraw the statement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262f0a75ea1e349bab46f70903bf35345\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I will ask the member to withdraw that comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f442c79a70224f40b7b3d58d0167fe55\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair, I am only quoting what he said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e37247f037140a9a90f807add3f98a6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. [Interruption] Order! All you have to do is to withdraw the comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d107f98139a54028a2717bb5f0e305ce\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225240d0bf1345424eaa7173004a09f2cb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I have just ruled\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228da4a12bf8744cbbab42a0b1cecf0feb\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d7a9efc07bf412abe9a2d4a99fde81e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Metiria Turei will sit. [Interruption] Sit. I am on my feet. [Interruption] You sit too. David Seymour has taken offence at a comment that has been made. The process is\u2014[Interruption] He has taken personal offence, I am intervening, and I have asked the member Marama Davidson just to withdraw the comment, and that is all you have to do. You do not have to make any other comment, and then you can continue your speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5f323ec3b554993a53c0adc23f1bec3\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I withdraw my comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277595028590c463eb5bf9753caf50ce0\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could spend some time looking at a ruling the Speaker gave some time ago about personal offence. The Speaker at that time ruled that it was not a matter of an individual taking personal offence; it was a matter of whether it offended the House. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aebc54c7283f4e4cacd0cb0e334131a7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, look, I do not need any help on this matter. I am happy to look at that point. I have ruled in the past on this matter, and I am being consistent in what I have done. Marama Davidson has the call if she wishes to take it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab7d30fd928d4ebe8b6944a764421203\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f362727ca5ac48799d9dd27503b41ba8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a new point of order, Metiria Turei?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254f29748fb72447fa1645d70feadf9cf\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: It is seeking your clarification on your ruling. Can we get some clarification, then, on when Speaker Carter makes a ruling\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224416ccb7a3384ee4beafaaac9e2c6840\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I have just said that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226927059cdb1449729b5cb8d312526a0c\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Can I finish the point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abf61f8db6144a00bb300616ec562d4e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will sit, then, because I have just answered that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a142b15b90a49f295962e1a133665b9\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: No, Mr Chairperson, I have not asked the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022926bd5b9f8c1447c8b6cb0b941e2b7eb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: You just said you wanted clarification of a point that had been made that the Hon Annette King brought up. I said that I would consider that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263c6a18d9ece4ce69b4600158c167fb2\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: It is a different point, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8aff4ea45dd4496867ac7c7d3050c7a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, what is the new point? All you are doing is trifling with my decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253616a0e21b64edc85bc1fa63349ef4b\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. My point of order is this: when Speaker Carter makes a ruling about the definition of personal offence in relation to the House, and you, Mr Chair, make a ruling that is different from his, how then are we to interpret, between the two rulings, what constitutes sufficient personal offence that another member will be required to withdraw and apologise? That is my point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022268296bb3fa745e4a5c00e49285d2bb2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Any member, if they feel offended by something that has been said\u2014and it relates to a personal offence\u2014has the right to protect their integrity, but\u2014[Interruption] I am on my feet. The member David Seymour did take offence, and it is a very simple process to actually ask the member\u2014in this case, Marama Davidson\u2014to withdraw the comment, which she has done. Now we can continue. Any member has the right to take offence at a comment that has been made. It is very, very straight forward. Marama Davidson, you have the call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022119c2144abde449ebdd8a0cadf78b2f7\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228581c17f42da4dcdb4888372a24ebc60\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I hope you are not going to be\u2014is this a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232221bdf728f4d059ee0e14e549906e8\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: It is a new point of order. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am not sure whether there is a Standing Order or a Speaker\u2019s ruling that refers to the issue I want to raise, so I ask that you, perhaps, reflect on this and maybe bring a ruling regarding it. What is a member to do when they are accurately reflecting\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022078a8095d0a948829122ad156c0bebab\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, that is a matter of opinion. The member has taken offence. That is all that I am concerned about. I have asked the member to withdraw. So I am ending the matter. We are moving on, because all you are doing is interfering with the decision that I have made, and the member took offence, Marama Davidson has withdrawn the comment, and I am asking her to continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022509453e680f44145b9176f2d9f38266f\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219ecf2213b7d4d8d972ebf25f9f9c201\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order. I may be able to assist\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dca679069374d77970d215ef75deef2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, I do not need any assistance from the member; he will sit. Marama Davidson, you have the call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022187f6d75ebf44e3da860d317cafc50c5\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223433c92c29d84ce1b11c53ebd2de9b01\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: If this is relitigating anything I have said, the member will leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b7963e7f0ba44630a23190c4f972b10f\u0022\u003EIain Lees-Galloway\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That the Speaker be recalled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c60d833f161d47d1aeee5a751466d8c4\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d2b2fc1e3c344ed1a5c211a475a3d07d\u0022\u003ESpeaker Recalled\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00226e6e9ce241c9423192d052eccdd6c956\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e6e9ce241c9423192d052eccdd6c956\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the basis of a decision that I made, and this came about when David Seymour raised a point of order about a comment that had been made by Marama Davidson. He took personal offence at the comment that had been made. I ruled that if the member had taken personal offence, the member making the comment should withdraw the comment, which she subsequently did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EIn the meantime there were a number of points of order, including one from Metiria Turei that said that I was inconsistent with previous decisions that you, as Speaker, had made. The Hon Annette King made the point that I should consider the decision. I said that I would read the transcript and I would come back on the point that she had brought up, and that I would consider again and report back. I have been consistent over the period of time when someone has taken personal offence\u2014that it is an offence against that person\u2019s integrity\u2014and I believe that if someone feels offended by such a comment, in order to protect the integrity of that person the person making that accusation should, in fact, withdraw the comment, which in this case the member did. We were then to move on, but you have been recalled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4843d72f5d1446f9f2eaed6529090fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4843d72f5d1446f9f2eaed6529090fd\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E There are two issues, as I understand it; others may have a different view. The first was the question of the definition of \u201Cpersonal offence\u201D. In previous rulings you have made, you have said that where there is personal offence taken, it is offence to the House as a whole, not to the individual. However, the Chair did rule that because Mr Seymour had taken personal offence himself, that was sufficient to ask my colleague to withdraw and apologise. They are two different definitions of \u201Cpersonal offence\u201D, and we sought clarification on which of those definitions should apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe second matter was that my colleague was described as a female having female fury righteousness in the debate earlier this afternoon by Mr Seymour. She referred to that comment in her contribution during the Committee stage. Mr Seymour took offence at her reference to his previous statement about her in this debate, and there is a question now about whether or not a member is able to stand and repeat the statements made by other members in this House about themselves, and then be required to withdraw and apologise for that statement. That does not seem consistent with the Standing Orders or the order of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022785bef945e7a4b56ae71f0d383528cfc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022785bef945e7a4b56ae71f0d383528cfc\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I may be able to assist. The confusion here is that I took offence at being accused of describing the member by her gender. I think that is offensive to me and to the House. I would not attack another politician in that way. The confusion has arisen\u2014and the \u201Cyellows\u201D that I have just had emailed through to me will confirm this\u2014because I said that she was a ball of \u201Cself-righteous fury\u201D, not a ball of \u201Cfemale fury\u201D. Had I said the latter, I would be the one apologising, but that is not what I said, and the Hansard will confirm that I am correct. Can I suggest to the member that, rather than self-righteousness, she should get some hearing aids.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022e100a678390d4d95903d0e8be01073d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e100a678390d4d95903d0e8be01073d0\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E That was unnecessary, I think we can all agree. My colleague is prepared to accept that she did not get the quote completely correct\u2014once we saw the transcript from Hansard\u2014but, none the less, there still remains the central questions here as to that matter in a debate such as we are having, which is that a member should be able to stand and reflect on the comments made by other members that are made about themselves. And, second, what is the definition of \u201Cpersonal offence\u201D that we are to use in this House? Is it an offence to the individual member of Parliament, or is it an offence to the House? We have had long debates on that. It is now more confusing than ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00223f7e82a035ef471db8d104ac448db2a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f7e82a035ef471db8d104ac448db2a7\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I think in considering that matter there is a need to draw a distinction between whether a member feels they have been misrepresented and whether a member takes offence at a matter, because the remedies for those things are different. If a member feels they have been misrepresented, then there are steps that they can take in order to seek to have that corrected, and the threshold for that would be, if you like, more lenient than for offence. The threshold has to be reasonable for offensiveness, or otherwise we will have members taking offence at everything other members say that they disagree with. But if they feel that they have been misrepresented in the debate, then there are ways that they can seek to correct it. But asking a member to withdraw or apologise, or both, for a comment that a member feels might misrepresent what they have said but that is not in itself offensive, is going to lead the House into a state of quite regular disorder, I would have thought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd757b66d2d14eaab7333990f2e032d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd757b66d2d14eaab7333990f2e032d5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I subscribe to the view of Chris Hipkins. I specifically asked the member: \u201CDid he take personal offence?\u201D. If it had been a matter of interpretation, that is a debating point, but I specifically asked \u201CDid the member take offence?\u201D, and that is why I pursued the measure that I did. So I subscribe to your view\u2014it is a very clear one\u2014and that is why I took the course of action that I did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u00224d1000dc82f24ff699a8cbdf4e799cb5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d1000dc82f24ff699a8cbdf4e799cb5\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E On the first point, the accusation made is not only personally offensive to me; it brings the House into disrepute. So I think the debate around that is moot. Secondly, we can argue about whether or not the member genuinely misheard what I had said or whether she deliberately attempted to slur me with the accusation, but, one way or another, it was something that caused offence and brought the House into disrepute. So I do not think we actually need a lot of this debate. I think we are actually ready to move on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8686af7fccb490eb07174405196f5a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8686af7fccb490eb07174405196f5a9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask about part of the explanations received, particularly from Metiria Turei\u2014I do not understand the point the member is making about misrepresentation. I can understand the comment made about the offence taken, but then you raised a point of misrepresentation that I just cannot follow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00226ed54bc2b578491a81031b5a7570b6f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ed54bc2b578491a81031b5a7570b6f1\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I did not address the question of misrepresentation directly. That was my colleague Chris Hipkins, and I think he is right\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e75f109f82ca484b9937575939af306a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, he then spoke further to your point, but I do not understand the basic point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236b9aa8ebdbb4babbb4feb02b8ebab31\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The essential point is in a debate\u2014and we all know that this is a rigorous debate, and you tell us that on a regular basis, quite rightly\u2014there is a lot that is said, some of which can be misunderstood. If a member of Parliament stands up and refers to something that somebody has said, particularly if it is a personal comment about them, they should be able to debate, to mention that personal comment, and to make their own analysis about that comment without concern about it being taken as a personal offence. If it is a misrepresentation, then that is a legitimate position for another member to take. But to then use personal offence to force them to withdraw and apologise over a comment that was made about them does not make any sense, and we still get back to the primary issue, which is: what is the definition of \u201Cpersonal offence\u201D that is used by the Speaker?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00226f46ffdc11cd4ad183df15bb790a27a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f46ffdc11cd4ad183df15bb790a27a5\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank all members for their contributions. I was involved in a meeting, so I was not listening to the debate as we led into this. So it is a difficult one for me to sense. The tension was here. I do acknowledge that it is a vigorous debate. We are in a situation where we are in urgency. We are debating something that is, obviously, finely balanced within this House on the votes that have been taken, and it is something that is not going to be aired before a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EAs to the issue of when offence is taken, you cannot define it exactly. It occurs at a time when offence could be taken by a member. There are times when I have ruled that offence has been taken. I have been surprised that offence has been taken, and I have said that, but if offence is taken and that creates disorder, then a presiding officer, as Mr Tisch has done in this case, will accept that the member has taken offence and ask that that comment be withdrawn. Many times when I have made that decision I have made it without actually hearing the interjection myself; I have relied on the fact that a member said he is offended. If he is offended, it is an offence to the whole House\u2014[Interruption] Order! On this occasion that is what has happened here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe presiding officer, Mr Tisch, has been the Chair; he has been judging the proceedings. It is his job to keep order in the House. Without doubt, offence was taken. All members can judge whether offence should have been taken. Mr Tisch has decided that the way to then maintain the dignity and the order in this House is to require the member to then withdraw that comment. If it had been more offensive, he may have taken the option of asking the member to withdraw and apologise, but, as I understand it, he did not do that. He simply asked for it to be withdrawn, and I further understand that the member then did withdraw that remark. So on that basis, I completely back Mr Tisch, as he is attempting to maintain order in this Chamber during what has been, without doubt, a fairly tense discussion over the last hour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022d63c168af60a4c729d4b1fa0c04b8da2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d63c168af60a4c729d4b1fa0c04b8da2\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just get clarity, then, that it is a legitimate point of order for taking personal offence for a male member to be, in his own mind, in whatever way, accused of sexism, but it is not a legitimate point of order for personal offence for a female member who takes offence at being told she backs rapists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00228d1e787544274f16b9c7beb965f413ab\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228d1e787544274f16b9c7beb965f413ab\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! No, I think I covered that in the very first part by saying there are times when remarks will be made and offence will then be taken at that remark, and a presiding officer needs to immediately decide how best to maintain order. So I am not going to comment on a particular comment that was made as to whether it meets a threshold. A presiding officer, in this case, is required to maintain order in the House. Mr Tisch chose to accept that Mr Seymour had been offended by the comment, and he then asked the member to withdraw. That member did withdraw. That is my final decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002290657836902e4c0b8b791f848065778e\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000691\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cfff3a5237a94df48235c6729ce594f1\u0022\u003EPart 1  Amendments to Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc5b8dee400e44599a09051fea50fc1e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc5b8dee400e44599a09051fea50fc1e\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E This has been a rather hefty, vigorous debate tonight. All sorts of things have been flying across the Chamber, including from the member David Seymour, about me and my speeches. I have not once chosen to stand and take offence at any of them because this is a vigorous debate and I am up for it, including right now. And, actually, after all of this, all I was going to say and suggest to Mr David Seymour was that he do what I do, which is completely ignore him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022858654aa39a943209b21b323bfec176b\u0022\u003EJono Naylor\u003C/span\u003E: But you didn\u2019t. You didn\u2019t ignore him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cf23ac235c04b7f8e8d0ca7328c01e7\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, the only way I found out about what he said about me is that I got tweeted it. I got tweeted it. I found out later on what the member had said about me because people were hilariously laughing at it. So that is how I found out. Other than that, my advice is that what I do is ignore him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo I will just carry on from there and say that what I wanted to outline in this contribution, what I have got left, is that I wanted to acknowledge the Ihum\u0101tao campaign against this special housing area (SHA) and support what my tung\u0101ne, my colleague Peeni Henare, of T\u0101maki Makaurau, has said. What I want to go back to very, very strongly is that the Ihum\u0101tao community and the land it is trying to protect is right adjacent to some incredible, ancient stone archaeological sites\u2014incredible. The land that was proposed for this SHA\u2014Part 1 of this bill extends the fast tracking. So we have to remember that that was confiscated land. That was confiscated land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThe Ihum\u0101tao campaign to oppose this SHA, this special housing area, under the original legislation\u2014I went to the Auckland Council governance meetings as well as the select committee meetings and listened to the presentation from the Ihum\u0101tao campaigners about protecting their land. You know what happened: both the council hearings and the parliamentary select committee hearings\u2014across the House, across the parties\u2014agreed that this was a bit of a mistake, this one. The approval for this one was a bit of a sham, and there was sympathy across all of the parties for the muck up in this particular legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo I did want to bring the Ihum\u0101tao community and the people into the Committee tonight under Part 1 of this legislation, because\u2014too late, too late\u2014there was even sympathy and agreement across the parties and at Auckland Council. See, this is what happens when you fast track the information. If Auckland Council had known properly and had all the information in front of it, it admits that it would have made a different decision. This is what happens and can happen with this fast-tracked legislation, and this is what I wanted to put to the Committee in respect of Part 1 of this bill. So they all admitted this and had some sympathy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI actually want to acknowledge that Nick Smith went to this community. He did. He gave them an ear, but it was too late\u2014it was too late. He had already signed it off. That is what this fast-track process did. He is stuck with it now. He is stuck with that legacy of this wrong decision for the Ihum\u0101tao community to not have their precious ancient \u201CStonehenge\u201D land protected under this fast-tracked consenting process. So that needs to be strongly acknowledged in this Committee, and I wanted to stand and do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI am sorry that David Seymour was offended at the start of my speech for something\u2014all I was doing was giving an innocent synopsis of how he refers to me. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u002279b98dc8ece141b387a72bc10eb17bed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002279b98dc8ece141b387a72bc10eb17bed\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Before I address why we need this transitional provision, can I say that I agree with other members who have said that this bill is inadequate to deal with the issues that are facing New Zealand in housing. I agree with something that Julie Anne Genter said: that these problems have become so problematic in New Zealand that they are causing economy-wide effects, not just having an effect on the housing market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe problems are so problematic that they are causing problems beyond the housing market. It is true that some of the marginal price pressure comes from overseas buyers. It is true that that is driving demand for New Zealand currency, which is higher than it would otherwise be. It is true that it is suppressing the value of our exports and increasing our current account deficit. It is also true that it is distorting the investment signal within New Zealand so that more money is going into speculative asset classes and not enough is going to productive asset classes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I want to address another point that I do not think has been properly addressed. I want the Minister for Building and Housing to explain why we are having to do this piece of legislation\u2014why\u2014when the special housing areas did not come into creation until after the plan-making process was legislated for the Auckland Plan. Why was it not contemplated at the time of the special housing legislation that there was a need to ensure that the plans that were going to be made for the special housing areas would not be cut across by the Auckland Plan? As the explanatory note says\u2014in the third dot point\u2014the purpose of this bill is to \u201Callow plan change requests made but not completed under the [Special Housing Areas] Act to continue when proposed district plans become operative:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo the first time that that could have been fixed was when the special housing legislation was passed, to have made that clear. The Minister shakes his head. It could have been done that way, Minister. You know that that is correct. The second way it could have been fixed is that one of the many arms of Government\u2014one of the many billions of dollars that the Government spends every year could have been spent on making a submission to the Auckland Plan\u2019s hearing panel that it should have made provision for the protection of planning processes that were under way in\u2014[Interruption] They could have. Again, the Minister shakes his head. Of course it could have gone to those people who were hearing that and they could have said \u201CPlease don\u2019t cut across the plans that are halfway through or about to be lodged, or give us a transitional period of 3 years.\u201D, which is the transitional period that it wants under this legislation. It could have at least asked the planning authority in Auckland to put the same provision in the Auckland Plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat would have been far cheaper. The Government would not have to be coming to Parliament and pushing this through under urgency. The Minister shakes his head as if this could not have been done by the Auckland Plan if it had wanted to. The Auckland Plan could have said that in respect of areas that are special housing areas the planning process that is under way in respect of those under the special housing legislation shall have an effect for another 3 years. It could have done that. The Minister shakes his head and said: \u201CDid they apply?\u201D. Did you try? Did anyone from the Government go to the planning authority?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c6a4407ea964798a74aa9b6ff768b19\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It would be unlawful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270401847083f4fe8bca33fdf2ba44fc4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: It would have been unlawful? Rubbish. It would not have been unlawful. It would not have been unlawful for someone to turn up and say \u201CWe need the planning processes that we\u2019ve started for the special housing areas to continue.\u201D, and they could have said that in respect of the special housing areas this planning provision will apply\u2014i.e., the one that we are doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232f36530898049fd8bbefc3906d799e7\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Amy Adams made a submission.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022043339f3759f4c808bf2b8b7071ebe66\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Amy Adams made a submission, but the Minister for Building and Housing did not\u2014the Minister for Building and Housing did not. I am aghast that it did not get it right in the original Act. It did not get it right in submissions on the plan, and, therefore, the hearings commissioners do not even address it in their plan\u2014they do not even address it in their plan. Do they address it in their plan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207bd11e5cdd54fdba6d6ba05286b2f9f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: You are just incorrect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cddbc7c6401544ad82f77e59ecc89468\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: But they do not address it in there. I bet they did not because the Government did not ask them to. I would like the Minister to explain why it was that they did not submit on the plan and protect these planning provisions in the special housing areas. I cannot understand why that did not occur. There were two avenues\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u002263f16e26125a4dd5b89acfefac03d23b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263f16e26125a4dd5b89acfefac03d23b\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022569b934c0078498e83142ffdd0557df5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022569b934c0078498e83142ffdd0557df5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to make a reasonably technical contribution to this discussion, specifically around clause 5 of Part 1, which I do not believe has been addressed yet in the discussion. There are many, many clauses that we have not yet touched upon in this debate on Part 1. Before I do, may I make a brief comment in respect of the previous exchange. I am sure you will reflect on the ability of members to cause offence or otherwise in stating their understanding\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db144cbded0b405ea0d53e4add8a869b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: This is out of order. Just continue with the debate. Concentrate on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022747d3933c83b413ba5058f9038230d55\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Clause 5 requires two new subsections be added to the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. The first is that an Order in Council \u201Cmay incorporate a map, plan, or document prepared or issued by any person or body.\u201D That is a very significant, although ostensibly technical, amendment. Let me comment in two parts. The first is to replace what would have been a requirement for technical and specific language with any range of map, plan, or document. It is therefore possible\u2014indeed, probably intended\u2014that that move would make it easier for a special housing area (SHA) to cover a broader area, a broader range, a larger quantum of development. In considering that, the Committee has to take account of the rights that attach to normal consenting processes that are necessarily abrogated by this extension of the SHA process. Those are serious issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe next part of that subsection I think adds to that serious question, and that is because this map or plan may be issued \u201Cby any person or body.\u201D\u2014not a territorial authority, not a regional authority, not the Auckland Council, but perhaps by a developer, perhaps by an interest group, perhaps by the Tree Council, perhaps by Greenpeace, or perhaps by the Property Council. The point, as members can readily see, is that the uncertainty that this creates is both unnecessary and significant, given the fact that the rest of clause 5 seeks to extend and abrogate rights that are extant in the law as it stands. It is unclear\u2014and I invite the Minister for Building and Housing to comment, because we are fortunate to have the responsible Minister in the chair\u2014what the reasoning is behind this specific clause. Is it, perchance, the result of developer pressure for an even faster and more speedy process? Is it to abrogate the democratic processes of, perchance, the Auckland Council or other territorial authorities? Or is there a more sanguine explanation that is not apparent to members of this House? I am sure the Minister will want to comment on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EMay I reflect on the fact that there is an interesting contradistinction between this clause that the Minister has added, which allows a policy change to be done by a broad area, a large group, of housing opportunities and the contrasting approach that the same Government\u2014I think, possibly, the same Minister\u2014took in regard to the tree-trimming regulations in Auckland, where it removed just such an ability and required people who wanted to protect something, in this case special trees, to do it by the individual tree, which had to be specified by a long and bureaucratic process of the council. In fact, more trees probably died for the paperwork required by that highly specific amendment. And in this bill, the same Minister is doing the exact opposite. To protect something, you have to be specific to the individual tree or\u2014thanks to Mr Goff\u2019s pressure, perhaps, a very small group of trees\u2014but if you want to develop something, you can do it by anybody providing a map. Imagine Captain Cook providing a map\u2014he could do the whole country in one go. I mean, the point is, the clause\u2014that might sound ridiculous\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ded3a228c3c241a89957ea0e70978e87\u0022\u003EJono Naylor\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing more ridiculous than what you\u2019ve been saying all night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b89322738e1c415da0ee197d0831d099\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014does not self-limit. Mr Jono would be best to constrain his interventions to something that has substance. He has made his speech. Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on this, and I hope he will.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00221bd703270b6c46308181e58452ceff26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bd703270b6c46308181e58452ceff26\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I want to quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith. In 2013, at the time of the first reading of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, Dr Smith said: \u201CThe bill isn\u2019t a silver bullet for the problem but a much needed interim measure while the Government\u2019s longer term work programme to address housing affordability beds in.\u201D So 3 years ago this was some kind of interim measure, but now the Government needs another 3 years while it desperately hopes that the special housing areas (SHAs) will deliver some kind of result. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWill this Minister ever do anything more than the chronic piecemeal tinkering that passes for a housing policy? Will he? Will he ever do anything more than tinker around the edges?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220141044ddea2498b91ba4d1e7027096d\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Tell us, Phil. What would the member do?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229fae490a78b427bba05d6ac9a17056e\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: David Seymour says this bill is \u201Clittle more than ad hoc tinkering.\u201D Well, I agree with David Seymour on this. That is all it is: ad hoc tinkering. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ELet us consider some of the provisions in this bill. Clause 5 amends section 16 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA), which provides for the establishment of SHAs. New section 16(4A) allows an Order in Council to define the boundaries of an SHA\u2014blah, blah. Clause 6 replaces section 18 of the HASHAA and allows SHAs to be disestablished, and then there are a whole series of criteria about disestablishment. Section 18(3) currently provides for the early disestablishment of an SHA. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is the product of this Minister\u2019s mind\u2014a Minister who for 10 years has been blaming the Resource Management Act (RMA) and blaming councils for producing an uncompetitive urban land market. He has done nothing substantial about it, and this is what he is reduced to: a bureaucratic exercise in micromanaging urban land markets. It is a massive bureaucratic exercise, with a whole lot of bureaucrats writing little lines on maps and saying: \u201CYou can do this. You can\u2019t do that. Now it\u2019s time to do that. If you don\u2019t do this by a certain period, we\u2019re going to disestablish you.\u201D It is a Kafkaesque nightmare. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EMinister, why do you not just follow through on the rhetoric that you have been spouting for 10 years and actually genuinely reform the planning process? Why do you not abolish the urban growth boundary and introduce a smarter way of managing urban growth? Why do you not protect the special environmental areas, invest in rapid transit growth to support new development, and genuinely reform infrastructure financing? But you will not. The Minister will not do that. All he does is tinker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI asked the member for Epsom, who claims to believe in competitive land markets, who wants to see the cost of urban land go down, because he understands that the high price of urban land is at the heart of the housing crisis in Auckland. Well, it is fine for the Minister to nod his head like that. He has been saying things like that for 10 years, but he has done absolutely nothing about it. He had his chance with the draft national policy statement. That was his opportunity to genuinely reform the restrictive planning and zoning system that creates an artificial scarcity of land and drives up urban land values and makes affordable housing impossible in our biggest city. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe national policy statement was his opportunity to make change. But what did he do? He produced a draft national policy statement that implemented a giant bureaucratic mechanism, telling councils that they had to project the future need for development land, and then, if they did not think there was enough, they had to increase the amount of land in supply. An incremental infusion of land into a highly speculative land market bears no resemblance to what the Minister and Bill English have been wittering on about for a decade, talking about uncompetitive land markets. What an incredible disappointment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThis Minister is in the twilight of his career. He has been mouthing off about reforming the planning system, driving down the cost of urban land, all these years\u2014blaming the RMA and blaming councils.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022 data-id=\u0022468794a373da486993eaf10154566b94\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022468794a373da486993eaf10154566b94\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae2c7abcdacd4ffcad25343433ae2811\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae2c7abcdacd4ffcad25343433ae2811\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e Te Whare. This has been an interesting debate. If my colleague has been accused of being sanctimonious, just wait for what I have got. I wonder what the people sitting in the motels who have been sent there by Work and Income because they have got nowhere to live, watching Parliament TV\u2014because what else would you do; I am sure they are all glued to the screen\u2014think about this bill. I wonder how those people feel, listening to this technical and arcane debate, when what they want is somewhere to live that they can afford. I wonder what they think about the special housing areas rhetoric, which turns out to be business as usual. It turns out to be the Government saying \u201CWe\u2019re doing something by not really doing something.\u201D, which is quite a familiar theme to any observer of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI wonder how it feels for the people who testified at the Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry, when they read Part 1 of this bill and look for the innovative, committed, and justice-based provisions that are going to provide them with a home. I wonder what they think of us, as they know we are going home to comfortable homes and they are going back to the car, the garage, or the transience of 22 different homes in 3 years for a child. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EWe call this a debate about housing? This is not a debate about housing; this is about some weird excuse for acting on something that the Government has not got the guts to call a crisis. Why are we in urgency? Because this is a crisis\u2014it is a crisis of conscience for this Parliament to sit here, in 2016, and make up rules about housing that will assist and facilitate developers but do nothing for the people who are shut out. They are shut out from $200,000 homes, let alone $500,000 or $600,000 homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EGet real for a change, people. Do these people who write this legislation know what it is like to have no home? I will listen to Marama Davidson and Metiria Turei because they know\u2014because Marama is a renter in South Auckland. Why do we not listen to the renters in South Auckland and the people who have parked up for homes? They know what the people are going through. It is too late in the history of this time to treat people as if homelessness was something that could be fixed by some bizarre tinkering with the market. It cannot be fixed by that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThe people on the streets are looking at us for guidance and leadership right now, and what are we giving them? Special housing areas over sacred sites in T\u0101maki-makau-rau. When I was a child my parents bought a house through the State Advances Corporation. When I became an adult, I capitalised the family benefit so that I could have a kitchen and bathroom for my child, on a floor that was not sloping. I was lucky to be born in that dreadful old socialist welfare terrible era when the State thought that people could have a house, that it would help them do it, and that when they had it, we could get on with our lives as families and build a society and a community that worked. This Government has walked away from that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI am not asking for a romantic, latte-free 1950s reality; I am just asking for the State to take responsibility for a crisis. I am just asking that we actually pass legislation here that will facilitate for those who really need it, not for those people who like to play the market and who want to invest in a couple of homes. If this bill did what it said it does, then Metiria would not need a Supplementary Order Paper and no one would be calling Marama Davidson sanctimonious because she stands up every day in this House for her own people, who are constantly marginalised by privilege. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EBut that is not what is happening in this bill. We are in urgency because this issue is so simple that we do not want the public to talk about it. If this Parliament had a solution, why would it go into urgency and prevent people from coming and discussing that solution? It is only because this is not a solution that we are having this conversation and blocking out the public. It is a disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002296f96be6cbf2459a91aaa2138a300c76\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296f96be6cbf2459a91aaa2138a300c76\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E Why are we here? Why are we here, and what is this bill that we are debating? The bill that we are debating extends the time frame for the special housing areas. It extends the time frame in which they can be established until 16 September 2019, and it delays the repeal of the whole Act until 16 September 2021. So why are we here doing this under urgency? Why is this so urgent that the entirety of Parliament has to grind to a halt to push this through under urgency? Was this unexpected? Was the Minister of Housing who drafted the legislation in the first place\u2014who put the dates in the original legislation in the first place\u2014unaware when he wrote that that those were actually going to be the dates at which the law expired and the dates at which further special housing areas were not going to be able to be established? If so, why did it take until this week for him to bring something to the House to do something about that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EA Minister who was vaguely competent in administering the legislation that they themselves had written would have been able to anticipate that this was going to be an issue, and would have been able to address that through the regular legislative process. So why are we here? Why are we here under urgency\u2014through the night, tomorrow, however long it takes\u2014in order to change these dates for the special housing areas, when the Government could have done that months ago but chose not to? The Government could have done that at any point since the passage of the previous legislation, had it wanted to. It could have changed the dates if it had wanted to, and it chose not to, so why are we here? Why are we debating this under urgency when the Government could have dealt with these issues had it chosen to do so? It is because of the utter, utter incompetent administration of all of the issues around housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI want to turn my attention to the provision of affordable housing, in particular, because the departmental disclosure statement makes the observation that of the special housing areas already established, there are around 75 percent of them that have up to 10 percent affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20160906a5f8a8fc269f479ca27671f415f5c3d3000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7eb6d4124864141a6c2352808b2de51\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2016\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b979349f4ce44889b14c1e2f81c1fd8a\u0022\u003E(continued on Wednesday, 7 September 2016)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d61d0750c58d4c60a0cef35a0bd3b0ac\u0022\u003EHousing Legislation Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022938d54e18a364f70a06ad6a04f185847\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022eb246be2b5f943e5936aa1222a858120\u0022\u003EPart 1  \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000007\u0022\u003EAmendments to Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (continued)\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b80c304b9baf4910b9bccb5f8c231e56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b80c304b9baf4910b9bccb5f8c231e56\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E The question that I was asking the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, before we broke last night was: why are we here when the Government has known about this issue and could have resolved it long before now? Phil Goff, the aspiring mayoral candidate in Auckland, pointed this out to the Government back in May. It has taken, now, until September for it to bring something to the House to deal with the issue, and it is now trying to rush it through all stages under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBut the question that I have for the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, relates to page 2 of the regulatory impact statement around the expansion of special housing areas (SHAs). It notes that the 213 SHAs in existence now are expected to yield over 70,000 homes. Three-quarters of those will require around 10 percent of the homes within that development to be affordable. Let us do some crude maths on those numbers. Three-quarters of the 70,000 homes is 52,500. Ten percent of that\u2014which is the component of those 70,000 homes that will actually end up being affordable\u2014is just over 5,000. So, basically, what the Government is saying is that 5,000 affordable houses is enough\u20145,000 affordable houses is enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ELet us look at the population growth in Auckland. The population growth in Auckland has been well over 100,000 since the last census\u2014probably more than that. The age demographics in Auckland in the most recent census that I was able to get my fingers on, right before this debate started, are that there were, in 2006, 110,000 Aucklanders between the ages of 20 and 35. That is the aspiring first-home buyer age bracket\u2014110,000. By the 2013 census, it will be significantly more. I could not get those statistics right before I stood up to speak. Basically, what the Government is saying is that 5,000 new homes are enough for the over 100,000 young aspiring first-home buyers to get their first step on the property ladder. It is simply not right. It is simply a fiction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo the question I have for the Government is: why is this it? Why is it coming to the House and wanting to extend SHAs? The Labour Party is voting in favour of this part of the bill, because we support continuity here. We want to make sure that we do not end up with developments being stalled or anything like that. But where is the rest of the plan? Where is the plan that is actually going to result in enough affordable housing for all of the aspiring first-home buyers in Auckland who want to buy them, because 5,000 new affordable homes\u2014which is basically what this bill amounts to\u2014is not going to cut it. It is not going to be enough. So I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government thinks that is sufficient and what other work it is doing to meet the demographic projections in Auckland, which will result in increasing numbers of first-home buyers being shut out of the housing market. I would also like the Minister to answer my first question, which is: why now?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022182c359876c44f0288c666709cc62534\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022182c359876c44f0288c666709cc62534\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00222ce4280e917e4c9a82daf4975ad52e1d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ce4280e917e4c9a82daf4975ad52e1d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I will hear one more. I think we are getting near the end.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2fcaa99679c4e959f6d96c849e3fe1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2fcaa99679c4e959f6d96c849e3fe1b\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E This is the first call I have taken on Part 1 of this bill, and I thought that it was important to take a call because I have been listening to the spin that the Government has been trying to put on this bill over the last 24 hours. The spin it is putting on is that Labour is opposed to building houses. Well, I want the public out there to know that we are in favour of and would vote for Part 1, because even though it is inadequate in many ways, we are the party that wants to build houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EIt was Labour that put in place KiwiBuild\u2014and what did the Government do? It laughed and scoffed at it and said we do not need a major building programme in New Zealand for affordable housing. Interestingly, in 3 years, with the price of houses going up and housing accords being put in place, we now know that the house prices in Auckland\u2014and also around New Zealand\u2014have been going up and up, beyond the ability for people to be able to pay. We know that we need to take measures, and one of them is to build houses. As inadequate as this Part 1 is, we would support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EBut I have to say that I am very disappointed in the whole approach that is being taken here in Part 1. I go, also, as my colleague Chris Hipkins did, to the regulatory impact statement. The reason why we are doing this under urgency, particularly Part 1, is that it addresses the fact that developers\u2014developers\u2014have had insufficient time to lodge relevant consents to councils. So the reason why Part 1 is being rushed through is that they have had insufficient time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EWhen were these brought into being? Well, a very significant date, actually: 13 September 2013\u201413 September; somebody\u2019s birthday is on that date. Three years ago the housing accords were brought in under legislation\u20143 years ago\u2014and developers have had insufficient time to lodge? What they have lodged is land that they want to land bank. They want to ensure that they can ratchet up the price of that land. So why, knowing that this was brought in 3 years ago, are we now trying to extend it\u2014in urgency\u2014to give the developers more time? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EI want to ask the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith: what guarantee has the Government got that developers who have not had sufficient time will now have sufficient time? How many developers have told the Government they intend to lodge under the special housing accord? I want to know the number, because for the Government to have this in a regulatory impact statement it must have done some research. It must have done some consulting; it must have done some work. What ministerial work was undertaken to find out that the developers had insufficient time? Minister, if you have not got that information from your officials now\u2014and I know you are only the Minister in the chair at the moment\u2014I suggest you turn to your officials and ask what evidence they have got that developers had insufficient time. What was delaying them? Why were they delayed in putting it in? Did they not think it important enough? Did they think that if they waited long enough, the silly Government would expand the time that they could do this for another 3 years? So, Minister, I would like you to get on your hind legs and tell us what evidence you have got for what is in this regulatory impact statement, because this is the official regulatory impact statement on this bill, so I would like to know the answer to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EI also want to know why the Government would not accept Supplementary Order Paper 212, put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford, which related to ensuring that any building in special housing areas has affordable housing. Why would you not include a requirement to have affordable housing? All this will do is extend the time for special housing areas and enable people\u2014developers who have not had enough time\u2014to be able to get their plans ready to build massive big houses, over 2,000 square metres, with en suites and four bedrooms, which are beyond the price range of New Zealanders. The average New Zealander, working hard, cannot afford to pay the cost of houses, and the average in Auckland is now at a million dollars. Suddenly, all those homeowners, who are the lucky ones who own, are millionaires, and there are many looking through the window, saying: \u201CWhy can\u2019t we afford a house?\u201D. Why does the Government not include affordable housing in Part 1?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022540c0d2d8b8c44b2a8e64f20fa881be8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022540c0d2d8b8c44b2a8e64f20fa881be8\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd436d0e46824e478b61745ec96c490f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd436d0e46824e478b61745ec96c490f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I have looked at the list\u2014we have now had 30 calls on this part, we have been going for a significant period of time, and it has been a while since I have heard anything new. Therefore, I think members are in a position to make a decision as a Committee whether or not they are ready to have the vote on Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022aa4d7f56b6104e8ea12320a55f36367e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000022\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228a6ad4b52f26499b9ff13927cf63c60b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000023\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 4A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223ae655a24d274bdab1d65edb7545378c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000024\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ce558d1b6bc641988271fa2972b954b5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f29e9c03b70b4ca4b5df14623b3bb6bd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 93\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 28\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022856260b75d6e4f259b8ced03e4479728\u0022\u003EPart 2  Amendment to Housing Act 1955\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u00227bd1e5dd96bc47479f899e9c57718c9f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bd1e5dd96bc47479f899e9c57718c9f\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I went to the Table this morning to pick up the regulatory impact statement and there is no regulatory impact statement for Part 2 of this bill. I am asking, through the Chair, that the Minister table a regulatory impact statement on Part 2 for this Committee. We are being expected, under urgency, to debate a part of the bill in which there is no regulatory impact statement, and that is not good enough for this Parliament. We have not got the guidance of what is to be prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Mr Chair, I would like you to inquire why we have not got it, when we will get it, and whether we will get it before this debate concludes, because we are debating blind, other than from what we can glean ourselves, on this part of the bill. It is not good enough when we are in urgency to expect a debate without that. The Minister for Building and Housing has just arrived, and maybe the Minister can tell us when Part 2\u2019s regulatory impact statement will arrive in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227561bd4d4eb84190a2facc53c567d7d8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to invite the member\u2014sorry, unless the Minister heard. Did you hear the point of order, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220da81f40375b4cfb98fac52135aecf3e\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I only heard the last part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270e1e7e45f6949b7b5e94de061add6ec\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Because it is an important issue, I will ask the member to repeat it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022216a7f0769dd4faebfe83be8bea50c6f\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: I have asked why and when the regulatory impact statement will arrive on the Table of the House for the Opposition on Part 2 of this bill, which we are about to debate. It is not acceptable that we are being asked to debate a bill for which the Government has got information that is being withheld from the Opposition, because we rely on regulatory impact statements. Minister, when will it arrive? I wonder whether this debate can be held up until we receive it, because that is what you would do in a proper democratic debate: you would provide the Opposition with all the information that they need. I would ask, Mr Chair, whether it is possible that we wait until it is tabled in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022af8f396c283247709cc2e20a8c7cc1e7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af8f396c283247709cc2e20a8c7cc1e7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E It is a longstanding practice, and that is where provisions\u2014and it occurred under previous Governments as well\u2014are deemed to have no impact on public policy, that they are minor legislative changes\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ca2f1634f2a4c6b9e8e2a8271795ddb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! This is an important point. The very member who was interjecting was the one who asked me to rule on it. There is a precedent here that is quite important and I want to listen to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edbf1e79f63c453891a4dc7fa2015b99\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Treasury is responsible for developing regulatory impact statements. Treasury, as is noted in the Cabinet papers that have been publicly released, said that there were no public policy implications of Part 2 of this bill. It was simply clarifying the way in which all public agencies have administered this law in the past, and is consistent with many other provisions of law\u2014and I could give numerous examples\u2014where no regulatory impact statement was required as a consequence. So there is not one, and that is because this simply clarifies what the existing law is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u002222ddbe1d8fb7400db7b2cb6ae4af471f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222ddbe1d8fb7400db7b2cb6ae4af471f\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking to the point of order, if that is the case, why was it not written in a regulatory impact statement saying that it is not required because it has no public policy impact? That would have at least given some indication. But for there to be a blank on this and for us to rely on the Minister saying that that is what he was told\u2014we have not received that advice. We have not got it written anywhere. So Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022472b3189e2ff4ee78eb9de26ef581be3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022472b3189e2ff4ee78eb9de26ef581be3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I think I might have a solution. The Minister for Building and Housing did refer to a Treasury report, which he said has been made public, that indicates that this is the case. He has assured the Committee that there is a Treasury document, which is available, that indicates that it does not have a public policy impact, and I think that the simplest thing would be if the Minister asked his officials to get a copy of that and get it on to the Table of the House as quickly as possible. That would save me having to make what might be a more difficult ruling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207b9a7e12a2d47a6b7a327bc3f01949d\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247c7805249fc4f22a04e7ead10d5993b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just check\u2014if it is publicly available, then I think the Minister can point us to where it is publicly available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efe39e42b4e74ffe99ff6d69cba2e16c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: With any bill that comes through the parliamentary process, Treasury makes an assessment with its regulatory impact team, just on every clause on every bill\u2014you will not find a Treasury report on every provision. What Treasury has advised is that it deemed that there was no regulatory impact of these provisions, and so they were not included in the regulatory impact statement on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c3ca92af06e44eeb336329ddcb5057a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I do want to check with the Minister: was that advice received in writing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207712a0140ac49b486c296ab463ab9d1\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a36c5ba5666542ca9669ec9737b41a44\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, no, I am sorry\u2014[Interruption] If the member has it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cec37645ce944a37ae17a0a4ae5287a1\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d7e5a08d8d243f28d93f4336a0e79f5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: That is fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u002258d6aee666534ae8abde616ea848d38d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258d6aee666534ae8abde616ea848d38d\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Why do I not do this\u2014I have actually got a second point of order. Why do I not do this\u2014I seek leave of the Committee to table the Cabinet committee paper Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 2016\u2014I am looking for a date, which it does not seem to have on it. It has been released\u2014it says 6 September, I think, but that cannot really be right\u2014from the office of the Minister for Building and Housing to the Cabinet economic growth and infrastructure committee. It includes, in paragraph 88, that \u201CRegulatory Impact Analysis requirements do not apply to some of the proposals in this paper and a Regulatory Impact Statement has not been prepared for these proposals. These proposals have no, or only minor, impacts on businesses, individuals or not-for-profit entities.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002210f8dd1b55154e95a2d4fec1b5075098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210f8dd1b55154e95a2d4fec1b5075098\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4482de3939c49c0a75a1a20485e7591\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4482de3939c49c0a75a1a20485e7591\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have an additional point of order that relates to this document, which is the content of the departmental disclosure statement that is on the Table. This is the only document on the Table for us that gives any information about Part 2 from a departmental point of view, and I want to raise through you, Mr Chair, my concern about that document. In \u201CPart Four\u201D of that document, as for all bills, a significant legislative features section is required. In that section, in 4.1, the question is asked: \u201CDoes this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?\u201D. It then also goes on to ask whether or not the bill creates or amends a decision-making power to make a determination about a person\u2019s rights, obligations, or interests. Both of those questions are answered as \u201CNo\u201D in the departmental disclosure statement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI would venture to suggest that that is plainly untrue, particularly in the last part that I mentioned about the creating or amending of a decision-making power to make a determination about a person\u2019s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law. It is quite clear that that is what Part 2 does, and I believe that we have a departmental disclosure statement on the Table of the House that is, in fact, false. In the absence of a regulatory impact statement, I believe we have a major difficulty in proceeding with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00221efe0324f99240999002808e37efa45b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221efe0324f99240999002808e37efa45b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Dealing with the second point of order, it is an area that I am not unfamiliar with, and although I will take responsibility for my ruling, it is one that I have consulted on because of\u2014I think it is fair to say\u2014similar concerns about the departmental disclosure statement. The departmental disclosure statement is not an official document. It has not been formally tabled, and therefore some of the normal responsibilities with regard to privilege and the responsibilities of Ministers do not apply to it. Therefore, the matter that the member raised is a matter for debate\u2014and I expect some intense debate\u2014but it is not a matter of privilege and not the responsibility of the Chair to sort out. We now move to debate on Part 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc77e3b1642047d8ac5b382449cc1026\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc77e3b1642047d8ac5b382449cc1026\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I want to make it very clear at the outset that Part 2 is the reason that Labour is opposing this bill. We believe that Part 1, although its contents are underwhelming\u2014and we have gone into detail about the inadequacies of the housing accords and special housing areas policy\u2014is, nevertheless, better than nothing. That is our view, and we were willing to support it, particularly in the interests of not delaying or creating uncertainty in cost for a handful of developers in Auckland whose special housing areas could be held up without the assistance with the transition that this bill would offer. So, at a pinch, we are willing to support Part 1, and we voted at the end of the debate on Part 1. But we have a whole different view about Part 2, and we are now going to go into considerable detail about what Part 2 does, the implications that it has, and why it is completely unacceptable for Part 2 to be being pushed through under urgency and denied the proper scrutiny that a select committee hearing would give it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat does Part 2 do? It seeks to, in the words of the Minister, clarify the Government\u2019s power\u2014which the Minister asserts that the Government already has\u2014to use or dispose of Government land for State housing purposes without triggering the offer-back requirements under the Public Works Act. That is what it does, in a nutshell. I am shocked that this National Government, which professes to have some kind of commitment to private property rights, would disenfranchise the rights of citizens under the Public Works Act to be offered back property that is being used for a purpose that is different to what the land was originally acquired for. It does not surprise me that much that this current National Government is doing that, but I would ask members in the Chamber like Paul Goldsmith and David Seymour, who profess some kind of commitment to the basic tenets of classical liberal thinking\u2014of some kind of respect for private property rights. But no, David Seymour and Paul Goldsmith come here, meek as lambs, corralled by Nick Smith to vote for this tawdry, unsavoury confiscation of people\u2019s private property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to hear what David Seymour has to say about this bill. He is the self-appointed conscience of the nation\u2019s private property rights, but he is coming to this Chamber to vote for this bill that confiscates people\u2019s private property rights, without even the luxury of going off to a select committee so that this bill can be picked apart by expert opinion and public submission. Paul Goldsmith, I hope you will take a call on this bill and explain how the confiscation of private property rights under this bill actually tallies with your professed commitment to the principles of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and God knows who else. I want to hear that explanation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENick Smith says that the Government already has the power\u2014that there is no question, the Government already has the power\u2014to dispose of land for State housing purposes; that it is simply a clarification. So why are we here, Minister? Why is this bill being pushed through the House, through all stages under urgency? That is the question that Grant Robertson put to the Minister earlier\u2014I think, in the second reading\u2014and, uncharacteristically, Nick Smith did not have anything to say. Well, we appreciate the fact that the Minister is in the chair now, but I hope he is going to get up and answer some of these questions. This is because I do not think we have heard yet a satisfactory explanation for why these provisions that would deny people who were former owners of property that was acquired under the Public Works Act, subsequently used for a different purpose, and then finally used as part of some housing development would be denied the normal rights under the Public Works Act to be offered back that land. We are not un-nuanced in this issue. We believe\u2014and the Minister will know, when he publicly raised the need for an urban development authority to have rights of acquisition of land to deny land bankers the opportunity to hold out, to game the system, and make massive windfall gains at the expense of significant urban development\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226402b5e5e80345fbb0a0bad54d77c014\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I am going to interrupt the member now and invite him to address Part 2 of this bill, and not matters that are outside of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ed71b6e8daa4bfdafcfb23fd51ab711\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point I was trying to make is that on this side of the Chamber, we are not un-nuanced on this issue. A case can be made that public agencies should be able to acquire land, to accumulate land, in the interests of housing developments. But if you are going to do that, then why not take it to select committee? Why not allow the best expert opinion in the land? Why not allow public submitters to come to the table, have that debate, weigh up the issues, consider what the safeguards might be, and do it transparently so that that debate can be properly had\u2014so that the House can have confidence that this is not just another Nick Smith housing fiasco in the making.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe provenance of this part in this bill is the fiasco around Ng\u0101ti Wh\u0101tua and the Auckland T\u0101maki Collective when the very same approach that is embodied in Part 2 was used to try to sideline the rights that Auckland iwi have under their collective redress agreements to have the right of first refusal when Government land is being repurposed for a housing development. The Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, his failure to properly consult those people and respect their legal rights\u2014the rights of first refusal\u2014cost the taxpayer who knows how much: tens of thousands of dollars, probably more than a hundred thousand dollars. It delayed a housing development scheme; desperately needed houses were delayed by months and months and months because of that Minister\u2019s attempt to use the very same device to ignore the rights of first refusal of Auckland iwi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIn Part 2 it states very clearly that nothing in this bill will impinge on the rights that iwi have under agreements for collective redress. But the same privilege is not being accorded to former owners of land that is now held by the Government and is being repurposed for housing development. So there is an apparent double standard there and I ask the Minister to explain why it is OK to protect the rights of iwi\u2014their rights of first refusal under Treaty settlement agreements or collective redress\u2014but somehow it is not worth protecting the rights of private citizens under the Public Works Act who have, under sections 40 and 41 of the Public Works Act, the right to have that public land offered back to them. That is an apparent double standard and I ask the Minister to get up and explain why that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is not good enough that there is apparently incorrect and conflicting information in the departmental disclosure statement. It is not good enough that there is not a regulatory impact statement that deals with the confiscation of private property rights in this bill that is being pushed through the House under urgency. I want to hear from the National Party members, including the Minister, why it is OK, when they come to this House frequently and talk a big game about private property rights, to take away those rights from private citizens in a bill that is being pushed through the House under all stages in urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022a684fb9cb1724c0a98fbb11b89d924ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a684fb9cb1724c0a98fbb11b89d924ce\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek your guidance. I understand that under the Standing Orders, in these Committee debates each member is entitled to four calls. Phil Twyford has just taken his fifth. Are you going to be lenient in this debate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022967e19601da54edcbeef6bcdba17cbce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022967e19601da54edcbeef6bcdba17cbce\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: No. [Interruption] Order! The member might need some education but the whole Committee does not need to give it to him. It is on each question, so it is four calls on each part, except for the Minister in the chair, who has unrestricted calls. Normally, at the beginning of a debate we run a couple at a time. If members are clearly irrelevant in their first call, then we drop down. Generally we do drop down, so there should not be too much on reflection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd568c9fe9c844f7802a95df1c99448e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd568c9fe9c844f7802a95df1c99448e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to make a contribution and to put to Parliament why Part 2 of this bill is needed if this House is serious about growing the supply of housing in a city like Auckland, and I think there is broad acceptance that it is needed. I think it is, firstly, important to explain how minor these amendments are in the context of the Housing Act. I want to take members through what the Housing Act currently says. If we refer to the current Housing Act it says in section 2(1) that \u201CState housing purposes means the erection, acquisition, or holding of dwellings and ancillary commercial buildings by the Crown under this Act for disposal by way of sale, lease, or tenancy;\u201D. In other words, the current Housing Act, in setting up housing development schemes, makes it absolutely plain that those housing developments are for the purpose of sale. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI then want to draw members\u2019 attention to the current Housing Act. Section 15 says that \u201Cany State housing land and any buildings or chattels held for State housing purposes may be disposed of by way of sale, lease, or tenancy\u201D, and it then sets out the process for housing developments on such Crown land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESince 1955, when this Act was passed, Governments of both National and Labour persuasions have done housing developments in all sorts of corners of New Zealand. Governments of both persuasions have done housing developments and then, for a later purpose, have sold those houses. For instance, even under the previous Government\u2014despite some of the protestations\u2014you had schemes that involved tenants being able to buy those homes that were built under those provisions of the Government. That is, if a house was built on some State land in your own constituency in Rimutaka, your previous Government allowed the tenant to be able to buy that house. Everybody has been going on since 1955 on that basis. These issues have come into extra focus because our Government has a policy that says it makes no sense for Government agencies to have large blocks of public land sitting around vacant when there is such a high housing need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIf you take a site like Hobsonville, we are going great guns. We have built over a thousand houses. We have got a scheme to build 3,000 homes in Auckland, and that is providing for those houses to be onsold. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220aac34cdcbaf45b1a8a675ad7525e72b\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: How many affordable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224605c88d0b6d45cd854eabca1b700211\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Twenty percent. If you take an example such as Weymouth, I think every member of this Committee will be hugely proud of that very first special housing area\u2014an area of former public land owned by Child, Youth and Family, a block of land that had stayed vacant for 20 years while house prices had doubled. We are getting on and have built 150 houses there\u2014close to resolution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe question, as we have ramped up that Crown land programme, is whether there is consistency between the Housing Act, where Parliament very specifically said those houses could be sold, and the generic provision in the Public Works Act that provides for offer back to the former owner. The question is whether the last Government, when it sold houses to its tenants, should not have been able to sell those houses to tenants but should have actually had to offer them to whoever may have been the previous landowner. When the Government built those houses in Hobsonville, should the Government have not been able to sell those houses on the open market but offer them to the previous owner? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI will tell you what the significance is. The significance of this programme is this: if I take a typical block of land such as we have got under the Crown land programme, where you have got a $10 million block of land, the Government is partnering with a private sector player and entering into contracts as we speak for those private sector players to invest as much as three or four times that amount of money to convert that $10 million worth of land into $40 million worth of sections. We are then requiring them to spend another $115 million to build houses on those properties. In that way we are going to be able to bring hundreds of houses to market, and the difficulty is this: will people invest hundreds of millions of dollars in bringing that Crown land programme into practical houses for Kiwi families if there is any legal uncertainty? The answer is that of course they will not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo for members opposite to demand last week that there be a state of emergency on housing, and then the next week to come along to Parliament and say \u201CWe oppose urgency. We just want this thing delayed for months and months.\u201D\u2014the delay would mean that thousands of homes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262a4fbbf6b7d47ea8b019c4437f436c1\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: So take it to select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3a2100ccf1c4f4fa710958c4e76450a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014Mr Twyford\u2014would not be built. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThere are two other points that I want to respond to. The first is that this bill specifically provides in amended section 15, set out in clause 10(3), that \u201CSubsection (2) does not affect any right of first refusal that a person or group of persons has in relation to the land under any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed.\u201D For the avoidance of doubt can I make absolutely plain that there is no intention to affect any other redress that a person or group of persons has in relation to any land under any Treaty claim settlement or any collective redress Act or deed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ECan I say we have had an active discussion with the ACT Party about the Public Works Act. I think it would be fair to describe the ACT Party as having some concerns about this old Public Works Act\u2014it has been around since 1981\u2014and it has said, actually, the way in which private property rights are dealt with in that Act requires a wider review. The Government\u2019s position is, yes, we think the ACT Party does have a fair perspective. It is an old Act. It is an Act that significantly impacts on private property rights. But, equally, I will tell you where the ACT Party is different. The ACT Party does have a consistent philosophical position about the importance of property rights, but what Mr Seymour actually understands is that you cannot create uncertainty around programmes that are under way right now. I tell you one thing that Mr Seymour understands very clearly. He understands that uncertainty is bad for business and bad for Government. So, for that reason, the Government has agreed to an amendment put forward that provides for 10 years\u2014through to 15 September 2026\u2014in which it is possible to have those changes to the Public Works Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I want to make to members of the Opposition, who\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0a25edecf5a434dbbee3872a9eed6e5\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Why don\u2019t you answer the questions, Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ab50c874e6d49f5ac329f5ee714b2da\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Ms King\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022086966d8cad9448fb5f3af8438c11afc\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Just answer some questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dbaff75b3cc4d34addb55581b6fae93\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I have answered the questions. What I simply get from members of the Opposition is that one moment they demand a state of emergency\u2014do you know something about Phil Twyford? Phil Twyford always overstretches. He overstretches by blaming people with Chinese-sounding names. He overstretches in respect of demanding a state of emergency. And, again, he is embarrassing the Opposition today by overstretching, because I actually think Opposition members know, in their heart of hearts, that this is a bill that will get houses built, and, rather than being a Wailing Wall of grief about people not being able to have houses, people on this side of the House are prepared to support legislation that will get roofs over people\u2019s heads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u00226e1c693dd733422cab57347546709ccb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e1c693dd733422cab57347546709ccb\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I am grateful to \u201CGroucho Marx\u201D, who has just resumed his seat, because, you know, if you do not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee9fb1de25d0449d9faeeb4169886c01\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member will withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6c5ed702dc7438c98e7761fa1f11be8\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw. I am grateful to the Minister Nick Smith, who echoed Groucho Marx when he resumed his seat\u2014\u201CIf you don\u2019t like these principles, I\u2019ve got another set.\u201D That is what we heard from the Minister for Building and Housing just now. You know, it is all very well to say that National is the party of private property and of liberal interests in this, but, you know, when it comes to this piece of legislation, it says: \u201CWe\u2019ll shelve that.\u201D As for David Seymour on that, he was bought off by a 10-year review. That is the price\u2014jeez! You could have bid it up a little bit higher, and maybe we will see an explosion of charter schools or something like that as a result of this deal that has been done between the National Government and the ACT Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe Minister\u2019s response to those questions was wholly inadequate. Let us start with a couple of important points. Every piece of legislation currently on the books that relates to the Public Works Act comes under the Public Works Act. It is not the Minister\u2019s right to stand up and say: \u201CWell, the Housing Act meant this, and so that Public Works Act goes out the window.\u201D I know this very well. I brought a bill to this House on behalf of the Wellington City Council this year where we tried to do exactly what the Minister is doing today, and, actually, the Government denied us the right to do that. So the Housing Act has the Public Works Act, which, effectively, overrides it. That is the point of the Public Works Act. So just coming to the Committee of the whole House and saying \u201COh well, we\u2019ve got this bit of a conflict, so we\u2019re going to get rid of the Public Works Act.\u201D is not a good enough response from the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe second point that is completely ridiculous in what the Minister just told us is that he took the example of the last Government allowing houses that were State houses in the Rimutaka electorate to be onsold. The question there is not whether or not a Government can do that; it is what then happens under the Public Works Act, which is, under section 40, that the land has to be offered back to the original owners. The Minister did not answer who the original owners of that land were, because it is the Government\u2014it is the State. That is the point. That is the very point of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe question the Minister actually has to answer, and failed to answer, is why this is being done under urgency. There may well be good reason why this issue has drawn itself to the attention of the Government, but the problem is that Parliament is not being treated with respect on this matter. The paper that I tabled in the Committee earlier\u2014the Cabinet paper that describes this bill\u2014in the section covering the matters dealt with under Part 2, has one, two, three paragraphs redacted. Those paragraphs are being withheld, and I venture to suggest that what those paragraphs tell us is that there is some form of legal challenge coming to the Government\u2019s programme of land sales. I would further venture to suggest that that might have something to do with the Hobsonville development, because if we actually look into the purpose for which Hobsonville land was originally taken, that is where the Government gets itself into trouble. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESection 40 of the Public Works Act says: \u201C(1) Where any land held under this or any other Act or in any other manner for any public work\u2014(a) is no longer required for that public work;\u201D\u2014it is not an \u201Cor\u201D that comes next; it is an \u201Cand\u201D\u2014\u201Cand (b) is not required for any other public work; and\u2014(c) is not required for any exchange under\u201D various other matters. So the Government, when it is disposing of land, has to establish whether or not it is required for that public work. We will do some research\u2014and I am sure my colleagues may have already done this\u2014around exactly why Hobsonville and the other land that the Government is working on in terms of its housing programme was taken, but I would venture to suggest there may well be a challenge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EBut we are doing this under urgency and we are not being told\u2014Parliament is not being told. So I want a Minister in the chair to stand up and be up front and honest with this Parliament about what is driving this process being done under urgency, because the public of New Zealand deserve the right to know. There is nothing urgent about passing Part 2, on the surface. According to the Minister, this is how it has always been done. He said: \u201CThis is the way in which it has always been done. There\u2019s nothing to see here.\u201D Apparently, we are not trampling on anyone\u2019s rights to have it offered back. The departmental disclosure statement tells us that, apparently, no one\u2019s rights are being changed by this law. How can that possibly be true, because, quite clearly, under section 40 of the Public Works Act, there is an offer-back right to those who were the original owners of the land. That is quite clearly true. So, clearly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224816de2608fe413897ef74035b057e01\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: And that\u2019s a property right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d57c2a14c4f94c6ca48f5a3e3b146672\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: That is a property right. Quite clearly, someone\u2019s property right is being compromised by this law, so we have a major problem in the way the Government is bringing this bill to the House. It is not being honest with New Zealanders about the consequences of this piece of legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EMinisters\u2014and the Minister in the chair now, Paul Goldsmith\u2014must have been in the Cabinet discussion, and I am also going to make another suggestion to the Committee. I do not think Cabinet is fully in agreement on this. I think we will find that Cabinet has had a vigorous debate about this and many members of Cabinet are uncomfortable about this change because they know it is a significant thing to change and take away the Public Works Act from operating\u2014as it does on any other piece of legislation\u2014as a check on the Government when it goes to sell off land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI am going to make several other points, and I am going to run out of time in this call so I will seek others. When one looks at what is in clause 10 of the bill, we have to be absolutely clear that there is no guarantee in here that what happens to this land will be to support housing. That is not guaranteed in clause 10. I asked the Ministers to stand up and confirm that to us, particularly when it is all dressed up in the idea\u2014as Dr Smith finished his contribution on\u2014on making sure people have roofs over their heads. This could go off in all sorts of directions such as commercial buildings or other services that are required. The definition is broad enough in clause 10, to my mind, to create the possibility that this land will not end up being used for housing at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThis is exactly what we could explore in a proper select committee process to ensure that we do achieve the goal, which I think is shared across the Parliament, that we use public land in the best interests of the people of New Zealand, and in providing affordable housing for New Zealanders to buy and for that housing to be developed\u2014that is shared across the Committee. I do not know that Part 2 achieves that. It looks to me as if what Part 2 is doing is trying to deal with a problem that has come up in front of Cabinet with a specific parcel of land and a possible legal challenge. That is what it looks like, but we are not being told that. We are being kept in the dark and the people of New Zealand are being kept in the dark by this Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI have tabled that Cabinet paper today. It is on the public record. There are paragraphs missing. We need a Minister to stand up and tell us what is really going on here because in the absence of that it looks like the Government is trying to slip through a change that fundamentally affects the property rights of New Zealanders, under urgency without any public scrutiny. Just think about that for a minute. That is the National Government deciding to take away the property rights of New Zealanders, retrospectively under urgency, without explaining to New Zealanders why. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace from a Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EJono Naylor is up the back laughing. He would not have a clue. The National caucus will not have been told a single thing about what this is about, but it is right here in the Cabinet papers. I want the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, who pretends to be somebody who believes in these principles\u2014he has written all sorts of books about the importance of liberalism. He parades around Epsom trying to out right-wing David Seymour, but he is not prepared to stand up today and say to New Zealanders what is going on here. Clause 10 of this bill does not give me confidence that what we are doing in this Committee today is ensuring the Minister\u2019s stated objective of making sure that there is more affordable housing available for New Zealanders. I want a Minister to stand up and guarantee to us in this Committee that that is the only outcome of this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESecondly, a Minister needs to answer why we are doing this under urgency today. This should be the subject of proper public scrutiny. The fact that it is not shows the National Government has something to hide on this matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6577bef13274a24b677736df2fc4f83\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6577bef13274a24b677736df2fc4f83\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to briefly describe the provision in this part of the bill for those members of the public who may be listening, because we talk in a language here that is not always entirely understandable outside. This is a provision that removes the obligation of the Government to offer back to a person the land that they previously gifted or sold\u2014gifted, generally\u2014to the Government, or land that was taken from them. The offer back is for land that was taken from or gifted by an owner under the Public Works Act. When the Crown does not need that land any more, it has a legal obligation to offer it back to the previous owner or their descendants at a market price or below the market price. That is the property right that is being talked about here and that will be taken away by this provision in this bill. If the previous owners or the descendants of the previous owners do not want the property, then the Government is entitled to be able to sell that land on the open market. The offer back is a right that the previous owners and their descendants will have when their land has been gifted or taken from them by the State for a particular purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere are lots of concerns about the M\u0101ori issues that are related to that, and we will get to those shortly, but, just on the general legal point, the provision in Part 2 of this bill is designed to enable the Government to be able to sell the land it has been gifted or that it took and provide it to developers to build houses on, for those developers to be able to on-sell that land with those houses on it to anyone they choose. So the offer back is prevented at both the beginning and at the end of the process, under this provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis provision is very broad. This provision does not apply only to special housing areas (SHAs); it is actually much, much broader than that. This provision applies to any development of land for a number of purposes: land that could have housing sites on it, land that does have housing on it, land for motorways, land for roads, land for access ways, and land for flood and river protection. The criteria in this legislation mean that the Government will be able to stop its obligation to offer back land that it was given for a wide variety of purposes, so this is not just a provision about housing. It is not just a provision about special housing areas. It will affect hundreds, if not thousands, of New Zealanders who have an offer-back right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIt is much, much broader than the narrow provisions that the rest of this bill was designed for and, we are being told, is supposed to be about. The rest of this bill is supposed to be about just the special housing areas, whether you like them or not\u2014the protection of the existing developments on special housing areas, and the extension of special housing areas. But Part 2 is much, much broader than that, and it is being sneaked through under urgency. It will give the Government the right to take from hundreds, if not thousands, of New Zealanders their property right to have that land offered back to them. That is a very serious incursion by the Government on the legal rights of New Zealanders\u2014New Zealanders who do not know that the right is being taken from them because we are dealing with this bill under urgency. So most, if not all, of those who have this offer-back right for land that was gifted by them to the Crown or taken from them do not know that this right is being taken from them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWhen we talked with the Minister and the officials, there was no evidence given to us that the people who have this offer-back right have been told about this legislation, that they know that this provision is in this bill, or that they have been advised of the potential risk of their property rights being taken. Not only that, but it is pretty clear that the Government has actually got no idea about the extent to which this bill might affect New Zealanders. When we asked Nick Smith about this, he said he did not think that there were any issues with it. He did not know whether there were M\u0101ori interests, for example, in the offer-back provision. He did not know the extent to which this provision would affect New Zealanders\u2019 rights. He has got no idea of the names of those people. They have done no work to make sure that the people whose rights they are taking away by law have been informed about this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI have Supplementary Order Paper 211 on the Table to delete this provision from the bill. It needs to go. Either the provision goes to a select committee, so that we can at least show those New Zealanders who have gifted land to the Crown\u2014I mean, many of these people would have gifted land to the Crown for public works. We need to at least send this provision back to a select committee, so that we can tell and talk to those New Zealanders about the gift that they made and about the potential of taking their offer-back rights from them, or we need to get rid of it completely, because there is no justification for this provision in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIf my colleague Grant Robertson is correct that this is a broad provision designed to hide a specific legal threat to the Government because Nick Smith has allowed developers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars building homes on land that he could not guarantee the legal authority over\u2014right, then we need to know that. Because if that is the case, then Nick Smith has been grossly irresponsible as housing Minister in allowing the SHAs to continue\u2014in allowing developers, including community organisations, to invest huge amounts of money in the building of homes while still not having legal certainty over their right to on-sell those homes. That is a massive failing by a housing Minister responsible for the special housing areas. He has allowed\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240951d2aabe94f61b0454688d7f9ce70\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: So he failed to violate property rights?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a646cfbeda9435b88580f4ebe06085e\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this is the problem, Mr Seymour. It is that Nick Smith has allowed this legal uncertainty to continue and allowed those developers to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into homes without having legal certainty. Is it now right that many thousands of New Zealanders should have their property rights taken from them because Nick Smith failed to get the legal settings for the use of this land right at the first instance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c25cf7763a14f24ae1c0f797552d77a\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: With the ACT Party vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c1602bbf13c450bb9f859689c93643e\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: That is right, with the ACT Party vote. Is that what our job is now\u2014to clean up the mess that Nick Smith has made in creating a potentially serious legal problem and serious financial risk for at least one, and possibly a handful of, developers? He is trying to sneak through a provision to clean up his mess, relying on this Parliament to do it, doing it in urgency, and doing it without telling New Zealanders what the real consequences of this bill will be\u2014that they will lose their property rights because Nick Smith has a potential legal challenge chasing him right now. Is that what is going on? Is that what is going on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228caa85b49f7a4793b7104a8399a10e14\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: Of course it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b8846a7184a147d2a977ac5062b55353\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Well, of course we do not know what is going on, because Nick Smith will not give us the full information about the potential risk that this provision is supposed to cover.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a20daa8e7c5a46ffbe56328ee2ad5908\u0022\u003ETracey Martin\u003C/span\u003E: More than a probability he stuffed up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e770168d0a7493e962e042649d41d5b\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: So Nick Smith has stuffed up. He has allowed all this development to continue and all this money to be spent. Those who have spent the money have no legal certainty about their ability to sell the land that they have built on, and now Nick Smith wants us to cover it up for him. He wants us to cover it up by taking away the property rights of thousands of other New Zealanders, who have got no idea that this is happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b8d89dd1fb1450a85782248f04ca83b\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: How does the member know it is thousands?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236f1b3c08317464cbc3887285773b835\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it could be hundreds, Mr Seymour. Do hundreds of people have to lose their property rights in order to cover up a mistake made by Nick Smith?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f8c7e206ac2457babe09940c8c00759\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, I just wonder whether the member knows what she is talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c00da0a4f984df397b6c9b8a2e57107\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Seymour, if you want to support the cover-up of Nick Smith\u2019s financial and legal mistakes, you are entitled to do that. The Green Party will not put its name to the mix-up, to the muck-up, of Nick Smith in potentially leaving developers and community organisations at genuine financial risk because he did not clarify the legal status of that land from the beginning. This is why we have this Supplementary Order Paper on the Table\u2014to delete the provision, to make sure that we will protect New Zealanders\u2019 rights to their offer-back provision. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u00220b642b0874dd47e58cb0e27a6a7efe01\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220b642b0874dd47e58cb0e27a6a7efe01\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I have been waiting patiently for an opportunity to respond to the many interesting points that have been raised in this debate. I will address my comments, as tightly as I can, to clauses 9 and 10, which are currently on the Table, but it is worth considering various provisions in both the Housing Act 1955 and the Public Works Act 1981 because here, in the real world, those pieces of legislation all interact. They influence the property of New Zealanders, not only their land that may have become Crown land acquired under the Public Works Act or some other Act in the past but also the homes that people have recently bought that have been built on that land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI look across at the Labour Party today, which is an embarrassment to the giant who built it. It is a party that wants to build 100,000 homes through the Government, but it will not seriously consider, engage with, or understand the legislative underpinnings that would be required to do so. The fact of the matter is that under sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act, as it stands, the first right of refusal is exempt in a number of circumstances, including where the land has been developed. Under the 1955 Housing Act it is possible for the Government to use Crown land to develop and build housing. Those are the facts, and that is what Governments of both stripes have been doing for a very long time. It is, no doubt, what the Greens would have done had they ever made it into Government. So when we inherit this history, we have to think very carefully about the different stakeholders involved and how the law will influence their interests going forward. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThere is an inherent conflict between the Public Works Act and the Housing Act. There is a conflict in saying that the Government has a role in developing and building housing on Crown land, and yet the Government also has a requirement to give a first right of refusal to people who may have had their land taken compulsorily under the Public Works Act in the past. That conflict does not sit easily with me because, unlike the Labour Party, I do not believe that the Government should be in the housing development business. There is no public policy justification for the Government to be building houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThere are many reasons why the Government might compulsorily acquire land. One might imagine a Government attempting to build a road from Auckland to Wellington, with one or two people opportunistically holding out and preventing their property from being sold for any price, hoping to gain a rent off the New Zealand public in the construction of the road. For those reasons, we can understand why there might be a Public Works Act and why the Government might compulsorily acquire private citizens\u2019 land, but there is no good reason for the Government to acquire land simply so it can do housing development. That is something that Parliament needs to address in the future, but none the less it is not something that could be addressed in the current time frame. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003ELet me explain a little bit about why that time frame is so tight, and why I cannot support the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put on the Table by Metiria Turei to delete clauses 9 and 10, and the amendment by Phil Twyford, I think it is, to have Part 2 of this bill sent off to a select committee. As I have said, there is an inherent conflict between the Public Works Act and the Housing Act, and what that inherent conflict opens up is the possibility of an opportunistic legal challenge where land that has been taken at some past time and subsequently developed by the Government\u2014which the Government should never do, even though Labour thinks it should\u2014is then sold to people who are now homeowners. Often, working-class homeowners\u2014whom the Labour Party should stand up for\u2014who are trying to pay their mortgage may find themselves subject to an opportunistic legal challenge, where they could actually have their property rights and their livelihood under threat. The thing about property rights is that they tend to conflict with each other. This is just the real world, which is affected by the legislation that we are making today in this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EBut then other members have asked why we cannot at least take more time. Well, what if we were to send this away to a select committee for, say, 6 months? Within a year we might have actually managed to pass legislation somehow clarifying this problem, but the reality is that leaves a year of uncertainty and a year of potential legal challenge to people\u2019s livelihoods, and I think that would be an absolute disgrace. It would be imperilling the rights of New Zealanders, and that is not the sort of thing that this Parliament should be doing. None the less, I agree with the new-found belief in due process in private property rights that Metiria Turei has recently exhibited. I agree with what Annette King has been barracking from the other side of the House, which is that due process in private property rights is important. I hope she will remind Labour\u2019s caucus of that next time it has a KiwiBuild discussion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIt is wrong for the Government to take land for anything other than a tightly circumscribed set of public policy purposes where there is a genuine market failure and the taxpayer is, frankly, at risk of extortion. Housing development is one of those, and this area of the law needs to be tightened up over a longer time frame than is currently available because right now, having put this bill on the Table in public, in the House, we have invited opportunistic legal challenges to people who have already bought homes on what was formerly Crown land. So what I have done is negotiated with the Minister to support this bill on the basis that we will improve public policy in the long run. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EPeople opposite have scoffed at the fact\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252e37435e6e0424384a56114bc9db0a1\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: You know it\u2019s retrospective, don\u2019t you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e64b2b58aa814f9db065637133e391ba\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, and the current scenario would also be retrospective, Mr Robertson. You are so petulant and puerile, you trip yourself up and fail to engage with the real issues. Mr Robertson would look a lot more dignified in his mistakes\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294c3d62f97cd4eb3bbd42a4162aeb0ad\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at being described in the way that the member just described me, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222539da5f026a462c831a95df207feda1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, this is a pretty robust debate\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and I am on my feet. The member has taken offence. I ask the member to withdraw the comment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ddd360c626d4f0c8ffc240745b1632c\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw the comment. Thank you, Mr Chair. Is it not interesting how thin-skinned and sensitive those members are when it really gets going? Mr Robertson\u2019s various errors and mistakes could be made with so much more dignity if he only carried himself in a more dignified manner normally. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EMembers opposite have been saying that it is a poor deal to have a 10-year review. Well, let me just explain to members opposite why a 10-year review is a much shorter time than they might otherwise imagine. People from the Labour Party are not normally accustomed to being in business, but let me explain to them that when you do a development\u2014particularly a property development\u2014the cycle is roughly 10 years. What this means is that any future developments that are going to be contemplated by folks out there are going to run into the very uncertainty that this bill looks to clarify, and they are going to run into it very soon if they are going to begin a development in the near future. What is being achieved by the amendment that puts a 10-year sunset clause on clauses 9 and 10 is that it will force this House to revisit, not so long from now, the fundamental questions of when\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022221e9231f02f4ead97659742118ebe8b\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: A decade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cac9f2dffe24515ab0b6d0dd8b36272\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Honestly, it is actually really quite difficult to get anything across to their education spokesperson. He really has not managed to hear the very simple things I have been saying for the last 30 seconds. Yes, it is a decade, Mr Hipkins, but if your lead time for development is a decade, then you need to start thinking about it now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b19d5c667e5347b289bc9abb9703b5e9\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s retrospective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224569b4fb72604d0cbe4efd79b29acc18\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and the House will come under pressure to resolve this issue very soon. If I could just reply to what Grant Robertson is saying\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u002263362442b3654de385aaf04567e86041\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263362442b3654de385aaf04567e86041\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E There is much more to clause 10 of this bill than meets the eye. The justification given for it in the general policy statement is utterly vacuous. I want to read part of the general policy statement, because it shows what I mean. It says at the beginning: \u201CThe Housing Act 1955 explicitly provides that State housing purposes include the building and development of houses for sale, lease, or tenancy, and includes acquisition by the Crown of land for houses and ancillary commercial buildings, schemes of development and subdivision, and the necessary roads, reserves, and infrastructure.\u201D Then, at the very end of that general policy statement, it goes on to say: \u201Cthe relationship between the sale of State housing land for development as part of the Crown\u2019s housing objectives \u2026 and the consequential exclusion of offer-back obligations is not explicit. The Bill confirms that the offer-back obligations do not apply to the sale of land as part of the Crown\u2019s housing objectives.\u201D I do not understand, because there is not any consistency between those two statements that I read out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThat whole paragraph, that whole policy statement, is nonsense as a justification for clause 10 of the bill. So that is my starting point. The inconsistency shows the confusion behind the Government\u2019s approach to all this. Clause 10 actually inserts a substantial new addition to section 15 of the Housing Act, ensuring that sections 40 to 42 of that Act will not apply\u2014not just in the future, but retrospectively, in the past. This is new law, and it is retrospective, because of the words that I just mentioned. The words were \u201Chave never applied\u201D\u2014have never applied. A lawyer, if they so wish, will use those words to claim in any court action that the intention of those words is that that section will be retrospective; otherwise, why would they be there? Why would they be there? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe claim is that this is just a provision that clarifies the existing law. The truth is that it is a completely new and substantial addition to section 15. That is the truth. I would like to hear from the Minister why he would deny that, and how he could deny that in the circumstances. After all, if you did not need the change, why is it being made? If it is just clarification, why is it being made in the substantial way it is set out in clause 10? The main point is that it is the intent of what is being done that really matters here, and the intent is to fast track the sale of State housing land. That is the real intent, and it should not be done at the expense of the property rights of people. This is new law, and without it there would be a good possibility of a claim to offer-back rights. In fact, the good possibility is so high that it is bordering on a certainty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EOther speakers have alluded to the fact that there is a lot here that we do not know\u2014except many of us have heard whispers and many of us have heard suggestions that some people may well be contemplating a legal challenge as far as these particular provisions, and their right to an offer back, are concerned. So it seems very likely to me that what is actually happening is that, all of a sudden, under urgency, the Government feels that it is necessary to cover its backside, because somebody is about to come along and give it a good, hard, sharp kick. That is the reality. That is why this is being done, and the Government is simply not being honest about its motives for this particular provision, which, after all, does have a significant impact on the property rights of individual people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI will say this: I suspect that what it has got to do with is the Hobsonville land, and I suspect that what it has got to do with is the rights of Limited Service Volunteers, who had\u2014and have\u2014rights in relation to that land. Those are the people who, I suspect, may be contemplating\u2014again, for another time, because they have faced this in the past\u2014their rights, and their rights to an offer back as far as that land is concerned. But that is only one possibility. It is only one possibility; there are, no doubt, others. Some of my colleagues may take a part in this debate and talk about, for example, what the Government\u2019s intentions may be concerning land that is currently education land but, under recent legislation, could be designated as housing land. These provisions could then be used to fast track it for sale without offer-back provisions that would otherwise apply\u2014and that is the exact issue as far as the Hobsonville land was concerned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIt is what we are not being told that really matters in this debate. I deplore a situation where a Government is putting through under urgency a provision of this kind, which is not allowed to go to a select committee, where a lot of this stuff may well have come out. That is being avoided by this situation, and I think it is absolutely deliberate by this Government. I would like the Minister to stand up and deny these things. I would like him to deny that the real reason for clause 10 is that he is afraid of legal action by people who do claim private property rights in respect of the offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act. I want him to come to this Chamber and deny that, and then I will take notice. But until that happens we have every right to believe there is more to this bill than meets the eye. It is often said that where there is smoke there is fire. Well, there is a hell of a lot of smoke as far as this bill is concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u002229e12a517b5640b08891fdae4cd04767\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229e12a517b5640b08891fdae4cd04767\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E For many years now there have been State houses that have been sold. Tenants have been able to buy the houses that they have been living in for some time. Of course those properties may well initially have been taken under the Public Works Act or purchased under the Public Works Act. In fact, right through many of our communities, tenants have been able to purchase the State house in which they have been living, and yet at the same time I have not heard any of these people on the other side of the Chamber up in arms, saying: \u201CThis is infringing on the property rights of the people who initially owned that land and should have rights under the Public Works Act to come back and purchase that land back.\u201D This is not a significant change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EActually, quite often within bills that come through this House\u2014in the 2 years that I have been here, on a number of occasions there are tidy-up bits in those bills that ensure that the language is right and clarify how things have been in the past, and are, going forward. There are, as I said, no specific changes here. We have just heard from Mr O\u2019Rourke\u2014his take on clause 10. But what it actually says is: \u201CTo avoid doubt, sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act 1981 do not apply (and have never applied) \u2026\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7ab251fd2104e4185286b37b719233d\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: What about the rest of the clause?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c93cbc6463e9457386db0d945d503a0c\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR\u003C/span\u003E: Then it goes on to list those things that are not included and have not been applied in the past. It is important that we clarify this. It is not the substantial part of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EThe substantial part of this bill is in Part 1, which I will not discuss as it has already been done. It has been passed, and we are moving on. But Part 2 has got some tidy-up language in it to ensure that, going forward, there is no ambiguity and that there is clear understanding about which types of land, which types of purchases that have been made under the Public Works Act, do not apply and have not applied before. The clarity will be there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EWe hear from the other side of the Chamber, and I have heard it through all parts of this debate as we have been going through so far, that \u201CWe\u2019ve got a different plan. We\u2019ve got a plan called KiwiBuild.\u201D I understand that if those houses were ever to be built\u2014and I doubt that they will, under that scheme\u2014if that was ever to happen, those properties ultimately would need to be sold. But, of course, they would not be able to sell them if people were trying to stop these provisions from being put in place. I have not heard a rational reason yet for pulling this clause out and debating it separately, it needing to go through the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EAll I have seen so far this morning is what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to take this urgency debate beyond 1 o\u2019clock this afternoon, so that then the Opposition can collapse the House. We will see what time we finish today, but I can tell you that if this debate actually finishes after that time today, what I believe\u2014[Interruption] Suddenly they start reacting, when the truth comes out, and yet what I have heard over time is accusations against this side of the House saying that our members\u2019 bills are wasting Parliament\u2019s time. I would like to see, going forward today, that we will not waste Parliament\u2019s time. We will do this in a timely manner. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002283182d089fd445178ffc164c99dad89a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283182d089fd445178ffc164c99dad89a\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave for the House to begin its Wednesday sitting session at the conclusion of the urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221d782b3de87647da8394177ec881460f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d782b3de87647da8394177ec881460f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247784d3643f043a7a3008f14f07b9c59\u0022\u003ETim Macindoe\u003C/span\u003E: Can I seek clarification from him. The Wednesday session\u2014the entire programme, as per the Order Paper?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f4cbe3777214f27ad001983ecfd0c5d\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf3d327f7fa4404a8b06b90bb9716976\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: There is no Order Paper for Wednesday. We are in urgency. An Order Paper is only published once urgency finishes, and then it becomes the new order of the day. With regard to the leave that you are seeking, can you just clarify that, because there is no order of the day other than the urgency that we are in at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002247481cb8ed6b412da242ceea8a294af6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247481cb8ed6b412da242ceea8a294af6\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Order Paper, of course, is normally published at the conclusion of the urgency. You are quite right. If the urgency continues beyond 2 o\u2019clock, the National members have indicated their concern that the House would not be able to sit for the remainder of a regular programmed Wednesday session. I am seeking leave for that to be able to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022be1f8e16498f489ab279ca121a90b829\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be1f8e16498f489ab279ca121a90b829\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am just seeking some advice. I thank the member for the points he raised when seeking leave. I have not struck this before, so I am going to seek some guidance. Once I have some guidance as to how it could be facilitated\u2014I hear what you are saying\u2014at that stage I would be happy, once I have some guidance as to whether that can be facilitated, that then, possibly, you could seek leave again. At this stage I am unsure. I want to know in my own mind. I understand how it currently works, but I know how you are trying to facilitate something, and I am happy to get advice on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022258bfc70faeb47abaf3102c074741096\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022258bfc70faeb47abaf3102c074741096\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E It is obvious to the Committee that what is more important to the National Government is stopping at 1 o\u2019clock so its members can go and have lunch rather than deal with the issue at hand, which is the homelessness situation in New Zealand. It is also a bit rich for David \u201CThin-skinned\u201D Seymour to stand up and start casting aspersions on the members of the Labour Party, saying that they are petulant, and accusing Grant Robertson of things, when that member is No. 1 in the House for mocking and ridiculing other members. And yet, when something happens to him or is said about him, he is what we say in M\u0101ori, a tangiweto\u2014a tangiweto. He is a cry-baby. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI want to address this directly, and I have tabled an amendment to clause 10. It is a very important amendment. At the moment section 15(3), in clause 10, states: \u201CSubsection (2) does not affect any right of first refusal that a person or group of persons has in relation to the land under any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed.\u201D The wording here implies that this applies only to those Treaty settlements that have already been finished. I was at the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee today and we were talking about a number of iwi that have yet to have their claims settled, such as Te Atiawa, Tauranga Moana, and Ng\u0101ti P\u016Bkenga. Those are the ones that are before the select committee\u2014not to mention that other noble iwi of my own, that peace-loving, passive, humble iwi of Ng\u0101puhi, who are yet to even have an agreement in principle or a deed of settlement signed. We are concerned that, as it is written, this provision in the legislation will not apply to those tribes that are yet to settle, because we are talking about \u201Cunder any Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003ESo what I am proposing in my amendment, after the word \u201Cany\u201D and before \u201CTreaty of Waitangi claims\u201D, is that we include the words \u201Ccurrent or future Treaty of Waitangi claims.\u201D It is very small. It is not going to really require any major discussion. I just think that the Government needs to accept that it has missed out a little bit there, and that we need to make sure this clause applies not only to settlements that have been completed but also to future settlements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EIncidentally, just coming from the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, we are going to be briefed on rights of first refusal (RFR) in the next few weeks. The officials told us today that no two RFRs are actually the same, and there could be any number of differences. In fact, they said there are about six or eight differences around rights of first refusal, and it depends on the different settlement. For example, what happens is that we are under the impression that iwi get the first right of refusal. That is not the case. There is a bit of a process that the Government goes through. The first process is it looks to other Government departments or agencies. For example, a bit of land might actually be offered to the Ministry of Education if it wanted to build a school or a kura kaupapa or something like that. The second level is that it could be offered to a charitable organisation. For example, Gloriavale is a charitable organisation. Land could be offered, first of all, to Gloriavale to help its charitable functions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EAnd then iwi are the last cab off the rank. We are sick and tired, as M\u0101ori, of being the last cab off the rank all the time. Iwi should be at the top of the list. Iwi should be the first to get the right of first refusal, not the last cab off the rank. Also, I have to just make comment about David \u201CThin-skinned\u201D Seymour and the way he is propping up the current system\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d858f8acf334c42b664a2443f7715ef\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would hate to give more credence to the accusation, but I think it is important to uphold the standards of the House. It is not actually within the Standing Orders to call people by a nickname or moniker, as the member has been throughout his speech, and he should withdraw that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227b1791bb0da4dfa94662c87385c19e2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, well\u2014[Interruption] Order! I hear what the member is saying, and there has been some latitude in calling people by various names. I just ask members to concentrate on the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022efed4748f8b94a7d80463a09eac6ea78\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairperson, I will withdraw and apologise for being so hurtful. That is beside the fact that Mr Seymour is propping up the very system that is leading to homelessness. He is happy, he said, for a motorway to be built from Auckland to Wellington, and that we compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act for any property owners who are holding up the works. However, he will do that for cars and trucks and everyone else, but he will not do anything for homeless people and helping people get into affordable houses. That just goes to show the priorities that the ACT Party has in terms of making life better for New Zealanders. David Seymour is happy for trucks and cars to get a fast access way from Auckland to Wellington, Wellington to Auckland, but he is not going to back New Zealanders to get into cheap, affordable, comfortable, warm, dry houses en masse. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u002295d99869028a4379aab393fed62d1f16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295d99869028a4379aab393fed62d1f16\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E So I am\u2014what do you know\u2014still opposing this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. What we are talking about in this Committee stage is Part 2. I have just been talking to my colleague Maureen Pugh, to confirm that she and I are the newest members in this House at this moment, and for some of the longer-serving members it might be less than obvious that, as my colleague pointed out, the way we talk about the processes in here is not always accessible to all of the public. I think it is really important, as sexy as Parliament TV is, that we ensure that the processes are clear. We are still coming to grips\u2014sorry, I will not speak for my colleague. I am still coming to grips with this process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo this bill and Part 2, which we are talking about right now, is being rushed through under urgency in the House. It is being rushed to be passed. What this means is that from 3pm yesterday we have been here, rushing through the House all of the stages of passing legislation that will apply to our New Zealanders. This is not ordinary. So we are rushing it through. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis means that there is no longer the time between the readings to ascertain what is in this legislation, to hear from officials and experts in the area, to deliberate across the parties about this bill, and to go into what we call a select committee to sit down and pull this legislation apart, deliberate on it, and hear from the public\u2014hear the public submissions on this bill. That is necessary in a democratic society so that we can make the best legislation, hear all the things, and make sure that we are protecting New Zealanders\u2019 rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis bill is being rushed through under urgency, to wipe out all of that process. It absolutely denies us the opportunity to really suss out how this legislation is going to impact on people, on all the different groups of society. Further to that, there is ordinarily another report that is done by Government departments. They sit down and they really go through it and have a look, and prepare a report for all of us members of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EFor Part 2, the very part that we are discussing right now, this was not completed. That is how rushed this legislation process is for this particular bill. So we are really sort of not upholding the best democratic process with this particular piece of legislation. There are times when legislation does need to be rushed through the House, but this process is important for this Part 2. It is of deep concern to the Green Party that this part of the bill is being rushed through the Committee, because it pertains especially to and is about the offer-back provision, which I will explain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis bill wipes out\u2014destroys\u2014the offer-back responsibility that the Crown has to the public when they are landowners or descendants of land that was owned in their whakapapa, in their wh\u0101nau. So just very quickly, the offer-back provision is when the land was taken from or gifted by any owner under the Public Works Act. When the Crown no longer needs that land any more it has to, ordinarily, offer that land back to the previous owner or their descendants. Oh, and by the way, the land has to be offered back at the market price, or below. If they do not want it, then\u2014and only then\u2014it can be sold on the open market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo Part 2 of this very bill that we are discussing destroys that obligation of the Government, and that is why the very fact that we are rushing this bill through under urgency and the very fact that there was no departmental report on the impacts of this part of the legislation\u2014this is the thing. This is a big thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI want to quickly acknowledge what my colleague Kelvin Davis was referring to, which was the right of first refusal under Tiriti o Waitangi settlements. Part 2 also contains a so-called protection of the right of first refusal, which is when iwi must be offered first, before anyone else, the whenua. However, what my colleague Catherine Delahunty raised at the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee today is that it is not a true right of first refusal; it is a right of second refusal, in practical terms, in some of the Treaty bills that are being put through the House. So again, Part 2 of this legislation also does not uphold the absolute right of absolute first refusal. So I wanted to acknowledge that as well. Part 2 of this bill has huge consequences. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI want to pick up on where a number of colleagues\u2014Grant Robertson, my colleague Metiria Turei, and Denis O\u2019Rourke have asked the question: why? Why this Part 2 and the destruction of the offer-back provision? Why has that happened under urgency? Such an important and huge consequence to landowners and to the public\u2014why are we rushing this through under urgency? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI want to refer to the Green Party officially, on 28 June this year, asking the Minister concerned, Nick Smith, because we knew that the State housing law was about to wrap up. We officially asked the Minister what his plans were\u2014this was on 28 June\u2014after the expiry of this legislation that establishes special housing areas. \u201CWhat are your plans, Minister, after this expires?\u201D. His official reply\u2014so this is 28 June\u2014was that he had not received any official advice or correspondence. OK\u201428 June. Then, just over a month later, on 10 August, he took this bill to Cabinet. So either he and his officials rushed this bill up in less than a month or the Minister did not tell us the full story. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWe have a right to ask what the full story is, and what is actually going on. If, in fact, you rushed up a bill of this consequence in a month, there are no skills there. That is not good governance\u2014that is not good governance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7a135b8ea7e41cfa144d46d05edd9a6\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Mistakes will be made. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f60a16ceca464a39bef2d4c4e63f9b4c\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely\u2014mistakes will be made, as my colleague has just said. Mistakes will be made\u2014that is not good governance. There is a reason why we have good governance processes, particularly when the consequences are huge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo I have just outlined that the Green Party officially asked the Minister what his plans were going to be. He said \u201CNothing, nothing\u201D, and a month later: \u201COh, we have this huge bill.\u201D Hey\u2014skills? No skills. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThere are some very serious questions that we should be asking here, and I am thankful for taking this call, because this is the thing: it goes to both how we want to uphold our responsibilities as representatives and for good governance, and the actual content and how it will impact in the future on landowners and on the New Zealand public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo there are a couple of things going on there, and the Minister surely can tell us what the full story is. We are asking what happened. Why the rush\u2014or were we not given the full story when we officially asked for advice from the Minister and his officials? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00221ca67c294e6c4c369a80c9f7574032d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ca67c294e6c4c369a80c9f7574032d4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am just going to comment on Chris Hipkins\u2019 application for leave\u2014and I have sought advice. The Committee cannot give leave for what is proposed, and I want you to explain to me in a minute what your intention is. Only the House can do that. So the process would be that at 12.55 the Minister and I would call to report progress, we would go back into the House, leave could then be sought, and it would be up to members to decide whether they would accept the leave. That is the process. So my questions are: by leave, are you seeking that there would be question time and then we would resume urgency for the remaining stages in Committee, followed by the third reading, and then we would resume Government orders of the day as per the Order Paper, which would be published at that time? Is that what your intention is? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022664e9a9762bf4068aadc3115219e0d5e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022664e9a9762bf4068aadc3115219e0d5e\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. When I put the leave, my expectation was that we would simply continue all the way through the urgency and then begin the regular sitting session, whenever that may be. However, I understand that there are issues around ministerial availability, for example, for question time at 2 o\u2019clock. Therefore, if the course of action that you have suggested is acceptable to the Government, it is certainly one that we would support, which is that we would have question time at 2 o\u2019clock, then move back to complete urgency for however long that is required, and then we would move on to Government orders of the day as listed on the Order Paper. We would be very comfortable with that course of action.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022adb687ae0e76489c916b1ec0ac2e5397\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022adb687ae0e76489c916b1ec0ac2e5397\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: So, to the Government, I am not asking for an answer, but does that explain what the rationale is? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b229df1c1d664311881505f864e22eb1\u0022\u003ETim Macindoe\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it\u2019s clear to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225011a1fcb6574e46bf6eff3bf217d29a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Do other parties understand what is being mooted here?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef1c6496a5f74649a9eeb1689ef6944c\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222acf1b12a63944079227d0b05c1bf934\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Is the New Zealand First Party happy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e11a5f05-1940-41b2-8f1e-911dba7a43a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae54bed775cf4415904d177ac7e1a2db\u0022\u003EFletcher Tabuteau\u003C/span\u003E: We understand, yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b389e502e1e6423d9cec40e7c74444fc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: You understand, yes. So, knowing now what Labour is intending to do, if the Government wishes to proceed with that, at 5 minutes to 1 we will need to report progress and then you would then seek leave and the House would then decide whether to proceed with what you have suggested. Are we all clear on that? OK.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u002223ada2d5f007423c833120d71ff924a9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223ada2d5f007423c833120d71ff924a9\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E I think it is important, even at this point in the debate, to correctly characterise exactly what it is that the Committee is being called upon to do. We have, in Part 2 of this bill, a provision that would cut right across the property interests and property rights of an unspecified number of people who have had land compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act, and who retain an interest or right in that land to the extent that if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired and is not intended to be used for any other legitimate purpose, it must be offered back to the original owner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThat is a matter of property right and property interest, and this House is being asked by the Minister for Building and Housing and this Government, under urgency, to traduce that right without any of the appropriate scrutiny that would otherwise happen in the select committee process, which would allow public submissions and a proper public debate over a reasonable period of time. That is all being expunged for the purpose of taking away that right under this bill. That, in my view, is a constitutional outrage, and it is not something that this Committee should disregard, pass over, or be dismissive of for the sake of legislative expediency on the part of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EWhat stuns me about this is that when you have a look at the paper that has accompanied the bill\u2014one of the tabled papers\u2014it says, in terms of the Minister\u2019s justification to his Cabinet colleagues for this exercise, that although some consequential amendments were made to the Housing Act when the Public Works Act was enacted in 1981\u2014this is in 1981\u2014the interaction between the Housing Act disposals and the offer-back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act was never clarified. So the Minister\u2019s case for urgency in the House and for avoiding select committee scrutiny and proper public debate is that 35 years after legislation was passed that apparently left some confusion in the minds\u2014at least of the Minister\u2014we now, under urgency, have to clarify the confusion. That does not gel. That circle does not square. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EI am sorry, but 35 years on from a piece of legislation that probably predates David Seymour, by the looks of it, we are now being asked under urgency for some sort of clarification, knowing that doing so cuts across property rights to an unspecified number of people. That is not a proper use of this Parliament. That is not a proper exercise by a single Minister nor an entire Cabinet, of their authority and their mandate. You do not traduce New Zealand citizens\u2019 property rights in that way. If we are to cut across the rights that some New Zealand citizens will have in land that they once owned and was compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act, let us have a proper, open, transparent, and public debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EWe are so dependent in this country on constitutional convention, on these unwritten rules, these unwritten understandings that we have between us irrespective of the side of the House that we are on. This exercise, on this day, under this bill, is cutting right across that. It horrifies me, and I think that if more New Zealanders knew about it, it would horrify them as well. We cannot support this part of this bill. National can put as many things as it likes up on social media accusing us of all sorts of heinous crimes in the interests of trying to get a few more houses built, because that is what Part 1 of the bill would do, but nothing can justify the constitutional egregious outrage that is caused by Part 2 of this bill. It must stop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders must be treated with respect and courtesy, and if the small flank represented by the ACT Party, in terms of this Government, cannot stand up for the rights of New Zealand citizens, then, of course, we have to. But we do make this case about it, and we make a song and dance about it. It is important that this part not be passed, in the interests of constitutional correctness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f56da97fb16e4759964821c13198e2df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f56da97fb16e4759964821c13198e2df\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E The House has been denied the opportunity and benefit of having this legislation scrutinised by a select committee. We have been denied the opportunity of receiving the advice from the committee. The public has also been denied the opportunity of making submissions on this bill, and we have been denied the privilege and benefit of the wisdom of Local Government New Zealand and the general population, who have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this bill at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EWe have been given three pieces of paper to try to make sense of this legislation. Earlier my colleague the Hon Annette King said that there is no regulatory impact statement for Part 2 of this bill. That is further denial of us really making good sense of what this bill is about. But it has been, I believe, characterised well by Andrew Little, the leader of the Labour Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI also want to say that we have been expected to take on board the word of the Minister for Building and Housing that, because there is no regulatory impact statement on Part 2\u2014he has asked us to believe him\u2014there is nothing untoward in this bill. But there is a range of rumours floating around in this place, and one cannot help but feel concerned and uneasy about what this legislation really is about. The image that comes to mind, when the Minister says that we have got to take his word for it, is the image of President Richard Nixon with his two peace signs, saying that he is not a crook. I say that because when you look at clause 9 in Part 2, it refers to the Housing Act of 1955. The Housing Act of 1955 gives powers to the Minister of Building and Housing and it gives powers to the local authorities to be able to take land for State housing development. If you look at clause 10, it makes reference to the Public Works Act of 1981. What it does is it removes any powers that were laid in sections 40, 41, and 42 of the Public Works Act. What it means is\u2014the Public Works Act suggests that if land was taken for the purpose of building State housing, and if that purpose no longer exists, then the land ought then to be made available back to the original owners. Clause 10 says that right is now expunged. That right has now been destroyed. That right no longer exists. [Interruption] If that young man there would just shut up a minute, I will continue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe point I want to make here is that there seems to be some conflicting aims. We are told that the purpose of this bill is to increase the supply and make housing more affordable. How is that going to be achieved under this particular clause? How is the removal of rights of people\u2014if the land is no longer going to be used for the purpose of creating and building State housing, how is the purpose of building more affordable housing going to be achieved? I ask that question because this Government is attempting to tell us that the purpose of this bill is to build more affordable housing. I cannot see that happening. I cannot see that happening when, for the last 8 years, this Government has been aware of the growing national housing crisis. We have a crisis of not enough houses, not enough State houses. We have a crisis of people living in cars\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c4b568eda5514ba0bb6dd1bf683591ad\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance in respect of Standing Order 176(5), which states that debates in the Committee stage should be limited to the objects actually instructed by the House that the Committee should debate, not the overarching principles or purposes, which is what the majority of this member\u2019s rather erratic speech has been about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd4d5875da3f423e8b2b3060e1c25770\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: When Mr Speaker yesterday accepted the urgency motion, he made it clear, in accepting the urgency motion and the points of order that came prior to that regarding the content of this omnibus bill, that it would be a wide-ranging debate. In Part 1, that has been so. In Part 2, I am very mindful of what is being said, and I am listening very carefully. From my point of view, if it stretches outside the realms, even though there is some licence to extend it, then I would deal with it at the time. The member is correct, in a sense, that we should, in Committee stage, deal with the Part before us, but the precedent was set when the urgency motion yesterday was put. I am complying with that ruling by Mr Speaker yesterday. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022543695aa40d24de3b6fe1ae017566421\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO\u003C/span\u003E: The point I am making refers to clause 10. If land was taken specifically for the building of State housing, and that purpose no longer exists, what I see is that this clause conflicts with the purpose of the bill. I am asking, because we have been asked to take the Minister\u2019s word for it, whether the Minister, or any Minister for that fact\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u002231b9130766f54c33bca9a7605ac0e2fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231b9130766f54c33bca9a7605ac0e2fd\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to direct my comments towards some arguments that have been made from the other side of the Chamber about how this particular clause, clause 10, is retrospective. We all know in this Committee that retrospective law is bad law. We all know that the Government should seek to make laws that people can actually anticipate and plan their activities around, rather than be second-guessed by. If, indeed, the matter before us in clause 10 was retrospective, then we would have to very seriously consider opposing it on those grounds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe great difficulty is that although the effects of clause 10 are retrospective, it is clarifying a particular situation, which is the Public Works Act and the Housing Act as they stand, which are also retrospective. So if we were to ask the question \u201CIs clause 10 introducing retrospectivity into the statutes bill?\u201D, the honest answer would have to be no, because there is already retrospectivity in section 15 of the Housing Act and sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act. That is the confusion in the law that clause 10 seeks to resolve. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIt might help members to actually read what it says. It says \u201CTo avoid doubt,\u201D. The issue is that there is already a doubtful situation where it may not be clear who is able to claim against housing that has been developed, turned into housing, and bought by people who are now new homeowners and attempting to pay their mortgages\u2014often precisely the sorts of people the Labour Party was set up to stand for but has, sadly, forgotten. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI will take your advice on it being a wide-ranging debate, because is it not sad to look across at the Labour Party? I had two people come up to me in the adjournment who said that they had recently spent time with Andrew Little, and they were effusive about his boringness. The fact of the matter is that we now have a Labour Party that is completely rudderless\u2014a Labour Party that says that it wants to build 100,000 houses through its so-called KiwiBuild, but a Labour Party that believes in supporting legislation that is going to mean that any \u201CKiwiBuilt\u201D homes, to modify the phrase, that are built on land that was Crown land that was at any point in the past ever owned in any kind of private ownership, will be subject to opportunistic legal challenge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIf the Labour Party members had any coherence in their desire to make housing affordable to more people through a programme of Government construction of housing, they would be very concerned to support this initiative, because it actually clears the way for precisely the type of public policy that the Labour Party normally stands for. But, \u201CMr Boring\u201D, unfortunately the Labour Party does not have a coherent programme. Those members are opposing this today because they think they can stand on principle, but it is not a principle that they have ever stood for before. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party will be back in Government one day, perhaps, if it is very lucky, and those members will have to reverse everything they have said today in order to achieve their underlying principles. The ACT Party, by contrast, has played a constructive role in this debate. We have introduced an amendment that will ensure that the inherent conflict between the Housing Act 1955 and the Public Works Act 1981 must be resolved by this House very soon. It is not right that people who own private property should have their property rights impaired for a public purpose that is not proper, and the Government becoming a property developer is not a proper public purpose. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI proudly stand for ACT as a party of principle that plays a constructive role in public policy debates, which is far more than could ever be said for the Labour Party, which has twisted itself in contortions like a tightly wound pretzel in this debate\u2014one minute standing up for property rights, one minute saying that there is a crisis in housing, and the next minute saying that it wants to build 100,000 houses on Crown land when it is voting for legislation that will make that all the more insecure and all the more difficult. It has been hilarious to listen to the Labour Party. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022 data-id=\u00221cce25fca7a44091a8ae0fc1a61e1cd6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221cce25fca7a44091a8ae0fc1a61e1cd6\u0022\u003ELOUISA WALL (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Malo e lelei, Mr Chair\u2014it is Tongan Language Week\u2014and I also want to take the opportunity to just say kia kaha to our colleague Nikki Kaye at this time. I am going to just outline the process of me trying to understand what Part 2 of this bill is trying to achieve. We are here debating the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act of 2013. Part 2 is about amending the Housing Act, and refers specifically to sections 40 to 42 of the Public Works Act, and I just want to look at those sections of the Public Works Act. Section 40 is about \u201CDisposal to former owner of land not required for public work\u201D, section 41 is \u201CDisposal of former Maori land when no longer required\u201D, and section 42 is \u201CDisposal in other cases of land not required for public work\u201D. I think the emphasis on public work in all those sections actually means that we should look at the definition of what public work is, under the Public Works Act of 1981. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThe definition of public work in that Act is: \u201C(a) every Government work or local work that the Crown or any local authority is authorised to construct, undertake, establish, manage, operate, or maintain, and every use of land for any Government work or local work which the Crown or any local authority is authorised to construct, undertake, establish, manage, operate, or maintain by or under this or any other Act; and include anything required directly or indirectly for any such Government work or local work or use\u201D. So the definition of public work is actually really clear: it has to be undertaken by the Government or it has to be undertaken by a local authority. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EWe take land that is owned by New Zealanders\u2014citizens\u2014but we take that land for the greater good. The Government does do this and has done this many times in the development of our communities, of our society. The interesting question that I have for the Minister in the chair is: of the 154 special housing areas (SHAs) in Auckland, how many involve State housing land? That cuts to the heart of this specific part of the legislation, because, in essence, those SHAs do not actually fit when you look at the definition of public work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI want to highlight two developments that have been highlighted through the passage of this bill. The first one is the Clarks Beach tranche 10 development. That development is actually being undertaken by Knight Investments. They are the people who applied to Auckland Council for a resource consent to undertake that build. The Government is not building the 110 houses in Clarks Beach, Auckland Council is not building the 110 houses in Clarks Beach, but Knight Investments is, so, by definition\u2014under what constitutes public work\u2014that is not public work. If we have used State land for this development then there is an issue, and we should have looked at whom that land was acquired from, and we should have provided an opportunity for that owner, whose land was taken for the public good, to have a right, at least, to say whether or not they wanted to buy that land back. That is what our opposition to this part of the bill is all about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EWe could have had some of these questions answered. I could have known\u2014if we had had a select committee process, the officials could have answered\u2014how many of the 154 special housing areas in Auckland involved State housing land. We know that in T\u0101maki it does, so what has been the relationship between that development and the local iwi, for example? Have they been offered the right of first refusal? The other development that I managed to find the developer for was the Redhills (Fred Taylor Drive) Whenuapai tranche for development by Hugh Green Ltd, the Westgate Joint Venture, and Nuich Trust. In fact, we are here because\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a29a1494941b406f9d02c9d52e659213\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a29a1494941b406f9d02c9d52e659213\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to take a call on this bill and perhaps pick up where my colleague Louisa Wall just left off, and that is on the difference between a public housing development and a private housing development\u2014which is something that seems to have escaped most of the members opposite. Using compulsorily acquired land for a public purpose, which can include a public State housing development, is quite different to using compulsorily acquired land for a private development\u2014including a private housing development. That is the distinction that seems to be lost on the members opposite, yet that is the exact distinction that this bill is seeking to address.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIf land that was compulsorily acquired for one public purpose such as a school\u2014or, in many cases around the country, for the Defence Force, because a lot of surplus Defence Force land, such as Hobsonville, is being used for housing developments\u2014is being used for Government-led housing developments, i.e., State housing developments, there is no legal issue now because the law already allows for that. But where the ambiguity arises is where the Government wants to dispose of that land for the purposes of housing development, but not housing development that the Government is going to do. That is the important distinction that many members opposite do not seem willing to even acknowledge, and, certainly, that the Minister does not seem willing to address or explain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIf it is about State housing development, then that is already allowed for. If it is about State housing development that is then subsequently sold, as has happened all over the country\u2014you take my electorate, the Hutt Valley; big chunks of most of that area were State housing developments that have, over time, been progressively sold off, bit by bit, here and there, pepper potting the private sales around\u2014that has been absolutely fine; nothing in the law stops that from happening now. But where the ambiguity arises is if the Government has a block of land that they have compulsorily acquired that they do not want any more, which they would otherwise be obliged to offer back to the original owners under the Public Works Act, and it decides that it wants to ensure it goes for a housing development rather than some other purpose that the original owner may have. Rather than dealing with that issue, what they are trying to now do is allow the Public Works Act provisions to continue to apply when they then sell that land to a private developer. That is a massive infringement of private property rights. I never ever thought I would see the day when the Green Party is united with the Labour Party in defending private property rights\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3e3712764904989ad75f08ec2885025\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: And New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022820bb02d3f7d4055ad77860a28c8b0d7\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and New Zealand First, as well\u2014and the ACT Party is the party arguing against it. I never thought I would see the day in the House, but, apparently, according to David Seymour, trading away your principles like that is called \u201Cbeing constructive\u201D. And trading away one\u2019s principles is actually OK\u2014providing there is a 10-year sunset clause; it does not matter. Principles are allowed to be breached retrospectively as well\u2014and that is a whole new thing. That is a whole new distinction that I think the House is very excited about, because I certainly did not understand that principles were available to be traded off retrospectively in the way that David Seymour has suggested they are. But I want to highlight\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919b7de871874aae8817dc8e9e821def\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: His caucus told him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d050df0410c84ff6a103542ef6298022\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: That is right; he is at a caucus meeting right now. As the Minister mentioned in his contribution when he tried to address this issue at the very beginning, he talked about \u201Cbuilding by the Crown\u201D. Those were the words that he used when he was talking about the provisions in the Housing Act. Those were the exact words: \u201Cbuilding by the Crown\u201D. Nothing in the existing law stops that happening now and nothing stops the building that has been done by the Crown subsequently being sold. Where there is ambiguity is where it is a private developer. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ETake P\u014Dmare, for example. I do not know the basis upon which the P\u014Dmare land was acquired, but up until recently it was all State housing. So had it been acquired under the Public Works Act and it was all State housing it would have been fine. What the Government has done is that it has demolished all of the State housing that was in that area so it became vacant land. It then sold that vacant land to a developer, so it is no longer a Government-led housing development\u2014in the words of Nick Smith \u201Cbuilding by the Crown\u201D. That is not building by the Crown. The original houses were \u201Cbuilding by the Crown\u201D but they were all demolished\u2014so when the Crown disposed of that land it was empty land, it was vacant land, and it was sold to a developer for private property development. So, therefore, should that have been offered back? If it had been compulsorily acquired should it have been offered back? I have not heard an answer from the Government about that and I want to hear an answer from the Government about that because that is what this whole issue turns on, and in the absence of any proper legal explanation for the need to do this by the Government why are we supporting it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u00226beb71b8fa2444cca188435db72baa7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226beb71b8fa2444cca188435db72baa7b\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to take a call on this to ask some questions of the Minister in the chair, because there are many outstanding questions that my colleagues have raised and some that I will raise that just have to be answered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThis is a piece of legislation that is going through without a select committee phase. This is the Committee of the whole House and this is the time for the Government to front up and answer those questions that we have put to it about this legislation. We had the contribution from David Seymour. Well, I would describe that contribution as dancing on the head of a pin in a manner that would make John Locke turn in his grave. What we had was a confused and addled speech from David Seymour\u2014the man who thinks there is a sunset clause on his principles and that you only have to defend private property rights unless you have sold them off, but there is a sunset. What we want to know is when the sun is going to rise for Mr Seymour. He says this is about resolving the ambiguity between the 1955 Housing Act and the 1981 Public Works Act. I would like the Minister in the chair to tell me why it is that we are resolving ambiguity between pieces of legislation that have been operating since 1955 and 1981 respectively, and it is now in 2016 that we are having to come and resolve those issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat is the problem we are trying to resolve here, Minister? Is there impending legal action that needs to be resolved? Jono Naylor\u2014the great white knight who came to the defence of the Government\u2019s actions in this legislation\u2014told us that what was happening here was not significant and that it was just tidying up some language. Well, why, Minister? Why are we here tidying up this language? Please answer that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7d83f2703cb45c884bcf84bfad79ee8\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: We care about the people\u2014that\u2019s why.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022121d3de11c144655940a3d81810a36ca\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: It is something we on this side of the Chamber are still wondering about. Why is it being done and why is there the special Treaty provision? What is it that is being tidied up? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EGiven that the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration is in the Chamber not to take a call but to bellow across the Chamber, there are some other questions about how this cuts straight to the heart of the problem that people had with the compulsory acquisition within the centre of Christchurch for anchor projects. The suspicion was that if land that was acquired was not going to be used for the stated strategic purpose then it would be onsold and would not be offered back to the people it was acquired from. So where does that leave it? We are certainly not seeing anchor projects springing up in the central city. This was an issue where members of the ACT Party took to the streets and marched with Labour and the Greens back in 2012. So this is an issue that a range of people have had concerns about\u2014and New Zealand First also. Sorry, Mr O\u2019Rourke, I think you were probably at those as well. This is an issue that has been bubbling away within the Christchurch rebuild and that people rightly have concerns about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI would also like to address some further questions to the Minister. We know that the regulatory impact statement, as my colleague Annette King rightly raised, relates only to Part 1. The regulatory impact statement said that there had not been time for consultation in a formal sense but, none the less, some conversations had happened. So what I would like to know from the Minister in the chair is what conversations of an informal nature have happened in regard to Part 2. Who has been spoken to? What was the outcome of those conversations, and what is the information that the Minister could give the Committee to inform this debate? Given that this is a debate under urgency, there is no regulatory impact statement, but we do need to know who has been spoken to and what was discussed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI would also like to draw attention to the points that my colleague Grant Robertson raised in a point of order. He was instructed by the person in the chair at the time that the departmental disclosure statement says that the bill does not contain any provisions that would result in the compulsory acquisition of private property. I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair how that is the case when we are dealing with clause 10 in Part 2 of this legislation, which is all about the compulsory acquisition of private property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf27be3e48c049d9875252390d7a5264\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf27be3e48c049d9875252390d7a5264\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up a point that David Seymour had started to make and then abandoned in favour of some more insubstantial comments when he took his call recently\u2014that is, his claim that this provision is not retrospective\u2014but also in the context of the earlier comments I made about the constitutional significance of what we are doing, and I do not think that can be overstated. This House should never be called upon to pass, under urgency, legislation that cuts across the rights of citizens, except in the most extreme and rare circumstances. It is not about saying we should never have legislation that denies the ability to compulsorily acquire land or exercise some other sort of coercive or intrusive power. But no power like that should ever be legislated without proper, full scrutiny over the proper length of time that we would expect legislation carrying such powers to be properly debated. The justification for this legislation is that there may be\u2014and it is unspecified because key parts of the Cabinet paper discussing it have been redacted\u2014some legal risk. It is interesting what the paper goes on to say. It says that the reason for the legislation is to remove the uncertainty and to mitigate the risk of legal challenge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EFor Mr Seymour\u2019s benefit, I say that the risk of legal challenge can arise only out of transactions that have happened in the past. It is unusual that people litigate over things that have not happened yet, but I do not know what goes on in the caucus meetings of the ACT Party and anything could happen. To mitigate the risk of legal challenge is about dealing with actions of the past. And the Minister in his paper to Cabinet specifically states that he is proposing the amendment in relation to the offer back obligations to former owners for what he describes as \u201Cto avoid doubt that they have never applied\u201D. The fact that there is doubt at all suggests that there are issues arising from past transactions, and whether there are genuine legal threats and, therefore, legal risk to the Crown, or whether it is just in the mind of the Minister, and who can answer that question, the reality is we are being asked in this legislation to pass\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279e018672f0e4d38b91ceb9d3e85fa9f\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a riddle.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022500395ebd5174bcd80c1a4629b53c006\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014ha, ha\u2014a provision that cuts across citizens\u2019 property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe most disappointing thing about some of the contributions to this debate, or, in fact, all of them, really, from Mr Seymour and the ACT Party is that when I look at the founders of that party\u2014because, let us face it, the driving forces came out of the Labour Party, because we in the Labour Party have been incubators of political talent for some years now, and some of those people went off to establish the ACT Party. But whether those people were coming out of the Labour Party, or were even those coming out of the National Party in the form of Derek Quigley and some of those others, and Don Brash, when he decided which party he actually came out of or was aligned to, they are people who, faced with this situation, were people of deep principle who would never tolerate being part of a Parliament that allowed legislation like this, knowing what it does\u2014traducing citizens\u2019 rights\u2014to pass through urgency, and to pass without the scrutiny that ordinarily would apply to legislation such as this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EFor Mr Seymour\u2019s sake, I say that this is legislation that does have retrospective effect. There will be people who will have rights and interests in land that is being compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act that will likely be the subject of offer-back provisions, and this bill, if it is passed in its current form, will deny them the opportunity or the right to have that offer back made. So we simply should not allow this provision to pass in this form, and I simply ask the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse: what exactly is the precise need for the urgency on this basis? Why cannot this part of the bill go through the proper parliamentary process, with the full scrutiny that the select committee allows it, and allow members of the public, and especially those whose rights and interests will be affected by it, to have their say and inform members of this House exactly how it will have an impact on them? The members of this House deserve nothing less, but, most importantly, the citizens affected deserve nothing less.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022 data-id=\u0022a94c6cf0289f483e8ff6a8430792f8cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a94c6cf0289f483e8ff6a8430792f8cd\u0022\u003EMARK MITCHELL (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u00222d1e2eebf0e44c4baf5bd78ecfa04cf6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d1e2eebf0e44c4baf5bd78ecfa04cf6\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2. I want to concentrate on two key phrases\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022013d1ca647c34e71812f5015b50245c6\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the only part you can take a call on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b622e378b9484493ed04fe016c8f2f\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: Nice of you to arrive, actually, Gerry. I would like to look at clause 10 and two key phrases, and the Leader of the Opposition has just pointed one of them out to me. The first one is \u201CTo avoid doubt,\u201D and the second, which is in brackets, is \u201C(and have never applied)\u201D. Because those two phrases exist in clause 10, I believe there is some serious justification for this piece of legislation to be squared away and separated out into its own legislation, but also it deserves the scrutiny of a select committee, because to have the phrase \u201CTo avoid doubt,\u201D in clause 10 suggests that there was some doubt, and then we have to make the assumption that this Government has, in clause 10, which inserts new subsections (2) and (3) into section 15 of the Housing Act, actually taken care of that doubt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EWe do not believe that it has taken care of all of the doubt, and because of the phrase \u201C(and have never applied)\u201D, I believe that there might be some New Zealanders out there who may have been affected by this piece of legislation and might have something to say about that. That is why I question, along with the Leader of the Opposition, why this piece of legislation is being rammed through under urgency. I do want to quote, and respond to, something that Jono Naylor said. He has, I think, been the only National MP who has been brave enough to get on his feet and try to defend this piece of legislation under Part 2. He said: \u201CThis is not a significant change.\u201D We should always be worried when a National MP stands up in this Chamber and claims that \u201CThis is not a significant change.\u201D, because something else must be going on when only one of National\u2019s MPs can stand up in this Chamber and put his head above the trench and try to defend the changes that it is making here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003ECan I also point to some of the discussion that was had, before this started, around points of order and the lack of a regulatory impact statement. I think that is important, because people at home and those in the gallery listening may have thought that was just a bit of procedural nonsense that no one cared about, but the fact that this Government has not bothered to get its officials to look at this piece of legislation and say what impact this has on the average New Zealander speaks volumes about its lack of any plan around its housing strategy and the arrogance it shows in that it has not even bothered to ask the officials to look at it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EI think the fact that we have not got that regulatory impact statement shows that the Government is trying to rush this through because there is something else afoot, which would probably lend to the fact that we are not seeing this being put under a select committee process, and I think it also feeds into the well-embedded narrative that Nick Smith and this Government have absolutely no clue when it comes to solving the housing crisis. What have we had as the plan? Either it is some half-arsed\u2014[Interruption] Oh, hold on, I take that back. I am sorry; I apologise\u2014some quarter-arsed plan that a Minister might announce\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2fe88c77e274a29822af848aa401b92\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Lift your game.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6247a38b080428e83cdc3e90846b777\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014before Budget day that does not work and that, when its effectiveness is looked at, 15 people were helped by, and that plan was to move people out of Auckland and say \u201CHere\u2019s $3,000. Go to another part of the country.\u201D I believe it was around a dozen people who were helped. So I am sorry, Mr Chair, if the Government took offence at my statement that it was half-arsed, because that was overstating the effectiveness\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a77a40f19f464894a9f333b814b74baf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: You do not keep doing it. Just try to lift your game.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c0390b359154d83894b0bcf7b760991\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014of that measure. It was overstating the effectiveness of that measure. [Interruption] Ha, ha! This piece of legislation should have gone through a select committee process, and I do look back to clause 10 and the first three words \u201CTo avoid doubt,\u201D. There was some doubt. This piece of legislation does not clarify that doubt. Also, the other phrase, \u201C(and have never applied)\u201D, suggests that there is some retrospective action happening here that New Zealanders should have been allowed to have a say on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022 data-id=\u00227f0ccbe13fad44528e6bfb1a2ade80ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227f0ccbe13fad44528e6bfb1a2ade80ad\u0022\u003EALASTAIR SCOTT (National\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022f639dc7a58f44abba073c53319eeeec2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f639dc7a58f44abba073c53319eeeec2\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to put to you two further arguments as to why this part of the bill should be sent to a select committee. Just before I do that, I have to express my disappointment that we have been unable to get any answers to questions, and this is the only time there will be questions asked on this part of the bill in the entire time. The public will not get to ask; only the Opposition will get to ask, and we have failed to get our passing parade of Ministers who have sat in the chair to answer questions that have been put. I think that that shows a certain arrogance by the Government, which has put up one backbench speaker to defend it and has given no answers. That is not good enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EThere are two reasons why Part 2 should go to the select committee. We were told by the Minister there ought to be a review of the Public Works Act. The Minister Nick Smith has said that. Why is this part not included in the review of the Public Works Act? Would you not think that that was the first step of any changes? Rather than having an added-on urgency motion, trying to pass it through all stages in a sticking-plaster way, why would the Government not do a review of the Public Works Act, which the Minister said needed to be done? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EThe second issue is one that Kelvin Davis raised. Kelvin Davis said that the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee members are about to start looking at first refusal rights and they are going to consider it at the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee. First refusal rights\u2014that is a piece of work they are doing. So why, in looking at this, would we not ensure that we join this up? You see, there is no joined-up thinking here by the Government. It is all over the place. So we have got the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee looking at first refusal rights, as they affect M\u0101ori, I presume; we have the Minister saying we need to review the Public Works Act; and we have the hapless Minister for Building and Housing, who comes in and puts in, under urgency, a quick little change\u2014not very important, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EThere is a way to go about this. We send it to the select committee. In the meantime the Government has work done on the review, the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee does its work, and we come back with a sensible proposal to this Parliament. We then ask the public of New Zealand\u2014in fact, maybe they would like to get the Law Commission to look at this, but then we come back to the Parliament and back to the people of New Zealand and ask them what they think, because this is not a good process, and I am going to tell you why. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EI do not know whether other members have picked this up, but at the very beginning of the day when we went to the Table to get the documents we rely on to debate this we were told that the departmental disclosure statement was not a tabled document\u2014not a tabled document. What is that Table? I cannot understand it. If this is lying on the Table amongst all our bills, all our Supplementary Order Papers, and we are told that the departmental disclosure statement is not official, and it is not tabled\u2014it is a nonsense. So we are relying on, to debate today, a not-official, not-tabled departmental disclosure statement. I want the Minister to tell us why we have to rely on a not-official, not-tabled document to argue on Part 2 of this bill, because that is what we are being asked to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003EWhen you look through it you have to say that it is very, very shonky what they have provided in this non-official, non-tabled document. For example, it says: \u201CWere any regulatory impact statements provided to inform \u2026 on this bill?\u201D. Yes, they said. Well, no. There is no regulatory impact statement on Part 2 of this bill. Here is another one. It says: \u201CIf so, did that RIA team in the Treasury provide independent opinion on the quality of these regulatory impact statements?\u201D. Well, no. It did not. We got a Treasury paper and then they set about redacting anything that would have helped us understand it. You see what I am saying? This is just not good enough. This is not the way a Parliament should work. It then goes to say: \u201CHas further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?\u201D. No. This is what the non-official\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022 data-id=\u0022034a6523cd8f4105aadf1d539e5c3fef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022094b0ff4-e404-451b-b4a9-ad12bd4dee56\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022034a6523cd8f4105aadf1d539e5c3fef\u0022\u003ESTUART SMITH (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022 data-id=\u0022bd092c403e88483b95a3d9c9a368e4ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bd092c403e88483b95a3d9c9a368e4ec\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE (Labour\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I want to touch on a couple of points that the Hon Annette King made with reference to my colleague Mr Davis and his contribution. New subsection (3) of section 15, inserted by clause 10, says: \u201CSubsection (2) does not affect any right of first refusal that a person or group of persons has in relation to the land under Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement or collective redress Act or deed.\u201D The amendment tabled by my colleague Mr Davis wants to include in there, after \u201Cany\u201D, the words \u201Ccurrent or future\u201D. I think that is an important thing. He spoke of a noble tribe from the Far North, a tribe called Ng\u0101puhi, and, actually, if you hear the claims being put in front of the Waitangi Tribunal, the extension of their land goes all the way into Auckland, all the way down past Mahurangi, and falls within the Auckland Unitary Plan, and that is an important fact that is being missed here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EThat is really important, and I want to raise a particular case within T\u0101maki-makau-rau that actually points to the ambiguity and some of the issues that will fall out from this type of proposed legislation. I want us to all think of Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae in T\u0101maki-makau-rau\u2014Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae. A bit of a history lesson\u2014that land was confiscated by the troops who raided the Waikato. It was subsequently sold on to another family member after the confiscation. It was then taken by the Public Works Act. It was taken by the Public Works Act in the hope that Child, Youth and Family could use it to build hostels for troubled teens. That was the purpose of that land. It was not used. It sat vacant there for a long, long, long time. A visionary in South Auckland, the mother of Mr Willie Jackson, a former member of this House, decided\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ce4d28e92754635a505b4b5fc9f832c\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019d you call him? Did you call him a visionary?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f237af5ee4f46d9baf7a18fbc5e9767\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Well, he is part Ng\u0101ti Porou and so am I, so he can be a visionary for the purposes of this discussion. They decided to use it to build a marae to service the people of South Auckland. They built the marae to service urban-based M\u0101ori. Those who did not have any particular strong connection to their tribes\u2014those who were disconnected\u2014attached themselves to Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae. Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae goes to apply for a permit to make sure that they can expand on their buildings so that they can cater for the influx of numbers. This is where the whole situation falls apart, because that land is currently still owned, as a result of the Public Works Act, by Child, Youth and Family. That is a really big issue because it is not using that home, yet it is stopping the use of that land by a community organisation. No right of first refusal has gone back to any of the owners, whether they were the ones subsequent to the confiscation. Ng\u0101ti Paoa has a claim on that land, which has been heard by the Waitangi Tribunal. All of these parties are involved in that one piece of land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EHow is this Government proposing to fix that? How is this Government proposing to offer a right of first refusal to one particular group while forgetting the others? It is doing it by subterfuge. It is pushing this proposed part, tacking it on to Part 1, and just brushing it off as a minor amendment. It is definitely not that. Say that to the people at Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae. Say that to those who attach themselves to that marae and the services it provides. I wonder what is going to happen with that particular land, given the size of it. There are large vacant lots on there, and I suspect that this Government is going to move very shortly to call it a social housing project and deny the rights of Ng\u0101 Whare Waatea Marae, which has occupied that area for a long time. This is the ambiguity that comes out of a rushed process where people are not heard\u2014where the democratic process is not engaged. People outside of these walls do not have an opportunity to contribute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2795c4f377b4eb797c499292da14a20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2795c4f377b4eb797c499292da14a20\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022481dc01586bb42b9b1b13180d825b94a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000257\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 10 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000258\u0022\u003Einsert after new section 15(3) the following subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000259\u0022\u003E(4)\tSubsections (2) and (3) and this subsection are repealed on 15 September 2026.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ce10ededc45c47999a71daa7ec406a41\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022af31a468af5543c18f832e69f6d9c1ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af31a468af5543c18f832e69f6d9c1ef\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: The question now is that Metiria Turei\u2019s amendment deleting clause 10, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211, is out of order\u2014sorry. This is a statement, not a question. Metiria Turei\u2019s amendment deleting clause 10, set out in Supplementary Order Paper 211, is out of order as inconsistent with the previous decisions of the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003Ein chapeau of section 15(2), replace \u201Cif\u201D with \u201Cas part of or immediately following the development of State housing land or erection of dwellings and\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228f4cd649f17f4b38a3b12ad4393a8ed2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000263\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kelvin Davis to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000264\u0022\u003Einsert in section 15(3), after \u201Cany\u201D in the second place it appears, \u201Ccurrent or future\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a8171c8cdd3f4dbe97f4c4bd5c83394b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b3be9a0b365d4506a3b898625d03209f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c578a555bba94659872f7201f6c9b023\u0022\u003ENew Part 3  Amendment to Housing Corporation Act 1974\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00222b77c595d7054688b66965b04333a936\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b77c595d7054688b66965b04333a936\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I am really pleased to see this new Part 3. I think there is no doubt that this is going to significantly strengthen what is a flawed and disappointing bill, based on the first two parts. Part 3 will really strengthen this bill. It is quite consistent with the goal of this bill, which is housing affordability and, particularly in this case, an increase in the supply of housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe made a number of criticisms in the first and second readings, especially when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was in the chair, about the limitations of the Government\u2019s policy of special housing areas. It has yielded very few new homes in the 3 years since the Government legislated the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. We have seen in Auckland\u2014I think, in 3 years\u2014only 1,300 new homes have been built in the special housing areas. It is highly debatable how many of those would not have been built if the Act had never been passed in the first place. At best we can say the special housing areas have perhaps brought forward some houses that would have been in the pipeline anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe other big defect, of course, in this whole policy approach is that it has resulted in very few affordable homes, which, after all, is what people are so desperate for. We have seen in Auckland\u2014Dr Smith was kind of pressured by Auckland Council and this Parliament into allowing a requirement for 10 percent of new dwellings in the special housing areas in Auckland to be required to be affordable. But we know, also, that in other parts of New Zealand where he negotiated housing accords he refused point-blank to allow a requirement for a certain percentage of affordable homes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe approach that we see set out in Part 3 of this bill is a whole different approach to tackling this problem, and it recognises that we currently have a broken housing market. In fact\u2014yesterday, I think\u2014Dr Smith, Minister for Building and Housing, acknowledged to Newshub, I think it was, that he was willing to concede that the Auckland housing market is \u201Cout of control\u201D. After 8 years in Government and after 3\u00BD years as housing Minister, he has acknowledged not that there is a housing crisis but that the Auckland housing market is \u201Cout of control\u201D. One of the ways it is out of control is that it is not delivering any affordable houses. Only about 5 percent, according to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister\u2014only 5 percent of the new homes that are being built are affordable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EPart 3 of this bill, which I will dub the \u201CKiwiBuild\u201D part of this bill, would actually result in the construction of thousands and thousands of new, high-quality, affordable homes for first-home buyers. What this part does is it amends the Housing Corporation Act and says that the Minister for Building and Housing\u2014for the moment let us assume that is the Hon Dr Nick Smith\u2014must ensure that affordable housing is built\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d768a2f7d8744c8f8435ff8ec51fde01\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Not in about an hour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bd2f963875e4808b64208f710338752\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014for the moment\u2014that the Minister for Building and Housing must prepare a plan in consultation with the corporation for the delivery of 10,000 affordable houses per year for first-home buyers. This is the first decent housing policy that we have been able to debate in this House for many a day. For years\u2014how many years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c690b641c4ef4869bcc3f6341c7c24b2\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Eight long years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0dee9515e7d403181ac6b208d75ded6\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: For 8 long years we have had to come to this House and debate one inadequate, ad hoc, piecemeal, panicked housing policy after another. Finally, hallelujah, we get to debate a proper housing policy. It happens to be a housing policy that a majority of New Zealanders support, according to the most recent opinion polls. I think it was about 60 percent of New Zealanders who said they wanted to see a Government-backed building programme to deliver large numbers of high-quality affordable homes for first-home buyers. So, happy days. Our time has come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3726f2bcd2e46bb8f95b9779eef0f3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3726f2bcd2e46bb8f95b9779eef0f3c\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Can I just start my contribution by doing something that I have not done yet in this debate. There has been some acrimony during the debate\u2014it has been quite heated\u2014so I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Building and Housing for giving us the chance today to debate proposed Part 3 of this bill. Without him, we would not have had this chance today to debate this excellent proposed Part 3 put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford. We have not had the opportunity to debate a policy of this depth, and one that will make this much difference to the supply and affordability of housing in New Zealand, until today, so I want to thank the Minister for Building and Housing for bringing this omnibus bill to the House so that we can have this debate today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI want to pick up my colleague Phil Twyford\u2019s comments about what the Minister said yesterday, because the Minister did give an acknowledgment yesterday that the Auckland housing market was out of control on the one hand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dac9d1689f94e7db067712dcf7fa6e1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Did not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228acb34820f004395aba0b8964b4e8eb1\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014that\u2019s exactly what it said\u2014and then, on the other hand, that he had no plans to change his approach. They were the two options: yep, it is out of control, but the Minister has no plans to change his approach\u2014a continuation of his head being placed deeply in the sand, unable to see that he might have an alternative. So today in proposed Part 3 we have that alternative for the Minister. We are answering his question, and it is the implementation of a measure that will actually build affordable housing. The Minister, when he came to the House yesterday, said that this bill was about improving the supply of housing and improving affordable housing. We reluctantly supported Part 1 as having a minuscule impact on that point of increasing supply and increasing affordable housing. Now here we are in proposed Part 3, where we are really doing it, with 10,000 affordable houses per year\u201410,000 affordable houses per year. Is this needed, Mr Chair, you may well ask? Well, it most certainly is, because we know that we are thousands of houses short of what is needed in Auckland and around the rest of the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EA lot of the debate on this bill so far has focused on Auckland. I want to make the point that proposed Part 3 does not specify Auckland, and for a very good reason: there are other areas of New Zealand facing housing stress right now when it comes to affordable housing. This could apply in areas like Wellington, Tauranga, and Queenstown\u2014the places that are really under stress at the moment in terms of whether or not there is affordable housing. So this is needed. We are around 40,000 houses short since National came into office, in terms of what is needed in Auckland for the pipeline of affordable housing. In this proposed Part 3, somebody is finally stepping up in this House and saying: \u201CWe\u2019re going to put a number on it\u201410,000 houses per year.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ENo doubt, should those members get off their chuffs and get up, we will hear the negativity from National telling us that it cannot do this and that we do not have the labour force. That party used to be ambitious for New Zealand, but that is all gone. It is all negativity. Well, here is the chance. They can recapture some of that ambition and back proposed Part 3\u201410,000 affordable houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EBut there is more. There is more in this proposed Part 3, because Phil Twyford has put this up not just with a pipedream of 10,000 houses but with a plan to do it. \u201CWithin six months of the completion of the plan required under subsection (1)\u201D to build those 10,000 affordable houses, that copy will come back to this House. That is about democracy. That is about making sure that this House knows that this will happen. This is not just a Government coming here saying: \u201CWe\u2019re going to have a special housing area and there might be some houses here and there might be some houses there.\u201D This is an actual plan that will come before this Parliament. And then the Minister for Building and Housing\u2014now, this might be a stretch for the current Minister, but we will see\u2014\u201Cmust ensure that all targets set out within the plan are met and report to the House of Representatives annually on its progress.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESo rather than the Minister\u2019s current approach, which is to deny and divert\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edf7db005f0a416695ff6d93068e6a6c\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Are you on Part 3?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcdb815197784ed6a11b08cc3402c6b0\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: I am on Part 3. I am reading it out, Gerry, actually.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1513081b7e94a8dad72ff969a6252a2\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Part 3?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294c2d10f08b241b78c54f4fcf7b9c99e\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Part 3\u2014right here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ac9f71b38114acda9644c69cbb9c996\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re reading your proposal. You\u2019re mixed up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7e7d412cf804fa9b3033bc63515b4b4\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, no. Part 3\u2014right here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210c534a9b5a544a185a4a00af2fa253e\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: A little confused.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298f08d71ef834b7f9004151bc8a12494\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Part 3\u2014right here, mate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee91c644c7524b73b7efa0766a44f173\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Someone give him the right bit of paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2f85a454b3a4163a4bdd575375d0470\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Part 3\u2014right here. It is all good, Gerry. It is all on the amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThis is the problem with the Government: it does not understand. It does not understand that it actually takes Government leadership to get affordable housing. That is what Part 3 will deliver. The Government should back it. It has not done anything else that is useful in terms of affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00226c08f84372524b4aa1f68bd1b910c21d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226c08f84372524b4aa1f68bd1b910c21d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I welcome the opportunity to debate Part 3, which has been put forward by the Labour Opposition in a proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford on this bill, because it exposes for everybody to see what a bunch of flakes those members are when it comes to housing policy. What this bill says is that if we just simply pass a bill that says that 10,000 affordable houses will be built each year, whammo! Magically, it is going to happen! That is all you need to do. It is sort of like, you know, we could pass a bill through the House and say: \u201CLet\u2019s pass a bill that says everybody has a job. Let\u2019s pass another bill: everybody be cured, and everybody be healthy.\u201D That is the sum total intellectual grunt of the Labour Opposition\u2014a magical, one-page amendment that is suddenly going to get 10,000 houses a year built. It is laughable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat is so contradictory is that when we had the first part of this bill, which would actually have provided some land to build houses\u2014oh, they are all opposed to that. They do not want us fast tracking the land planning process to get the houses built. Then when we come to say \u201CWell, actually, we think we should use some vacant Crown land to build the houses\u201D\u2014oh, no, no, no, no. The Labour Party says you cannot do that. All you have got to do is magically pass this proposed Part 3, and you will get 10,000 homes built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EHere is some news for the Opposition: the number of new homes that are being built is growing at the fastest rate on record since 1922\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022144bb5dc4c6b4c659e4211203f72852f\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Half the rate of 1974.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b5ed5c3a3604547909c4a42b4cb336e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014since 1922. No, no, let me just take Mr Little through it. In each of the last 4 years, Mr Little\u2014each of the last 4 years\u2014residential investment has grown by more than 20 percent per year. It grew by 20 percent in 2012, another 20 percent on top of that in 2013, another 20 percent in 2014, and then again in 2015. Here is a challenge for Mr Little: tell me 4 straight years ever in the last century that you have had more than 20 percent compound growth in residential construction. Tell me when ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022697d71be9eb8401ebac436fc336e0044\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: 1974 to 1978.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fca23d33743944a58d52b6fe7595ee22\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: He says 1974. Let us get the data\u2014I have got it in front of me. In 1974, under the Kirk-Rowling Government, when inflation was running at 15 percent, and they offered mortgages at 3 percent, you had one year in which house building boomed, and then the country was paying the bills for it for the next 10 years. If Mr Little\u2019s model is that of a failed Government, the 1972-75 Government, man, I want to be telling the electorate that, because the financial damage that was done at that time was a debacle. It was a 1-year boom, and it bust the following year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat is different is that this is a sustainable housing programme. This is a programme that has seen growth year after year, 4 years in a row. Independent programmes show that in the next 3 years there will be record levels of building in Auckland, to the point that a city the size of Whangarei is being built in this term of Parliament, and in the next term of Parliament there will be another. Here is the problem: when it comes to Resource Management Act reform, the Labour Party is opposed. When it comes to offering first-home buyers the help in getting a deposit with HomeStart, they are opposed. When it comes to fast tracking a new unitary plan for Auckland\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217fa4127246648e49ecc4c32291de047\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: We voted for your HomeStart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022720e7360534b43c7bb273734ef7df3b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014they are opposed. When it comes to reform of the social housing sector, I actually do not know whether they are for or against, because one minute Mr Twyford is in favour, and the next minute he is against. Actually, every member of this Committee knows that Parts 1 and 2 of this bill will get more roofs over people\u2019s heads. They will get more houses built. Actually, will I ask Sir Noel Robinson? Sir Noel Robinson says this bill is the difference between 500 houses being built in Papakura, or not\u2014500 houses in Papakura.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b5e6c5f3c5847ae846519d043871ccb\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: We voted for that one, Nick. We voted for that part of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a38a756fe354a7a8b133da27ca34555\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, actually, you voted against urgency and you voted against the introduction of this bill. Let it be plainly on the record that you blocked those. I say to members opposite that you cannot have a Wailing Wall of concern about people who are under stress on housing, and then come down to this Parliament and oppose every practical measure that we bring to get houses built; every practical measure, Mr Little, you have opposed. Mr Little and Mr Twyford are not interested in solutions. They are interested in playing the politics, getting the Wailing Wall of their inquiry, but when it actually comes to the measures that will get homes built, they are opposed. When you want to do things that will get houses built, they are opposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo I ask them this on this bill: why is it that the Auckland Council supports this bill, but the Labour Opposition does not? I hear from Labour all the time that we should be listening to local government. Why is it that Local Government New Zealand supports the extension of the special housing areas, but Labour and the Opposition parties do not\u2014do not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EActually, it is really strange\u2014over the adjournment, Labour said \u201CWe are going to declare a state of emergency over housing.\u201D, and then we come to the House and we say \u201CActually, there\u2019s a really practical thing we can do to get 8,000 houses built, and we need to go into urgency to make sure those 8,000 houses are built.\u201D, and what does it do? It opposes urgency. So can the next member speaking for Labour explain why they want a state of emergency declared on housing, but why they will not sit down and do the hard work in this Parliament and pass the bills that are necessary to get the houses built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u00229099e39d1b814b299a9540c49f9d7a6f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229099e39d1b814b299a9540c49f9d7a6f\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Whoo! Who got the Minister going again? We are now debating new Part 3, which is my colleague Phil Twyford\u2019s amendment to the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill that proposes to ensure that there are 10,000 affordable houses per year planned for, and specifically for, first-time buyers. So that is affordable. Then our Minister for Building and Housing got up and talked about the Opposition members being flakes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EGosh, Minister, we really need thousands of affordable homes. We need thousands of specifically affordable homes, not just your homes that you are planning to build that will then be available for speculators\u2014because they are the only ones who can afford those homes\u2014to be able to use for building business and capital for their own wealth, which also then gets passed on to renters, who will have to be the avenue for those speculators to recuperate their capital put-down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThat is what happens when you do not ensure affordable homes. Not only can ordinary New Zealanders not buy those homes, but renters are forced, more and more, to live in homes where speculators are able, in this current market, to charge enormous rents\u2014rents that my colleagues Phil Twyford and Marama Fox and I heard at our homelessness inquiry are diminishing families, absolutely destroying families. There was never a more urgent time when we needed thousands of affordable homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThe Minister has just stood up and declared in this Chamber that we cannot fix it. That is what he just said. He said that we cannot fix it and that we cannot have the vision of having affordable homes for our country, and he accused the Opposition members of being flakes for even suggesting the idea. That is what he just did in this Chamber, ladies and gentlemen and all genders. He just stood up and declared that we cannot have this vision\u2014we just cannot. That is this Government, ladies and gentlemen. We just cannot have this vision of the thousands of affordable homes that this country needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWe need them. Take all your resources, Government, take your special knowledgable people and work it out, have a plan\u2014that is what new Part 3 is talking about. Come up with a plan. I do not want to hear about however many houses are being built now compared with whatever other time. You should have come and sat at the table at the inquiry, looked those submitters in the eye, and had a profound understanding that we need thousands of affordable homes. This Government can do it but it is choosing not to, and that is having an impact on the everyday lives of our people\u2014our own people. Children, the elderly, families, and single people across the board need us to have that vision for our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ENew Part 3 is asking for a plan\u2014a plan to ensure that the Government will do it, because the private developers will not want to, and they have not. That is why the current bill that we are debating is even in this House, because the developers are not going to provide affordable homes. The Government has to. If it had any profound connection to our communities, it would understand this, and it would instead get up and declare: \u201CWe can fix this. We can provide thousands of affordable homes because our people need them and it will get worse if we don\u2019t. We will gather our resources, our technology, and our expertise and we will sit down and work out a plan.\u201D That is all that this new Part 3 is asking to do. At least have that ambition for our families, Mr Minister. At least declare that you want to end homelessness and that you have a vision for every person in this country to have a warm, safe, and affordable home. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThat is the vision that our country is wanting, and do you know who else had this vision? I will tell you. It was your own Prime Minister. In a debate in, I think, 2008 with the Rt Hon Helen Clark, he was asked: \u201CHow do you define \u2018rich\u2019?\u201D. The now Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, replied: \u201CWhere a family can go to sleep every night in a bed, without having to worry about money.\u201D Who does he think deserves that security? Who does the Prime Minister now see that vision is for? That is the definition of \u201Crich\u201D that he gave, back in 2008, but who does he think deserves even to go to sleep in a bed every night, let alone not have to worry about money? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ENot all of our people are going to sleep in a bed every night, and if they are, that bed might change the next night. This new Part 3 of the bill is an incredible part of the journey to change that, Minister, and you have just stood up in this Chamber and said that we cannot do it. Your Government has just declared that you cannot fix this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWell, I am glad that the Greens have a plan to. I hear that Labour has a plan to. We are the people who need to be in Government so that we can fulfil our vision for New Zealanders to absolutely not have to go to sleep at night in their beds worrying about money. That is what we heard in the inquiry, and that is being reflected in the poll result that my colleague Phil Twyford referred to earlier, where even New Zealanders who are not experiencing homelessness themselves right now understand that it is wrong\u201460 percent understand that this is not cool. This is not cool, Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EOur country can do better. We have our people as our wealth. That is our richness, and we are not protecting them. This new Part 3 of the bill, from my colleague Phil Twyford, is an incredible step in that direction. Where is your aspiration for our people? Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u002287cfae213b3e48b89e187deec817f822\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287cfae213b3e48b89e187deec817f822\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to make a couple of comments about the speech we have just heard from Marama Davidson. It was delivered in a loud, tub-thumping style that relied heavily on what was supposed to be an emotional plea to consider the proposed part that has been put forward by the Labour Party. The first question I would ask is does that member bother to look at the processes that are available\u2014through the select committees and the question facilities available to members\u2014to actually find out how many houses are being built in New Zealand at the present time, to notice what is the increase in the number of houses being built in New Zealand, and to understand how many houses the Government is actually building in New Zealand, over and above the private sector? And then, has she thought for a moment to consider why it is that developers are building houses that people apparently cannot afford? Developers do not do that. They build houses that people can afford. If they are in an upper price bracket, that frees up others in the market. That is how markets work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EBut it is not at all how the Green Party thinks. The reality is that when the calls are coming to \u201Cget a plan\u201D, it is really saying: \u201CWe love sitting in a windowless building, listening to the misery of people, and pretending that we care.\u201D Because that is what it is\u2014pretending. Anyone who votes against this bill today is just pretending that they care about people. Opposition members love the opportunity to get in front of the television and say \u201CIsn\u2019t it awful? Isn\u2019t it terrible?\u201D, but they will not do a single thing to make it move.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe speech offering from Dr Nick Smith was absolutely right. Every initiative that the Government has put forward to advance more housing being available on an affordable basis for more New Zealanders has been opposed by all of the Opposition parties\u2014all of them. I think that it would be worthwhile for the Minister in the chair, Dr Nick Smith, to reiterate all of the facts that were in his contribution before, in the hope that they might sink in. The reality here is that no plan\u2014no plan\u2014around housing can be delivered without the land, and this bill is about making the land available. Everyone knows that if it is available, it will be built on. If it is available, it will be built on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI just want to say to those people who get all excited about the average house price in Auckland\u2014they all say: \u201CIsn\u2019t it terrible? It\u2019s hit $1 million.\u201D Well, those people need to consider what averages are. They need to go and have a look at TradeMe, they need to go and have a look at New Zealand real estate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ef761ab5ae54d0ea91d66c276f712fd\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Let them eat cake\u2014let them eat cake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022124e4e2c4ed74a97ad0d34e70c74c22b\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and actually have a look at where the vast majority of houses and the prices on them sit. The reality is\u2014I know that Mr Hipkins was absent last night. I cannot say he was absent from the House, but he was actually in the vicinity of Parliament watching the Auckland housewives programme. He was telling me about that this morning. He was fascinated that one of them was considering buying a $7 million property and saying it would be lovely for their family. That is not reality; that is somebody else\u2019s dream. But that house will sell at that price and it will affect the average that is paid for an Auckland house.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EIt does not, though, reflect the average aspirations of people who simply want to live in a house, or what they can afford to pay and what is available to them in the market. So for all the impassioned pleas that we got from the member earlier saying \u201CPlease, sit in a room, join with all the best brains,\u201D\u2014apparently they are all in the Opposition\u2014\u201Cand come up with a plan for sorting out affordable housing.\u201D, without the land, that is not possible. This bill is about making that land available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI also take issue with the commentary from Phil Twyford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ed06d25dfc44a35a5915e4cbdceec41\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: On or by?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd1920ce6487486e9f5c7e98afc3b2aa\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014well, by. I can understand why he would take issue with the commentary on him, but I want to assure him that I do not listen to too much of that. I think he is one of the better-performing members of the Labour Party. He deserves his place on the front bench and, in that regard, he is a shining light among what is a pretty dark offering, or\u2014that is not fair either\u2014a dim offering. When he talks about the fact that Labour supports initiatives to increase housing in New Zealand and to increase the amount of affordable housing in New Zealand, his argument\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u00226214712257f84a31813096dd6eeab3fa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226214712257f84a31813096dd6eeab3fa\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E I understand why the Hon Gerry Brownlee is so dismissive of averages, because that was a below average performance, the likes of which we have not seen for a long, long time in what has otherwise been a scintillating political career. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EI want to respond to some of the assertions made by the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, who, in typical National style, has heralded the great, bounteous virtues of its excessive building programme, claiming to have stated facts, but there was not a fact amongst them. The reality is that when you look at the house-build programme at the moment, it is below the number of houses that were consented in 2004. Last year there were 9,651 houses consented, compared with over 12,000 in 2004\u2014so much for the biggest building programme ever in the history of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EBut here is the telling figure. Here is the telling figure. If you have a look at the build rate per 1,000 people in New Zealand\u2014because, let us face it, when you have got a bigger population, of course you should be building more houses. We have got more people and we have got a rapidly growing population. We have got to build even more houses. But if you have a look at the number per 1,000 people, sure, it is 6.3 in the past year, compared with 13.1 in 1974. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe Minister dismisses those figures and says \u201COh, but look at interest rates in 1974.\u201D Well, actually, a lot of those people were building houses under the State Advances Corporation rate of 3 percent. And then he says inflation was much higher. But hold on. We have got record low inflation right now, as measured by the CPI, we have got record low interest rates, and people still cannot afford to buy their first home. That is the truth about New Zealand today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EUnaffordability of housing has never been worse or greater or better\u2014however you look at it. Here is the thing: a lot of people cannot buy their own home. That is what is happening in New Zealand today. And if you are living in Auckland\u2014and Gerry Brownlee might be dismissive of the $1 million home. He sort of says \u201CWell, just because on this day somebody pays $7 million for a house it doesn\u2019t mean to say that a house down the road is worth as much.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EI do not know whether he understands things about property markets, because that does not make sense. What is happening right now is that in Auckland, and in other cities around New Zealand, thousands and thousands of New Zealanders\u2014people who live here; some of whom have been born here, others who have come here to live\u2014cannot afford to buy their own home because the prices are out of reach and the banks are clamping down on lending. The people trying to get the houses are working harder and harder, and saving harder and harder, and they still cannot afford to buy their own home. If they are lucky to have rich parents who can back them and bail them out, they might get their home. You hear the stories of young couples with mortgages of $800,000, $900,000, a million bucks. They are in their 30s, and they are on salaries of 60,000, 70,000, or 80,000 bucks. They have a pretty tough time. They are terrified that one of them might lose their job. They are terrified that something might change their circumstances and they will be out on the street. That is the reality for far too many people today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EAnd then there are those in other parts of Auckland City and other parts of the country who want much more modest housing and who simply cannot get it, or whose incomes are so low they are dependent on renting, and the rents have gone sky high and they cannot even afford to rent. That is why Part 3 of this bill is so vital. It is part of the endless supply of ideas that the Labour Party has to come up with in answer to the housing crisis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EThe Minister scoffs at the call to have emergency powers or to declare a state of emergency on housing. It is a crisis. We are in a housing crisis. We can do better. The miserable kinds of millimetre-by-millimetre measures that this Minister is taking are simply not good enough. They are not helping enough people in a timely enough fashion. We have to do better. Part 3, with its promise of a Minister having to prepare a plan for 10,000 houses each year, is just the start of the comprehensive package and the endless supply of constructive and positive ideas that the Labour Party has. That is why we did support the special housing area amendment, which we have just voted on, and we will support any constructive measures that will get more houses built and more New Zealanders into their own home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022829c908b8ab5476dbbf4967f8497c44d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022829c908b8ab5476dbbf4967f8497c44d\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First will vote in favour of proposed Part 3 of the bill, as tabled by the Labour Party, and will do so with considerable enthusiasm because it deals with developments and the development of affordable houses. The Minister for Building and Housing does not seem to understand this, and Gerry Brownlee especially does not understand it\u2014that this is what people want, and it is not what they are getting under this Government. This proposed Part 3 is completely consistent with New Zealand First policy, in contrast with National\u2019s vacuous claim that it has a comprehensive housing strategy when, in fact, it has none\u2014just a litany of failed policies, including the special housing areas, which have delivered only 1,300 houses over the last 3 years. All of that shows that this National Government is just a bunch of dead-heads, do-nothings, and dripping dipsticks when it comes to housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThis new part is, instead, exactly what this country needs\u2014exactly that this country needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295ec401648bf4675bd04f9fb3d969174\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Double the number of houses by doubling the number of letterboxes!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e39bb79f09f6405c96e0ffbc1121ee8b\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: What this country does not need is a Minister like the failed Gerry Brownlee, in every portfolio that he has got. What New Zealand First wants is a housing commission. We want a housing commission reporting to this house so that it can carry out the long-term strategic planning that has never really happened for housing in this country. We want to see that happen, well-resourced with people who know what they are doing, who are out of the political arena, and who can do it objectively and effectively. We also want that body to establish a company, which we call \u201CKiwi Housing\u201D, and we would want that company to buy developed land, sell it on easy terms, or sell already-built houses to the public. That is exactly what we want the Government to do, and we want that to happen because we know that the private development market in this country cannot cope with the current situation. It has not been able to cope for the last several years, yet this Government says: \u201CLet\u2019s hand more and more of the responsibility for that over to them.\u201D That is all it is doing\u2014nothing more. That is absolutely not enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhat New Zealand First targets as housing, for the whole of New Zealand but especially for Auckland, is 20,000 houses per year. I am not just doing one-upmanship over the Labour Party; this is based on my reading of what is required under the Auckland Unitary Plan. Over 7 years that would amount to 140,000 houses, and the Auckland Unitary Plan indicates that that is the scale of housing that is actually required. A target of 20,000 houses a year by the Government, with direct Government investment, is actually completely achievable. That Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, does not think so. That is because he is not capable of it and neither is his whole Government, but anyone with any ability and any determination and the right approach to housing would be capable of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhen I look at the last part of this proposed Part 3, I can see that it does some very important things in terms of what it is about, and that is to ensure that houses are affordable. I am not going to get into the argument about how you define affordability because all we need to do is ensure that the new entities I have spoken of would ensure that houses actually get built, effectively by the Government and by direct investment in homes, and in homes that are on modest-sized sections\u2014modest-sized homes\u2014and for, therefore, modest prices. Not only that, there need to be mechanisms for people to be able to buy those homes directly on easy terms. That is also in New Zealand First\u2019s policy, and it should be the sort of thing that we would see happen under the provisions for proposed new section 50U, \u201CCorporation to manage affordable housing development\u201D, under this proposed new part of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EOther parties do have comprehensive and actually effective housing plans and strategies, which this Government does not have. That Minister, the \u201CMinister of Homelessness\u201D in this country, should step down, and the whole Government should get out of Government in this country and let others do what we can do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00222b4fe4152bc844af8b6ef4efd2ea43af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b4fe4152bc844af8b6ef4efd2ea43af\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E We now have a bid-up on the flaky, one-page policy from the Labour Party, which says, with a one-page amendment, we will magically build 10,000 affordable houses per year\u2014we have got the New Zealand First policy. The New Zealand First policy is that we just put a one-page amendment and we magic the number\u2014let us do 20,000 houses per year, with a one-page amendment\u2014and, magically, we have suddenly built the houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe very first point is\u2014because I know there are colleagues on the Opposition benches incapable of reading, so I have done a really simple graph. This is the level of residential investment, in inflation-adjusted terms, of about the last 25 years\u201425 years\u2014and what it shows\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022920801cf94bc49d6b8fc579f0dfd3939\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the source?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da31ae3940344e7d92547443e24d0021\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014is that over the last\u2014oh, the member says: \u201CWhat\u2019s the source?\u201D. The source is Statistics New Zealand, and it records the level of residential housing investment\u2014and guess what? It shows that over the last 5 years there has been the biggest increase\u201420 percent growth every year, for 5 years\u2014in the amount of new home construction and residential investment in New Zealand. But I can do even better than that\u2014I have got the figures all the way back to 1922. So I have another challenge: tell me the years\u2014and I say it to New Zealand First, I say it to the Green Party, I say it to the Labour Party\u2014tell me 4 years any time in New Zealand\u2019s history in which there have been faster real increases in the level of housing investment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI have got another lovely graph that I would like to share with the House, and this is a graph\u2014just for the excitable members of the Labour Party\u2014that shows the level of ratio of house prices to average earnings. Again, this is prepared by Statistics New Zealand. What it shows is that in 1999 the ratio of house price to income in New Zealand was 4:1\u20144:1 in 1999. Members will know there was a huge deterioration\u2014see, the graph leaps up. Things completely went to custard\u2014and what years were those? That was from 2003 to 2008. The ratio went from 4 to 8. My question is this: what Labour housing legislation did we have between 2004 and 2008? Zero\u2014not a single bill. We had the worst deterioration in New Zealand history and you did absolutely nothing, and then between now and 2016, that ratio has not moved. So I say to Labour members: shame on you. The worst deterioration occurred in housing affordability, and they did absolutely nothing. Over the last 4 years we have seen the strongest growth in residential construction ever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EHere is the last point I would like to make: this magical amendment says that you can build 10,000 houses every year. I have got a lovely quote here from Mr David Parker from the 2014 election campaign. He said this: \u201CIt would not be possible to build 10,000 houses in our first year, nor our second year or third\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276d1d625db3d482298e1551251859632\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, rubbish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe654273d96546a980f1707ca8f10d16\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: That is what you said. In fact, you said: \u201Cit would take us 5 years to ramp it up to 10,000 homes per year.\u201D That is what he said\u2014but do you know what?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd5c72136bd54badaacc654263141205\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Come on, sunshine\u2014what\u2019ve you done?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242ca1e41d54748e48ad0db2da79b7fb1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell you what we have done: when we came to Government, New Zealand was building 13,000 houses a year, and that number is now 29,000 per year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00229f0c8f280d914a89b675c628c3eac9ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229f0c8f280d914a89b675c628c3eac9ef\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to present some statistical information, which I will shortly acquire from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220149f43a71834dbdbf5a29c2eb744a28\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the member whether it is material that is otherwise publicly available?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222660af8eeb2840ae9dcef99b559ab51e\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it will very soon be available on the Hansard record, and I would advise anybody interested to read it there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218d6d2195fb44a68b55b1985648fda83\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. Can the member just answer the question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d971c7c041754462b94d927ed7deeb5b\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: That would be publicly available.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222ae393e431f4ad4932c47ed37c73b58\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: It is publicly available. Then I am not going to put the leave to the Committee, based on the precedents from my predecessors in the Chair. Has the Minister finished?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c30f5960b82c42b4bb0ebebca1d5e92a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b577966706942dabf2f98324aa8f695\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think, on that basis, the next speaker had better be the Hon David Parker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00226aac76bcc28e4b899a3a24759456234f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226aac76bcc28e4b899a3a24759456234f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The point I was making before the election, of course, is that KiwiBuild, in addition to all of the houses that are currently being built by the private sector, would add to supply. Of course it would not add to supply overnight, because you have got to issue contracts and you have got to get planning consents. We promised that we would build 100,000 extra affordable houses over a 10-year period. The Minister for Building and Housing, in the last day or so, with Paul Henry, admitted that the Auckland housing market is out of control\u2014the first time that he has admitted that there is a crisis, but he still will not use the word. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI heard our colleague from New Zealand First describe him as the \u201CMinister of Homelessness\u201D. I prefer the alliteration of the new term that has been devised in this debate, which is the \u201CMinister of Houselessness\u201D. I think that is going to stick. Minister, why is it that we are bringing forward all of these credible additions to housing policy to fix this problem? It is because we do have a state of emergency. We have got the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s, and it is still going down. We used to have higher rates of homeownership than Australia; now we have got lower rates of homeownership than Australia. The average house price in Auckland has risen to $1 million, and the median has gone up too. We have got people living in garages, in cars, on the streets\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e73466a866e4e158515426b22444c9d\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Under bushes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022348fbba7e8af4569b47ff8024fb250f3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014under bushes, and under bridges. We have got homelessness in numbers that we have never seen, ever in the history of New Zealand. We have got economic consequences that are going beyond the housing market and into the rest of the economy, where exports are down and speculation is up. We have got people having to spend far too much on housing, and they are not investing enough in the real economy, which is where jobs and higher incomes come from. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe have got Reserve Bank policy now ineffective because the banks are not passing on interest rate cuts. The banks are saying that prices are parlously high, and they are worried that if they drop interest rates they will feed the bubble and make things worse. In the midst of all that, we have the \u201CMinister of Houselessness\u201D. Cartoons in the last day have shown that he has not got the screen appeal of Agent 86, but the Maxwell Smart of National does seem to be embarking on operations for KAOS rather than for the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe have heard from the Minister who has just sat in the chair, Gerry Brownlee. His answer to New Zealand when he said that these higher prices do not matter was: \u201CNew Zealanders, follow my example; eat cake.\u201D We have had the saboteur from National come forward with a policy that says that we need an omnibus bill. Why did the Government do that? It wanted to whack through, under urgency, changes to the long-established principles under the Public Works Act that people, as part of their rights if they have a property taken off them compulsorily, should actually have it offered back to them in some circumstances. It wanted to change that rule of decades to preserve it for a subset of the population, which is M\u0101oridom, but for non-M\u0101ori rights holders, in respect of land previously compulsorily acquired and then disposed of, it did not want to confer that old right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo what did the Government do? It had this clever idea of an omnibus bill. The Speaker ruled that in order for that to be justified, this has to be a wide debate. So, as a consequence, it has offered the Labour Party the ability to put forward comprehensive housing policy as to how we would fix this housing crisis, which brings me to Part 3. Mr Chairman, you will hear other parts, I am sure, relating to some of the other matters that the Minister in the chair, Gerry Brownlee, raised recently, relating to the need for Resource Management Act reform, and we have got some ideas around urban boundaries that we have already announced and will be discussing later in this debate. But this one is actually getting the Building and Housing Group, through the Minister for Building and Housing, to bring forward a plan for affordable housing. You know, of the 1,300 houses that have been built in these affordable housing areas, fewer than 150 of them have been affordable, but we need tens of thousands of affordable houses, and 150 from this failed special housing area shows we need this plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022e013ecd9b8094ca1aa751362d0792fd5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e013ecd9b8094ca1aa751362d0792fd5\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour\u2014Napier):\u003C/span\u003E The reason why new Part 3 is such an anathema to the Government is that it lists, in this first clause, everything that the National Government is not doing. But, first of all, let me just address a couple of things that the Hon Gerry Brownlee said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EWhat Gerry Brownlee did was he highlighted the major difference between the National Government and a Labour Government. Mr Brownlee believes that the market will deliver optimal outcomes, always. So you leave it to the market, the Government does not have to do anything, and away you go\u2014you will get optimal outcomes. A Labour Government believes the Government actually has a role in providing the settings and the regulation and an environment where citizens actually can do well, and when markets are not working, then the Government must step in. And this is why new Part 3 of the bill actually delivers for Kiwis. It is Labour\u2019s attempt\u2014it is Labour\u2019s solution; it is its plan\u2014to say: \u201CDo you know what? At this point in time the market isn\u2019t working. The Government has a very important role to play, and this is a plan.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ELet me go through new section 50T(1) in new clause 12 and highlight the words that actually make this work. The first one is \u201Cmust\u201D\u2014\u201CThe Minister of Housing must\u201D. It is not \u201Cmay\u201D. It does not denote any sort of voluntary, subjective actions; it says that the housing Minister \u201Cmust\u201D do something. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ELet us use this in an ordinary context. \u201CHe must turn up or else he will be in serious trouble.\u201D\u2014it is \u201Cmust\u201D. Throughout this bill that we are debating at the moment, there are a whole lot of \u201Cmays\u201D and this sort of stuff, which means that the Minister might do something if he feels like it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe second word is \u201Cprepare\u201D. What \u201Cprepare\u201D actually means is you have got to do some serious work\u2014not ad hoc, not get a bill and rush it through under urgency, not sort of hoodwink the people, but you have got to do some serious work. So the housing Minister \u201Cmust prepare\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe next words are \u201Ca plan\u201D. \u201CA plan\u201D means you have actually got to have something that you can deliver. Again, it is about work, but it is also about putting a vision out there\u2014something that you can take to the public that they can take hold of and believe in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ESo what we have got so far is that the housing Minister must prepare a plan. Now, here is the big word: \u201Cin consultation\u201D. What \u201Cconsultation\u201D actually means is sitting down and understanding the issues from the people who really know what is happening. It means really getting a grip with those who are going to have to deliver them, those who will end up benefiting from them, and those who have got to end up making the laws. Rushing legislation through Parliament under urgency is not about consultation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EDoing what Nick Smith is doing at the moment without consultation is not good law, and that is why, yet again, we are back here. You know, I have been back for, what, 18 months, and it seems that the majority of the bills that I have been speaking on are remedial bills that are amendments to sort out a bill that was passed 1, 2, or maybe 3 years ago. It is just really sloppy, because I do not think that the level of consultation has been strong enough or robust enough to actually come up with good law in the first instance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe fifth word that I want to highlight is actually \u201Cdelivery\u201D. \u201CDelivery\u201D actually means achieving results\u2014not talking about it, not saying \u201CWe will do this.\u201D, but actually achieving it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ELet us put this in ordinary usage\u2014for example: \u201CHe delivered on his promises.\u201D That means that what he did is he came through with what he said that he would do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe sixth term is \u201C10,000\u201D\u2014\u201C10,000\u201D sounds pretty simple. It is 100 times 100, or 10 times 1,000. It is not 1,300 into 70,000. It is actually a defined target that we will meet. It sends it out there, and it is a promise that we will deliver on\u201410,000. People understand it, and it will make a difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe seventh word I want to talk about is \u201Caffordable\u201D. The definition of \u201Caffordable\u201D has been talked about for the last 24 hours in this Chamber, but \u201Caffordable\u201D is not over $500,000. \u201CAffordable\u201D means that people have a realistic chance of actually getting into the market. They know that they can have an aspiration, they can have a dream, and they can have something to look forward to because they know it is achievable. \u201CAffordable\u201D means that New Zealanders can have a chance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAnd the final one is \u201Cfirst home buyers.\u201D I am not talking about speculators; I am not talking about overseas investors. So when you add this up, it says: \u201CThe Minister of Housing must prepare a plan in consultation \u2026 for the delivery of 10,000 affordable houses per year for first home buyers.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u00221370bd9f8a1c4e63b0c44ac825ea5683\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221370bd9f8a1c4e63b0c44ac825ea5683\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e Te Whare. I am delighted to see some passion in this Chamber. Unlike Minister Brownlee, passion is what this is about. Nick Smith showed enormous passion. Passion for development, passion for investment, passion for speculation, passion for business as usual, passion for ignoring Part 3, which is proposed in an excellent amendment from the Labour Party, which has given us something to hope for and hold on to in this ridiculous debate, which, prior to that, was about nothing useful at all. So if people want to dis members of Parliament for being passionate, they better not go out there on the street\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022733e6da87fd54ff7bbbce5914b4da4ad\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: They better not!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf6d30a55bd644f28536aaa649af67ae\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: They better not go\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bb5328ea3344c189e39a22b41fa2510\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t show passion!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229de834dbb0264f4a898f311f6864c43c\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: Do not go out there and tell people to not be passionate. If you are sleeping in your car and you wake up in the middle of the night, the person is passionate to have a home. And how does it go down in the Chamber? \u201CDon\u2019t get passionate, Marama Davidson. Don\u2019t show any feelings. This isn\u2019t about feelings. Let\u2019s get some graphs instead. You cannot build a house out of a graph, but if we get up a whole lot of graphs, it will look like we\u2019re doing something.\u201D Fail, fail, double fail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI want to just congratulate the Labour Party on actually having a plan, because we have been fighting about housing in this House for a few years, and the Labour Party has got a plan that we can all buy into because it has got specific targets for actually doing something for people. The homelessness inquiry backs up what this plan talks about. The homelessness inquiry backs up the need for passion. What makes change is passion; it is not graphs, people. Nobody gets passionate about a graph except people who do not understand what passion is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b80cf0b0dec4b558e24929abd02efeb\u0022\u003EMarama Davidson\u003C/span\u003E: Or connection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295065e07097b43bf9c778e6372c88cce\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: Passion and connection are the most important things for families who feel like they are being ignored by this Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EIt is a bit like swimmable rivers\u2014the same Minister says we cannot have swimmable rivers because it is all about birds. This same Minister is talking about housing, \u201CWe can\u2019t have affordable housing because\u201D\u2014dot, dot, dot, dot, dot. \u201CThe graph says everything\u2019s OK.\u201D It is all about \u201Cno\u201D, it is all about \u201Cnot\u201D, and it is all about \u201Cwon\u2019t\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003ELet us get on to Part 3, because this is about something constructive, and I want to tautoko the comments of the previous speaker, Stuart Nash, who looked at the language. Language is important. Language is critical. The language that he referred to is very, very important. It is really important that there are dates in this Part 3 amendment. It is really important that it says: \u201CWithin six months of the completion of the plan \u2026 the Minister must present a copy of the approved plan to the House of Representatives.\u201D Wow, that sounds a little bit real\u20146 months!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EIf you are living in a car, 6 months seems like quite a long time to wait, but I think people understand that; if there is a plan they would be prepared to hold on. They would be prepared\u2014as have Te Puea Marae, Manurewa Marae, and all the marae\u2014to say there needs to be a plan, and that they are working towards a plan. But this bill, this ain\u2019t a plan. Except for this part, this bill ain\u2019t a plan. Well, it is if you are passionate about investment, if you are passionate about speculation, if you are passionate about taking away land that belongs to M\u0101ori, if you are passionate about looking like you are doing something when you are really not doing something\u2014yup, it is a plan for that. But it is not a plan for people who are homeless, not a plan for first-home buyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EWhat I like about this plan is that it acknowledges\u2014and I said this last night when I talked about the State Advances Corporation and the ability that we had in my day. Not that it is over; I am still passionate, obviously. In my day, you could get a home as a first-home buyer and start your life. That is what this part actually says\u2014it says you can do those things: \u201CEnsure that the houses are sold to first home buyers and are not used for speculation;\u201D. Oh my goodness, a rule about speculation! Praise the goddess, somebody cares. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI do not want to hear from a Minister of the Crown in any Government that it is faux emotional to give a damn about homelessness, about houses being inaccessible and unaffordable. If the Government has completely lost touch, that is one thing, but we have not. The people on this side of the Chamber, we are prepared to do something. We just want to do something, because if we do not do something, the fabric of our society means that everyone will sleep badly. The rich will sleep badly inside their speculator-driven, investment-rich barbed wire fences and, on the outside, the poor in their cars and garages will sleep badly as well. So we need to stand up for this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022415b643abd7e42ac97ed016800881835\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022415b643abd7e42ac97ed016800881835\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E Earlier, the Hon Annette King asked the Minister where the regulatory impact statement for Part 2 was. The Minister responded by saying that we should take his word for it\u2014that nothing untoward would happen\u2014and the image that came to mind was President Richard Nixon when he said: \u201CI am not a crook. I am not a crook.\u201D We all know what happened to him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELater on, the Minister came down to this Chamber and showed some graphs to show how good a job he has been doing, trying to tell us that the supply of housing has increased under his ministership. But I have to say, he was so animated in that contribution that all I could see was the image of somebody that needs to be in a straitjacket and not have anything to do with housing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285b7fc06db9f4097a8b347721559aea3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. The member will resume his seat. I think the member has gone a little bit far there, and he should be more restrained in his comments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ccfdbf4fa014327a8c98a7f8ec9d1ac\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister asked this Committee to explain why there is a need for a state of emergency on housing. I want to spend a bit of time talking about that, because, despite those graphs, we have today the average price of housing in Auckland at $1 million. Why is that? Because there is a short supply of housing\u2014a short supply of housing\u2014and we have an increasing population. Today, as of last year, we have the highest population increase since 1974.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe Minister, I believe, is wrong when he brings those graphs down and says that he has been doing a good job. The only reason house prices are, on average, over $1 million in Auckland is because the Government has not done its job in increasing housing supply. Why is it that since this Government came into power, homelessness\u2014people living in cars\u2014has increased by 20 percent? That is why we are calling for a state of emergency. Why is it that today we have 42,000 people living in cars, living in overcrowded conditions? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EPart 2\u2014and I have heard Gerry Brownlee say this is about increasing the number of affordable houses. I do not understand how Part 2, which is about removing the rights of people, is going to be able\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f381ecff654491b9036a39ab9b06faa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: We are debating Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fbe901de3bcc4679bbf1ea59d1b22754\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014to increase the supply of affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EPart 3, however, is what ought to be happening. This is the part that discusses the exact number of houses that should be a target. Part 3 is about having a plan to increase supply. Nothing in Part 1 or Part 2 suggests that the supply of housing will increase, so this is what needs to happen. The Minister says that his Government is doing all it can, but the reality is that unless it addresses the supply of housing, unless it cracks down on foreign speculators, unless it changes what the real purpose of Housing New Zealand ought to be, none of that will happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe purpose of Housing New Zealand, from the outset, was about helping people in need. Those members have changed that, and today it is because of that that we are seeing an increasing number of people in homeless situations. The only way that this Government can address that, if it is sincere about it, is increasing the number of houses\u2014not only in the private sector, but also in the social sector. But how can those members do that when it is their policy to sell off State houses? How can they increase that supply for those in need if they are selling State housing into the private sector? Those are the conflicting aims of what they are proposing, as opposed to what we are introducing here in Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EUnless houses are built, unless houses are affordable, the rest of New Zealand will not be able to buy into the market. At the moment, with the average price of houses in Auckland, it is only the top 10 percent of income earners who can afford houses at those prices. But the top 10 percent of income earners will not be buying houses for themselves. They already have houses, so if they are in the market, it is because they are in the speculative market. The only way that somebody on an average income of $60,000 can afford a house is if housing is made more affordable, and we can do that only by increasing supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u0022374ae269fde340a0a4ca14b2f6781017\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022374ae269fde340a0a4ca14b2f6781017\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to speak to the new clause 12 in new Part 3, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Phil Twyford for putting forward this extremely important part of this legislation. But I do have a concern about it because section 50T(1), in new Part 5B in new clause 12, says: \u201CThe Minister of Housing must prepare a plan in consultation with the Corporation \u2026\u201D. I also want to pay homage to my colleague Stuart Nash and thank him for breaking down some of the language around some of the functions that we want to achieve with this new Part 3, but I have serious concerns about its achievability with the current Minister for Building and Housing. That is the point that I would like to make. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EIf we are asking the current Minister of housing to prepare a plan, we would want a Minister of housing to have experience of preparing a plan, and from what I have seen of Minister Nick Smith in the period that he has been the Minister for Building and Housing, I would say that all of his policy interventions have been, to use a word I do not use a lot, extemporaneous\u2014that is, without prior planning or thought or preparation. What we have seen from the Minister in the past 4\u00BD years, I think it is, of his being the Minister for Building and Housing really has been shambolic. The fact that we are here in urgency extending one of those pieces of legislation points out to me that the Minister has not been experienced or well versed, and he has not had any success in preparing a plan and executing it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EWe also do not think that we have any chance of the current Minister of housing delivering 10,000 affordable houses. So what really needs to happen for new section 50T(1)\u2014which is amending the Housing Corporation Act 1974\u2014to be really, practically, put into place is, essentially, a change of Government. If we want someone to act as the Minister of housing and \u201Cprepare a plan in consultation\u201D\u2014and we have not seen a lot of that with this Minister, or with the other Ministers of housing, I believe, also. The lack of consultation the day before Budget day showed how much consultation goes on within those three. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThere is a lack of consultation in the ability for the current Government to provide 10,000 affordable houses per year for first-home buyers. So this amendment does set to put in a policy that will help address the housing crisis, and if the Government is true to its form\u2014Mr Nick Smith has got on his feet many times and said that we are not serious about building more affordable homes for New Zealand. Well, if Government members are serious about that, then they should, and they could, support our new Part 3. I am not holding my breath, because of the track record of the current Minister for Building and Housing. So although I think it is a great amendment to the Housing Corporation Act 1974, if we are going to really effect it, then for at least the next 12 months I think the Government should consider changing the personnel, because it simply is not going to happen with Nick Smith in the seat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThen, after the next election, new Part 3 will become much more functional, because Phil Twyford will be the Minister of housing and we will make things happen. We will get affordable housing into Auckland, especially, and into other areas of New Zealand that need it. And it is not just Auckland where affordable housing is needed. It is needed in Wellington, it is needed in areas like Rotorua and Tauranga, and it is needed in some areas in the South Island. Then, finally, the amendment that is being put forward by Phil Twyford\u2014new clause 12 in this amendment, which would insert this new Part 5B into the Housing Corporation Act\u2014will actually be able to achieve something. That is something that this Government has been woefully short of trying to achieve in its last 8 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022345dd7e313574c1aa8aa0cd32f13b962\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022345dd7e313574c1aa8aa0cd32f13b962\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Assistant Chairman, thank you very much indeed for giving me the call today. I want to address a couple of points that the Minister for Building and Housing raised in his contribution around the question of affordability of housing and the need for new Part 3, because he really was questioning whether or not there was a need for this and perhaps the Minister in the chair now, the Hon Judith Collins, might like to respond. He raised a couple of graphs with statistics up in front of the Committee that it was felt we needed to know about. Well, I want to draw the Minister\u2019s attention to the fact that he has made international headlines today. It is a huge moment in Nick Smith\u2019s political career. He has made the headlines in the United Kingdom. I will just read you the first paragraph from an article in the Guardian today: \u201CNew Zealand has the world\u2019s most frenetic property market, with prices in Auckland now outstripping London, and possibly dashing the hopes of British buyers hoping to escape Brexit.\u201D So Nick Smith is now causing a crisis and chaos not only in New Zealand but also in the United Kingdom. He has gone global with his chaotic ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EWhat the rest of this article goes on to tell us is that New Zealand has actually managed to be awarded a silver medal, which has been upgraded to a gold medal by Knight Frank, which has put together international house price rises around the world\u2014a comparative graph. If you do it without looking at it in real terms, Turkey tops the list with a 13.9 percent price increase, New Zealand is second with 11.2 percent\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d01c31a235446f7a8373c0b3b7f6705\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Get back to the part\u2014relevance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed7dea5a70e64874a693494e21cb6339\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014but if you put it into real terms, it is a gold medal - winning performance from Gerry Brownlee and the National Government. The \u201Crelevance\u201D from Gerry\u2014the relevance question. This is about affordable housing, and the world is telling Gerry Brownlee that New Zealand is getting to be the most unaffordable place in the world for housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI do have to have a caveat. That was today\u2019s news when we got the gold medal. Yesterday we got the information from the OECD that New Zealand has the second most over-valued housing market compared with rents and the second most over-valued housing market compared with incomes. So it is silver medal winning there, but gold medal winning in the latest numbers from Knight Frank, which is why the Minister was wrong in his intervention when he said everything was fine and nothing needed to change, because he has got a contradiction going on here. This is that on the one hand he is telling Newshub today that the Auckland housing situation is out of control but on the other he is saying that nothing needs to change. This is what needs to change: new Part 3 of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThroughout this debate, whenever we have managed to pry a National member or Minister off their seat to get up and talk to us, they have told us that although they understand all these problems they do not need to do anything different. Well, it is indeed the definition of madness to keep doing the same thing and expect the outcomes to change, and that is the problem with this bill. We have just had a sigh from the Minister in the chair and I do feel sorry for her, having to sit there now, because Nick Smith\u2019s housing policy is so chaotic, so out of control that the Government had to bring a bill here to correct various mistakes he has made and open up the opportunity to actually have a debate about things that will make a difference to the supply and affordability of housing. New Part 3 does that. The Minister who was in the chair, Nick Smith, came down to this Chamber and tried to deny the reason for this. It is plain to all of us on this side of the Chamber that new Part 3 fulfils that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI want to now go through new section 50U(2) to talk about the elements of what this kind of affordable housing development would look like. In particular, I want to talk about the notion of the importance of houses being sold to first-home buyers and not used for speculation, because that is the big difference between new Part 3 and Part 1 of this bill. Part 1 of this bill is the National Government\u2019s view on how one does this, which is that you simply create these special housing areas and hope\u2014hope for the best, hope that some form of affordable housing might actually be delivered in there. You do not do anything to make that happen. You do not show any leadership. You do not recognise that there is market failure. You just hope and have faith in the great, grand housing market to deliver affordable housing. It is not working, it is not happening, and that is why new Part 3 is necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6dea0aab8aa47e8bcc8c114aba866a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6dea0aab8aa47e8bcc8c114aba866a2\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E In the spirit of generosity, I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. today, notwithstanding urgency, and for there to be a third reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill to be taken from 4 p.m. today, and at its conclusion the House resume with Government orders of the day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002201224464b4714ab2acdc227073c25b1f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002201224464b4714ab2acdc227073c25b1f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that suggestion? There is objection. [Interruption] The Committee does not agree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00220f29ce0e594c4298bea0587a474f04a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220f29ce0e594c4298bea0587a474f04a6\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am not surprised that Government members want to cut this debate short, but I thank them for this opportunity to bring forward the Labour Party\u2019s comprehensive plan to deal with the housing crisis. Although they may not have any ideas for how to deal with the significant issues facing New Zealand, we do and we welcome this opportunity to debate them. I particularly welcome this opportunity to debate Phil Twyford\u2019s amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0c0fee98ed24e9e83193a358cc4b8fe\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I am just going to interrupt the member because we are coming up to 1 o\u2019clock and I do want to indicate that I was convinced by the Leader of the House to do something that was improper. I want to apologise to the Committee. I should not have put that leave, because it is leave that could have been taken only in the House and not in the Committee. The time now is to have some kai. I will resume the Committee at 2 o\u2019clock.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221422c3c9e2a4b05b40126203a4fc082\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I was barely getting started when I was so impertinently interrupted by the lunchtime break. I want to commend, and congratulate, my colleague Phil Twyford for the excellent amendment that he has put forward that provides a concrete solution to some of the housing challenges that New Zealand faces. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe amendment that Phil Twyford has put forward is the first part in what will be a comprehensive plan by the Labour Party to deal with the housing crisis in a way that the Government has failed to do, and we thank it for at least giving us this blank canvas, this opportunity\u2014this opportunity\u2014to deal with the crisis that it has created and does not have any solutions to fix it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo, moving to this particular amendment that my colleague Phil Twyford has put forward, which requires the housing Minister, with the Housing New Zealand Corporation, to develop a plan for the delivery of 10,000 affordable houses per year for first-home buyers, I want to speak first of all to a minor amendment that I have added to that, which would insert the word \u201Cnew\u201D after \u201C10,000\u201D in new section 50T proposed in new clause 12. That is very important because we have several thousand State houses already and what I would be concerned about is if the Government was to use this to, basically, justify the hocking off of the existing State housing stock and say that it was increasing the supply of affordable houses by selling off State houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBy adding the word \u201Cnew\u201D into this, we are making it very clear that this is not about tinkering around the edges or reshuffling the cards, as this Government only seems able to do; it is actually about dealing with the fundamental issue, which is that there are not enough affordable houses and we need more of them. My colleague Megan Woods will shortly be speaking to another amendment that adds a particular time frame that is required for this to happen, and I think that is a very important clarification to this also. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI want to move further forward and look at the provisions in proposed new section 50U, which are the clauses that deal with what this affordable housing development should include. It says: \u201CIn implementing the affordable housing development the Corporation must: (a) Ensure that the houses completed are affordable;\u201D. That is really important because if we reference back to the debate we had earlier about the special housing areas, we learnt during that debate that only 10 percent of 75 percent of them are actually going to be affordable houses\u2014so that is around 5,000 affordable houses out of the total of houses that are being developed. It simply is not enough. Let us be clear: the 10,000 that this proposal suggests also is not enough, but it is a start, and it is a heck of a lot better than the Government has been proposing or willing to do anything about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBetween the last census in 2006 and the one in 2013, the population of Auckland alone grew by 110,000, and the Government is saying that it thinks 5,000 affordable houses is enough. It simply is not. There is an entire generation of Aucklanders, in particular\u2014but New Zealanders, as a whole\u2014who are being shut out of the housing market because of a shortage of housing supply. I listened to the mayoral debate on Radio New Zealand National this morning as I was driving to work\u2014[Bell rung] Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b6dc09c5cc445a683208a8eacfba7a1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry, you had 1 more minute.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adf364985a224517ae82e44f2cad5ab5\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I did have 1 more minute, yes\u2014thank you. I listened to the debate on the radio this morning\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba27b6f97b5c49998d756c9eea4a1c50\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Just checking, just checking!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278e0546ab025469080413d1e6536ef02\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I listened to the debate on the radio this morning, and even Vic Crone, the National Party - supported candidate for the mayoralty of Auckland, was saying that it is a crisis and that there are not enough affordable houses, and yet the National Government is not willing to step in and actually, finally, do something about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThis proposal put forward by my colleague Phil Twyford\u2014a concrete proposal\u2014to do something about the housing crisis is an opportunity. I hope the Government will embrace it, because it has basically been saying that the Opposition is all talk and that we have not got any real plans. Well, here they are and there are a lot more of them to come. I look forward to the Government\u2019s support, because if it is actually serious about dealing with housing affordability, it will support this amendment, and it will make the commitment to build 10,000 affordable homes every year. That is the minimum that we are going to need if we are going to provide the entire generation who have been locked out of the housing market the chance to get on the housing ladder.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u00227bd33f2f57654f18a26d1882cd20ef5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bd33f2f57654f18a26d1882cd20ef5b\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on new Part 3. This morning we heard wailing and the gnashing of teeth. In fact, Annette King got up and she pleaded: \u201CWhere is the regulatory impact statement for Part 2 of the bill?\u201D. She said that the democratic process means there should be a regulatory impact statement. We now are on new Part 3 and I do not see any regulatory impact statement for new Part 3, but that is OK. That is OK. Help is on its way. I have actually started to write a regulatory impact statement myself just to support and help the member over here. I realise that this was scribbled up at last minute, and put together to try to prolong this process as well. Here is the thing on this regulatory impact statement that I have managed to put together, which, I think, could be of use to new Part 3\u2014the proposition that is here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI have to give a historical analysis of this as part of a regulatory impact statement, and this goes back to 2014. For those who can remember, the election manifesto talked about housing, and what did it talk about? Well, the first thing it talked about was the KiwiBuild scheme. It talked about 100,000 houses. It talked about over 10 years that it would take to build that. It talked about approximately $2 billion. But then we heard the Hon David Parker, and what did he say? He said that actually that was not achievable. He said: \u201CIn fact, we wouldn\u2019t do 10,000. We would do 4,000. In fact, in the second year we\u2019d do less than that\u2014possibly 2,000.\u201D My regulatory impact statement says that there is a risk here. There is a risk in this new Part 3 if it was to take place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe second thing that I think is really important in this regulatory impact statement is that coupled with the KiwiBuild scheme was the capital gains tax. Those who can remember\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022920da284c1024b4b887e203da44610e3\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Ah!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251020193d66e4457930d444158862c8b\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: That is right\u2014those members went out and said that that was important. We hear the words about speculation and speculators, but my regulatory impact statement says this: that coupled with that, if they included in the 2014 manifesto the importance around the capital gains tax\u2014we know that that was not popular. In fact, it was so unpopular that Labour had the worst election result that it has had in a series of years. So what has it done? It has taken that out. It has taken that away. It has minimised the risk to the KiwiBuild scheme. [Interruption] That is right. There is the silence of the lambs at the moment on the other side because they know this is true. They know that this is true. My regulatory impact statement is actually stating that we cannot afford that and, in fact, that will not be good enough as it is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EAs we can see in here, the report says 10,000 affordable houses, but in the regulatory impact statement that I have now there is another risk that has emerged. Although there is a prenuptial agreement between Labour and the Greens, New Zealand First is now jumping in. Denis O\u2019Rourke, this morning, said: \u201CIt\u2019s not good enough to build 10,000 houses per year. We are going to build 20,000 houses.\u201D That is how ridiculous it is, because now Denis wants to join in. He wants to have a prenuptial to join into this three-way partnership to say we could just build houses. The Minister himself said this: \u201CYou can\u2019t just throw out figures and think that that will resolve the issue around the housing affordability, around more housing. You have to have a comprehensive plan.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EDo not worry, help is on its way. I need to reiterate that in my regulatory impact report there is significant development that is happening at the moment. For instance, apparently under this term of Government, 85,000 new homes will be built. That is right. Not 100,000 in 10 years, no\u201485,000 new homes, and 40 homes per day in Auckland alone. We know that in 2008, when this Government came into play, it was around 10 homes per day, in a working day, up in Auckland. It is now at 40. There were 2,000 homes built on Crown land, and the significance of that is quite important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EAlthough we are talking about Part 3, we are talking about 10,000 homes. My regulatory impact report says that actually there is help on its way. In fact, it is here already and it coming through a National-led Government. Fifteen thousand people have now experienced\u2014that means they have been able to take the HomeStart package where what they get has been increased to $20,000, to ensure that they can actually have a deposit on a house as well. Two thousand homes have been redeveloped on Housing New Zealand land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThere are 42,000 apprenticeships, because we know that it is not just about, as new Part 3 says, having a figure to build homes. You need to, first of all, look at the construction. You need to look at land supply, and that is particularly what this bill is looking at: land supply. In ensuring that we rezone the land, we ensure that we fast track the consenting process. To ensure that is really important. I have real concerns about new Part 3 and its achievability to meet its goal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWe think that we are making a difference. The last thing I want to say is that in the construction industry, we see another 40,000 that have been added\u2014this is making a difference. This is the Kiwi Dream, not for the future, not for 2017\u2014this is the \u201CKiwiBuild\u201D scheme that is happening right now, here in New Zealand. We know it is making a difference.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00221e5755e857184dffbb81e1a63faa47d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e5755e857184dffbb81e1a63faa47d3\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I really welcome this opportunity to continue the debate on housing in New Zealand, and to talk with other members across the Chamber about the wide range of solutions that we have to resolve the housing crisis. I must thank Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee for giving us this opportunity to do so\u2014for the entire rest of the day, as I understand it. Well done, them. Let us give them a clap. Good work, National. We really did need to have this housing debate, and we appreciate the opportunity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe Green Party will be supporting new Part 3, which has been proposed by Phil Twyford, and we also welcome the opportunity to speak about the issues raised in that part. It not only provides a target, which is critical, for the number of homes that need to be built, and for which Government will then be responsible for delivering in some form\u2014there are many different ways for Government to deliver that housing, most of which involve relationships with the private sector, with the community sector, and with iwi M\u0101ori in delivering those homes. That is a very healthy approach to housing provision in New Zealand, an approach where the Government takes fundamental responsibility for making sure that citizens\u2014every citizen, every resident of this country\u2014have access to warm, dry, safe, and affordable homes, and then works with the entire New Zealand community to deliver those homes to a target. So we are very pleased to see the 10,000 homes target in this part, and we look forward to supporting it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ENot only do we need a target but we do need to make sure that those homes meet a range of criteria to make sure that they work for the communities and the people who are going to be living in them, and that they are affordable. And by affordable, of course\u2014there is a range of views about what affordable means. But at least if we say in the legislation that those homes must be affordable, we leave ourselves open to the opportunity to work through what that looks like and what that might mean\u2014I have a view\u2014and then to make sure that those homes are built to that target, too. I think that is a very wise provision. The requirement in this part for the homes to be warm and dry and meet safety standards is, I think, absolutely critical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI would refer the Committee to a current campaign that is being run by SafeKids Aotearoa. That is a child health - focused public organisation, and it does policy work and community engagement on accidental child injuries. It has some terrible numbers about the kinds of injuries that children suffer every day as a result of living in homes that are not safe for them to be living in. So it is now engaged in this fantastic campaign around the country to work, primarily with those in rental homes\u2014landlords and tenants\u2014to find ways to help support and promote safe housing for children. As we know, the majority of New Zealand children live in rental accommodation. Certainly, the majority of children who live in poverty live in rental accommodation, so it is really important for those children who have other pressures on their health and well-being that at least the home that they live in is warm, is dry, is properly ventilated, and is properly heated but also is safe in other ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI would invite members and members of the public to look at the SafeKids website and to look at that campaign, and understand that the kinds of safety measures that this incredible public health organisation is promoting in order to protect the well-being of children in homes can be provided through the changes that are proposed by Phil Twyford. And why is that? That is because Phil Twyford\u2019s amendment proposing new Part 3 of the bill does require that those new homes that are built have safety parameters built into them. It gives the Government the tools it needs to develop those standards in a much more effective way for the health and well-being of our children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThere is no doubt that New Zealanders across the country are concerned about the negative health impacts of poor-quality housing on our children. We hear about the 40,000 hospitalisations every year of children for preventable illnesses that are caused by not having a warm, dry, and safe home to live in. We know about the 150 children every week who suffer some kind of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022bdbdafb192c04f01aa6e866487403263\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bdbdafb192c04f01aa6e866487403263\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to take a call on this part, because I would like to speak to my amendment to the amendment, which Chris Hipkins foreshadowed in his contribution to the Committee. Before I do that, I would like to join other colleagues in congratulating Phil Twyford on bringing amendments to the Committee that mean that we can, in this bill, debate some real issues of substance around housing. They are things that might actually add to the debate, and, like other members, I would like to thank the National Government for giving us this extended and protracted period to debate housing in this Chamber, because it is something that we welcome. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EMy amendment is to proposed new Part 5B\u2014new clause 50T(2). What it does, according to subsection (2), is state: \u201CWithin six months of the completion of the plan required under subsection (1) the Minister must present a copy of the approved plan to the House of Representatives.\u201D My amendment to that inserts, after subsection (1), \u201Cbut not later than 1 March 2017\u201D. So it is not good enough, under this amendment that Phil Twyford has brought forward, for the Minister to sit back and do what he has done for the last 8 years, which is precisely nothing to address the issues of housing affordability\u2014so there is then an onus on the Minister to actually do something. Until we change the Government later next year, we have to have legislative requirements to get this Government to actually do something. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EMr Ngaro gave a contribution in which he told us: \u201CDon\u2019t worry, we\u2019re doing it anyway.\u201D Nobody believes that. People can look around, they can look at the gold medal that New Zealand won in terms of housing affordability just today, and see that housing affordability is at a crisis point in New Zealand. Too many New Zealanders are being shut out of the Kiwi Dream, and if Mr Ngaro thinks that the National Government is currently doing enough, then I think it is absolutely critical that we have this debate and expose the Government for the do-nothing Government that it is on the issue of housing affordability. If the people on the opposite benches think what they are doing is adequate to address the issues we have around housing affordability, it is no wonder that we are in this muddle and that we have too many New Zealanders shut out of housing affordability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ESo the amendment we are putting forward would require this Government to do something. This Government, which has had 8 years in office, has been presiding over an escalating problem. So a plan would have to be produced. That would be a first, because what we are learning every time one of the few Government members do get on their feet and take a call\u2014and I do commend the Government members who actually have got on their feet and taken a call\u2014is that more and more the layers of the onion are being peeled back to reveal just how much this Government does not understand the problem that New Zealand is facing here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat is revealed every time one of the Government members speaks is the lack of ability to grasp the real problem. The real problem is that there are not enough houses being built at an affordable price. It is the Labour Party that has come up with a plan to do that. We are going to put a plan in place, we are going to put a target in place, and we are going to build those houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThat brings me, also, to another provision in this amendment that I would like to speak to, and that is new clause 50T(3), where the Minister must report to this Parliament on progress. What we have learnt from the last 8 years is that some accountabilities have to be put in place. It is not good enough for a Government to just sit back, do nothing, and then claim, as Mr Ngaro said, \u201CDon\u2019t worry, help is already on the way.\u201D Well, that is absolute codswallop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhat is more, the people of New Zealand absolutely do not buy that this Government is doing anything to address the issue of housing affordability. It has taken a comprehensive plan from Labour. We will get the chance to debate over the course of today and tonight, and possibly tomorrow, what that comprehensive plan looks like. This Government needs to see up close what real action on housing looks like.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u00227299d3005a0e4672beab30b017db78aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227299d3005a0e4672beab30b017db78aa\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I think that sometimes in public policy debates we are, perhaps, subject to a bit of historical amnesia and perhaps we imagine a past that never really was. The great Labour narrative that came out is that, just like we are selling all the old tea towels and all the old crockery for fund-raising on the Labour website, if we could only hark back to the past, it has got to be better than Labour\u2019s present. Almost anything would be better than Labour\u2019s present, but, sadly, the past was not that good either, and it is important to understand one\u2019s own history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIf the Labour Party members were to read the excellent Gael Ferguson book Building the New Zealand Dream, one of the first things they would learn is that Michael Joseph Savage, the first Labour Prime Minister, said he would not trust the Ministry of Works to build a fowl house. The interesting thing is that when the Labour Party says the Government will build houses, it never means that the Government is going to build houses; what it means is that the Government is going to contract the building of houses out to private enterprise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThen you have to ask what the role of Government actually is. Does the Government have some magic ability to override all of the constraints on building new homes that have been currently identified as leading to a limitation on housing supply in New Zealand, high prices, and homelessness? Labour members have no such prescription in this amendment that will solve the problems of a limit of land that councils will allow anybody, including the builders contracted by the Government, to build upon. There is no solution in this amendment to solve the very real problem that infrastructure funding incentives are too weak for councils. There is nothing in this new part that will solve either of those problems, or in any of the other new parts, if we are allowed to mention those. The interesting thing is that when one starts to investigate one\u2019s history, the facts become terribly clear, and from the Labour Party\u2019s point of view, it is terribly depressing. This idea that there was once a golden age when the State built all the houses, in reality, never ever was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003ELet us take building consents for 1961, for instance\u2014a very good year for home building in New Zealand. There were 24,397 residential consents issued in our country in 1961, when only 2 million people lived here. That would be a little bit like issuing something like 55,000 or 60,000 consents for the current New Zealand population today. How many of those houses were built by the Government, or at least contracted by the Government to be built in 1961? Well, the number, you might be interested to know, was 2,749. How many houses does that leave? The Labour Party members are trying to do quick mental arithmetic. How many houses were built by the private sector in that year, 1961? There were 21,648. Even in the heyday of Labour\u2019s State home - building halcyon period the truth is simply that the private sector built almost 10 times more houses than the State ever could.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWhy it is believed that this history that never was is going to save us, I cannot understand. But what is very clear is that there is nothing in this new part that is going to solve the real underlying problems in the housing market. The fact is that those problems were never solved. The Government never built houses; it always contracted out to Fletcher\u2019s. Even in some of the best years of home building in New Zealand, the State was a bit player\u2014a 10 percent player at best.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EWe could have anticipated the porosity of this argument from the way the Labour Party members have behaved in the last 24 hours. The first half of the debate was all about due process and rushing through complicated, far-reaching reforms under urgency without due process. Then in the second part of the debate\u2014oh, wow, we are now going to introduce three new parts that are far more far-reaching in their implications, in the Committee stage with no public consultation whatsoever. Well, I guess that is just politics. I guess that is the Labour Party for you\u2014rudderless and ignorant of its own history.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022 data-id=\u00224ef65df2d89c4f0dbf47108ab6dc61ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ef65df2d89c4f0dbf47108ab6dc61ba\u0022\u003EJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to start by just referring directly to what this amendment does, because my colleague Mr Seymour seems confused. In his contribution he seemed to claim that, first, the Government cannot deliver housing, despite all the evidence, and it is the private sector that has always delivered housing. Well, we have tried that. It is not working. That is why we are here. That is the first point. The second point: this amendment is about delivering the KiwiBuild plan. If Mr Seymour knew anything about the KiwiBuild plan, he would know it is about partnering with private developers in order to deliver affordable housing, which is what most of the special housing areas that the Government has unsuccessfully delivered attempted, unsuccessfully, to do\u2014something that Mr Seymour is voting in favour of. So what he seems to be voting against, I think, as far as I can tell, is scale. He just does not want to do that many affordable houses, or is it just simply that the Labour Party has put the idea forward, and it is petty politics? Either way, this amendment is the one thing that will actually fulfil the policy goals of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EIf you go to the general policy statement in the bill, it says: \u201CThe Bill amends 2 Acts that relate to increasing the supply and affordability of housing.\u201D It does not really do either. If you go over to the second page, it says: \u201CThe purpose of the Bill is to support the wider Government programme of work to increase the supply and affordability of housing, and to maintain the momentum of strong growth in new home construction.\u201D The only place where there is momentum is in house prices. That is the only place where we have momentum, if you are asking not just in Auckland but anywhere in the country. We are not delivering houses at the pace we need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EThis amendment fulfils the general policy statement of this bill. Without this amendment, this bill really is hollow. Just because you say it, it does not make it true. This bill does not have the substantive amendments required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EComing to some separate clauses, I want to start with\u2014because there has not been much discussion about it\u2014proposed clause 50U, \u201CCorporation\u201D\u2014as in Housing New Zealand\u2014\u201Cto manage affordable housing development\u201D. This is the way that we are delivering the KiwiBuild plan. But I think what is really important here is that we are putting parameters around what the corporation has to deliver, because, unlike the special housing areas, there has not been necessarily the impetus to ensure that we are increasing stock.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003ELet me give you an example: Spring Street in central Auckland was designated a special housing area. It is a group of pensioner houses\u2014one-bedroom units\u2014of roughly 40 units, all currently held by Housing New Zealand. It decided that this was prime real estate where you could build more housing. So there was a tender process where Housing New Zealand decided that it would sell the land to a private developer, but that private developer would only be required to then lease back to Housing New Zealand\u2014how many units?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d442a64e4cd439c985482afb2580ebc\u0022\u003ELouisa Wall\u003C/span\u003E: How many?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8fd49f5b349407a82b646c44f035b93\u0022\u003EJACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Forty\u2014the same amount we already had. What an absolutely ridiculous proposition. We would put ourselves in the position of selling prime real estate\u2014and we know that, because of the way Housing New Zealand operates, it will be under market value\u2014to a developer to develop. It could put on however many private dwellings that it chooses to make a quick buck, none of which are required to be affordable, and then lease back at top dollar to Housing New Zealand the same number of units it already had. That is pure stupidity\u2014pure stupidity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003ESo it makes absolute sense that we have proposed clause 50U here in this amendment, which not only ensures that the houses that are completed are affordable but also we are ensuring that they are not used for speculators and that we are making sure first-home buyers have access to those units.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EThe other thing that is important and I want to note in this amendment is, of course, that we are focusing on speed and affordability. The average house that is currently being built in Auckland is 200 square metres. By default, it is not affordable. So having someone who goes into the market with the express purpose of building houses that are smaller\u2014smaller, yes, but the average house built in the UK now is 90 square metres\u2014is what we need, and it is not what the market is providing, Mr Seymour. We let the market try. It failed. We have the worst rate of homeownership in 50 years. This amendment, Mr Seymour, is about turning that around and actually doing what the bill claims it is trying to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022 data-id=\u00229e1049fd683f4fb0aab3e85fc06adb72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e1049fd683f4fb0aab3e85fc06adb72\u0022\u003EJAN LOGIE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to just start my contribution on new Part 3 by referencing some of the comments I heard made this week in the homelessness inquiry, because it is quite relevant this part of the bill. I will start with the comment from Shamubeel Eaqub talking about how \u201Chomeownership died in 1991, and renting sucks. The housing market is fundamentally broken, and Housing New Zealand has not built enough homes.\u201D I think that pretty much sums up the drive for this new part. It is actually taking some sound economic advice and using that as an input to drive good public policy-making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EI would also like to just go back to the context of this new part of the bill sitting within this piece of legislation and reference back to the first piece of special housing accord legislation, which also went through under urgency 3 years ago. We were told that this whole model that the Government is providing us is to bring about affordable housing and increase the number of houses that were being built. What we heard at that time was that it was necessary to be done under urgency because it showed the Government cared and that it needed to happen because if you looked at Auckland at that time, in 2013, the average house price was about $735,000 and, God forbid, there was an expectation or a possibility that the average house price might rise to $1 million within 3 to 4 years. So that legislation was needed under urgency to prevent that possibility. Well, how ironic is it that on the same day that house prices in Auckland exceeded $1 million, the Government is coming back with the same legislation to extend that same provision that has so comprehensively failed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EI am very pleased to be supporting new Part 3 of this bill, which actually has some hope of succeeding\u2014some hope of actually delivering New Zealanders affordable housing and getting those houses built. As Shamubeel Eaqub was saying, Housing New Zealand has not built enough homes, so, actually, we know what part of the solution is, and it is for Housing New Zealand to build more homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EMr Seymour can quibble over the details of who is going to be there with the hammer. Actually, nobody has ever thought that we were going to be sending Nick Smith out with a hammer. That is not what Mr Twyford is suggesting with this amendment, though, actually, it would be more constructive than what Nick Smith is doing here. This amendment is actually taking responsibility, and I do think this conversation is really important. If I am honest\u2014and I am not speaking for anyone else in my party when the arguments are coming up about how we have complained that there is not enough information for us to make our decisions on the previous parts, yet we are presenting this without people having the possibility of consulting\u2014I personally do not have faith that the Government is going to allow this to pass. But I am absolutely committed to reflecting the views we heard from the homelessness inquiry and giving New Zealand the chance to consider the alternative, and to consider that, actually, yes, this could be possible. We could have some responsible public policy intervention in housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EI do want to speak to another aspect of this new part, briefly, around the ability for these homes to be safe and warm and dry. That is also one of the problems we have with the free-market approach that the Government is using with the State housing accord, as opposed to this more direct model where, actually, we can ensure that all of those houses are warm and dry as well as affordable, improving people\u2019s health, improving their quality of life, and providing returns to the Government in terms of educational improvements, better work productivity, savings to the health budget, all round\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u0022919957f3870242a9a8ebc22e7165ec8b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022919957f3870242a9a8ebc22e7165ec8b\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To help inform the Committee in the debate, I seek leave to table figures I referred to in my earlier contribution, building permits residential building consents from\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022955fbe553fc04165937737d37a024d55\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No. My question is: is this in the public domain? Where are these figures from?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022413a09401b4e4178bfe9f93ec7c1c2e9\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: It was assembled by the Parliamentary Library for my office on 13 July this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241e8a07b0c504cabb5b9b123bcb92ef2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: From the Parliamentary Library\u2014specifically for you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b5feea6fa984bc893a38aed2b1eb373\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243043f02a5c84fbe972c5f248546ac9c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh well, I will put the leave; the Committee can decide. Leave is sought for that purpose, to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u00225c54f4b0d0e14589b85d33e645dec518\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225c54f4b0d0e14589b85d33e645dec518\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased that the member for Epsom took the opportunity to refer once again to his data, because earlier in a contribution on this debate I championed the life of some of the founders of his party. It is not a very old party. Like him, it has not been around that long. They were people of great principle, great integrity. They knew the history of this great country of ours in a way that, sadly, that member does not. You see, the thing about this is that when you want to refer to historical matters of this great country of ours, you actually have to get all your history right, not just the bits that suit your argument. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003ESo the thing is this. In Labour\u2019s great house-building programme of the 1930s, led by the great t\u014Dtara of the Labour Party at that time\u2014the Michael Joseph Savages, the Peter Frasers, the Dan Sullivans, the various others\u2014they did not rely on the Ministry of Works to build the houses. They relied on a whole host of contractors and others, including Fletcher\u2019s. The great empire that is Fletcher Building today\u2014or whatever it calls itself\u2014actually has as its origins, from that very time, a progressive Labour Government with a progressive founding director of that great company that actually built the houses. And they did some pretty incredible things. I recently had the privilege of visiting Savage Crescent in Palmerston North, which was one of those progressive housing developments designed and developed at that very time\u2014because it was not just about housing, it was about community as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EHere is the interesting thing: Mr Seymour referred to the building consent figures from 1961, as if they somehow magically happened themselves, without any impetus at all. What he forgets, of course, is that was not long after the, sadly, short-lived but powerful and very good Nash-led Labour Government, which introduced the 3 percent housing loans. That was the impetus for that house-building programme. That was why there was a spike in house building, because that Labour Government knew at that time that more houses were needed and it knew that the Government had a role to play in making sure that happened. And that was the way that it happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003ESadly, we have now an ACT Party representative who does not respect the fullness and the greatness of this country\u2019s history. What he does not want to admit, like many members opposite, is that the greatest moments of this country and its social and economic and political development have had at their heart the Labour Party. Oh, yes, at every turn\u2014at every turn\u2014the Labour Party has led progress and development, for the benefit of all citizens. That is why the new Part 3 amendment introduced by the Labour Party is so important. It is just one element of the genuinely comprehensive package for housing to meet the needs of the present housing crisis, which is now a matter of urgency. But good on the Government and the present Minister for realising that something has to be done, although he cannot bring himself to say that there is a crisis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EWe can all see that the special housing areas, no matter how kind of muted the ultimate impact\u2014OK, good idea. Let us extend them. That is why we support that. We do not support Part 2, but this has allowed us, the Labour Party, the opportunity to now put before this House the genuinely comprehensive housing package that we have got. New Part 3 allows us to talk about our programme, the KiwiBuild programme, which is about 10,000 houses a year. All new Part 3 does is require the Minister to not only take up the proposal but to report in an effective and timely manner on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003EWe can do this. The Government can actually do this stuff. It requires political will. If the Government of the day does not do it, then let all members of this House who have been part of this debate provide that impetus to let the Government see the light and get on and do the job that New Zealanders are demanding that it does. Far too many New Zealanders now see no hope and no future and no prospect of owning their own home. We have to do better. If the Government, after 8 years, cannot do better, then let us do it\u2014let us do it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003ESo I am thankful for the opportunity that the Government has given us to lay out our plan, but it is now\u2014as this motion for this whole legislation tells us\u2014urgent, and if the Government knew what it was doing it would urgently adopt our plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022180e53b8eb634394b39e8f0bb2fb4fe1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022180e53b8eb634394b39e8f0bb2fb4fe1\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to concentrate my contribution on new clause 50U(1), which looks at the Housing New Zealand Corporation being responsible for managing the development of affordable housing under the plan. I have been the beneficiary of the way that Housing New Zealand Corporation used to be under a Labour Government. What I mean by that is that in those days Housing New Zealand had at its heart the desire to not only house people but help people and communities develop communities. The way that it did that was it included within its mandate the ability to have community housing, which allowed community organisations to benefit from the housing programme put in place by the Government and to have access to housing for community groups. What this amendment in this particular clause does is that it requires the corporation to once again become the heart of community development, as it once was. Not only will this look at providing affordable housing; it will also look at providing appropriate housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EDuring the homelessness inquiry that has been around the country, one of the overriding concerns that has come out of this is that the housing we are currently building is four-bedroom, executive homes, when what we actually need are one- and two-bedroom homes. We need modest housing. We need housing that will help us to house the elderly and to house people who are single and single-parent families. We have this overburden of these large houses. We have a surplus, almost, of bedrooms, when what we actually need is much more appropriate housing of a kind that will suit the needs of our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EWhat this Government has done over the last 8 years is to not only scale-back that involvement of communities, of them being to participate with Housing New Zealand to develop in consultation and cooperation the types of housing that they need for their communities, but actually do something a lot more sinister: it has actually taken the community out of its programme. When we look at the removal of the four well-beings out of the requirements for local government, it really speaks to the heart of what sits in this bill and why we oppose this bill and why we are supporting Part 3. We need to put communities back into our housing plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EI want to use the example of what happened in my own community, in Aranui, where at one stage Housing New Zealand was proposing some redevelopment of homes. The community got engaged in that discussion and helped it to design homes that were fit for purpose\u2014one- and two-bedroom homes, single access and with garages, which were really useful for elderly people. In the latest iteration of developments by Housing New Zealand into that same community, when the community asked for consultation to be part of the process, it was denied the ability to effect any change to the plans that Housing New Zealand was making in that community. What that has resulted in is an intensive development that has gone into the Aranui community of two-storey homes, with several homes on what were the properties of one or two, which have now become developments of four, five, or six, and there are single accesses into these large groups of homes. They are a complete anathema to the way that this community wanted those homes to be, because there was a lack of consultation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EAll through this discussion, all through this debate, there has been this thought that consultation should sit at the heart of when we are making such significant changes. That is no different to, when we are looking at new Part 3, how we want our communities to develop. There is no doubt that good housing, affordable housing, and appropriate housing is actually the way we develop our strong communities. I would urge the Government to support this, because this is the way we are going to build our strong communities, where people know that they are able to stay in the same house night after night, and where they have security of tenure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c993758d289c4aa981df8bbf732c907e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c993758d289c4aa981df8bbf732c907e\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I want to talk about two things in relation to this new part of the bill: first of all, supply, and, secondly, affordability, because those are, in fact, the crucial issues. First of all, supply. That means, actually, the rate of new house building. Labour and the Greens say 10,000 houses per annum; the Government, per Alfred Ngaro, seems to be saying 14,600 per annum, because he talked about 40 houses a day, and if you multiply that by 365 days you get 14,300. In fact, the Government is getting nowhere near that rate of building. Nevertheless, that is what he claimed, for some reason. But neither of these are actually enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIf you look at the Auckland Unitary Plan, and other indicators, actually, the real need in Auckland over the next 7 years is a minimum of 130,000 houses if immigration is going to continue at a net gain of 70,000 people a year\u201470,000 people a year. If that were curbed, then maybe that need could be reduced. But the fact is that with that magnitude of net immigration the need in Auckland alone, over 7 years, is 130,000 houses. That is why New Zealand First has, for the last year or more, had in its housing policy a target of 140,000 over the next 7 years. We took notice of all those indicators and we put in our policy 140,000 houses over 7 years, which is 20,000 a year. That is not just political one-upmanship; it is actually based on research and actual need as indicated by independent parties. It is not an invention by New Zealand First. It is what the actual need is if immigration is going to continue at the current rate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EYet, if you were to believe Alfred Ngaro, the Government wants to build 14,600 a year, which is actually 102,600 houses over 7 years. Yet his own Minister, the \u201CMinister of Homelessness\u201D, said that that was unaffordable, unachievable. He said that all of the parties on this side of the House had unachievable targets, and yet Alfred Ngaro actually says it should be even more than that. So this Government is in total disarray. It does not actually have a target in its so-called comprehensive housing plan. We do not really know what it is trying to do. All we know is that it is doing some haphazard things and what it has amounted to is, as I have said in the past, a litany of failed policies and no comprehensive housing plan whatsoever. In fact, all it has been doing with the special housing areas is to build a pathetically small number of houses\u20141,300 over the last 3 years\u2014which is nowhere near the need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe point, however, is that whatever the target is, there is a genuine need out there, and it is not ever going to be met through Resource Management Act reform. It is not ever going to be met through special housing areas and accords with local government while the reliance on building the houses themselves is left totally in the hands of private developers. Megan Woods, in her speech, said it is the Labour Party that has the plan. Well, actually, it is not just the Labour Party. New Zealand First, for the last 3 or more years, has had that sort of plan for Government intervention in the market to actually build houses, to develop and build houses\u2014appropriate houses, affordable houses, modest houses that people can afford as their first home\u2014and to sell them on terms that people can actually afford. We have always said that. We have always known that direct investment by the Government is the only way that this housing crisis can be solved. The private market alone will never do it\u2014it will never do it\u2014and that is what this Government does not seem to understand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to move on to affordability, because that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u002233e00323e9a94dea868428246dd879dc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002233e00323e9a94dea868428246dd879dc\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022d19f01f0c30f41eeb097d4232c080856\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d19f01f0c30f41eeb097d4232c080856\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am going to take the mover of the amendment\u2014Phil Twyford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022687f142368d24cb49608832a4f95d343\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022687f142368d24cb49608832a4f95d343\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I am proud to be the mover\u2014and the shaker. It is appropriate that we are debating this issue in this housing bill this afternoon, because the role of the Government in fixing a broken housing market is one of the fault lines that runs through this House. It divides the left and the right. It divides the people who have a kind of childlike, touching faith in the ability of the market to fix itself from those people like us, who, informed by history and experience, have a confidence that the powers of Government can be used to do good in our community and that it is the job of the Government to actually make markets work for everybody. That is the idea that lies at the heart of our KiwiBuild policy and this proposed new Part 3 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThese days the Government is very fond of talking up what it calls a massive building boom in Auckland. Well, just how massive is that building boom? Currently, in Auckland, 9,651 homes have been consented in the last 12 months. That means that about 8,500 homes have been built. In 2004, 12,937 homes were consented, so we are way below\u201425 percent below\u2014the peak of 2004. If you factor in population growth, currently, under John Key, we are consenting about six homes per 1,000 population at the moment\u2014six homes per 1,000 per year. Under Norman Kirk\u2019s prime ministership in the mid-1970s, New Zealand was building 16 homes\u201416 homes\u2014per 1,000 population per year. So this is far from being a building boom. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to talk about why using Government procurement\u2014using the power of the State to stimulate the construction of new homes\u2014is a good idea in the current market. Our construction industry has been gutted of skilled labour by the boom-and-bust cycle, which goes up and down like a roller coaster. Every time the market goes down, we lose half our skilled tradespeople. They leave the industry, and often leave the country. A Government procurement programme like KiwiBuild, as embodied in new Part 3, would maintain the supply of new residential builds at the equivalent of the top of the market and keep it there in a countercyclical way for a decade, giving local New Zealand construction firms and all of the industry trades that support them the certainty and the volume to increase their production, to take on more staff, and to train the 5,000 apprentices that we estimate would be needed to build the labour force to implement this policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt would allow using companies like Mike Greer Homes. Mike Greer has pioneered state of the art off-site manufacturing at his Concision factory in Rolleston in Canterbury, and is using the latest high-precision, digital, German equipment to build high-quality homes at a much more achievable cost. These are the kinds of benefits of building up the workforce and employing new design and production technology to build better houses at a more affordable cost. It will also allow us to bust through the rorts and the anti-competitive practices that plague the building supplies market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI could walk into a Home Depot in California and buy treated Pinus radiata framing timber for residential construction at a quarter of the price that I would pay if I go to a Bunnings Warehouse or a Mitre 10. Our building supplies market is seriously anti-competitive. It is uncompetitive. Kiwis are paying nearly 30 percent more than Australians for exactly the same building materials. Through this policy\u2014building 10,000 homes a year using Government procurements to that\u2014we can cut through those supply chain blockages and drive down the cost of building. This is how Labour will restore affordable homeownership to a new generation of New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u00227312b716abc7458ea6975f7a1abc1a0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227312b716abc7458ea6975f7a1abc1a0e\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002245c82425d1b945b095150d26ba080dc7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000507\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins to the proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add new Part 3 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000508\u0022\u003Einsert in new section 50T(1) in clause 12 \u201Cnew\u201D after \u201C10,000\u201D. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002214ad1a70ccc94a7f8a523b6eca970c49\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000509\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Megan Woods to the proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add new Part 3 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000510\u0022\u003Ein new clause 12, new Part 5B, new section 50T(1), insert in after \u201Cbuyers\u201D \u201Cbut not later than 1 March 2017\u201D. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022415276b7b1834e849a9c7639bba1dc09\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000511\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000512\u0022\u003Eto add the following new part:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000513\u0022\u003EPart 3\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000514\u0022\u003EAmendment to Housing Corporation Act 1974\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000515\u0022\u003E11 \tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000516\u0022\u003EThis Part amends the Housing Corporation Act 1974.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000517\u0022\u003E12 \tNew Part 5B\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000518\u0022\u003EAfter section 50S insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000519\u0022\u003EPart 5B\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000520\u0022\u003EAffordable Housing Development\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000521\u0022\u003E50T \tMinister of Housing must ensure affordable housing built\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000522\u0022\u003E(1)\tThe Minister of Housing must prepare a plan in consultation with the Corporation for the delivery of 10,000 affordable houses per year for first home buyers.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000523\u0022\u003E(2)\tWithin six months of the completion of the plan required under subsection (1) the Minister must present a copy of the approved plan to the House of Representatives.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000524\u0022\u003E(3)\tThe Minister of Housing must ensure that all targets set out within the plan are met and report to the House of Representatives annually on its progress.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000525\u0022\u003E50U \tCorporation to manage affordable housing development \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000526\u0022\u003E(1)\tThe Corporation will be responsible for managing the development of affordable housing under the plan under section 50T(1).\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000527\u0022\u003E(2)\tIn implementing the affordable housing development the Corporation must:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000528\u0022\u003E(a)\tEnsure that the houses completed are affordable;\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000529\u0022\u003E(b)\tEnsure that the houses are sold to first home buyers and are not used for speculation;\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000530\u0022\u003E(c)\tEnsure all houses built meet all legal standards required and are warm, dry, and safe; and \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000531\u0022\u003E(d)\tWork with private sector builders to ensure houses are built to a high quality using the latest construction methods.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c1a69bb96a514885a29356ea6e41b15d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022fc85052e58784cb195d85c8d3979b50c\u0022\u003ENew Part 4  Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00222fff1a71f9734bf0b43d6fb031a231d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222fff1a71f9734bf0b43d6fb031a231d0\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I am very glad to take a call on new Part 4 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill\u2014yet another great housing policy that we are having the opportunity to debate this afternoon in our Committee. I must say how refreshing it is to finally have some good housing policy to debate. For those of you who take an interest in #ChangeTheGovt, this afternoon in the House is a little opportunity to get a feel for what it is going to be like after the election next year, because we are going to be in the House here, discussing meaningful, transformational housing policy, like building 100,000 affordable homes for first home buyers and like taxing speculators. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENew Part 4 of this bill basically pushes out what has come to be known as the brightline test from 2 years to 5 years. Let me explain to folks what that means: in September last year, in one of its many rushes of blood to the head about the housing crisis, the National Government, presumably prompted by David Farrar\u2019s overnight polling, decided that it had better make some kind of announcement on housing in order to try to placate an electorate that was increasingly worried about the effects of the housing crisis. What it announced was a 2-year brightline, so that if a property investor sold a rental property within 2 years of buying it, then they would pay income tax on the capital gain. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EOstensibly, this was the Government acknowledging, even though it had been denying it for the last 2 years, that speculators were a problem in the market. Minister Nick Smith does not even like to use the term \u201Cspeculator\u201D. He does not agree with the use of that term. This policy flip-flop by National, implementing a 2-year brightline test, was, effectively, an acknowledgment that speculation is a problem in the housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe subsequently found out from Government papers released under the Official Information Act, that Treasury had done the modelling for the brightline test and estimated that the 2-year brightline would be likely to have an impact on a maximum of 1,000 of the nearly 80,000 house sales each year, that it would raise just $18 million, and that it would affect less than 2 percent of all house sales. So Treasury basically said a 2-year test on taxation requiring income tax to be paid on the capital gain from the sale of a rental property within 2 years of its purchase\u2014Treasury and a host of other Government advisers basically said it would have virtually no impact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EDid that stop the Government from announcing it? I do not think so, because it saw a headline. It saw a press release and a headline, and if we have learnt anything from Nick Smith\u2019s long parliamentary career, he starts with the press release and then works his way back through the policy development process, in reverse, right back to trying to find the evidence to justify the policy to support the press release. He is a master practitioner in the art of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebc0f265b81e4f1a95aba07d214918ed\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Policy-based evidence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224698410ccd394094aec3a1edbb2e0b96\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014policy-based evidence-making\u2014thank you very much, colleagues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI think it is plain for anybody to see that under this National Government, property speculators have been allowed to run riot. Property speculators are rampant, particularly in the Auckland market, and we see from the latest CoreLogic data that speculators account for 46 percent, on average, of all property transactions. Nearly half of all homes purchased at the moment in the Auckland housing market are being snapped up by speculators, and if anyone here reads the New Zealand Herald newspaper, they will know that people are making a killing\u2014an absolute killing\u2014buying and selling properties, sometimes within even days or weeks of the original purchase, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. It is so out of control that it is clear that many of these speculators are, in fact, paying income tax on it, but the housing market, as Nick Smith said today, is so out of control, that the massive capital gains that people are making are such that they are not deterred by the prospect\u2014[Bell rung]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226be3737787594146a773855f98cdf9bc\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Under Speaker\u2019s ruling 87/5 it says that the Minister who is responsible for the bill has to be in the chair or leave the Chamber. The Minister responsible for this bill is in the Chamber, but not in the chair. Either of those two options works for me, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa26040a1e29496bb1f2d8b50acb2a7f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, that is very good of you, to make that concession.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e109c22485fb41a286ebed935719d9ce\u0022\u003EHon Judith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want to be in the chair, Minister Smith? Fabulous. Thank you so much, very good. That\u2019s so nice\u2014the nicest thing you\u2019ve ever done for me, Grant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283c8f654e803488e9ad337a261aa66cc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Are flowers going to follow now, or something, are they? I call Phil Twyford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb2ea80d41074a0bb57a622d6528b644\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Very good decision, Mr Chairman. One of the reasons that property speculation is bad\u2014and I mentioned in my first 5 minutes that property speculators currently account for 46 percent of all transactions in the Auckland market at the moment\u2014is that property speculators are going around the suburbs of Auckland and basically hoovering up affordable homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIf you look at the data for a suburb in South Auckland like \u014Ctara, which has always had very affordable housing\u2014it is one of the places in Auckland where young families can go and housing has been affordable. It is where people go to get a start in life. In \u014Ctara speculators account for, not 46 percent of all property transactions, which is the average across Auckland, but they are snapping up 80 percent\u2014eight-zero\u2014of all property transactions. So it should not surprise us that homeownership rates are falling in \u014Ctara four times faster than the national average. As the speculators go in and hoover up all these houses, homeownership rates are plummeting. Homeownership rates are falling over most of Auckland, except in the very leafy, wealthy suburbs. So in a place like Herne Bay, the beautiful suburb of Herne Bay, homeownership rates are actually going up, but across much of Auckland, including west Auckland, where I am from, homeownership rates are falling, and entire streets now are owned by property investors, many of whom are offshore absentee landlords. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo this new Part 4\u2014basically, what it does is it pushes out the brightline test from 2 years to 5 years. I want to explain, for people who have not followed this debate, what the brightline test is. Under New Zealand tax law, you normally would be expected to pay income tax if you were deemed to have purchased this rental property for investment purposes\u2014with the intention of making a profit on the future sale of that property. It is a very subjective test about intention. What the brightline test does is it says: \u201CNo ifs, no buts. If you sell it within this period\u201D\u20142 years in the case of the current law, and 5 years in the case of our amendment\u2014\u201Cyou pay income tax, regardless of your intention.\u201D So it overrides the intention test, and it, effectively, puts in place a capital gains test for residential property speculation. We think that is a good thing to do, because it is very important that we start to squeeze property speculation out of the housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThere are massive capital gains that people are making\u2014entrenched expectations of capital gains\u2014which has a self-fulfilling effect. It drives more and more people into the market who think that in John Key\u2019s New Zealand the only way you can get ahead, the only way you can make a dollar, is by speculating in real estate. We have to stop that, not only for the good of our children and our grandchildren, so that future generations can have some prospect of owning their own homes in this country, but also because it is enormously damaging to our economy to have real estate speculation sucking vast amounts of capital into what is an unproductive business activity that generates no jobs and no exports. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ELet me give you this statistic. In the last 12 months, banks in this country lent $5 billion to the manufacturing industry\u2014$5 billion to the manufacturing industry. In the same period they lent $25 billion to property investors. I think that gives you a snapshot of the state of our economy, and the fact that there is a vast, inflated bubble in the housing market that is sucking huge amounts of productive capital into property speculation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ELabour believes that if we push the brightline test out to 5 years, that will make a significant difference. The basis of Treasury\u2019s advice\u2014that the 2-year brightline would not make much of a difference\u2014was, of course, that property speculators would hold on to a property for 2 years and a day, and then flick it on. So not only would it generate virtually no revenue; it would have very little effect in changing the behaviour of property speculation. We believe that 5 years would make a significant difference, but for us this is a down payment. It is merely a down payment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EAndrew Little has signalled that Labour will move on negative gearing\u2014that is, the ability for property investors to write off any losses they make on a rental property against other taxable activity. So if you buy a property and you are leveraged up so high that you are paying the bank more in interest than you are getting back in rent, you are making a loss on that property. Taking into account all the other outgoings like rates, and insurance, and maintenance, if you are making a loss, you can then offset that loss against other tax that you are paying, perhaps for your job or for some other business, or some other investment. That is a huge, huge public subsidy for property speculation, and we are told by the Inland Revenue Department that last year property investors snaffled up $650 million in tax breaks. The public of New Zealand gave property speculators, some of whom own six, seven, or eight properties\u2014they pocketed $650 million. \u201CThank you very much, Mr Taxpayer.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIf we do not deal with the problem of property speculation, we will never ever fix this broken housing market. If we build houses, if we reform the planning rules, and if we do all those things we can get the market back in balance, hopefully that will reduce the capital gains and drive the speculators out, but, in our view, fixing the tax settings that now incentivise a speculative mania in the housing market and threaten the very financial stability of our economy and our banking system has to be a top priority, and that is what new Part 4 will do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022446564098cdb41fd93b3146ca79973c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022446564098cdb41fd93b3146ca79973c0\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in the debate on new Part 4 of this bill. It is worth noting that this is a critical element in terms of the overall scope of this bill, which is about how we improve the affordability of housing for New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI want to take people back to the origin of the 2-year brightline test, which is being extended in new Part 4 of the bill in front of us today, and it takes us back to Budget 2015. In the build-up to Budget 2015, New Zealanders\u2019 concerns about the housing market, about the affordability of housing, were rising. It was a time when price rises that had never been seen before in Auckland were starting to get into the consciousness of New Zealanders. The Government was flat-footed, because what we came to discover was that there was actually nothing in the Budget on housing. It did not have anything in the preparation for the Budget that had taken place to deal with this emerging housing crisis, with 20 to 25 percent annual increases in the price of houses in Auckland. We know this because once all the documentation from Budget 2015 was released, there was nothing in it about the brightline test. Officials had not done any modelling. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EJust reflect on that for a minute. The Government introduced, under urgency and around the time of Budget 2015, this brightline test, but it never modelled what it was actually going to do. In fact, it got to a completely farcical point, which some people might recall, with Bill English admitting on television that he had no idea whether this brightline test would have any impact at all. Eventually, some work was done\u2014well, actually it had been done earlier, in 2010\u2014and it was eventually released. It said that the 2-year brightline test that the Government brought in would net, at most, 1,000 of nearly 80,000 house sales and raise just $18 million per year in revenue for the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe test was a weak and half-hearted measure. It came in because the Government had had its hand forced. The Government kept saying there was this thing called the intention test: if you purchased a property with the intention of selling, you would have to pay a tax on the capital gain. Of course, no one admitted that. No one said \u201CYes, that is my intention.\u201D, despite the fact that thousands of homes were being flipped over quickly, for profit. So the Government, in a corner, said: \u201CAll right. We\u2019ll do a 2-year brightline test.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI sat on the select committee when we addressed the issues that are contained in this part and relate to the brightline test. Treasury was very clear. It said: \u201CIf a Government is going to do this, at least make it 5 years because the behavioural impacts will be much higher if you say to somebody that if you try to sell a house, an investment property, within 5 years you will be taxed on that.\u201D The advice that we got from officials was that 2 years was not enough. Someone who was speculating in the housing market would wait out the 2 years and 1 day, and then they would flick off the property. That was the advice that we got in the committee. I do want to be absolutely clear. The existing brightline test and, indeed, what is contained in new Part 4 do not apply to the family home. They do not apply to the family home. This is only about speculators\u2014about those who own more than one property and then move them on within the 2-year period, as it is now, and the 5-year period that we want it to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThis is a vitally important measure around housing affordability. Speculators have a disproportionate impact on the housing market. They are pushing out first-home buyers from getting in and building up the Kiwi Dream, which we know has been so important to New Zealanders. The Government got that. It got that, to the extent that it needed to be seen to be doing something. As with all of the Government\u2019s initiatives in housing, this is about how little it could do to get away with being seen to be doing something. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe Government rushed this out in May 2015 and said: \u201CThis is what we\u2019re going to do.\u201D It was an inadequate response then, at a time when the level of investor activity, particularly in the Auckland housing market, was lower than it is now. Now we know that nearly one in two purchases in the Auckland housing market are being made by investors or speculators. When the brightline test came in, it was just under 40 percent. The Government has put this in place. It has been an inadequate measure. It is a step forward, in terms of cracking down on speculators. There are more things to be done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EBut this is an opportunity. I want to make clear that we are deadly serious, on this side of the Chamber, about these amendments we are putting forward. These are the policies we think are needed to get more affordable housing, and we want to have a debate about it because the Government has had its head in the sand for too long about the importance of these issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022 data-id=\u0022acf06e5cd3a945739e93351fd46c4c81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022acf06e5cd3a945739e93351fd46c4c81\u0022\u003EJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson left off, around new Part 4, and the amount of information that we have around what the effect of this legislative amendment would be. We are reliant on the analysis that the Government originally undertook when it implemented the 2-year brightline test. Of course, as those who are familiar with regulatory impact statements will know, usually we are given an indication of the range of options that were canvassed by the Government. Actually, to be honest, even when the Government has already got an idea of where it is going to go, it is incumbent on officials to provide a range of options, points of comparison, to understand whether or not where you have landed is going to best give effect to your goals. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EI went back to the regulatory impact statement, which Grant Robertson touched on a little bit. What is phenomenal I think, really, is the lack of information in this regulatory impact statement around the alternative options. The Government said, right from the outset, in this regulatory impact statement that doing nothing was not an option because the Government already said it was introducing something. So a press statement had gone out, the Government was introducing a brightline test, and then it was a matter of doing the policy work. When trying to measure where most of the sales sat in Auckland and when the houses were sold\u2014within 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years\u2014the share of sales within 1 year was roughly 8.4 percent. I am assuming that might be as a proportion of the total sale price, because we have information in the next paragraph down that says that between 2009 and 2013, 59 percent of all new titles were disposed of within a year within Auckland\u201459 percent is a huge amount\u2014and 29 percent of new developments in North Auckland were traded within 3 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EThe statement then goes on to talk about the share of sales between 3 and 5 years. That is the only area where we have any data, though. When you flick over, into the regulatory impact analysis\u2014and this is important because here we are proposing in this amendment to move from 2 years to 5 years\u2014the only two options in the regulatory impact statement were option 1, which was a 2-year brightline test, and option 2, which was a 3 to 5-year brightline test. So it was an option that was on the table. That is interesting, of course, and useful for us, but let us delve further and see what level of comparison and detail there was, because we are now on new Part 4, taking option 2 from this regulatory impact statement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EFrom the outset option 1 was the officials\u2019 preferred option, but where I get confused is that it is not entirely clear to me how that decision was made. There were three policy objectives with the brightline test: (a) provide an easier rule for the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) to enforce, to target short-term speculation\u2014so that is about ease of implementation\u2014(b) minimise the number of sales made taxable that were required without an intention of resale, which is difficult to determine, and I do not think you can simply say that because we have got a greater percentage of sales we are, therefore, potentially reaching purchases that were made without the intention of sale, so a very arbitrary decision that you make just looking at numbers; and (c) minimise compliance costs for taxpayers in order to comply. So those are the three tests. You would think that the objective would be to go through option 1 and option 2 and say which best meets those objectives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EBut when you look at the analysis for option 2, which was the 3 to 5 years\u2014which is what we are proposing here\u2014it says in paragraphs 29 and 30 \u201CThis option would create a bright-line similar to option 1, however with a period for the bright-line being longer at potentially three or five years rather than two years. This option has similar impacts as option 1, but with greater effect owing to its longer period.\u201D\u2014that is a given\u2014\u201CIt would best meet the objective of creating an easy to enforce rule and would have the greatest positive fiscal and administrative impact.\u201D So on at least two of the policy objectives that were set out by IRD, option 2, or the 3 to 5-year brightline test, had already received a tick\u2014a clear, definitive tick\u2014when compared with the preferred option. But here comes the counterpoint, which is the important one. \u201CHowever, this option has the greatest risk of capturing sales that were acquired without an intention of resale.\u201D But my point here is there is no data, there is no analysis, that really quantifies that or that puts any detail behind that\u2014[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for not disturbing my flow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EThere is nothing that tells us really anything beyond just an assumption that because it is longer and there is a greater number of sales, by default that meant it would be capturing houses that were purchased without the intention of resale. How do we know? We do not. There was no qualitative analysis around that assumption, and yet that one line was the basis on which the Government made the decision to go with option 1, which was a 2-year brightline test. That one line\u2014I will read it again: \u201CHowever, this option has the greatest risk of capturing sales that were acquired without an intention of resale.\u201D As a result, this is not the Inland Revenue Department\u2019s preferred option. That is it\u2014no data, no analysis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EI mean, I guess to be fair, I want to go just a little bit further, because there was a table provided in the regulatory impact statement that, again, actually set out its objectives, which are fiscal, economic, administrative compliance, fairness, and the impact. It went through both of these options. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EJust to further highlight that I am not misrepresenting what has happened in this regulatory impact statement, I want to read that for the 3 or 5-year brightline test, the department acknowledges that it \u201CBest meets objective (a)\u201D, that it \u201CPartially meets objective (c)\u201D, which is what the 2-year one did as well, but it \u201CLeast meets objective (b)\u201D, and that was the one around capturing sales\u2014again, though, no data. It admitted it had no estimate of the revenue gain that would be made, and that is interesting, because if you cannot estimate the revenue it will gain, you cannot estimate the number of sales that would fall into the 5-year category, which, again, highlights that the department actually did not know that it would capture unintended sales. It said: \u201CThis option would have similar lock-in effects to option 1. This option would have the greatest impact in reducing the administration costs involved in applying the \u2018intention test\u2019 [and that it] Provides the easiest to enforce measure of the options.\u201D In fact, I would have to say that if you did not have the subjective statement in there\u2014the bracketed statement around option 1, \u201CThis is Inland Revenue\u2019s preferred option.\u201D\u2014and if you read this document without that bracketed paragraph, then, actually, you probably would think that it would come down on the 3 to 5-year option. That is what the evidence and the objective test it set for itself would tell you would be best to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EI want to come to consultation, because that is what is so fantastic about this amendment. We are putting forward on the Table an amendment here to extend the brightline test to 5 years, which has actually, really, already gone through a select committee process of sorts. It has had submissions, which is more than what we had for the debate on the bill so far. So we did not have select committee papers\u2014sorry, I should clarify. We did have an issues paper released by Treasury and Inland Revenue Department. We had an issues paper that went out on the brightline test\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5cb3267cc3e43a68694bda99ffe53a1\u0022\u003EChris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right\u2014that\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224d6aae8eb824e659cceb1dce3a30f80\u0022\u003EJACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014on 29 June 2015. There were 14 submissions that were received. I know Chris Bishop will know these submissions intimately, so he will be able to tell the Committee that there were as many submissions promoting a 5-year brightline test as there were supporting a 1-year brightline test. There were only 14 submissions, however\u2014it has to be said\u2014but at least that was more submissions than on any other part of the bill that we have debated in this Committee so far. So there was a submission process and there was support for extending the brightline test to 5 years. And, in fact, by and large, again, those policy objectives\u2014as I set out\u2014at the beginning of the regulatory impact statement were, most submitters seemed to accept, largely achieved by the proposals that were being put forward by the Inland Revenue Department in its issues paper. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003EI really just want to conclude by highlighting again that the basis on which the Inland Revenue Department and the Government settled on a 2-year test had no data. It had no evidence. All we know is the percentage of sales within that period. I know of houses in Auckland that have sat empty for more than 2 years simply to accumulate capital gain. They were not even bought as rental investment properties, they are not even occupied by people who desperately need houses, and they have been that way for more than 2 years. If we want an effective brightline test we should be sending a clear message: a 5-year provision. That is exactly what new Part 4 would do. It would do more to improve affordability and access to the market for first-home buyers than anything else in the bill that the Government has put forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022162334ca747e40de8d82d0e7dbc4c350\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022162334ca747e40de8d82d0e7dbc4c350\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I first became Green Party co-leader in mid-2009. In 2010, in my second major speech, I announced the Green Party commitment to a capital gains tax, excluding the family home. It came after reviewing work that had first been started by Rod Donald, actually, when he was here. Even in those early days, the Greens were looking at the best kind of tax regime to both help provide income to the country as a whole\u2014to build a fair tax system on which all New Zealanders could rely\u2014and help manage speculation in the housing market. When Rod Donald proposed a capital gains tax, it was for those reasons. When I proposed it in 2010, it was for those reasons. And here we are again, having an opportunity to put in place a more comprehensive version of the capital gains tax than is currently in law\u2014because, of course, the brightline test is, essentially, a capital gains tax, but National does not want to say it. We all know why that is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c5ddaa0667c4c07896abdbdb28cf335\u0022\u003EJacinda Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Shh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a5613108ee14b47b5c3375d3e91c77b\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014shh! Do not tell anybody! It is also why it is, unfortunately, so weak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo the Green Party is very pleased to support this provision, which will extend the brightline test\u2014capital gains tax\u2014to 5 years from 2 years. This is critical. It is a critical tool in the cooling of the housing market. We all know that we have to use every possible tool available to us to deal with the housing crisis. We also know that a capital gains tax will have a different kind of effect over time, once properly introduced. A proper one\u2014a good one\u2014will provide an almost instantaneous cooling of the growth in house prices in the housing market, in the short term. That is a good thing. That then helps provide more fertile ground for some of the other tax changes that need to come into place to have a longer-term effect. On top of that, you are also building more homes, like we discussed in proposed new Part 3 of this bill around the 10,000 homes a year\u2014also building more homes and bringing them online. So there is a whole range of steps that need to be taken, of which a proper capital gains tax\u2014excluding the family home\u2014is a critical part. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss it again and perhaps even to improve the brightline \u201Ccapital gains tax\u201D test that is in the current law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis is critical when we see the data that is coming out about speculation in the housing market. Investors make up around 45 percent of house sales nationwide. There is a little bit of flexibility in that number from month to month, but none the less investors are a significant part of the market across the country. In Auckland, about 50 percent of the housing market are investors, and they are driving ordinary people who are just moving from house to house as a natural part of transitions in their lives and first-home buyers out of the housing market. In the 1980s and in the 1990s the proportion of investors was never this high, and the reason why it is so high today is that we have a tax system that provides huge opportunities to investors by taking those opportunities away from ordinary New Zealand families. So we have an obligation, in Government and in Parliament, to manage our tax laws effectively so that they provide a fairer approach\u2014so that we get the right benefit in the right places. That is what good governance is all about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe know that mortgage lending is now well over $200 billion. That is the highest it has been since May of 2008. Those of us who were around in May of 2008 know that that was just before the global financial crisis hit. We have not had a rate of borrowing for mortgages in this country as high as this since just before the global financial crisis. We cannot continue to allow investors and speculators to dominate the housing market, not only locking out other homeowners and young families but actually putting the entire economy at risk. More and more economists are saying that the speculation in the housing market is putting the entire economy at risk\u2014not just those in the housing market\u2014so we need to keep looking at, reviewing, and making changes to tax law and regulation to make sure we have got the settings right to promote the best possible housing opportunities for everyone. That does include, to some extent\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u00225af8db5310a74227bcfef817b25ad150\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225af8db5310a74227bcfef817b25ad150\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 302(3) and ask that you rule this amendment out and end the debate on it forthwith, on the basis that it is outside the scope of the bill. I understand that this is an omnibus bill and that there are parts to it that are quite disparate, and, therefore, the scope of debate and the amendments that can be tabled will be necessarily broad. But this is an amendment, effectively, to a tax measure\u2014a revenue measure. It has been suggested to me that the reason this could be in scope is that the intention of that measure is to improve the affordability of housing, but I have checked very carefully and in the time available I could not find any reference to the fact that the brightline legislation, the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill, when introduced in, I think, about May 2015 and then passed into law, had any reference to affordability as that bill\u2019s goal. The goal of that bill was to ensure that the right amount of tax was paid in the right circumstances, and on that basis I would suggest to you very strongly that this debate is completely out of scope with the bill that we are considering in Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb35204e0cf24c36828cb802d9e1298e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb35204e0cf24c36828cb802d9e1298e\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Standing Order that the Minister just quoted, Standing Order 302(3), refers to local and private bills. It does not apply to Government bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022886af35b5b1f42daab8683d9163c138d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022886af35b5b1f42daab8683d9163c138d\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking to that point, I would beg the Committee\u2019s indulgence on that. Without wanting to throw the Clerk\u2019s Office under a bus, that was the reference that I had. But I know, as does the member\u2014who raises a sage point\u2014that the Standing Orders are very clear about what the Committee can and cannot debate, and the amendments, which any member of the House is able to raise, need to be in scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022cadb4d6e5e434a4098be510b69b9be67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cadb4d6e5e434a4098be510b69b9be67\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking further to that, I say the point of order that the member has made\u2014he may have another Standing Order he wishes to rely on, but that Standing Order he quoted does not relate to this bill, so we are happy to continue the debate while he does a bit more homework, if he wants to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u002297a94c16ad684098b6f332c75f1cbae3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297a94c16ad684098b6f332c75f1cbae3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I have considered the point of order raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and those points in reply by Chris Hipkins. My view is that it does appear to me\u2014and, sorry, I have also taken some advice from the Clerk\u2019s Office\u2014that the intention of the brightline test is to stop the turnover of houses so quickly and to maintain a level of control on housing prices. I am prepared to allow the debate to continue at the moment and rule it as in scope, but I do have, alongside that, a parallel issue to raise with the House, and that is that the scope of this particular part as introduced is very narrow. So I am not going to allow members to carry on, effectively, just rephrasing the contributions of other members. I cannot see this debate on this part lasting very long at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa2a11acb08c4865a7fe28ccec791ae6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa2a11acb08c4865a7fe28ccec791ae6\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Firstly, I would like to make a clarification and an apology to the Clerk\u2019s Office, actually\u2014the reference to Standing Order 302(3) was mine. The correct Standing Order is Standing Order 302(2). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003EWhile I am on my feet, can I just seek a clarification that your ruling then means that it is your considered opinion that the purpose of the brightline test legislation was indeed around housing affordability and, therefore, the amendment is within scope? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00226ef9dd2631514757b58658450c9738db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ef9dd2631514757b58658450c9738db\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Knowing that that was not a challenge to the ruling but a seeking of clarification, my ruling is that the amendments are relevant to the subject matter of the bill and are consistent with the principles and the objects of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc04dff9185746eb8c1971c823713195\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc04dff9185746eb8c1971c823713195\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I promise that I will be speaking directly to this new part of this bill, which is extending the time to dampen the speculators\u2019 available time when they have to pay tax when they onsell a second, third, or 20th property. I want to speak specifically from my own experience as a renter in Manurewa. This part of the legislation would directly impact on my experiences and those of others in my community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI think for about 3 weeks now we have been in our new house. We were forced to move from our old rental and into a new property because the owner of the house gave us notice because they wanted to sell the property. As anyone can understand, being forced to move on from a rental property when you are not quite ready to is incredibly unsettling\u2014not so much when you are an MP who has status and income, but hardly anyone has that. So this particular part of the bill is of huge concern to me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI do want to refer to remarks that have been made by me in the Chamber earlier today about displaying too much emotion. This Government is disconnected and it does not like to be shown up for its lack of emotion. The reason why I am emotional about ensuring that all New Zealanders have a secure property\u2014which is why dampening the market, as in what this new part of the bill would help do, is incredibly important. Part of the connection is because I am in the middle of that situation. I am living in those communities. I am experiencing it myself, albeit from a privileged position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo I just want to continue, and say that we need a Government that understands that homes are for living in. Oh, by the way, Minister Brownlee needs to catch up\u2014I have been sanctimonious long before now. We need our Government to understand that homes are for living in, so we will be proudly supporting this amendment, even though the Green Party would also like to extend it further, so that any second, third, or 20th property is subject to a capital gains tax. We are firmly on the side of New Zealand families and not speculators, which is where this Government is standing strong. They are out there. If there was a h\u012Bkoi tomorrow by developers up Queen Street, you would see the National Government waving the flag\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d07f8900189a4ee68828e9a2c3236c6e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Talk to this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf972710b2da4174bd8024305f7ef549\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Kia kaha, developers. Fair enough. OK, so that is where this Government is standing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESome of the objection to this new part, apparently, from the Government, to extending the brightline test is because of economic concern. Has the Government seen its economy lately? It is not doing so well, so I do not know why the Government comes up with these economic concerns when everything that it has done has ruined our economy, for people and for our planet. Has it actually seen the economy lately? So, Mr Chair, I do thank you for allowing me to get up and talk about how important this is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EManuwera and \u014Ctara\u2014even though, nationwide, investors are buying more than 50 percent of properties, in particular communities it is higher. It is higher. When my house was being sold, the realtor sat at my table, looked me in the eyes, and said: \u201CYou know, you should be fine, Marama. You shouldn\u2019t have to move. Do you know that over the past few months over 90 percent of the properties being sold in Manuwera, Marama, have been to sold investors? You\u2019ll be right. You won\u2019t have to move.\u201D I swear that this is what I was told, to my face, at my kitchen table, as the realtor tried to reassure me and my family that we would not have to move. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EOver 90 percent of the properties he was observing as a real estate agent in Manuwera were being sold to investors, because our poorer communities are funding speculators. Who are the bludgers here, seriously? Our poorer communities are allowing the wealth accumulation of the speculators, the very ones whom this National Government is standing beside.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022 data-id=\u0022592a02fc75e14d3a8ab7d235bbda46cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022592a02fc75e14d3a8ab7d235bbda46cf\u0022\u003EIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E This new Part 4 proposed by Phil Twyford\u2014it is important that the Committee adopts this measure, because it actually gives effect to the purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to support the wider Government programme of work to increase the supply and affordability of housing. I am prepared to accept that Part 1 goes some way to increasing the supply of housing, but where this bill, overall, is deficient is in increasing the affordability of housing. That is why new Part 4, which extends the brightline test from 2 years to 5 years, is important as part of a suite of measures to actually tackle the issue of affordability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThe purpose of this bill is sound: to deal with both supply and affordability. As I say, it goes some way\u2014a small way, we would argue on this side\u2014towards dealing with supply, but does not do very much about affordability. There is no doubt that one of the drivers of the increasing levels of unaffordability\u2014particularly in the Auckland housing market\u2014is speculation, where people are purchasing houses for the sole purpose of onselling them at a profit. Stepping back and looking at things through a purely economic lens, that makes quite a lot of sense. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThe housing market is, in the Minister for Building and Housing\u2019s own words, \u201Cout of control\u201D. House price inflation in Auckland is rampant, there is capital gain to be made, and, actually, 2 years is not a terribly long time to wait. You can put some tenants in there. You may not even bother putting tenants in there, because the potential gains are so significant that a lot of landlords would actually say: \u201CLook, I\u2019m not going to risk putting people into the property. They may damage the property. I\u2019m not going to risk putting people into the property. I\u2019m just going to sit on it for 2 years, and then I\u2019ll get my tax-free gain after that period of time.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003ESo it is actually necessary\u2014and my colleagues have discussed some of the advice that was given to the Government on this\u2014to extend this brightline test out to a period when it is actually going to influence behaviour. At the moment we are not seeing any influence on behaviour. In fact, the Minister of Revenue just came to the Chamber and said that it was never intended to influence behaviour. That is a surprising and astonishing admission from the Government that its current brightline test is not having an impact on the affordability of housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EWe need to make this move. If the Government is serious about improving the supply and affordability of housing, then we have to extend this brightline test to a period that is actually going to change landlord behaviour and is actually going to encourage people to tenant their houses, make them available for people, and hold on to them for a long period of time, not just flick them for capital gain. That should then go some way to having an impact on the overall levels of speculation in the Auckland housing market and in other markets around the country, and have an impact on affordability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003ENo one is saying that speculation is the only driver of housing inaffordability. It is not the only driver of house price inflation, but, as part of a suite of measures\u2014and members on this side have already attempted to introduce one measure through new Part 3, and I know that other measures are on the Table. As part of that comprehensive package of measures, this change to the brightline test will have some impact on speculation, and having some impact on speculation will have some impact on housing affordability. That is what is missing from this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThere is actually nothing in the legislation for special housing areas that puts a caveat on what you do with a house in a special housing area once you have bought it. So, actually, right now someone could buy a house in a special housing area, flick it after 2 years, and get tax-free capital gain. We actually need this measure to make special housing areas work. It is entirely appropriate that it be included in this piece of legislation. If the Government was serious, then it would get on board with this. It agreed with having a brightline test. The Government introduced it. It set it at 2 years. Why not make that measure do what it is intended to do\u2014set it at 5 years and have an impact on affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u00223a47b1f0f0c645779f951578e5df1e24\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a47b1f0f0c645779f951578e5df1e24\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022552f3f20a63446e883992b01370e063a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022552f3f20a63446e883992b01370e063a\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the chance to take a call on new Part 4 of this legislation, which is yet another amendment from my colleague Phil Twyford that has the aim of putting some provisions into this legislation to make housing affordable. This is a reasonably simple amendment. It contains a number of clauses and amendments to the Income Tax Act of 2007. What it does is it amends a number of sections in the Income Tax Act text from \u201C2\u201D to \u201C5\u201D. This may not seem like a large measure, but it is a very important measure. The reason why the amendment is from 2 years to 5 years throughout all the clauses in this amendment that Phil Twyford has put up is that that is a period of time that actually may make an impact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWhen the original legislation that Mr Twyford\u2019s amendment is seeking to amend was put through under Budget urgency, it was done so in haste. It was yet another band-aid - type approach to housing that we have become accustomed to seeing from this Government. What the Government did have at the time, however, was Treasury advice that in order for the brightline test to actually make a difference and do something in terms of cracking down on speculation, it did need to be for a period of at least 5 years. This is not something that the Government listened to. Instead of making the real kinds of changes that may do something about making housing more affordable and cracking down on housing speculation, as could have been the outcome of what the Government did, it went for the half measure\u2014well, the quarter measure, as my colleague beside me, Kris Faafoi, may say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d652b9838af44ed49cc95a47d07922ac\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: A measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f917b0168c224503861bb7c47b1c137b\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: A measure\u2014I will leave it at that, Mr Faafoi. The Government did not go and put in place a provision that may have made a real impact. Instead, we had this. If you have a look at the advice that the Government did have at the time\u2014and my colleague Grant Robertson spoke about this in his earlier contribution. At the time that this was put through\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a88e003793c144a5981d04c0890df152\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Consistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e968ef03e1ee4da983850e709d2ee874\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing if not consistent, is Mr Robertson\u2014that you have been speaking about this for a period of time. It was not just Treasury that slammed the idea of making this provision only 2 years; actually, a number of tax and legal experts did at the time, as well. It is reading through this that has led my colleague Mr Twyford to put up this amendment\u2014to actually bring into this piece of legislation, which we are in the Chamber to debate, some provisions that would mean that the brightline test would crack down on speculation, would do something around making housing more affordable, and would do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EIf you look at the modelling that Treasury did back in 2010, which is really the only modelling that we could find that could be used, you can see the very minuscule impact that the Government\u2019s decision to limit this to 2 years was actually going to have on the problem. Based on that 2010 modelling, John Key and this Government\u2019s brightline test were likely to impact a maximum of only 1,000 of the nearly 80,000 house sales each year, and raise just over $18 million. This is just window dressing. This is a Government pretending that it is doing something about what is clearly a crisis in this country, and that is housing affordability. It had the opportunity to do something real, it had the opportunity to do something substantive, but is that an opportunity that this Government chose to take? Unfortunately, it is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EInstead, what it has taken is this amendment from my colleague Phil Twyford, which goes through these provisions of the Income Act and makes that change from 2 years to 5 years. It is a significant set of amendments that will mean that the brightline test may actually do what it should have done in the first place\u2014that is, crack down on speculation. Cracking down on speculation\u2014actually doing something to address the problem\u2014would actually cut to the core of addressing the real issue that we have to address, and that is housing affordability. Nothing in the bill that the Government has bought to this House addresses the issue of housing affordability. It has taken amendments from this side of the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022 data-id=\u00222c6c6ce314cc41b5b957024ef0754fa0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222c6c6ce314cc41b5b957024ef0754fa0\u0022\u003EJOANNE HAYES (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002253492967c0ae43aeaed40590bd209741\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000613\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000614\u0022\u003Eadd the following new part:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000615\u0022\u003EPart 4\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000616\u0022\u003EAmendments to Income Tax Act 2007\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000617\u0022\u003E11 \tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000618\u0022\u003EThis Part amends the Income Tax Act 2007.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000619\u0022\u003E12 \tSection CB 6A Amended (Disposal within 2 years: bright-line test for residential land)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000620\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn the heading to section CB 6A replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000621\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn the chapeau to section CB 6A \u201CDisposal within 2 years\u201D to section CB 6A replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000622\u0022\u003E(3) \tIn section CB 6A(1) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000623\u0022\u003E(4) \tIn section CB 6A(2) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000624\u0022\u003E(5) \tIn section CB 6A(3) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000625\u0022\u003E(6) \tIn section CB 6A(4) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000626\u0022\u003E13 \tSection CB 16A Amended (Main home exclusion for disposal within 2 years)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000627\u0022\u003EIn the heading to section CB 16A replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000628\u0022\u003E14 \tSection DB 18A Amended (Ring-fenced allocations: disposal of residential land within 2 years)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000629\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn the heading to section DB 18A replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000630\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn section DB 18A(1) replace \u201C2 years\u201D with \u201C5 years\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000631\u0022\u003E15 \tSection DB 18AB Amended (Deduction cap: disposal of residential land within 2 years to associated persons)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000632\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn the heading to section DB 18AB replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000633\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn section DB 18AB(1)(a) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000634\u0022\u003E16 \tSection FB 3A Amended (Residential Land)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000635\u0022\u003EIn section FB 3A(1) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000636\u0022\u003E17 \tSection FC 9 Amended (Residential land transferred to executor, administrator, or beneficiary on death of person)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000637\u0022\u003EIn section FC 9(2) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000638\u0022\u003E18 \tSection FO 10 Amended (When property passes on resident\u2019s restricted amalgamation)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000639\u0022\u003EIn section FO 10(1) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000640\u0022\u003E19 \tSection FO 17 Amended (Land)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000641\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn section FO 17(1)(b) replace both instances of \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000642\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn section FO 17(3) replace both instances of \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000643\u0022\u003E20 \tSection GB 52 Amended (Arrangements involving residential land: companies\u2019 shares)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000644\u0022\u003EIn section GB 52(1)(a) replace both instances of \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000645\u0022\u003E21 \tSection GB 53 Amended (Arrangements involving residential land: trusts)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000646\u0022\u003EIn section GB 53(1)(c) replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000647\u0022\u003E22 \tSection YA 1 Amended (Definitions)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000648\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn the definition of \u201Cbright-line date\u201D in section YA 1 replace both instances of \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000649\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn the definition of \u201Cdate of acquisition\u201D in section YA 1 replace both instances of \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000650\u0022\u003E(3) \tIn paragraph (c) of the definition of \u201Csettlement\u201D in section YA 1 replace \u201C2\u201D with \u201C5\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f5c8aed096d84b809104a96101e579a1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAbstentions 12\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228b27a8b6588648b685cce09e1340fd1a\u0022\u003ENew Part 5  Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022583dc1cb28774e559a76b6b7d83c183c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022583dc1cb28774e559a76b6b7d83c183c\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E The next important policy that we need to discuss as part of this debate about housing affordability is set out in proposed new Part 5 of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. What this part does is it amends the Overseas Investment Act to ban non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing homes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5ec7ffb9d2f44f6b09b1132d08379ca\u0022\u003EHon Michael Woodhouse\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member on his feet. I draw the same Standing Order to you\u2014Standing Order 302(2)\u2014and suggest to you that the Overseas Investment Act\u2019s purpose is nothing to do with housing affordability. In particular, the references to sensitive land, which generally is farming land and outstanding landscape areas\u2014that is very unlikely to ever have houses built on it and therefore is out of the scope of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d71cb7bc84f543958f250e463d4d4192\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: First of all, and I think this is perhaps the most substantive issue here, these amendments have been ruled in order by you, Mr Chairperson, and by the Office of the Clerk. You are the sole determinant of relevance in these matters, and being bullied by Ministers should not change your ruling. You have already ruled on these matters and they have been ruled in order, and the challenging of your ruling by Ministers is unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6217dde38364d99a5e38195e9213e03\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: To be clear, I have not given any ruling on this yet, although I accept that it has been through the Clerk\u2019s process. I certainly do not feel bullied by my parliamentary colleague the Hon Mike Woodhouse. [Interruption] Well, I am going to take some time to consider this matter momentarily.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed0a7de4fb7b440b839da8723b6c76ff\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: As I was saying, the Government is clearly in denial on this issue, as it is on so many aspects of the housing crisis. It refuses to acknowledge what every New Zealander knows, and that is that non-resident foreign buyers are a significant force in the housing market, and, unquestionably, as marginal buyers they are having the effect of driving up house prices. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EA Cabinet Minister was interviewed on Radio New Zealand a few weeks ago on this issue, and she was asked by Guyon Espiner, the co-presenter of Morning Report, what the good bit is about even one home being sold to a non-resident foreign buyer. The Minister could not answer. She had no answer because there is no answer. There is no benefit to New Zealand or New Zealanders in allowing people who are not residents or citizens of this country to sit on the other side of the world and buy and sell our homes for capital gain. There is simply no benefit in that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo many countries have recognised that it is the duty of the Government to look after its citizens and that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that markets are allowed to work properly and deliver the benefits that are expected from them. Australia has the policy of banning non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing homes. That policy has effectively channelled $30 billion of foreign direct investment into the construction of new properties\u2014new homes\u2014in Australia in the last 12 months. Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia\u2014all have restrictions on non-resident foreign buyers buying residential property in their countries. In China it is not possible for non-residents to buy dwellings in Shanghai or Beijing, because the Chinese Government is protecting the interests of local residents in those communities against instability in the housing market denying citizens and residents in those cities from actually being able to access affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EMost recently, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, said that there was no doubt in his mind that foreign buyers were driving up house prices in Vancouver and Toronto, and shortly afterwards the provincial government of British Columbia implemented a 15 percent stamp duty\u2014a 15 percent stamp duty in British Columbia\u2014to try to deal with the massive influx of overseas money that has destabilised the Vancouver housing market and made it, like Auckland, one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe other interesting development on this issue happened a few weeks ago, when every one of the major trading banks in this country announced that they were ceasing lending to non-resident foreign buyers of residential property\u2014every single one of the banks. Their parent banks in Australia have done exactly the same thing. Would the banks, which have billions and billions of dollars of skin in the game, which lend tens of billions of dollars to homebuyers in New Zealand every year, do that if foreign buyers were not a significant presence? Of course they would not. It was the final blow to the credibility of this National Government and its denial that foreign buyers are a problem in the residential property market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat proposed new Part 5 does is it amends the Overseas Investment Act and it inserts a new category of property: overseas investment in residential property. What it does is that it applies the same definitions that exist in the Overseas Investment Act that determine whether a person or a company or a trust is to be regarded as foreign\u2014that is, if they have 25 percent or more ownership or control that is not by New Zealand citizens or New Zealand residents\u2014to investors in residential property. Then it makes it clear that an overseas entity cannot buy an existing property, but it could build a new one. That is the policy that we have here. That is the policy of the Australian Federal Government, and we think it makes a lot of sense. We believe\u2014the most overused phrase in the housing debate\u2014that this is not a silver bullet, but it is something that will make a significant difference to what is an extremely overheated housing market that has a tendency to a housing bubble. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00221ce906a6f4a5465e924e9996af3d31be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ce906a6f4a5465e924e9996af3d31be\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Members, I am going to give a ruling in respect of the point of order raised by the Hon Mike Woodhouse. I accept that the reason behind this particular legislation, which is seeking to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005, seems to have apparently two distinct philosophical reasons as to why it is there. One of them is to limit the ownership of land in New Zealand by foreign buyers; the other is that it would have an effect on affordability by removing foreign buyers from the market. The test as to whether or not it is in scope is the debating point as to whether or not, if this part was to be accepted and to go on and be in the bill, it could have a dampening effect or the effect of making more affordable houses available in the market. So, by reason of that, having taken and listened to the points of order and having taken advice from the Clerk\u2019s Office, I am going to rule it in scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u002281536e1af3f0434fb15f90070dd54fd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281536e1af3f0434fb15f90070dd54fd7\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your considered judgment. I certainly do not intend to labour this point but I will ask for one point of clarification, which I did not raise earlier. In an omnibus bill, by and large, more than one bill is being amended and a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), by and large, is designed to amend the bill being debated. What we now appear to have is a ruling that because two bills are being debated and amended in a single piece of legislation, any other piece of legislation could now be proposed for amendment, because we now have the Income Tax Act, the Overseas Investment Act, and the Resource Management Act all, effectively, within scope here notwithstanding that they have nothing to do with the bill being debated. I just want to clarify that the point now is that it is open slather on SOPs. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u002261422c49aa2d4535abdd98e856378261\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261422c49aa2d4535abdd98e856378261\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: The members who are choosing this particular time to give us the pearls of their wisdom have chosen to do so during the taking of a point of order, and they should not do that. I hear the member\u2019s point of order. I do not agree for a moment that it is open slather. Matters will have to be on point. Unfortunately\u2014or fortunately, depending on which side of the Chamber you sit\u2014the terms of this bill were very broad. If somebody wants to seek a clarification or seek a further ruling, then that is open to them. I have given my ruling and I am prepared to stand by that. I accept that there are other heads in the game. If the member wishes to take that and seek a review of my ruling, then I am quite happy for that to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00226df06725c7a14a1fb187d7fa57ddada4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226df06725c7a14a1fb187d7fa57ddada4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to carry on from where my colleague Phil Twyford left off, making the link between foreign buyers and affordability in the New Zealand housing market. The Labour Party position is that if you have got the right to live here, you have got the right to buy here. That is true, whether you are a migrant who has arrived just a month ago with permanent residency or you are someone who has lived here for ever. If you do not have the right to live here we do not think you should have the right to buy here, because we think that is having an effect on the price of housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe experience around the Pacific Rim, and in London and other places that are safe havens for capital in a turbulent world, is that with the free flow of capital, unconstrained by local rules relating to homeownership, those flows of capital pump up the price of housing beyond the price that locals can afford to pay. So the effect of not having a control on foreign buyers of New Zealand land with houses on it is that the housing starts to be priced not according to the means of New Zealanders to buy housing but according to the deep pockets of those who are from overseas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere can be a debate as to how much the effect from foreign buyers is on prices, but there cannot be a reasoned debate that there is none. As to how much the effect of foreign buyers is\u2014countries around the world are concluding that it is a material and substantial effect. Australia has moved to stop it. Canada has moved to stop it. Hong Kong has moved to stop it. China has moved to stop it. There are huge controversies in London and the United Kingdom. One of the reasons behind Brexit was that people cannot afford housing in those large centres. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn New Zealand the evidence is pretty clear. You know, there are billboards that are put up periodically in Ponsonby Road\u2014some of the most expensive billboard space in New Zealand\u2014advertising real estate agents to list your properties with, who are selling directly into China. They are selling directly into China. They advertise their websites. Those billboards\u2014we cannot afford them in the Labour Party. It costs many thousands of dollars each week to hire that billboard space for an advertisement. There is a lot of money being made on the sales of New Zealand houses to overseas interests.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAnother example\u2014we know that some of the people who, if you like, win the prizes for being the most successful real estate agents in Auckland are those who are servicing those markets. We have got instances of buyers from overseas coming to New Zealand and not buying one house but actually buying many houses on the same day, some of them sight unseen. I make the point again that this is not somehow anti-Chinese or, as it used to be, anti-Japanese or anti any other ethnic group. You know, I have been accused of those things previously when, in respect of rural land, I criticised American purchases, Swiss purchases, and French purchases. And when I criticised Chinese purchases in respect of Shanghai Pengxin\u2019s purchase of the Crafer farms, it was then that I was accused of racism or xenophobia, when I was making the same point every time, and that is that the market for New Zealand land assets\u2014and, in this case, housing assets\u2014should be a New Zealand market, not an overseas market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhy do we need this law? Why do we have to make this clear, that the Government has not got the discretion to allow our houses to be sold overseas? Well, we know that the Government has traded away our rights to put in place a control such as that under the Korean free-trade agreement. Korea retains the right to stop New Zealanders buying their houses, but, under the Korean free-trade agreement, the Government agreed that we would never ban the sale of New Zealand houses to Korean people, notwithstanding that in the free-trade agreement that had been agreed to within the last year or two with Australia, South Korea agreed that Australia could stop Koreans buying Australian houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo, of course, the even bigger effect of that is the flow-on effect into other trade agreements, because under trade agreements they have the most favoured nation clause, which, effectively, says that if you do a better deal in a later trade agreement than in your original trade agreement, it flows through to the benefit of the earlier trade agreement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Labour Government of which I was part negotiated the free-trade agreement with China. I was in Cabinet and I remember sitting in a policy committee\u2014because I had been worried about these land issues for a long time\u2014and I asked the question: \u201CHave we retained the ability to control whom we sell our houses to and change those rules?\u201D. Annette King is nodding her head. She was probably in the same policy committee. I can remember Helen Clark saying: \u201CWe\u2019d better check that.\u201D The officials could not answer it on the day, and so we asked the officials to go away and check that under the Chinese free-trade agreement we were retaining the right to change which asset classes we restricted Chinese people buying into in New Zealand. The answer was \u201CWell, China is retaining the right to ban New Zealand buyers of their houses.\u201D, and, under the Chinese free-trade agreement, New Zealand retained the right to ban Chinese purchases of New Zealand houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHow did that change? Because of the most favoured nation clause, which is in just about all of our trade agreements, because the National Government gave away\u2014it sold New Zealanders down the drain, under the South Korean free-trade agreement. That provision flows through, under the most favoured nation clause, to China. That can be fixed\u2014because I am sure the South Korean agreement could be fixed if we had a Government that wanted to\u2014as evidenced by the fact that South Korea has retained the right in South Korea to ban New Zealand buyers of homes in its country, and Australia got the same thing. So it is an absolutely ideological selling out of New Zealanders\u2019 interests, trying to curb the rights of a future Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut it gets worse. What is the biggest trade agreement in the world? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). What did this Government do in the TPP? Notwithstanding the lesson that we thought we had taught the Government and notwithstanding the fact that, actually, Labour is a pro-trade party, National went further and, in the investment protocols under the TPP, said that New Zealand would not introduce new areas of screening\u2014i.e., we would not ban the overseas sales of New Zealand houses to Americans or Japanese or anyone else in the TPP. That is why we need this amendment, because this amendment amends the Overseas Investment Act to make it clear that the Minister cannot just wash his hands of the effect of putting the best of our houses out of reach of New Zealanders and lifting the price of houses in a way that is unaffordable in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIf passed, this amendment closes that glaring hole in New Zealand\u2019s law and says that if you have got the right to live here, you have got the right to buy here, that it should be a New Zealand market, and that we should not have people from overseas who are the \u201C1 percenters\u201D of the world\u2014and sometimes coming through with dirty money, which we have seen through the Panama Papers. Those sorts of people cannot come here, with some of it being stolen money or whatever else\u2014they cannot come here and outbid New Zealanders for our houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHouses are to live in. The people whose interests we should be serving most are New Zealanders. They are the people whom the New Zealand Government should be acting to protect, not foreign buyers who want to speculate, who want to move money to a safe jurisdiction, who want to have another investment class, and who want to price New Zealanders out of our own homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThis Government, in this area, most plainly prefers the interests of overseas people over New Zealanders. That is why this provision is so essential if we are going to get the housing crisis in Auckland under control, because most of that purchase pressure is in Auckland. The Korean free-trade agreement, the Chinese free-trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement\u2014what more proof do you need that you need change in the underlying legislation? This Parliament should be telling the executive that in respect of these things, New Zealanders do not want to sell down the river the right of future Governments to control who buys their houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe have got the ability, in this vote, today, to put that into law, and I bet you that the Government will try to block it. It has already even tried to close down debate on the issue, through Minister Woodhouse\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u00229fa750763f004f58920128295ae2f432\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fa750763f004f58920128295ae2f432\u0022\u003EJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party is supporting this amendment, proposed Part 5, from the Labour Party. As the two previous speakers very well explained, it is vital that we address the issue of foreign capital in our housing market. It is very simple. The Green Party believes that every New Zealander should be able to live in a warm, healthy, safe, secure home, and they should not have to spend more than 30 or 40 percent of their income to access that. That is a fundamental human right. That is good for our society. If the Government wants to achieve that outcome, it has to be realistic about the many various challenges that are impacting on our housing market, and it is not realistic for the National Government to avoid this part of the debate and claim that anyone who raises the reality of foreign capital pouring fuel on the housing fire that is happening in Auckland\u2014it is just denying reality; it is a basic economic fact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EI heard some of the members last night, like David Seymour and some of the Government members, talking about housing markets and how they should work, and one of the key things that they did not address is that housing is not a commodity. It is not like cars or bicycles or dishware or glasses or pens. It is not like that because real estate is fixed, and so if we have a lot of money coming in for a fixed amount of land and number of houses, then of course it is going to increase the price of that and it is going make it harder for people to access housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe reality is that every home that is sold to an overseas investor is a home that a local family cannot buy. We do not have a capital gains tax, we do not have a warrant of fitness, and we do not have really adequate renters\u2019 protections, and so we have got these foreign speculators. There is nothing wrong with being foreign. It is just, you know, they are not invested in New Zealand, they have got no requirement to look after their tenants, and they are able to make tax-free capital gains on the appreciation of property prices. That is not good for New Zealand and that is not good for our economy, and let us just be realistic about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe Green Party policy is a little more ambitious than this amendment. Actually, this amendment does not ban all foreign buyers, at all. It just requires people buying residential property to be New Zealand citizens: either people who normally live here or people intending to live here indefinitely. It even allows for people temporarily coming to New Zealand and intending to sell their property when they leave, to buy property, and people buying bare land with the intention of building new houses or homes, or buying existing dwellings with the intention of upgrading them into a greater number of dwellings\u2014they are all able, under this amendment, to buy land and property. So it is actually quite a reasonable approach, and I cannot understand why the Government would not consider such a reasonable, well-researched proposal that will definitely have an impact on house prices in Auckland and make homes more accessible to New Zealanders who live here and do need a place to stay. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe Green Party message is very simple. Our longstanding policy has been to limit sales of property to residents and citizens. I am an immigrant. There is nothing xenophobic about saying that you have to have the intention of living here or be a citizen if you are going to buy property, because that keeps the market domestic and accessible for the people who need to live here. It is a simple message: if you want to make New Zealand your home, you are welcome to buy a home here. If you want to become a permanent resident or citizen, you are welcome. If you want to come and do those things and buy a house please, please\u2014that is absolutely available. Right? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EBut if people are going to sit in offices in Sydney, or Singapore, or San Diego and play games with our property market to make a buck without actually putting in any real investment here in New Zealand, then that is not welcome. I think most New Zealanders would agree with that. It is really unfortunate that the Government is not willing to debate the issue, and that it just claims that anyone who raises the issue is racist or xenophobic when it actually has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia or not wanting people to come to New Zealand. It is about protecting homes in New Zealand for those people who do live here and making sure that they are accessible to all people in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbe8c12be4df4b7eb655b4327b2deef9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbe8c12be4df4b7eb655b4327b2deef9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: I will call Grant Robertson, but before I do so I just want to indicate to the Committee that there are more amendments on the Table. There were two amendments, which sought to insert a new Part 7. I am ruling that Metiria Turei\u2019s, which was the first, will be new Part 7 and, I think, Mr Twyford\u2019s one, which was the other one, will be new Part 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u00222308c62c46e04f839cbc03e0710bd326\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222308c62c46e04f839cbc03e0710bd326\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I look forward in the course of the coming days to debating new Parts 7 and 8 of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EOn new Part 5, I want to make a couple of significant points. The first is the question around whether or not new Part 5 contributes to the purpose of improving the affordability of housing. I do want to note that the Government, in its tinkering, timid kind of way when it comes to housing, did realise that this was an area that could contribute to improving the affordability of housing. In the Budget 2015 speech when Bill English introduced the brightline measure that we discussed earlier in new Part 4, he also introduced the foreign buyer register, which I am going to come to in a moment, and in doing so, when he introduced that in Budget 2015, he actually used the phrase that this was part of a number of measures that would take pressure off the Auckland housing market. That is what he said. So the Government was quite clear that an initiative that started to address the impact of foreign buyers on the New Zealand housing market was a measure not just about taxation, not just about land, but actually about easing the pressure on the Auckland housing market, which today the Minister for Building and Housing has confirmed for New Zealanders is out of control\u2014and it most definitely is. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe second thing I want to raise in that regard is the question of the disproportionate impact of foreign buyers or speculators on the New Zealand housing market. The kinds of people who are involved in this level of speculation are prepared to pay well over the odds for housing, which pushes the prices up overall and has the effect of pushing first-home buyers out of the market. I want to give an example from here in Wellington from somebody who I know had been living in a rented house in a northern Wellington suburb and had to leave the house because it was sold from under them and the rent was put up. The reason the rent was put up was that the house was sold to an offshore buyer for some $500,000 over the Government valuation that it had.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022421dc8159d4d4c6ea9d7ca9c907db428\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Sight unseen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a0a8bd33789410cb33e45b8c3454b6d\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Sight unseen. In fact, talking to the real estate agent responsible for that sale, he said that within an hour of that property going up on their website, 13 offers had come in, 12 of them from offshore speculators\u201412 of the 13 offers came in from offshore speculators\u2014and someone at the end of the day was prepared to pay $1.2 million for a house worth about $700,000. That is the disproportionate impact of an offshore speculator on the New Zealand housing market. Often, with capital accessed at a much lower rate or capital that they want to shift quickly out of the country that they are resident in, the New Zealand housing market represents an opportunity for speculation, and it is that speculation that is driving up property prices and is pushing first-home buyers out of the market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESo this new Part 5 is a measure to improve the affordability of New Zealand housing. The question does remain: what is the extent to which it will improve the affordability of housing? This is obviously a very live debate, because the Government, as I said, in Budget 2015 decided that it would announce, as part of its desperate attempt to look like it was doing something in the housing area, a foreign buyer data register. We have now seen a couple of releases of information from that register, but they do not give the full picture. The Government likes to tell us that foreign buyers, according to its data, represent 2 or 3 percent of the buyers in the market, but a closer analysis of the statistics reveals that there is a giant fudge going on here by the Government. In the last data that was released, the Government told us that of the sales of houses in the last year, 2,300 of them went to non-residents\u2014people who, as has been described to us today, are not people who come here. These are people who do not have a right to live here, who do not live here, and who have no intention of living here\u2014except that is not quite what the Government has done, because, in addition to those 2,300 non-residents, another 5,700 properties were purchased by\u2014[Bell rung] Mr Chair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277f9c823459a498786c1bf8979a6e6ce\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Grant Robertson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d8ae53a8dc84c3ea26c1f6dcd8a8eed\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: That is very good\u2014nice. Ha, ha! Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That means another 5,700 were\u2014I am good with people stretching their legs without saying anything. It is excellent\u2014good work. So a further 5,700 were bought by people on temporary visas, including students. These are people who do not have the right to stay and live in New Zealand on a permanent basis. So if we add together the 2,300 that were bought by non-residents, as defined by the Government, to the 5,700 that were bought by people on temporary visas, that actually amounts to 13 percent of the total sales\u2014well in excess of what the Government is admitting and quite clearly having a major impact on the housing market and the price and affordability of housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ESo what is the Government\u2019s response to the fact that it brought in a foreign buyer data register, that there was pressure on it about this? Its response is twofold. It is to put out dodgy numbers and to call anyone who raises the spectre of this, as an issue, xenophobic. That is ridiculous. It is typical of this Government putting its head in the sand about housing issues rather than facing up to the impact of them. So when we have a situation where yesterday the average house price in Auckland hit a million dollars, and the Government says that the housing market is out of control but it has got no plans to change it, that is not on. It is a Government in denial now pushing housing further and further out of the hands of New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EIf you want to know the impact of foreign buyers, of speculators in the housing market, and of the lack of supply from the Government, Bill Rosenberg from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has calculated that if average wages had increased at the same rate as house prices in the last few years, the average wage would now be $69 per hour instead of $29 per hour\u2014if the rate of wage increases had kept up with the rate of house price increases. It is out of control, and it is being fuelled by people from overseas who look at the opportunity for a speculative gain in the New Zealand housing market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e541e4b3c94b4849b2a257b10fa0f2ed\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: And why wouldn\u2019t they?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eae72a1e93514a5bb1c8a6786c2495a4\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly\u2014and why wouldn\u2019t they, in an environment where there are few rules around them and where all around the Pacific area and all around the world countries have said their priority is to make sure the people who are resident there have the first chance to get themselves into housing. That is the priority. Australia does it. Other countries within the Trans-Pacific Partnership have carved out the right to do this. Vietnam and Malaysia have got it, China has got it, but New Zealand does not, and that is a failure on behalf of this Government, because it has simply decided to wish the problem away. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ENew Part 5 of this bill offers the opportunity for this Government, quite clearly, to take on board a policy that will improve the affordability of housing. In my time remaining I want to make one thing very clear, and that is that this is about\u2014and this is important for us on this side of the Chamber\u2014the purchase of existing housing. We do need to add to the supply of housing in New Zealand, and we do know that some of the good, positive developments in housing that have been taking place in Auckland have actually been funded by money from offshore, but that is new housing\u2014that is adding to the stock. It is helping to solve the problem. Speculating on existing housing, driving up the prices, does nothing to solve the problem. It makes the problem worse. That is what new Part 5 of this bill aims to address: people with no interest in moving here, people with interest only in speculation. So I want to make it clear: that is covered here within new Part 5, the new section 17A(c)(iii) within new Part 5. It covers off the fact that if people are going to add to the housing stock and create new housing, that is a good thing, and can be managed within the regime that we have, but if all they are interested in is speculating, driving up housing prices, and pushing young New Zealanders out of buying their first homes, then that has got no place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThis is one aspect of a comprehensive plan for housing, along with building affordable housing, along with increasing the stock of State housing, and along with fixing the homelessness crisis. We have the comprehensive plan over here. Here is one part of it. Here is a chance for National: step up, vote for this, and do something instead of sitting on your hands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u00221ff1895bc5384440a44c35c3443f6ed8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ff1895bc5384440a44c35c3443f6ed8\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E New Part 5 of this bill is a fascinating part, and I want to concentrate on clause 15. But, before I do that, I would like to just pay tribute that we are into the 13th hour of this debate, and it feels a little Telethon-like, because when you are doing something for the benefit of the whole country it feels like fun, and I think, at the end of the day, everyone will benefit, especially if Part 5 becomes part of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EPart 5, clause 15, looks to insert new sections 17A and 17B into the Overseas Investment Act. Section 17 in the said Act is titled \u201CFactors for assessing benefit of overseas investments in sensitive land\u201D. There is in clause 17A, which we would like to insert into that Act, some criteria for approval of overseas investments in residential property. I do not want to dwell too long on clause 17A, but I think it is relevant for me to pass through them quickly, just so people get a flavour of what kinds of criteria there will be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EClause 17A(1)(a) is a good character test. Clause 17A(1)(b) is, essentially, an immigration test to make sure that the people who could potentially invest in residential property would meet Immigration Act criteria. But the interesting thing with clause 17A(1)(c)(iii) is that \u201Cthe overseas investment will, or is likely to, increase the supply of housing in New Zealand, as determined by the relevant Minister under section 17B.\u201D Before I get to section 17B, I do want to point out what that says: \u201Cincrease the supply of housing in New Zealand\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EPointing to some of the concerns of the Hon Michael Woodhouse around the relevance of Part 5 to this piece of legislation, I think it is quite simple to say that if you are increasing the stock of housing in New Zealand, if you are an overseas investor and you are looking after that in a systemic way, then you are helping housing affordability. So that is why I think section 17B is quite fascinating, and should be something that any Government that wanted to have a comprehensive housing plan should have in place, because 17B does, again, set out criteria for overseas investors in residential supply, in terms of increasing the housing supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EOne of those criteria for investment, in clause 17B(2)(a)(i), is that \u201Cthe overseas investment is in vacant land and the relevant overseas [person] is committed to building premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence:\u201D. In plain English, that is an empty plot of land on which that person who is investing in that from overseas is going to build houses for people to live in, whether it be themselves or someone else, or both of those, that would increase the housing stock here in New Zealand, which would be a good thing for housing affordability. If the Hon Michael Woodhouse cannot see the sense of that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed428d9fdc194589b3be61d89abe0bb9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! There was a point of order on which there was a considered ruling, and the member\u2014I should have pulled him up earlier\u2014cannot go back to relitigating that area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c7b1ceb7e6c4b6f976b46d4faa526a2\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. But if the Government cannot see how that would be good for increasing the supply of housing for housing affordability, then I think it may need to rethink its plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe second one, in clause 17B(2)(a)(ii), is that the overseas investment is in premises already existing and \u201C[the relevant overseas person] is committed to redeveloping that site to contain a greater number of places of residence:\u201D. Again, in English, that might be that someone might buy a property that is a singular house, they may invest in that, and they may turn that into five or six flats or subdivide that area and build more houses, therefore increasing the supply of housing, which, again, is good for housing affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe third criteria, under clause 17B(2)(a)(iii), is that the overseas investor is investing in \u201Cexisting premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence that is not currently suitable for habitation and the relevant overseas person is committed to redeveloping that site to make it fit for habitation;\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c634c2f42b144928b379163f181f179b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c634c2f42b144928b379163f181f179b\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Overseas purchasers do have a big effect on the New Zealand housing market. The Government has never admitted that, and in questions at question time over some years now this has been challenged. The Government has constantly said \u201CNo, they don\u2019t have much effect\u2014no, they don\u2019t have much effect.\u201D and has brought up spurious data to try to prove that. But the reality is that they do have a big effect. They have a big effect because they tend to buy land purely for capital-gain farming purposes only. They tend to land bank land, they tend to speculate, and they tend to buy homes and sit on them and not rent them out because that is an inconvenience. They are interested only in the capital gain. As I have said, what they are really doing is just capital-gain farming. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EYou can understand why\u2014now that the average price of Auckland houses has reached a million dollars. When you look at the unbelievable capital gain that has occurred, even over the last year, you will see why the overseas purchasers with plenty of money are very keen on buying New Zealand homes. Therefore you see, in various parts of the world, advertisements\u2014even by New Zealand real estate companies\u2014encouraging overseas purchasers to buy in New Zealand. At various times New Zealand First has produced such advertisements sourced from China and sourced from Singapore. No doubt they occur in other places, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EOther nations have moved in the way that is proposed in this amendment, proposed Part 5, and they have placed severe restrictions on overseas purchases of residential land, either just through absolute prohibitions\u2014which New Zealand First favours\u2014or through the taxation system. This Government has done nothing. Why has it done nothing? Nobody really understands, because overseas purchases for capital-gain farming purposes confer no benefit on New Zealand whatsoever, and, indeed, they do significant damage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to move on to the particular provisions in this amendment, which New Zealand First would like to be able to support. New section 17A, inserted by proposed new clause 15, is the crux of them, and they provide the criteria. Apart from good character and the ability to get a visa under normal rules, the important part, I think, is section 17A(1)(c), which requires one of a number of criteria to be met. The first we agree with\u2014that the person has to be a New Zealand citizen, ordinarily resident in New Zealand, or intending to reside here indefinitely. We agree with the second\u2014that the relevant overseas person intends to reside in New Zealand temporarily, but with an agreement to sell their New Zealand property if they then leave. That, of course, must be properly evidenced and guaranteed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe third one is the one that we disagree with. I have moved an amendment to proposed new Part 5 to remove section 17A(1)(c)(iii), which is the one that allows overseas investment if it is likely to increase the supply of New Zealand housing, and, consequentially, I have moved the deletion of new section 17B as well. The reason for that is very simple. That is that we do not believe that it would be possible to properly police that subparagraph (iii) relating to the increase of supply of housing in New Zealand. How that could be properly evidenced? I know that there is section 17B there, which tries to achieve that, but I do not think it can. I think it makes the policy far too weak\u2014there are too many let-offs in it. We could not support it. We just want a simple prohibition of purchasing residential land in New Zealand; we do not see any need for that exception. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIf my amendment is not passed, we will be unable, unfortunately, to vote for this amendment inserting new Part 5, because it is such an important issue for us. We think that it is absolutely vital that overseas purchasers of residential land in New Zealand should be people who actually live here, or who are citizens, wherever they reside, or people who want to come here and reside permanently in the country. We do not want any other let-out as far as overseas purchases are concerned. So we cannot support section 17A(1)(c)(iii), and we hope that the other parties in the Committee will look at my amendment and pass that to amend this amendment, so that New Zealand First will be in a position to support it as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00222492505016e5490caf8b700749892c79\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222492505016e5490caf8b700749892c79\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased to take a call on proposed new Part 5 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, inserted by Phil Twyford\u2019s amendment, and before I begin my comments on the specific provisions of this, I do want to acknowledge the growing levels of frustration on the benches opposite. I want to say that the power to end this debate is entirely in the Government\u2019s hands. If the Government is willing to send Part 2 of this bill to a select committee, so that the confiscation of property rights can be adequately considered, then the debate will be all over. But if it is not willing to do that, then the debate will continue. The power to end this debate is entirely in the Government\u2019s hands\u2014I suggest those members have a conversation about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI move to new Part 5, which amends the Overseas Investment Act to consider, basically, a housing interest test when overseas buyers are buying New Zealand housing. The question that we should always ask about overseas investment\u2014and I stand here as someone who supports overseas investment in New Zealand\u2014is what the benefit is to New Zealanders. What extra benefits are we getting from the overseas investment? If they are buying a business we have good tests around what the extra investment would mean for New Zealand. If they are buying sensitive land we have a test that asks what extra benefits New Zealanders get from this purchase. Why do we not have similar criteria around overseas investment in our housing market? Surely the question we should be asking is what we are getting. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIf we are allowing somebody who is not resident in New Zealand to come to buy housing, what is the benefit to New Zealanders? At the moment no such test exists, and this provision inserts that. By doing so, it would prevent an overseas investor from simply buying up residential properties for the sake of raking in profits, which are then removed from New Zealand, which then pushes up the price of rental accommodation and excludes New Zealand buyers from the housing market, and it would ensure that those houses would otherwise be available to New Zealand purchasers\u2014first-home buyers, potentially, or other New Zealand - based resident investors. So why do we allow unrestricted overseas investment in New Zealand housing at the moment? There really is not any good justification, because if we go back to that very first test around what value that delivers to New Zealand, it arguably does not deliver any. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo I want to turn, particularly, to new section 17B, in new Part 5, which talks about assessing the value of overseas investment in New Zealand housing, and I want to talk, particularly, about subsection (2)(a)(iii), which is where an overseas buyer is purchasing \u201Cexisting premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence that is not currently suitable for habitation and the relevant overseas person is committed to redeveloping that site to make it fit for habitation;\u201D. We have got a number of buildings throughout New Zealand that at the moment do not meet code. Many of them are owned by local authorities, but some of them are privately owned\u2014some of those old Housing New Zealand Corporation blocks, for example, that need significant improvement in them, that are now privately owned or no longer owned by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. They need significant improvement in their present form. Although some of them, regrettably, are currently tenanted, they are not suitable for human habitation, and it is an indictment on our current housing policies that we have actually got people living in housing that is currently not fit for human habitation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIf an overseas investor were to buy those properties that are so badly run down that they cannot be occupied without significant investment, and there is nobody else domestically\u2014that is the other test that has to be applied\u2014who would be willing to make that investment, then they are going to be increasing the supply of housing for New Zealanders. There could be a case to be made for the overseas investor to be allowed to buy that, because those dwellings are otherwise unoccupiable, and without that overseas investment they would not be occupiable. So there could be a case made for that. This bill introduces that, and it allows for that to happen. I actually think that the threshold would have to be reasonably high because, as I have indicated before, the second test has to be whether there would be someone in New Zealand who would be willing to do that, and make that investment. If there is, then there is no justification for the overseas investment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo it is not just a question of \u201CDoes the opportunity exist?\u201D. The test, then, also has to be \u201CAnd is there nobody else who could take up that opportunity, or who would be willing to take up that opportunity, or who would have the capital available to take up that opportunity?\u201D. New Zealand housing should be for the benefit of New Zealanders. We, as a Parliament, should certainly be making sure that New Zealanders are the first in the queue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u00227fe7d68de1f64fc68d054f9c7487007c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fe7d68de1f64fc68d054f9c7487007c\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Let us go back\u2014well, not back; it is still around\u2014to that amazing game of Monopoly, where we sit around looking at a board, we move properties around, and we throw our money in the middle. Basically, we should be able to have the desire to prevent New Zealand being played around with in this way. You can sit around in a room\u2014today it is probably on the internet\u2014have a look at what is available in that country over there, and have a little bit of a play around: \u201CWe\u2019ve got spare money, we\u2019ve got spare cash\u2014I\u2019ll take that. I\u2019ve never been there, I perhaps never will; I\u2019ll take that, and I\u2019ll take that.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EOther countries have decided that they cannot live with that\u2014plenty of other countries. For example, in Vancouver there is a new 15 percent stamp duty tax on overseas buyers. Other countries have had the courage to do what is right. Australia, as we keep hearing, does not sell land to foreign investors unless they are going to build a new house on it. So other countries have been as appalled as we should all be, and have put in place rules to ensure that all of our New Zealanders first have a fair go at being able to buy our own houses and land. All of our New Zealand residents\u2014our Chinese New Zealand residents, our Japanese New Zealand residents, our Mexican New Zealand residents, all of our New Zealand residents\u2014should have a go first at being able to buy our houses and our land. To live here, to be part of the community, to contribute back, to be able to contribute to your local schools and your local jobs\u2014all of these are the things that happen when you are invested in your community and your surroundings, when you are genuinely connected to what is going on around you, and you are willing to invest your money into your own community. So why, Government, would we not want to fight for that? I do not understand\u2014well, perhaps I do, but I might not be able to share the language on that in this Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo why would we not want to fight for that\u2014and at least know about it? Hey, at least, why would we not want to know what is going on with numbers? How about that, at least? For example, in \u014Ctara, and my colleague Jenny Salesa often points this out, sales of homes are now 80 percent to investors. This is up from 62 percent in 2010. We should at least be able to know very clearly who of those are not residents here in Aotearoa New Zealand. In Manurewa, where I live and rent my home, sales to investors are 68 percent. Bear in mind these two percentage points of sales to investors are higher than the country\u2019s percentage rate of sales to investors. Again, we want to stick up for the communities that are being most hampered. We want to find out for those communities, my community and Jenny\u2019s community, what is happening with sales there, at the very least. But mostly we do want to put a ban, which is why the Greens are supporting this amendment to this part of the bill. We do absolutely want to put a ban, and see how that goes. See how it impacts. At least do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI wanted to take just a short call, but one of the other points I wanted to raise is that for tangata whenua this has an even yuckier taste: when we are feeling on our whenua that we are tenants in our own whenua. Again, why would we not want to fight for that? Tangata whenua, our indigenous people, our mana motuhake people\u2014why would we not want to fight to understand who is buying our homes and our lands, how we can find that out, and also to let us put up a ban? Let us see how this is going to impact on our country, because we do stand by our own residents, all of our own Aotearoa residents. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022 data-id=\u002287832dd3627841a59abcab0ab71389e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002287832dd3627841a59abcab0ab71389e2\u0022\u003ETODD BARCLAY (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc6259fecbc243f0a6278a03060b75fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc6259fecbc243f0a6278a03060b75fb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: The member might have got it if he had asked for it properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd9f21b01efe4600a730eb24472125b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd9f21b01efe4600a730eb24472125b3\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E A very good choice. I wanted to make some comments on what Chris Hipkins said because I think it is very important that we clarify this a little. The issue is with regard to proposed new section 17A(1)(c)(iii), to be inserted into the Overseas Investment Act by proposed new clause 15. That is the section that would allow overseas purchasers to purchase land if \u201Cthe overseas investment will, or is likely to, increase the supply of housing in New Zealand, as determined by the relevant Minister \u2026\u201D. I do not think that the comments made by Chris Hipkins were realistic. He particularly referred to do-ups. I think those would be an excuse for overseas purchasers to buy valuable property, on the basis that they wanted to invest in them and make them more valuable. I do not accept that Kiwis could not do that just as well, or that there would not be a very long list of Kiwis wanting to do this, if only they could afford the property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIn addition to that, I think there is a lot of merit in simplicity. Proposed new section 17A(1)(c)(iii) and the whole of section 17B are far from simple, and would therefore create a wide opportunity for overseas purchasers to drive fleets of buses through this particular amendment. They would find ways through that of being able to purchase land in New Zealand without much restriction. The reason I say that is if you look at section 17B(1) you will see that \u201Cthe relevant Ministers must determine whether the requirements [set out below] are fulfilled.\u201D There may be some Ministers whom I would have faith in to do that well, and to do it genuinely. But I can tell you right now that if the current Minister were in that position, there is no way that I would have any confidence at all that the policies set out in section 17B would actually be followed with any genuine purpose whatsoever. So there is a huge problem with such wide ministerial discretion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe second point is this. Look at section 17B(2)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii). In every one of those\u2014in fact, in four places\u2014the words \u201Ccommitted to\u201D are used. What on earth does \u201Ccommitted to\u201D actually mean? Nobody has said. Perhaps one of the Labour people could stand up and tell us, with precision, what they mean in each and every one of those four places where the words \u201Ccommitted to\u201D are used. I do not think that is clear at all, and that is why I say that with this particular proposal a fleet of buses could be driven through it without notice. It is therefore going to compromise the whole piece of this proposal. That is a great shame, because New Zealand First desperately wants to stop overseas purchasers from buying New Zealand residential land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThat particular proposal, the one in section 17A(1)(c)(iii) that I read out, is the only one that compromises this otherwise very good proposal. I would very much encourage other members of the Committee to vote in favour of my amendment to the amendment, which would simply delete that. It would simply delete section 17A(1)(c)(iii) and, consequentially, the very complex and meaningless section 17B, and make this a piece of legislation that New Zealand First could support. It would then be a clean and simple and effective method of stopping overseas purchasers from buying New Zealand land, stopping the speculation that they indulge in, stopping the land banking, and stopping all the negatives that they do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThis is such a let-out that that particular provision really does have to be removed. I do not think Chris Hipkins was at all convincing in his attempt to justify it. I would again say that if people in this Chamber actually do want, in an effective way, to stop overseas purchases of New Zealand residential land, then please, remove that particular provision from this part. There is no good reason for it. It would achieve nothing, and the rest of it could then be effective, without being compromised in any way whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u00220901e0bac374453e8c61ef1c1fcf9408\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220901e0bac374453e8c61ef1c1fcf9408\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002232c33f65e7f54b1485cdf60d7ea29fd4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002232c33f65e7f54b1485cdf60d7ea29fd4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: In the last half an hour, I have not heard any new argument other than that from Mr O\u2019Rourke. I think that members should be in a position now to be able to make up their minds on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002245f5b915b00442379d1675d5135a1843\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000734\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denis O\u2019Rourke to the proposed amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to insert new Part 5 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000735\u0022\u003EDelete new section 17A(1)(c)(iii) and new section 17B from new clause 15. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002260f9c46753744de88b95d1d4fc5a962b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 26\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 95\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000736\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to insert new Part 5 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000737\u0022\u003EAfter Part 2 insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000738\u0022\u003EPart 5\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000739\u0022\u003EAmendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000740\u0022\u003E11 \tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000741\u0022\u003EThis Part amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000742\u0022\u003E12 \tSection 6 amended (Interpretation)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000743\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn section 6(1), definition of category, after paragraph (a), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000744\u0022\u003E(aa)\tan overseas investment in residential property:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000745\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn section 6(1), definition of give effect to an overseas investment, paragraph (at), insert \u201Coverseas investment in residential property,\u201D, after \u201Coverseas investment in sensitive land,\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000746\u0022\u003E(3) \tIn subsection 6(1), after the definition of overseas investment in fishing quota, insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000747\u0022\u003E\u201Coverseas investment in residential property has the meaning set out in section 12A\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000748\u0022\u003E(4) \tIn section 6(1), definition of overseas investment transaction, insert \u201C, an overseas investment in residential property,\u201D after \u201Coverseas investment in sensitive land\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000749\u0022\u003E(5) \tIn section 6(1), after the definition of Reserve Bank, insert: \u201Cresidential property means urban land that may be used to residential purposes under rules in the relevant proposed or operative district plan\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000750\u0022\u003E13 \tSection 10 amended (Consent required for overseas investments in sensitive New Zealand assets)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000751\u0022\u003EIn section 10(1), after paragraph (a), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000752\u0022\u003E(aa)\tan overseas investment in residential property (see section 12A):\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000753\u0022\u003E14 \tNew section 12A (What are overseas investments in residential property)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000754\u0022\u003EAfter section 12, insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000755\u0022\u003E12A\tWhat are overseas investments in residential property\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000756\u0022\u003EAn overseas investment in residential property is the acquisition by an overseas person, or an associate of an overseas person, of\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000757\u0022\u003E(a) \tan interest in residential property:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000758\u0022\u003E(b) \trights or interests in securities of a person (A) if A owns or controls (directly or indirectly) an interest in residential property described in paragraph (a) and, as result of the acquisition,\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000759\u0022\u003E(i) \tthe overseas person or the associate (either alone or together with its associates) has a 25% or more ownership or control interest in A; or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000760\u0022\u003E(ii) \tthe overseas person or the associate (either alone or together with its associates) has an increase in an existing 25% or more ownership or control interest in A; or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000761\u0022\u003E(iii) \tA becomes an overseas person.\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000762\u0022\u003E15 \tNew section 17A and 17B\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000763\u0022\u003EAfter section 17, insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000764\u0022\u003E17A\tCriteria for approval of overseas investments in residential property\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000765\u0022\u003E (i) \tThe criteria for approval of an overseas investment in residential property are all of the following:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000766\u0022\u003E(a) \tthe relevant overseas person is, or (if that person is not an individual) each individual with control of the relevant overseas person is, of good character:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000767\u0022\u003E(b) \tthe relevant overseas person is not, or (if that person is not an individual) each individual with control of the relevant overseas person is not, an individual of a kind referred to in section 15 or 16 of the Immigration Act 2009 (which sections list certain persons not eligible for visas or entry permission under that Act):\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000768\u0022\u003E(c) \tone of the following is met:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000769\u0022\u003E(i) \tthe relevant overseas person is, or (if that person is not an individual) all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are, New Zealand citizens, ordinarily resident in New Zealand, or intending to reside in New Zealand indefinitely:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000770\u0022\u003E(ii) \tthe relevant overseas person is, or (if that person is not an individual) all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are, intending to reside in New Zealand temporarily and in agreement with selling any interest obtained upon departure:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000771\u0022\u003E (iii) \tthe overseas investment will, or is likely to, increase the supply of housing New Zealand, as determined by the relevant Minister under section 17B.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000772\u0022\u003E(2)\tSee section 19 in relation to subsection (1)(a) and (b).\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000773\u0022\u003E17B\tAssessing increase in housing supply for overseas investments in residential property\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000774\u0022\u003E(1) \tIf section 17A(1)(c)(iii) applies, the relevant Ministers must determine whether the requirements in subsection (2) are fulfilled.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000775\u0022\u003E (2) \tIn order for an overseas investment in residential property to be deemed to, or deemed likely to increase the supply of housing in New Zealand, compliance with paragraphs (a) to (c) must be demonstrated:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000776\u0022\u003E (a) \tthe relevant overseas person is committed to 1 of the following, in what the relevant Ministers consider to be a reasonable period of time:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000777\u0022\u003E(i) \tthe overseas investment is in vacant land and the relevant overseas person is committed to building premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000778\u0022\u003E(ii) \tthe overseas investment is in existing premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence and the relevant overseas person is committed to redeveloping that site to contain a greater number of places of residence:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000779\u0022\u003E(iii) \tthe overseas investment is an existing premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence that is not currently suitable for habitation and the relevant overseas person is committed to redeveloping that site to make it fit for habitation; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000780\u0022\u003E(b) \tthe relevant overseas person has, or (if that person is not an individual) the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person collectively have, business experience and acumen relevant to the investment in paragraph (a); and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000781\u0022\u003E(c) \tthe relevant overseas person has demonstrated financial commitment to the investment in paragraph (a).\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000782\u0022\u003E16 \tSection 19 amended (Applying good character and Immigration Act 2009 criteria)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000783\u0022\u003E(1) \tIn section 19(1), after \u201Csections 16 (1)(c)\u201D, insert \u201C, 17A(1)(a)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000784\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn section 19(2), after \u201Csections 16(1)(d)\u201D, insert \u201C, 17A(1)(b)\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000785\u0022\u003E17 \tSection 24 amended (Who decides application)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000786\u0022\u003EAfter section 24(1)(a), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000787\u0022\u003E(aa)\tin the case of the residential property decision, by the Minister and the Minister of Housing:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000788\u0022\u003E18 \tSection 28 amended (Conditions of consent)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000789\u0022\u003EAfter section 28(2), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000790\u0022\u003E(3) \tWhere the overseas person is intending to reside in New Zealand indefinitely as set out in section 17A(1)(c)(i), the Minister must impose as a condition of the consent that the overseas person become a resident of New Zealand within a period of time to be specified by the Minister.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000791\u0022\u003E19 \tSection 61 amended (Regulations)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000792\u0022\u003EAfter section 61(1)(m), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000793\u0022\u003E (ma)\tproviding for applicants from particular countries to be exempt from this Act for overseas investments in residential property:\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223fb993137d8242ae9c1bc3183b25c2fe\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bcfebbf8c8704e9782a429fa5a8cd81e\u0022\u003ENew Part 6  Amendment to Resource Management Act 1991\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00224580cd10cd854fd4b43fcdf5b6dc2d30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224580cd10cd854fd4b43fcdf5b6dc2d30\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I am speaking to proposed Part 6, which mandates that the Minister must, within 6 months of the commencement of this part, prepare a new national policy statement under the Resource Management Act (RMA) on urban growth. This is very important because if there is a root cause of the current housing crisis that bedevils New Zealand, that root cause lies in the highly restrictive planning regime and the way that we finance infrastructure, which has the effect of choking off the supply of new land for development. It drives up urban land costs and triggers a chain reaction of speculation and land banking that has seen our largest city now have some of the most unaffordable housing in the Western World.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThis amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker sets out an alternative, smarter approach to managing urban growth, which we believe goes right to the heart of the root causes of the dysfunctional urban land markets that are at the heart of the problem that we have with our housing in New Zealand. What happens is that the planning rules choke off the supply of new land. They create an artificial scarcity of land and they drive up the cost of urban land that is able to be developed. That acts as a magnet for land bankers and speculators, who rush in. They buy land around the urban growth boundary in the knowledge that in time that boundary will shift and the value of that land will go up. By the very nature of having a boundary like that, with urban land on one side and future urban land on the other, you get this massive differential in land values\u2014sometimes up to 10 times. Urban land that is able to be developed can be up to 10 times the cost of rural land on the other side of the boundary. That differential is an irresistible magnet for speculators.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat we have seen in Auckland over the last 20 years is land bankers pocketing windfall gains of thousands of percent. There are thousands of percent of windfall gains for land bankers who have just bought up paddocks in the knowledge that they will surely, eventually, be rezoned for urban development as the city expands. Who pays that cost? It is future homeowners, because the cost of that land banking\u2014the inflation of land values\u2014just simply gets loaded into the price tag of new homes in new developments. It drives up the price of housing, it makes housing less affordable for first-home buyers in particular, but, most importantly, the marginal cost of land on the fringes of the city gets capitalised into property values right across the market. So it has an extraordinary inflationary impact on house prices across the entire market. We could hardly design a system that was worse at protecting affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe lesson, I think, from the last 20 years in New Zealand is that we must make room for growth. Auckland is expecting another million people to call that city home in the next 30-odd years. If we do not make room for that growth, if we put in place restrictive rules that stop the city growing up and stop it growing out, only one thing will happen: we will drive prices up and we will deny our children and our grandchildren the opportunity to ever own their own homes in the city. What David Parker\u2019s amendment does is it proposes a whole new alternative and a smarter way to manage growth. If we look at proposed clause 12(2)(a), it proposes a national policy statement on urban growth that must include a prohibition on the use of urban growth boundaries within a district plan where official statistics predict there will be population growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EBut it is not enough just to do away with the boundary; we must do other things. We must, for example\u2014as we say in proposed clause 12(2)(b)\u2014use more intensive spatial planning to set out over space and time what should happen, what developments should be allowed to happen in the identified growth corridors. We must acquire land for transport and other infrastructure corridors and networks. We must, for example, set aside areas of special value\u2014environmental or cultural value\u2014that are not appropriate for development. Most importantly, we must deal with infrastructure and utility costs, which add massive expense to new developments, and we must ensure that those costs are properly internalised in new developments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat we are proposing here is a rigorous system for ensuring that the costs of that infrastructure are properly internalised so that the taxpayer and the ratepayer are not being asked to subsidise development in places where it might be extremely expensive to lay down that infrastructure\u2014where it is uneconomic. Those are a few of the key principles in this amendment, which we believe is a much more permissive approach that will stop the planning regime choking off new land for development and driving up the cost of urban land. We believe that this policy will be one of the most essential reforms that we can make if we want to produce a more functional and more competitive urban land market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to contrast this approach with the special housing areas and the track record of this Government in the last 8 years. Bill English and Nick Smith have spent a decade talking about this issue\u2014blaming the RMA, blaming councils for restrictive planning rules that have driven up the cost of urban land\u2014but they have done so little about it. You can barely credit the inconsistency, the gap, between the rhetoric and the reality of National on this issue over its last 8 years in Government. It has spent all of its time scapegoating councils and blaming the RMA, when it has done virtually nothing to tackle the root causes of the problem, which are the restrictive planning rules that stop the city growing up and growing out. Finally, what we have seen is Auckland Council, actually, which deserves credit for adopting a unitary plan that significantly up-zones the city and allows more density so that a better mix of housing options, hopefully with some better affordability, can be built in the city\u2014and it has increased the amount of greenfield land available, to take out some of the extreme price pressures caused by the lack of new land for development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EBut that is only an incremental step; what we need is a whole new approach, which is embodied in David Parker\u2019s amendment. It would be a smarter approach to protecting the environment and to supporting the development of good urban form. I want to reassure people who are concerned that this might lead to unchecked sprawl that it is not designed to do that. We are advocating the freeing up of density in the city to allow more density to happen. The crucial factor here is that the costs of new development are properly internalised. That will tilt the playing field in favour of intensification in the city. That will take advantage of the sunk infrastructure assets that are already there. We are going to debate, later on, a new mechanism for financing infrastructure: infrastructure bonds that will be paid back over the lifetime of the asset through a targeted rate on the properties in a new development. You put those two factors together and you have got a whole new way of managing urban growth that will cut out the rotten heart of our planning system, which currently drives up urban land prices and acts as a magnet for speculators.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EYou could not get anything more different than this bold, courageous new approach to managing growth in contrast to the incremental, piecemeal tinkering of Nick Smith\u2019s special housing areas, which have made virtually no difference to the supply of housing and certainly no difference to affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u002252a44deb369648488a44c5b28027176d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252a44deb369648488a44c5b28027176d\u0022\u003EJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I have a slightly different perspective on the situation than the previous speaker, Phil Twyford. The Green Party will be supporting this amendment on the condition that there are several amendments to it. My slightly different perspective is that there is a story around development in New Zealand, particularly in Auckland, that says that people want to live on a quarter-acre section, they want to be able to drive everywhere, and we need to build motorways to assist that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThe reality is that there is no point building a whole lot of cheaper houses and places for people to live unless people have affordable access to jobs, schools, shops, green spaces, and amenities. People do not need just houses, and that has been the whole failure of this special housing area approach. It is entirely focused on houses, not on neighbourhoods, which is what people need to live good lives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EWe will completely undermine the objective of making housing affordable if we do it in a way that makes transport far more expensive. So we can support this amendment on the basis that it is not going to result in urban sprawl because of the many subsections that do not just stop urban growth boundaries but actually require local authorities to take a much more proactive, detailed spatial planning process that sets aside land that is of special value. It might be a value for a community to have land that is used for agricultural purposes close to the city, to have land that is preserved for biodiversity purposes, and to ensure that all of the new development is around infrastructure corridors that provide good transport linkages to other parts of the community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIt is not just any transport corridors, because the other thing that is missing, I think, from this amendment is the recognition that climate change is an urgent, urgent challenge for everyone on this planet, and we have to be thinking and creating communities where people can get around without increasing dangerous climate pollution. It is not affordable and it is also not wise to be planning for car-dependent, sprawling neighbourhoods that cost people a fortune, segregate communities, mean it is harder for them to access jobs, and, on top of it all, we have got this warming climate, we have got a pressing need, and an opportunity to create vibrant, livable communities that are linked up by smart, clean public transport that means people can socialise, work, and relax while getting around the city. They do not have to spend hours stuck in traffic, and they do not have to spend a whole heap of their income on ever more cars just so their kids can access schools and jobs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo the Green Party can support a smarter approach to planning that is going to achieve not only affordable housing but affordable transport and access to the things that people need to live a good life. That takes a proactive local government approach, and that is what has been lacking under this National Government, because it is so ideological and it is so\u2014as my colleague Marama Davidson says\u2014disconnected. It is thinking about things in a very siloed way. We have got this focus, supposedly, on affordable housing. Well, (1) we are not even going to achieve that with special housing areas, but (2) what good is cheap housing if you have expensive transport, and what good is cheap housing if you cannot access jobs? It is not going to solve the problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo the amendments I plan to table will amend the proposed part so that it prohibits the use of planning rules that are currently used, like minimum parking requirements, which are actually pushing development out from the centre. Where people actually want to live is in the existing urban area, because that is where one has access to jobs, access to communities, and access to schools and hospitals\u2014everything that they need. That has not happened, because planning rules actually make it more difficult and more expensive to provide homes in the existing urban area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EIf we did not have all those rules, we would not need urban growth boundaries, but the reality is that we have all those rules, and so we also have urban growth boundaries, and so there is pressure from both sides. I would prefer to leave the urban growth boundaries in place until we have sufficient development within the existing area, but I can see that if every part of this proposal in Part 6 was included, including the detailed spatial planning, setting aside areas of special value, ensuring that future infrastructure corridors and networks\u2014[Bell rung] But if we have new communities sprouting up in places like Warkworth or in between Pukekohe and Auckland, they have to be around the rail network and there has to be electrified passenger transport services. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EThose communities in greenfields could be within walking distance of electrified rail networks, and they could have schools, parks, and amenities\u2014everything that people need. But if we are going to go down the route of a paddock subdivided into a bunch of McMansions with no schools, no amenities, no shops, and everybody having to get on the motorway and into a queue of cars to get anywhere, that is not going to be the solution that New Zealanders want, is it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders want affordable housing, they want affordable transport, and they want to do their bit. They do not want to be adding climate pollution to the atmosphere, and they need the Government to be proactively investing in the infrastructure\u2014that is, the transport, the water management, and the housing itself. They need the Government to be leading on that infrastructure investment in a way that enables them to live good lives, to reduce our energy use and our pollution use, and to create happier, healthier communities, because that is the opportunity we have. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003EWe have done things pretty poorly for the last 50 years, but we can see in communities overseas that have a much more integrated approach to planning and have a much more proactive investment strategy around public transport\u2014it works well, and people love it. They love living in those places. You can have affordable housing, affordable transport, and respond to climate change, and have vibrant, thriving, green communities. It is fantastic. It is just sad that the current Government does not seize this opportunity to create far more livable neighbourhoods for New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo on the amendments that I want to propose\u2014one is that we prohibit the planning rules that are preventing more homes and neighbourhoods from being built in the existing urban area, as well as prohibiting urban growth boundaries, and we need to have a requirement, as well. In new section 46C(2)(b) we have got this \u201Crequirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning \u2026\u201D, and in that requirement they need to take into account climate change. There is no point doing this planning around long-term projects like affordable housing and affordable communities if we are not taking into account the urgent need to respond to the long-term challenge of climate change. That needs to be at the forefront of our thinking of the way our cities and towns develop in the future. It has to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003ESo I will table a proposed amendment shortly that will mean that local authorities, in undertaking their detailed spatial planning, will take into account the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change, which I think is fair enough, and I am sure the Labour Party will be supportive of that. Thank you very much.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb9942ab1d5b421fbf463927127483aa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb9942ab1d5b421fbf463927127483aa\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak in support of the proposed amendment in my name that adds new Part 6 to this bill. Can I make the point that this prolonged debate of all of these other necessary measures that would be important to solve the housing crisis\u2014every one of which National is voting against\u2014is being protracted only because the Government, under urgency, pushed through Part 2 of this bill, which takes away, without select committee consideration, the property rights of people who have a residual interest in a property that was compulsorily acquired by the Crown. The Government, having said that that is already the law, is passing a law to take it away\u2014obviously it is hard to believe that that is already the law if that is what it is doing. If it had not been for that, the Government could be progressing with other business. If it wants to still refer that to select committee and put that through a decent process, its members should come and talk to us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThis part of the bill is a very important part of the Labour Party\u2019s policies to reduce the cost of new housing, which, as my colleague Phil Twyford points out, flows through to the cost of all other housing. As we know, markets clear at the marginal cost of the new. If there is a shortage, if the marginal cost of the new is higher than it would otherwise be, it not only lifts the cost of the new but flows through to all of the alternative purchases, which are the cost of the old. So if you have excessive land costs and excessive capital infrastructure costs up front in a new subdivision, then that flows to the cost of all housing in a place where you have got urban population growth\u2014as we have in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EPerhaps the thought leader on this in the world, or one of them, is Professor Ed Glaeser from Harvard University. He was brought out by the University of Auckland business school a couple of years ago to address New Zealand on what you need to do to have good cities that service the needs of the population, particularly in growing cities. He is the author of a book called Triumph of the City. I went to his lecture in Auckland, and he made three important points. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBefore I turn to that, I would make the point that it is absurd that in a country that has as much land as New Zealand\u2014and as few people\u2014that we have amongst the most expensive land, or land inflation, in the world. It is a truism. We have got a land area that is the size of the United Kingdom, about the size of Italy. We have got less than a tenth of their population, and yet we are the ones that have got problems with house prices and land inflation. It is not because we are short of land; it is because the Government\u2019s settings are wrong, including around the planning of the release of land. You hear defenders of urban growth limits say: \u201CWell, there\u2019s a lot of land planned for release.\u201D In fact, Auckland City, in its own defence, says that it is rezoning an area the size of Hamilton, and, therefore, all of these problems will be cured. The problem is that, actually, it releases that extra land zoned in tiny little increments, so as to drive, from its point of view, the efficient use of infrastructure. In the process, those releases are always captured by land bankers, because land bankers know where they are going next\u2014the 10-year long-term council plan shows where the infrastructure is going in next. So, around the margins of that growth, the price of land is held high because the market is never fully supplied with land in the face of the shortage that we have had for some years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo Glaeser says two things\u2014well, actually, he says three things that I think are really important in this debate. First of all, he says that urban growth boundaries are inappropriate because they constrain supply in the face of population growth and drive up prices. Secondly, he says that rules that limit the natural intensification that will occur within an existing city are even worse, because they drive up prices and they stop people from doing what they naturally want to do\u2014which is that as populations grow, they actually want to live in reasonably compact cities. Thirdly, he says that you have to be very, very, very careful that you do not transfer the cost of infrastructure inappropriately, either to existing ratepayers, as a future ratepayer to them, or\u2014also, one of the other reasons you do not want to do that is that you distort the price signals across the whole of your country, and you actually ruin the regional development of other places, which should be gaining an advantage. If prices are on the rise in a city like Auckland, you would expect that other cities and other regions would be developed as a substitute for some of that more expensive development in Auckland. You do not get that right if you do not get the pricing of infrastructure right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhat this requires is that a national policy statement be drafted by the Minister for the Environment, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), within 6 months of the proposed new section 46C coming into effect. That national policy statement would then go through the normal processes under the RMA and would, effectively, impose rules upon district and regional councils that stop these practices that, at the moment, are driving up land prices and, therefore, house prices.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party has been pointing out that this is necessary for about 3 years. Our response has become increasingly sophisticated in the last couple of years through Phil Twyford\u2019s efforts, and other people\u2019s\u2014and I hope I have made a contribution there. But it actually goes back to when Annette King was our housing spokesperson and David Shearer was our leader, when we first said that we actually needed a national policy statement in respect of affordable housing under the RMA. As my colleague Phil Twyford has pointed out, for years we have had National bleating on that the RMA is the cause of these problems. Actually, in truth, if used properly, the RMA is the solution to these problems, because national policy statements are provided for under the RMA and should be used when there is an issue of national importance\u2014such as a housing shortage\u2014that needs to be overcome through changes to planning rules, which the Government has always had the ability to do through a national policy statement under the RMA.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI want to deal with the point that Julie Anne Genter raised, because it is a very important point. She makes the point that you have got to be careful that you do not drive inappropriate forms of urban form that increase pollution, waste infrastructure, cause people to sit in cars longer, increase the cost of public transport because you have got to extend public transport networks, or increase the operating costs of public transport because they are less efficiently used. That is the purpose of these paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of proposed new section 46C(2) of the RMA, under this amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt says that central government should list all of the infrastructure costs\u2014that includes libraries and swimming pools, the extensions to public transport, the extensions to local roads, and the inefficient use of central government motorways\u2014all of these things should be properly measured. You will not recover the cost of all of them, but you should be properly measuring the marginal cost of growth, so that you can make a rational decision. Then, you should have some standard rules that work across the country as to how you allocate those costs. That is how you get the right economic signal to drive appropriate urban form without allowing the land bankers to capture the land market and drive land prices to the ridiculous levels that we have in New Zealand, where, despite being a country that is so rich in terms of our land area, we have this incredibly high land inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party was on to this before National. We were on to it before the Productivity Commission started to think of it. We are, in many ways, more considered in our use of markets than is the Government. The Government claims that it knows how to work markets. These are rules-based markets. The rules are in district plans. If the market is not working, you need to change the rules. It is that simple. But the National Government does not understand that in order to use and harness the private sector and the public sector to solve this housing crisis that we have in New Zealand, we have to harness those markets through appropriate rules relating to the urban limit. That is what this tabled amendment in my name does. We have artificial land scarcity in New Zealand. We all know that we have got a lot of land; it is just that people are not allowed to build on it. Blaming the RMA has always been wrong; the RMA is where the solution lies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u002200c212a992ee4ba0b0ad1ce14d081cd8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200c212a992ee4ba0b0ad1ce14d081cd8\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First will support Part 6, as proposed by Labour Party member David Parker. It does pre-empt, in fact, parts of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which is currently going through the process. But our support is worth some caution, I would have to say, because fixed boundaries have worked, in fact, in most parts of New Zealand quite effectively\u2014Christchurch is one of those. But I accept that Christchurch, with its huge areas of land adjacent to it, is rather different from Auckland, which is built on an isthmus and has a much greater rate of growth. So, bearing that in mind, I think it is quite appropriate at this stage that we do accept that some change is necessary in places such as Auckland to make the use of fixed boundaries no longer appropriate, and to look for an alternative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI think the alternative we have here is certainly one that we can consider supporting. It is a shame that this proposal is not actually going through a full select committee process, because this, like other provisions in the bill itself, really does need proper examination. It is a shame that that is not happening, but we do not have the luxury of that. Here we are in urgency. Here we are, having to look at Part 6. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EOn balance, New Zealand First will support Part 6 subject to the Greens\u2019 amendments, which I think are satisfactory, and on the basis of the alternative to fixed boundaries that is set out in new section 46C(2)(b) in particular, but also in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). The crux is paragraph (b), which actually says: \u201Ca requirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning which sets aside areas of special value, and sets out future infrastructure corridors and networks as an alternative to urban boundaries\u201D. The other paragraphs everyone can read for themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe point that I want to make is this: the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill has drawn a large number of submissions in support of spatial planning, and it does seem to me and to many people that that is the way to go in the future, especially for Auckland. It is a much more sophisticated approach to planning, especially in high-growth areas. But, most of all, New Zealand First is very supportive of the parts of this particular section, and that is new section 46C(2)\u2014all paragraphs of that\u2014where it refers to infrastructure corridors and networks as a tool to prevent growth into inappropriate areas, especially those areas where delivery of infrastructure would be far too expensive, impracticable, or too remote from transport opportunities. That is the point of Julie Anne Genter\u2019s amendments, so that is why we particularly support those. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI would have to add this: in my 15 years on the Christchurch City Council, on more than one occasion I actually tried to use the limitation of the expansion of infrastructure as a way to discourage inappropriate growth, but, of course, it was illegal to do so, so my attempts largely failed. I have to say that some of the areas where that growth happened were areas that have now been red zoned\u2014areas that should never have been developed on at all. Megan Woods, nodding her head, is quite right\u2014we all know where those areas were, and we all know that that development should not have happened. If we had had this regime at that time, it would have been possible to avoid it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EFinally, Julie Anne Genter was quite right when she referred to the need for development to take adequate notice of transport issues. In fact, New Zealand First policy is to favour transport-led development. You can see that in many parts of the world, so it is not a wheel that we have to reinvent. There should at least be adequate notice taken of transport issues when developments are approved. That is not happening currently. So with those qualifications, New Zealand First will be happy to support Part 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u002277b569a150dd47d8bb2b0c355b8ed8cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277b569a150dd47d8bb2b0c355b8ed8cd\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to take a call on new Part 6. But I would like to point out, as I am taking a call on new Part 6, that this could have all stopped at Part 2 if the Government had agreed to split this bill in two and send it to a select committee, where Part 2 could have had the proper consideration that it required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EIn my 5 years in this Parliament, I have not seen a simple piece of legislation drafted as badly as this legislation, or handled so badly that it sees us still here, in about the 14th hour of this debate, debating Part 6 of this legislation. It is in the power of the Government\u2019s hands to change that, and I put that challenge to the Government members. If you want this to be over, split the bill in two and send the provision that undermines private property rights\u2014or that could undermine private property rights\u2014to a select committee and let it have its due consideration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EUnder this new Part 6, I do want to talk specifically about the amendment put forward by David Parker in terms of the national policy statement, or the NPS, which is, of course, an instrument under the Resource Management Act that the courts have found to be a particularly powerful instrument in the hierarchy in terms of how it is considered. It has a great deal of regulatory power in terms of setting the agenda, and it is an instrument that could have a great deal of influence over how our cities are planned in the future. Of course, this is something that the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, has been talking about for quite some time, and when the draft of that NPS was released back in June this year, my colleague Phil Twyford eloquently described it as a damp squib\u2014he had had the opportunity to actually do something with an instrument as powerful as a national policy statement but, in typical style, it did nothing. It did not do the things that we are setting out in this amendment in David Parker\u2019s name. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI want to talk specifically to new clause 12, which inserts a new section 46C into the Resource Management Act, and I want to talk specifically to new section 46C(2)(b). This is the clause that Julie Anne Genter is offering her amendments to. It says: \u201CA requirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning which sets aside areas of special value and sets out future infrastructure corridors and networks as an alternative to urban boundaries;\u201D. She is proposing that we include climate change in there, and that is certainly something that the Labour Party can support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EOne of the key considerations that we have to make when planning the future of our cities is rising sea levels and storm surge. Mr O\u2019Rourke talked in his speech about infrastructural investment and the development of suburbs in Christchurch that have ended up in the residential red zone when we could have predicted the outcome for those communities\u2014well, likewise, when we are facing the issue of sea level rise. We know the areas of New Zealand and the areas of our cities that are under threat, and we have the ability, through a national policy statement, to plan appropriately for those\u2014to put in place the proper infrastructural planning that has to happen. This offers us an opportunity to be progressive, to think ahead, and to plan in a 21st century way\u2014not with our heads literally in the sand and not taking account of the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003ETaking account of climate change in city planning is absolutely critical. One of the largest meetings at the Paris convention on climate\u2014at COP-21\u2014was actually a meeting of mayors of cities, with people discussing issues relating to cities and how they are going to both adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. Of course, the Compact of Mayors, which now includes 526 cities globally, accounting for 438 million people, or 6 percent of the global population, is an organisation that was set up by Ban Ki-moon, and it now has a special envoy in Michael Bloomberg. This is an organisation that is sketching out what progressive cities are doing in their efforts to both adapt to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277333e3c-5658-4149-9cad-262a0deed378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223977933f6ced4f66988497943855aeb0\u0022\u003ETodd Barclay\u003C/span\u003E: Any advice for Gore?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213d7fa247b514993b29ec22187762bd0\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and mitigate the effects of climate change. I see the current member for Clutha-Southland\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u002265e2a50a3d9544178d36d6c252b0f3e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002265e2a50a3d9544178d36d6c252b0f3e3\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I want to echo the comments of my colleague Megan Woods. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has made it very clear that planning for climate change and for the infrastructure costs and changes that are needed is absolutely critical for large parts of New Zealand\u2019s urban and coastal areas, including the city where I live\u2014Dunedin. South Dunedin is at particular risk of sea level rise and there are particular infrastructure issues that arise from it being an old city with old infrastructure. So there needs to be careful measured planning and the authority to do that planning, the ability to communicate that, and then the ability to change the rules when it is needed in order to be able to prepare for the sea level rise that is expected and that is already, in our case, affecting large parts of South Dunedin. I look forward to the amendments from my colleague Julie Anne Genter, who is including climate change into new Part 6, which is proposed by Labour. The Green Party will be supporting Part 6 and we look forward to support for the amendments that we are making to Part 6. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBeyond the climate change aspects that need to be considered, I did just want to take it back to a kind of human level\u2014a street-level approach, if you like. One of the reasons why I am quite supportive of new Part 6, despite the concerns around the urban growth boundaries, is that the rest of this part sets out a new kind of way of looking at planning, and that is essential not just for those areas that might be affected by climate change but, actually, for the reimagining of our cities and towns as places where people love to live. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAll of the things that people need the most\u2014access to decent homes; affordable transport to green space where they can enjoy their communities together; those social community spaces where it is safe because there are lots of people around and lots of different kinds of people around, and where there are great pedestrian and safe cycling opportunities for families to get to work and to school, and to enjoy for recreation\u2014come out of a proper infrastructure system, which is being proposed here in new Part 6, and proper urban design that allows for people to come together and design their cities the way that they want them to be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo I want to encourage members and members of the public to have a look at the Green Party proposal for reimagining our cities\u2014the Greens\u2019 cities proposal, which we released a month or so ago. That proposal asked for feedback from the public, from New Zealanders, and from people involved in the industry about two things: one is the building code, and we dealt with some of that in the debate on proposed new Part 4; and the other is a national policy statement on urban design. That is what sits on top of the infrastructure and planning tools that are set out in new Part 6. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo we pass Part 6, we get those planning tools right, and then, on top of that, we design and build the cities and the communities that we know that people want to live in. That includes things like the street design to make it comfortable for people to move around easily from place to place\u2014from home to shop, to school, to after-school events, to the theatres, and to work and back. It is designed around women and children, which is a new approach to urban design where the needs of women and children feature at the centre of urban design. This is because, actually, the research shows that women travel more as a result of their daily requirements of activities: getting their kids to school, often doing all of the shopping, and getting to work and managing the after-school care. Women\u2019s travel and city requirements, if you like, are much more complex than men\u2019s, it turns out in the research, so let us have urban design that focuses on the needs of women and children to keep them safe and enable them to use their city in the best way possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ELet us make sure that urban design promotes child and pedestrian-friendly environments so that we can reduce the risk to children and to pedestrians\u2014but particularly children who are walking to and from school\u2014from the hazards of roadways and driveways where so many accidents occur. There are really good opportunities here for community spaces that help to build collaboration and connection between communities rather than the isolation that many older New Zealanders, especially, are starting to face. As older New Zealanders are facing more and more financial pressure, they are also increasingly isolated from their communities and finding it more and more difficult to connect to the people who\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022 data-id=\u0022bfce87376cfc49e2b7f7dcca8983dd20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bfce87376cfc49e2b7f7dcca8983dd20\u0022\u003EDr DAVID CLARK (Labour\u2014Dunedin North):\u003C/span\u003E Markets make excellent servants and terrible masters. I want to say that why I support this amendment so strongly is that it is a way of ensuring that the market works in support of human aspirations, and in terms of creating a livable environment for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256c5b9a6a78244a8b44c1e2f172a5112\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: An affordable one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235d101ada3d34d0c8d3cdbbbaa7dd986\u0022\u003EDr DAVID CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: An affordable one, most importantly. That is, I think, also why the Government\u2019s approach can be described as so mistaken in opposing this change. I think the Government is opposed to any kind of planning. That is something that we fundamentally see over and over and over again from this Government\u2014an approach opposing any kind of planning. I think it is on the mistaken understanding that business in New Zealand will not cope with change. When I talk to business people they tell me not that they do not want change but that they want a clear sense of direction of change. They want some certainty around what the future rules will be and what the future environment in which they will operate will look like. I think the same is true of people generally. We do not like change for change\u2019s sake but we do like to think that we would live in the optimal environment and have affordable housing in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EWe in New Zealand do have some challenges. In Helsinki, which is one of the great livable cities, in my view, the city council owns 65 percent of the land. When you own 65 percent of the land, urban planning is pretty easy. It becomes a very simple thing to do. In New Zealand it is not true that the Auckland Council owns 65 percent of the land, so we have a different proposition that we deal with here. What we do need to do is make sure that when we do have changes in terms of the urban boundary and so on, there is real planning around what happens so that we get the best value for New Zealand citizens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EIn this policy, which is represented in the amendment in David Parker\u2019s name that is before the Committee, we are hoping that we will create an environment where there is more planning. The national policy statement on urban growth that is proposed in new section 46C(2) set out in clause 12 of new Part 6, must contain: \u201C(a) A prohibition on the use of urban boundaries within a regional district plan where official statistics predict there will population growth;\u201D, which suggests a way of doing planning that looks to where the growth is going to be, and it makes sensible planning around it so that business and people and everybody can have an environment where we know what change is coming. What it will also do is give councils the opportunity to purchase land for future development at rural prices, rather than having to buy off speculators and land bankers who have seen the changes ahead, who have bought up the land, and who then sell on to councils and other developers at extraordinary prices because they are making use of a system that is broken and that does not serve the citizenry properly but, rather, is tilted in favour of those land bankers and speculators in our housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EIt is not enough, in my view, for the council to progressively add more zoned land for development here and there on an ad hoc basis. That simply feeds the speculation that is out there already and it is\u2014that speculation\u2014the inevitable result of the existing status quo system for setting the boundaries. We need integrated transport and infrastructure planning and this particular change permits that to happen in a way that is good for the citizenry. It makes sure we have affordable new infrastructure, affordable housing, and livable cities in New Zealand. If New Zealand is going to be the kind of country that prospers in the future, it has to be a place where talent wants to live. It has to be a place where talent can afford to live. So when we are talking about attracting overseas people with talents here, when we have our own skills shortages to meet\u2014we want to train New Zealand people but we also want to attract people\u2014rather than presenting them with the most unaffordable housing market in the world, where people overseas cannot even imagine coming to live in our biggest city, this change that is proposed in this bill is one that I wholeheartedly support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EI congratulate David Parker on putting this amendment forward. It is one that will make a real difference for our biggest city and could, too, I would suggest, make a difference to other cities around New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc51ddf0aecc4f3ba04f148c04160f86\u0022\u003EDr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: Like Dunedin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d9fd2f14ff14a808cd583513f6b79c6\u0022\u003EDr DAVID CLARK\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Dunedin\u2014I would like to talk about Dunedin. I would also like to talk about Queenstown. In Dunedin we have some serious infrastructure challenges born of a city that has been there obviously for some time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022c75d2fd08e224dcfa71b2807fa4746cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c75d2fd08e224dcfa71b2807fa4746cf\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u0022765b822c0b97476588b8884e28d0e30c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022765b822c0b97476588b8884e28d0e30c\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e Te Whare. I really welcome the opportunity to support the proposed new Part 6 and also the amendment that Julie Anne Genter is proposing to this amendment, because what is great about this debate is it is an actual opportunity to talk about great things, not only about how terrible and useless the Government is, which is a bit of a given, but to actually talk about something awesome, which is that we have got ideas for designing things better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI think the first thing that we are talking about is the need for a plan, and what I like about both these amendments is the idea of a national policy statement on urban growth or, even better, on urban design. Why is that so important? It is so important because we already have an infrastructure mess and growth problems right across not just Auckland, which has had a lot of focus, but also many of the rural communities, the small towns, and my particular passion\u2014which is odd and not shared by everybody\u2014which is sewerage. It is an interesting passion, but it is very relevant to urban growth because if we do not handle that stuff properly and we shove a whole lot more houses into special housing areas where the infrastructure is not designed to take it, we are going to get a bit of a mess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003ESo the other week I was in the leafy suburb of Herne Bay, being lobbied by some people who were saying that the special housing area was going to put enormous strain on the infrastructure in that area. They were very concerned about urban growth, these people, because they have got raw sewage running down their road every time there is heavy rain. That is a really interesting example of what happens when you propose more housing, badly planned\u2014without a plan, actually\u2014just because it sounds like a good idea to make somewhere a special housing area and shove 70 homes into a small space, when already Cox\u2019s Bay is so contaminated that wading is a joke, let alone swimming. It is a pretty sad situation for a beautiful spot like Cox\u2019s Bay, which is in the middle of the Grey Lynn - Point Chevalier - Herne Bay area, right in the city where people want to have fun and want to play.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003ESo although we welcome this, we really want to see some detailed planning, because there is the issue of sewerage, my particular passion, because if we cannot fix that up\u2014we can put people on the moon, but we still cannot deal with our own waste\u2014that is primitive. Allowing raw sewage to run into the sea is primitive, and allowing our streets in our bigger cities to run with raw sewage during heavy rain is primitive. That is about bad urban planning. That is about exhausting your pipes and resources.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EBut there is also the issue that Julie Anne Genter brings up, which is climate change. So climate change is not going to happen just to Auckland and Dunedin and Christchurch, where I can see the largest number of people could be displaced, but I live in the town of Thames, where it is estimated that quite a lot of our low land will go under water. What we need out of Government housing strategies and infrastructure planning strategies is leadership to encourage local government and regional government to take this seriously, but if we keep pretending that climate change is not really happening and that we do not have a role in the leadership of good housing planning, good design, and good urban design, we are never going to get there when the crisis hits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EWe will all be staggering around like we are now. Housing crisis, the Government does not get it, everyone is dabbling around, people living in cars, shameful nation mentioned in The Guardian, total disaster\u2014add to all that climate change. So it is going to be people living in cars, driving underwater, nowhere to sleep, water is going crazy, urban design is not happening, the Government does not know what to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EFortunately, we are going to change the Government. We are going to inherit the mess but we are going to start doing something about it, and that is what Part 6 and the amendments we are proposing are about. It is about doing something about it and thinking ahead, because our cities and our small towns all need urban design.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EIf Julie Anne Genter was here she would be saying: \u201CAnd it\u2019s about parking rules.\u201D She is an expert on parking rules, which is an area that I fear to tread in because I think you need to understand parking a lot more than I do, but I really get why she has put up this amendment for spatial design to accompany\u2014if you are going to set up urban limits and boundaries, there has to be an alternative view that creates a spatial planning design strategy that makes sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003ESo all of this is about common sense. All of this is about saying the Government has a role, so in many ways this whole debate, including this part, is about the role of the State\u2014about whether the State actually has a role or whether it is a hands-off, chaotic, \u201CLet the sewage run raw in the street. Let the sea-level rise come over the low land. Let\u2019s just everybody build a house.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u002274d407a59a6b42eb9c034ca0b844d1a2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002274d407a59a6b42eb9c034ca0b844d1a2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I want to emphasise something that I do not think has been well covered in this debate so far. One of the problems that we have around Auckland is that the cost of extending both central government and local government infrastructure runs into many tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars extra every year than it would if we had appropriate planning for growth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI have already conceded the point, and made clear in this amendment, that we need to be very careful not to inefficiently use existing infrastructure, and to make sure that the pricing decision encourages the most efficient use of existing infrastructure within urban boundaries and the most efficient use of new infrastructure outside what are the existing urban development boundaries, which we say should not exist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut this other point that I am making is what is the cost of transport corridors, which are, in the main, rail corridors, public transport, bus lanes, local roads, and State highways? All of these things should be purchased well in advance, or designated well in advance\u2014and I think generally, in a city that is growing, they should be purchased well in advance\u2014while they can be purchased for rural land prices. No unfairness to the rural property owner\u2014they get fully compensated. If you are going to form new regional parks, you purchase them for rural land prices, rather than for 10 times that amount once the land bankers get it, and the value is driven up as the date for future subdivision gets ever closer, because there has not been enough planning in advance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe second point I wanted to emphasise is that in order to stop the inefficient use of infrastructure\u2014oh, sorry. How that flows through to cost, of course, is that if those huge costs are passed on in development levies, which are higher than they would otherwise need to be, that then translates through to the price of all housing\u2014not just the new housing but the existing housing, which is lifted by the rise in price of the marginal cost of the new, which is how markets clear\u2014but it also drives up the cost of central government taxes and future rates because not all of those costs are put to the subdivision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn order to achieve efficient use, and you do need to internalise those costs of the new development\u2014I did not develop this point when I first spoke, but one of the things that happens when city costs go up too high is it actually becomes more competitive for other cities to compete with them. So, rather than actually throwing more fuel on an overheated property market, if you get these cost signals right you actually get regional development in other parts of the country, and that is what should happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe are, as a country, over-dependent on Auckland. You know, we have a greater weighting towards one centre of population\u2014which is Auckland\u2014than virtually any other developed country in the world has, except the small city States like Singapore or Hong Kong, which are virtually only a city. Otherwise, there are only one or two other countries in the world\u2014Ireland, with Dublin, being one of them\u2014that are as weighted towards one centre of population as we are, and it becomes inefficient. It becomes unfair to other parts of the country because you create this vortex that, just by virtue of size rather than efficiency, sucks in other businesses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo, for example, if you are a potato chip manufacturer based in Dunedin, you eventually relocate to Auckland because of the transport costs because of the relative size of Auckland, rather than because of any natural advantage to the production of potato chips in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022603ae58e-47c4-46f9-bfc8-8355a48988ad\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022227649c4e3a542f3b7d53cac0d1d61ec\u0022\u003EHon Dr Jonathan Coleman\u003C/span\u003E: Just like the member himself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ebb6d5e65eb2498981e84dd9761a44e8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u201CJust like the member\u201D\u2014oh, thank you. Well, I sort of have a foot in both camps still. Both are very good places, to which I am attached. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo those economic development things are very important. When you get these things wrong and you get house prices out of control, like they are in Auckland, you actually see the movement of New Zealand - born people. There are very few people in New Zealand, and, indeed, in Auckland, who know we have had net migration, for a long period now, out of Auckland of New Zealand - born Aucklanders. There are more people who were born in New Zealand who are leaving Auckland than are going to it. That is even taking into account the effect of Christchurch, which, of course, led to a lot of people initially moving from Christchurch. Even with those statistics in the latest census, we had net population of New Zealand - born\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2ee6355879349439553fbd3b95ee615\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2ee6355879349439553fbd3b95ee615\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a161588134f846c68e8fe9e2428da83d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a161588134f846c68e8fe9e2428da83d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, this has been well canvassed. I will put the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002276e8403a72ab4e8d905f5e7b84869b4c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000877\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Julie Anne Genter to the proposed amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new Part 6 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000878\u0022\u003Ein clause 12, after new section 46C(2)(a), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000879\u0022\u003E(ab)\ta prohibition on the use of rules in district or unitary plans to require any number of car parking; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000880\u0022\u003Ein clause 12, new section 46C(2)(b), after \u201Ccorridors and networks\u201D, insert \u201C, taking into account the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change,\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221767cb0f287144f887c72ef250b7032b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000881\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000882\u0022\u003Einsert the following new part:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000883\u0022\u003EPart 6\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000884\u0022\u003EAmendment to Resource Management Act 1991\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000885\u0022\u003E11 \tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000886\u0022\u003EThis Part amends the Resource Management Act 1991.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000887\u0022\u003E12 \tNew Section 46C\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000888\u0022\u003EAfter section 46B insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000889\u0022\u003E46C\tNational policy statement on Urban Growth\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000890\u0022\u003E(1) \tThe Minister must within 6 months of the commencement of this section prepare a proposed national policy statement on urban growth in accordance with the requirements under section 45 and 46.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000891\u0022\u003E(2) \tThe proposed national policy statement on urban growth must contain:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000892\u0022\u003E(a) \tA prohibition on the use of urban growth boundaries within a regional or district plan where official statistics predict there will be population growth; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000893\u0022\u003E(b) \tA requirement for local authorities to undertake detailed spatial planning which sets aside areas of special value, and sets out future infrastructure corridors and networks as an alternative to urban boundaries; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000894\u0022\u003E(c) \tA comprehensive list of local government and central government infrastructure costs which should be taken into account when making subdivision decisions under this Act; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000895\u0022\u003E(d) \tA standard formula for local authorities to use to measure the marginal cost of urban growth; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000896\u0022\u003E(e) \tA standard formula for local authorities to use to calculate the cost of inefficient utilisation of existing infrastructure; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000897\u0022\u003E(f) \tRules to ensure that the costs of infrastructure are appropriately internalised for new developments.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000898\u0022\u003E(3) \tAfter preparing the proposed national policy statement on urban growth under subsection (1) the Minister will initiate the consideration process set out in sections 47 to 52 for implementation of the national policy statement.\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fab6b67760344f0eadd1f7624785f6b1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000899\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223105a13e5460414dbb7d435d2b14d0c0\u0022\u003ENew Part 7  Amendment to Housing Corporation Act 1974\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022b59984cf08334928a89623a493f35ade\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b59984cf08334928a89623a493f35ade\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased to offer this additional housing solution to the Committee tonight as part of the large suite of housing solutions offered by the Opposition in response to the Government\u2019s failure to do anything about the housing crisis. So this is the seventh of the proposals put forward. This one comes from a piece of work that the Greens did before the Budget, so in May of this year, where we announced our Homes Not Cars policy, which was to allow Housing New Zealand to retain both its tax and its dividend, for the purposes of building State houses. At the time that we made that announcement, it was the beginning of that acute awareness of the extent to which the homelessness crisis was hitting New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe had, in the Greens, the enormous privilege of having a young woman, Rhiannon, come and tell her story with us at the launch of that policy. She was a young mother of three children, one of whom has lung disease\u2014young Emma. Rhiannon was incredibly courageous in telling her story to the New Zealand public, opening herself to potential abuse and judgment. But she talked, with her courage and with her concern for her daughter with her, about how\u2014after a redundancy, a relationship break up, and having to move from a rental home that was being sold\u2014she found herself in this terrible situation of having three children, one of whom was terribly ill and in hospital, and having nowhere to live but her car. She had nowhere to live but her car. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAs she said at the time, she felt she could live in a car, if that was what was necessary, but she could not take her very sick daughter to live in a car. She talked about the six medications that her daughter needed every day that needed to be refrigerated, which, of course, she could not do in a car. So she was having to share her children out amongst friends and family, move Emma in and out of hospital, where she had some times with her sleeping on friends\u2019 couches and some times back in the hospital. Her homelessness situation was acute. After the announcement of our policy, which is now set out here in new Part 7, New Zealanders actually came to the party, and she was offered rental accommodation and was able to secure stable accommodation, and for that we were very grateful, and so was she, for New Zealanders\u2019 generosity and kindness. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBut she should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers, because that is what she had to rely on to find a home. She should have been able to go to the agencies and the services of Housing New Zealand and talk to them about her story and show them what her needs were, and they should have been able to find her a house. That is what the State housing system was built for to make sure that a young woman like her, with her young children, has a house to live in where she could take care of her sick daughter who has lung cancer. But, as we all know, Housing New Zealand, under this Government, has been required to pay a dividend and tax, until very recently\u2014exposed by Steven Joyce of course. It had State housing being sold, and so there are not enough State houses for the families who desperately need them, like Rhiannon\u2019s. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThis amendment, this change, to the Housing Corporation Act is quite a modest change. What it does is it will free up Housing New Zealand\u2019s obligation to pay a dividend. So it is not the tax part; that requires quite a bit more change. But this new Part 7 will enable Housing New Zealand to no longer have to pay a dividend into the Government\u2019s general coffers, but instead to retain that surplus and use that for the purposes of building State houses, State houses that families like Rhiannon\u2019s need. This is critical because 2,500 State houses have been sold off under this Government, we have 4,500 people on the waiting list, and we have the lowest number of State houses per population since 1949. It is an absolute disgrace. The destruction of the State housing system that has provided the safety net for thousands, tens of thousands of New Zealanders over many, many, many decades\u2014[Bell rung]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000906\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225689d85ef3df467f96f0866bb4f14122\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Metiria Turei, but before I allow her to continue with her call, if she would just be seated for a moment. I would just make the point that she spent 4 minutes 30 before she talked about what her amendment was going to do, what this part is going to do about retaining a dividend and applying it to the purchase of new houses. I urge her to stay on point in her second call and to talk to the part that we are discussing at the moment. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000907\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022819c02bab518425492e365b9704852ab\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course Rhiannon\u2019s story is very specifically connected to this new Part 7 because new Part 7 will enable more State houses to be built\u2014modest proposal as it is\u2014so that women like her, mothers like her, will have a place to live. I think that is an important story to tell in this Committee. We have to remember that housing issues are not intellectual issues. They are not pointy-headed policy issues; they are about the ability for ordinary New Zealanders to live an ordinary decent life. Our job in Parliament is to provide\u2014through amendments like the one I have put on the Table today\u2014the structure, the infrastructure, and the funding to enable that decent life to be supported for New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000908\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo this provision will mean that the surplus of Housing New Zealand will not have to be sent directly back to the Government for it to use as it chooses, but reinvested in Housing New Zealand to build more homes. Now it is modest, and I think that that is important, and I think that is not only important to note but it is important to recognise that even modest changes to the law can make a significant difference. This means around 250 houses, possibly depending on the nature of the building, or 300 new State houses every year. It is a small step towards the many thousands that we need, but every single tool to fix this housing crisis is needed. This is one of those tools. We can free up this financial opportunity for Housing New Zealand in order to build more State houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000909\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAs I said, we have the lowest number of State houses per population since 1949 while 4,500 people are on the waiting list. Let us just reflect for a moment on the 4,500 people on the waiting list, because 10 times that many are technically homeless in this country. Ten times that many do not have a safe secure home to call their own. The core function, we would have thought, of Housing New Zealand, and in fact of government, is to make sure that all New Zealand families have a decent, safe, and secure home to call their own. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000910\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003ESo while we have 4,500 people on the State house waiting list, we have 10 times that number who are in severe housing need. So actually the State house waiting list is just a very, very tiny proportion of the people who actually need to be housed in this country. We need to remember that as we go through. That is why all of the previous tools that have been put forward by the Opposition and voted down by the Government have been so important for us to discuss over the last number of hours. Because these are the solutions that will house New Zealanders, including this solution, to enable Housing New Zealand to increase its State house building programme by at least another 250 homes, perhaps even 300 homes, in a year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000911\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EAnd let us not forget how much the forecast dividend was. Steven Joyce did, as I understand it, agree with our policy, and we appreciate that he agreed with our policy\u2014using Twitter to announce his new policy framework that he would not require a dividend from Housing New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000912\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acf92f36dc9c4aebb7456448b8a57678\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s so modern!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000913\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270463b1d0bc54b16a5d140a58a6e8a02\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: It was such a modern announcement. It was very hip; it was very social media\u2014the new way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000914\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203509afa36b24fcf864f112088bde048\u0022\u003EHon Christopher Finlayson\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s Twitter?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000915\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c803c31f3a514f8f8c9c4cc56d3e0b94\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Yes, a very modern way of communicating his new policy. So we are very pleased that our Government has done it, at least for this year and possibly for next year. But there is no justification for Housing New Zealand ever having to provide a dividend to the Government. Housing New Zealand has a core function of providing housing services to the country. Providing rental housing principally for those who need it is one of the core functions of Housing New Zealand. That is an expensive service. You have to build homes in order to make sure that there are enough. You have to make sure that you have a good infrastructure and a good funding source to keep doing it. Requiring Housing New Zealand to provide a dividend has been one of the worst decisions of this Government, because it has prevented Housing New Zealand from engaging in its core function, which is making sure that New Zealanders, those who need it, have a decent and safe and secure home to live in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000916\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI urge members of the Committee to support this. I urge National members to support it. It is, after all, National policy now, according to Steven Joyce, so they should have no problem supporting a bill that does exactly what Steven Joyce has said he wants to do. I look forward to their support in the future. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u00225da412d4f2f240ce8ea71a66fdc911ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000917\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225da412d4f2f240ce8ea71a66fdc911ba\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tokerau):\u003C/span\u003E An inspired choice, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. It is a great day to be in Opposition, I have to say. It is a great day for the Opposition. This has been a day when the Opposition members have been able to talk at length, non-stop about our suite of housing policies and at the same time highlight the complete dearth of policy coming from the Government benches on homelessness, and the fact that we need more houses built. I just have to give credit to my colleague Phil Twyford for all the amazing work that he has been doing, developing our policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI believe that Housing New Zealand lost its soul when it decided that it was going to be there just purely to derive a profit from people who are using its services. It has become an organisation that does not see people as an opportunity to actually do some good for the country. It just sees people as problems and it treats them in that way. National has taken $523 million out of profits from Housing New Zealand, including a $118 million dividend for the year 2015-16 alone. Imagine how many houses, how many families, how many people could be supported in order to live in warm, comfortable, affordable houses if that money, instead of going into the Government\u2019s coffers, was actually reinvested back into building houses for our people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EWhen people come into our electorate offices, there are four organisations that comprise the majority of complaints. First of all, there is Child, Youth and Family, there is Work and Income, there is ACC, and the fourth is Housing New Zealand. I can tell the story\u2014this happened over a year ago\u2014of a family of mum, dad, and three kids who arrived in Whangarei, and they were living in their car. They went to Housing New Zealand, and because the only house available had five bedrooms and they really needed only four they were actually declined that house. That is just ridiculous. The rules around Housing New Zealand and its policies just sometimes do not make sense. Instead of just thinking what is the right thing to do for people, what is the best way that it can support their kids to grow up in a warm, safe, dry, comfortable house so that they can get to school and be prepared to learn\u2014instead of thinking about the ways that it can provide a home for parents so that they can look after their families, it puts every single barrier in the way of these families that it can think of. As I said earlier, instead of looking at ways to help, it sees people as problems, and that, to me, is totally unacceptable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000920\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u201CWhat is the social cost in years to come?\u201D is the question that I ask. What is the social cost in years to come if children are growing up not in warm, safe, comfortable, affordable homes but where parents are struggling with rent and struggling to get by in poorly maintained homes? There is a social cost to the country in years to come that is far greater than the cost of actually just providing a house in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000921\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EWhen we talk about affordable homes, one of the submitters at the homelessness inquiry last week in Kait\u0101ia spoke about his ability to build an affordable home\u2014and Housing New Zealand could take this idea on\u2014a 100 square metre home for $100,000. He can construct it in a workshop in 4 days and erect it on site in 3 days. He was saying that he can build homes all around Tai Tokerau\u2014a 100 square metre home for $100,000 and a 200 square metre home for $175,000. How many houses could that $118 million dividend pay for and erect all around the country if the Government had just looked at and attended the homelessness inquiry? Government members were not there at all. These were ideas that could have been taken to Housing New Zealand. The Minister for Building and Housing could have said \u201CHey, look. Here\u2019s a really good idea that\u2019s come out of the homelessness inquiry that Labour, the Greens, and the M\u0101ori Party have established.\u201D, and we could use some of these ideas to build\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022 data-id=\u0022b8998b9be2ce45899f29abcb32bb2e26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b8998b9be2ce45899f29abcb32bb2e26\u0022\u003EADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour\u2014Te Tai Hau\u0101uru):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e Te Heamana. I am pleased to take a call on this new Part 7 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. First of all, can I point out again\u2014I think it has already been said\u2014that the public has not had the opportunity to make submissions on this bill. I took the opportunity to read some of the submissions from the 2013 Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, and I came across a submission from the Salvation Army that bemoaned and pointed out its concerns about the lack of any reference to affordable housing. I stand to support new Part 7 because it is supporting affordable housing. It is really important, and I think there would be very few in this Chamber who would not see the value that the Salvation Army brings to this country, in particular in terms of addressing the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003EMore specifically, in Part 7, new section 40(1) inserted by new clause 12 means that the surplus moneys would be used for the functions of the corporation. I also took the opportunity to look at the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. The very first one, stated in section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Amendment Act 2011, is \u201Cproviding rental housing, principally for those who need it the most\u201D. That really underpins this new Part 7. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003EI want to commend Metiria Turei for bringing this to the Committee. I think, alongside all of the other new parts that were brought to the Committee\u2014and I want to acknowledge Phil Twyford for his work in bringing these comprehensive new parts to this bill. Providing rental property principally for those who need it the most\u2014this new part actually addresses that, and I think that it is incumbent upon this Committee to accept this. As Metiria Turei pointed out, we have heard from Minister Joyce that they are already doing great, but we want to make sure that it is enduring, because if the Government can make that decision at a whim, well, at a whim they can turn it around as well. I think that our country, in particular those who need it the most, deserve better than that. So I wholeheartedly support new Part 7. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000925\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003EAs I pointed out before, because this has not gone to the select committee, I read some other submissions. I read the submissions from Te R\u016Bnunga o Ng\u0101i Tahu and from Tainui Group Holdings Ltd, and what struck me about their submissions to the principal bill that we are debating tonight is that they pointed out its deficiencies around addressing M\u0101ori rights within it. In thinking about what that process would look like if those submitters had had the full opportunity to make submissions on this bill\u2014granted that these are new parts\u2014they would not have had the opportunity to speak on these as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003EI think it just highlights a point around the real importance of that process and the real importance of the point\u2014of which I am absolutely certain\u2014that, given the opportunity of speaking to this Part 7, the majority of those submitters would be supporting it. They have not had that opportunity, so we in this Chamber must ensure that we bring that opportunity to them. We must also ensure that those surplus moneys that are generated within Housing New Zealand\u2014another thing that occurred to me, if the Government had had a proper building programme for more affordable housing and State housing, then there would actually be more profits to be shared, again, for the purpose of providing affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003EI fully commend the new Part 7 to the House, and I am very happy to do so. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022 data-id=\u002278d4a06baf4140f4bb96d8de7a2b78f8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278d4a06baf4140f4bb96d8de7a2b78f8\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE (Labour\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E I rise in support of the amendment, the proposed new Part 7, tabled by our good colleague Metiria Turei. Many of our colleagues here have already spoken about much of the good that can come from this. We have waxed lyrical in this House about how, over decades, the quality of the housing stock has really declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000929\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EIt will be a sad day in this House if we leave it for another how many decades to fix it up, to make sure that the houses that our people live in and are provided by the State are up to scratch, up to standard, are healthy, are warm, and are safe for our families. That is an important step. Although we need to build new homes, although we need to reinvest that money to make houses more affordable, we must make sure that the stock that is there does not decline any further. We must invest in them so that in decades to come they are of a standard that we would like to live in, that they are of a standard where we want our kids to grow in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000930\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EWe want to raise our families in warm homes, safe homes, dry homes, and I think this particular amendment, the proposed new Part 7, is a fantastic way to do that. Where else should that money go? We know that this is a crisis. We know that Governments have ignored this. This Government has had 8 years, and ignored it. It is important that any profit that is derived from Housing New Zealand actually goes back into, firstly, the stock of Housing New Zealand to make houses more affordable, to grow the stock and, I would like to think, secondly, to maintain that stock, and also to bring whatever is left of our current stock\u2014whatever is left after the sell-off; let me put that out there\u2014up to standard, to make sure that it is safe, warm, and dry for all of our wh\u0101nau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000931\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EI had hoped that this was a step in the right direction, whereby if there just happens to be a bit of money left\u2014which I doubt there will be, but if there is\u2014we need to support our social housing providers out in the community, to provide them with support. We have heard through the homelessness inquiry that many of these social housing providers, in particular in T\u0101maki-makau-rau, where I was fortunate to be for the day to listen to the submissions\u2014it blew me away: no support. We read in the papers that millions of dollars are being given to support them. Well, that might be the case for the beds that are there, but what the inquiry did prove was that the need is greater than the supply that is there already. So, just in case there is any money left, I think this particular tabled amendment, proposed new Part 7, is a step in the right direction to signal that when there is surplus we should be supporting those social housing providers, who do a fantastic job, not just in the cities but also in the regions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000932\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EWe heard some fantastic ideas. What did they lack? Financial support. We see some people digging into their own pockets to make sure that they are able to provide the services so dearly needed by the people in our communities\u2014digging into their own pockets. They are displacing some of their own wh\u0101nau to make sure that these people in need have a place to stay, have a bed to sleep in, and tamariki have a roof over their head.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000933\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EI would like to think that this particular tabled amendment, proposed new Part 7, will at least encourage this House, this Government to start looking forward to futureproofing housing for the country, and stock, supply, affordability and, of course, the quality of housing that we expect, that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand expect, should they ever need it. Should they ever need it, because, let us face it, not everybody is going to be able to climb up that ladder to own homes. So we need to be able to provide many families the opportunity to have a safe, dry, warm home to raise their families in, in the hope that one day they may be able to own a home. I do not believe it is about providing it for them forever, but this does need to be a platform to allow them their own tino rangatiratanga, their own independence, so that they are able to enter into a market that, at this moment in time, is shutting the door on far too many. I support the proposed new Part 7 amendment, tabled by our colleague Metiria Turei. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u002263396cee524b4a1d852142c4c8fe85cb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263396cee524b4a1d852142c4c8fe85cb\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E This is my first call, and I hope it will be my first of four calls on new Part 7. I want to pose a question to the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, and to this Government: what is going on with this Government? The whole bill is about increasing the supply of housing and increasing affordable housing, but for the vital parts of the bill that we have presented\u2014new Part 3, increasing the house supply by 10,000\u2014they vote it down. We talked about cracking down on speculators; they vote it down. I hope that they do not vote down new Part 7, which I now come to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ENew Part 7 says that it requires that, instead of what this Government is doing\u2014taking money out of Housing New Zealand and using it for whatever it desires\u2014that money actually ought to go back to Housing New Zealand so it can build more social housing. So it is to focus on the function of Housing New Zealand. I will tell you why that is important: because, at the moment, the whole purpose of Housing New Zealand, that social foundation of providing housing for the needy, has been destroyed. Yet for the first Labour Government that set up Housing New Zealand, its very purpose was to help those in need of housing, particularly after World War II. But this Government comes along and in 8 years has destroyed that basic foundation of what Housing New Zealand was established to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000936\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI agree with section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Act in \u201Cproviding rental housing, principally for those who need it most\u201D. That should be what Housing New Zealand is about, and yet today I can give you examples. In the Housing New Zealand office in M\u0101ngere, they kick people out who are in need of housing for simple things. One woman was behind on rent by $100. They gave her 90 days\u2019 notice right on the spot. They would not even give her the opportunity. This is a sole mother who works, and, in fact, on the phone they bullied her. That is just one example of many. The needy whom we talk about are the people who are living in cars and living in garages. The other day Alfred Ngaro said to me: \u201CWe\u2019ve always had people living in garages and in cars.\u201D That is what he said. That is ludicrous. We may have had people living in garages, but only on a temporary basis in preparation for getting themselves on their feet. This Government has normalised people living in cars and in garages. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThis amendment surely needs to pass so that the money generated by Housing New Zealand can go back for the building of social housing for those in need. Housing is a fundamental right. I heard in the homelessness inquiry\u2014here is something that I hope will prick the heart of that Minister. An investor said to me\u2014this was presented at Te Puea Marae\u2014\u201CHousing is so critical for raising families and communities. If families have a stable habitation, a stable house, it means those children will have a stable family, stable schooling, and a stable group of friends, because they are not moving around from house to house. Generally, that means that you have good, strong local communities contributing to that community.\u201D That is what would happen if we were investing money properly into Housing New Zealand and providing for the needy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EBut we do not want people just to be living in social housing; we want them to own their own homes. That is part of our overall plan, and I had thought that that was what this Government was doing in this legislation. But, again, in that initial question, \u201CWhat is going on with this Government?\u201D\u2014it is crazy what it is doing, on the one hand saying that it wants to increase the supply of affordable housing, and on the other hand voting down every initiative that we have put up. I suspect it is going to vote down this initiative, but this initiative is about helping the needy\u2014helping the needy. I cannot understand how some of those MPs on that side can live with themselves\u2014people who believe that they are close to the community. I am not pointing my finger at anyone in particular, but I want to name Alfred Ngaro and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, because they go out to the community and say\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022 data-id=\u0022cfabbfb1fdb24818914d94b248c8cf2a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cfabbfb1fdb24818914d94b248c8cf2a\u0022\u003ELOUISA WALL (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Malo e lelei, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to what has been a robust debate. I am particularly supportive of proposed Part 7, which has been introduced in an amendment by my colleague Metiria Turei. What she hopes to amend is section 40 of the Housing Corporation Act, which is \u201CDistribution of profits\u201D. It is interesting when you read the Housing Corporation Act 1974, because it is all about paying money into a Crown account. How much money have we paid into the Crown account? Well, in 2014 we paid $108 million into the Crown account, on 8 September 2015 we paid $118 million into the Crown account, and, in fact, we forecast in this year\u2019s Budget to put in $38 million this year and $54 million next year. Based on that, in answer to my colleague Kelvin Davis\u2019 question: $126 million, Kelvin. That is over 2,200 of your 100 square metre properties, and over 1,500 of your 200 square metre properties, that we could have built in the North. This amendment is actually really relevant when you look at those figures because we could have added to the housing stock over 2,000 properties, which would have housed those most in need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI want to particularly look at the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. My colleague Adrian Rurawhe talked about section 18(2)(a) of the Housing Corporation Act, which is about \u201Cproviding rental housing, principally for those who need it most\u201D, but I want to talk about subsection (2)(b), which is about \u201Cproviding appropriate accommodation \u2026 for community organisations \u2026 that provide residential support services for people with special needs):\u201D. The reason I want to highlight that is that I was fortunate enough to participate in two sessions of the homelessness inquiry\u2014and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague Phil Twyford, my colleague Marama Davidson, and also my colleague Marama Fox on the way that they conducted that homelessness inquiry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EWhat I would like to bring to the table is the unmet need that will be met by the money that will be reinvested into one of the functions of the Housing New Zealand Corporation\u2014the communities that will benefit most from this particular amendment. I particularly want to highlight from Monday\u2019s hearing here in Wellington the submission by Ara Taiohi. It was given by Anya Satyanand and Sandra Dickson, and it focused specifically on the exclusion of LGBTI youth and LGBTI homelessness. I also want to acknowledge that another member of that submission group was Kassie Hartendorp, who works for Evolve. Where we got to, in terms of their representation of LGBTI youth, is that they are already a marginalised group. We have an already marginalised group\u2014because they do not have the family structures available\u2014living on the streets or relying on, as Sandra said, people like herself who are part of the community allowing these young people to sleep on their couches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EOne of the solutions that was proposed in the submission hearing on Monday was that maybe we should create a hostel that would be funded by Housing New Zealand and serviced by LGBTI groups for LGBTI groups. That is a huge unmet need in our society. That would be a tangible investment by this Government, based on this proposal by my colleague Metiria Turei.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI want to now quickly reference the 22 August hearing at Te Puea Marae, and particularly want to highlight the submission by Danielle Bergin, who works for the Island Child Charitable Trust. One of the things she said that struck me most was that of the last six families she had had, five of them had newborn babies. She provides a service that aims to help up to 35 families a year, but because of restricted funding it could help only 15. It brings in a context where young women are provided with the support to know how to parent and they are given an opportunity to create a loving bond with that child. This, again, highlights a whole lot of unmet need that this reinvestment, by not putting it into the Crown accounts, can contribute to. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u002214c1a03a464741579ef8995cc56906bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214c1a03a464741579ef8995cc56906bc\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to take a moment, if members could be seated, to remind the Committee what we are doing here. We have had an amendment put up. It is quite narrow in what it says. It is very specific about not taking a dividend from Housing New Zealand Corporation for the Government and applying it back into the purchase of homes. We do not need big long stories or tales of woe. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThe context has been given by the initial speaker, Metiria Turei, who was the proponent of the amendment. People need to be either asking the Minister for Building and Housing questions or they need to be doing technical analysis in respect of what this proposal does by way of amendment. Bear in mind that this is an amendment, so the questions you can ask the Minister are fairly limited. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EI expect that the debate on this will be very narrow, and it should be, because it is a very narrow and very easy to understand amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022298624f583064afdb7a682804cb00ed1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022298624f583064afdb7a682804cb00ed1\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As I understand it, this whole bill began with a clear statement that the debate was to be wide ranging. I also would put to you that as a wide-ranging debate and one where we have not had the opportunity to hear submissions from New Zealanders\u2014from the public\u2014we actually have an obligation to our constituents to talk about the impacts on them of legislation that we are considering. So telling those stories is critical to explaining how legislation will impact on the people we are here to represent. Yes, there are some narrow provisions that we are debating, but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your view in light of the fact that we have an obligation as representatives in this House to talk about the effects of legislation on our constituency, and this is the only opportunity that we have to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00220c289b3ea4504c69a361b8c7c40c8437\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220c289b3ea4504c69a361b8c7c40c8437\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Ruling on that, the point is that you have got an obligation to address the part that is under debate at the moment. That does not give a licence to any speaker to then retell the context over and over and over and over again. Actually, that leads to repetition, and that is what the Chair is responsible for maintaining a control on. That is not something that is going to be tolerated. As members will well know, there have been several hours of debate in respect of this bill, and the context has been put many, many times during the course of that debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThe ability to be able to have a wide-ranging debate is during the first, second, and third readings. This is the Committee stage, where we analyse the parts that are before the Committee, and at this time we are debating a very narrow and well-constructed Supplementary Order Paper that is around this particular part. The wide-ranging debate relates to the readings. The Committee stage relates to the analysis of the parts that are before the Committee. There has been quite a bit of leniency displayed so far, for members to be able to do that. I am giving you an indication, as I have on previous tours of duty in respect of this particular bill, that we are going to keep it tight.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00229d34616246254438970922b46a6ffed3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d34616246254438970922b46a6ffed3\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking clarification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241c90d747b274da9927de6d75c0845d3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Simply for clarification\u2014a point of order, Metiria Turei.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291ba05edbf5c4e97b840c710a016465e\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Can I clarify then that you are not ruling out members of Parliament, in this Committee stage debate, describing the impacts? As part of the analysis of the legislation we are considering, are you ruling out us describing the impact of this legislation on the constituents whom we represent in this House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022954779b38c5a4239b09ff2e5fa484205\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000953\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022954779b38c5a4239b09ff2e5fa484205\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: The impacts of the legislation should be well described within the first, second, and third readings. The purpose of this Committee stage is to analyse and debate the strict terms of what each part does. Members do not have leniency to spend several minutes in a 5 minute call putting in context, which has been done several times over the course of this debate, or they run the risk of being called for repetition and being sat down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000954\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThis is about analysis. The Committee stage is about analysis of the parts that we are debating at any one time. I hope that is clear enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022 data-id=\u00228ae33d52c0a84a2b988cbeea23b8d9d4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ae33d52c0a84a2b988cbeea23b8d9d4\u0022\u003EDAVID BENNETT (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022 data-id=\u0022be2ac820ddbf4c1687e2d43530d216d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be2ac820ddbf4c1687e2d43530d216d0\u0022\u003ESUE MORONEY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this excellent amendment, proposed Part 7, from Metiria Turei about making sure that the money that is dedicated to Housing New Zealand is used for the purpose of housing New Zealanders. It is not a hard thing to ask for\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc27c1f8013c4d239257745b87d80918\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Pretty radical.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228286a00a1c4846b9a699fdc6adcfd2fb\u0022\u003ESUE MORONEY\u003C/span\u003E: I know; it is pretty radical, but, actually, it is pretty simple in its context. It is what every New Zealander would expect their Government to be doing on their behalf\u2014ensuring that the money put aside in the Budget for housing is dedicated to housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003EI want to bring Hamilton into the debate. We have spoken a lot about Auckland. I see there are two members opposite in the Chamber who are from Hamilton, but I do not think we are going to hear anything from them any time soon. They are probably too embarrassed to talk about the impact that Part 7 has on their constituents in Hamilton, and so they should be. About 2 weeks ago Andrew Little came to Hamilton. He addressed a lunchtime meeting on the issue of housing, and there was standing room only. That is how much this issue of Housing New Zealand and how it is operating in New Zealand, and the lack of housing available under Housing New Zealand, is impacting on Hamiltonians. David Bennett might find it entertaining, but I can tell that member, and he should know this himself from the people who come in his door, that it is not at all entertaining for those people who are sleeping in cars and who are sleeping in garages, because Housing New Zealand is paying a profit, a surplus, back to his Government, instead of building more State houses in Hamilton, where they are needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003EThe example I will give you, and I took Andrew Little to see this particular block of land, is Jebson Place, which is in David Bennett\u2019s electorate. Actually, Jebson Place and Dey Street, around that area, over in Hamilton East, is a beautifully located piece of Housing New Zealand land. It is largely abandoned. The State houses are boarded up, left derelict by that Government for years, while the need for housing grows exponentially in Hamilton. Our housing prices have increased by an average of 30 percent in the last year alone, and that Government has left that block of land empty, with houses boarded up, derelict. It is like a ghetto, in the middle of Hamilton.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247f396a6a0ec493780c763920905a69c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Back to this part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e548fc0a528549fcb67aaae12811c7ff\u0022\u003ESUE MORONEY\u003C/span\u003E: Back to this part, Mr Chairperson. The surplus that Housing New Zealand has been told to pay back to that Government should be spent on developing good, healthy State houses in Jebson Place, where people can live, not have these resource consents so that people cannot live in them, but have actual houses, built by Housing New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003EI will give another example in Hamilton. This is another one in David Bennett\u2019s electorate, actually. It is known locally as Poets Corner. Well, actually, nothing could be less than poetic than what has happened to that Housing New Zealand land. Housing New Zealand should be using that surplus to build houses on that land. In fact, it was under the last Labour Government that we decided that particular development was not up to standard, and so we cleared it. We had consulted with the local community, to find out what type of State housing they wanted erected in its place. We had an agreement with the community, because we consulted with it, about exactly what that development would look like. What happened next was that when the National Government came in, it left that land abandoned and, again, derelict for years, and still not one State housing tenant has a house back in Poets Corner. No one is tenanted on that block of land because the Government still has not built State houses there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcce37c504d44f618bb5fc6a807c1330\u0022\u003EDavid Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, they have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6307bbfb1414b4f95e6138cf7ca5600\u0022\u003ESUE MORONEY\u003C/span\u003E: No, it has not. Is anyone living there, David Bennett? Who is living there? What is the street address?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252e1be8ce8cb47808baec072c5f603a2\u0022\u003EDavid Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: I opened them last week.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b2567d3e-a09c-47b4-bd50-2f5bb4049762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f7066dc7a9548c2b134d799aeb94249\u0022\u003ESUE MORONEY\u003C/span\u003E: You opened them last week. So it took the Government how many years? Is it 9 years that we are up to? Well, 8 years\u20148 years, and the Government opened one house last week. I do not know whether anyone is living in it yet, but that is how long that Government has neglected State housing in places like Hamilton where the housing needs are that high. Part 7 would ensure that instead of paying a dividend back to that greedy Government, to balance its books, Housing New Zealand would be able to invest money in building good, healthy State houses in cities like Hamilton.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022 data-id=\u00226854284f24bb4a1f9be8e1cf56189898\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226854284f24bb4a1f9be8e1cf56189898\u0022\u003EKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022bf25c6141aae4099be69aca7b6084d83\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 75\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000969\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000970\u0022\u003Einsert the following new part:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000971\u0022\u003EPart 7\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000972\u0022\u003EAmendment to Housing Corporation Act 1974\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000973\u0022\u003E11\tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000974\u0022\u003EThis Part amends the Housing Corporation Act 1974.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000975\u0022\u003E12\tSection 40 amended (Distribution of profits)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000976\u0022\u003EReplace section 40 with:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000977\u0022\u003E40\tProfits to give effect to Corporation\u2019s functions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000978\u0022\u003E(1)\tThe Corporation\u2019s surplus must be used for those functions under section 18(2) that increase the supply and affordability of housing.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000979\u0022\u003E(2) \tIn subsection (1), surplus means surplus capital, and any operating net surplus, after any provision the Minister thinks proper has been made for any matters that, in the Minister\u2019s opinion (reached in the light of the Corporation\u2019s statement of performance expectations and annual financial statements) are necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of the Corporation\u2019s operations.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002208dbc19d9e994700bd1d19d910d33bc0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224ff0ec9e16584f1799bdc1e88133c285\u0022\u003ENew Part 8  Amendment to Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa18986d0b91456482d8d9ee8dff6f91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa18986d0b91456482d8d9ee8dff6f91\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E It is a real pleasure to rise and take a call on new Part 8 in this Committee stage debate. Firstly, I want to say that this is #changethegovernment in action happening right here. I have to commend Metiria Turei and Phil Twyford for the work that they have been doing through their Supplementary Order Papers and amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EPart 8 looks at amendments to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, and I want to confine my comments to a couple of the provisions in Part 8. The first one I want to discuss is new section 72A, inserted by clause 12, which looks at ensuring that there is sufficient funding for the income-related rent subsidy when there is not enough social housing stock to meet the need of people who need emergency housing or social housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EWhat we have found throughout the homelessness inquiry is that people are forced into really precarious housing situations. It is the role of Housing New Zealand\u2014and it is actually the role of the Government\u2014to ensure that people are housed sufficiently, and I know that there will be many people who have a sense of disquiet at the growing numbers of people who are living in very precarious housing situations. They are not just Labour and Green supporters; they are people everywhere who see the growing numbers of homeless in our country and have a real disquiet about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003ENew section 72A actually looks at how we take care of providing not just emergency housing but sufficient housing to give people the opportunity to have somewhere to live while they get their acts together and while they build their resources to be able to, hopefully, move on into homeownership. So having the ability to support social housing providers through the income-related rent subsidy when there is insufficient stock of social housing to take care of the need is very important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EI am absolutely overwhelmed by how good a job we have been doing with these amendments to actually develop a comprehensive housing plan for this issue. This is being debated in this Chamber today, and I would have to say there will be a lot of people who are watching this debate saying: \u201CWhy doesn\u2019t the Government do this?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225cd2e5b35a7429d853633ab7e604d32\u0022\u003EHon Ruth Dyson\u003C/span\u003E: Or anything\u2014do anything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e3b6822c5d54fcc94c409bf0fb5386e\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah. I for one would be really happy if the Government would take the opportunity, with all of these wonderful ideas that are coming to the Committee today, to do something to address the growing levels of need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EThe other provision that I want to address in the last 2 minutes of this call is new section 98C(2)(d), inserted by clause 13, which says that you should have a plan to provide appropriate responses to the diverse groups needing housing. In this regard, I want to pay particular note to a couple of groups that I do not think have been identified as having unmet need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EThe first one is youth. When I had a job in the real world in a place called Waipuna\u2014which hosted one of the homelessness inquiry sessions\u2014we did a lot of work with young people. Young people do not have credit. They are sometimes a risk to landlords. They find it very difficult to get into housing. They cannot find sufficient money for bonds. This is a group that finds it very difficult to get housing. They often are young parents. What I am really hopeful for is that, as part of Part 8, this diverse group will have access to housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EThe other group that has significant need that has not been addressed is women and children escaping violence. This is a group that actually has a huge level of unmet need. We do have refuges, but they have expressed real concern at not being able to provide an opportunity, once the crisis is over, for those women and kids to have decent accommodation. We need to be able to be providing safe opportunities for housing for our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222df33ee5-23d6-441c-a9ba-6495aa69f9fd\u0022 data-id=\u0022fa490bb265934ecbb30245433c686856\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222df33ee5-23d6-441c-a9ba-6495aa69f9fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fa490bb265934ecbb30245433c686856\u0022\u003EDENISE ROCHE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. I have been looking at the amendments, and the Green Party position is that we fully endorse and support this amendment. It would make a significant difference to the legislation if it was to be passed in the Committee tonight. The first part of this amendment relates to income-related rents. I think that if we look at what the average incomes are at the moment, it makes sense that we should be looking at rents that people can afford. We believe that shelter is a basic human right and that the Government has the responsibility to provide that shelter. If the market does not provide, then those people need shelter, and the market is broken. It is certainly not delivering shelter to, what, 32,000 people who are currently homeless\u201432,000 people, many of whom are children, who are living in their cars.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222df33ee5-23d6-441c-a9ba-6495aa69f9fd\u0022\u003EWe have just wound up the cross-party inquiry into homelessness. I sat on that inquiry in Tauranga and heard the gut-wrenching testimonies from good people\u2014good people\u2014trying to earn a living and provide for their families. But if we look at income and income-related rents, what we find is that the minimum wage is $15.25 per hour. That comes to $610 for a 40-hour week. In Auckland, the average rent for a three-bedroom house is around about $510 a week, leaving\u2014what is that\u2014$100 for a family to exist on for a week. If we put some controls on the speculation in housing and housing becoming a commodity, which is being used to make the wealthy wealthier, and we see it as a basic human right with responsibility on the State to provide housing at a cost that normal working families can afford, then that is what we should be doing, and that is what this amendment does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222df33ee5-23d6-441c-a9ba-6495aa69f9fd\u0022\u003ECurrently, there are around about 300,000 people who are earning close to that minimum wage, which is $15.25 an hour\u2014300,000 people. That, per annum, is just under $32,000 a year. If you consider the cost of rental accommodation in Auckland, which is becoming increasingly beyond the capacity and beyond the affordability of normal working families, and if you also consider that it is way beyond the price range for normal families on the minimum hourly rate to actually be able to afford to buy any of these homes, given that in Auckland it is now, what, $1 million on average to buy a normal place to live\u2014when you consider all that\u2014then we do need to consider that this Parliament should be taking steps to provide housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222df33ee5-23d6-441c-a9ba-6495aa69f9fd\u0022\u003EThe amendment also talks about emergency housing, and this is something that we really should be looking at. We cannot be continuing on with this situation where we are putting families in motels and where families with small children are ending up in boarding house rooms just for shelter. That is a shameful, shameful way to be. I want to thank the member Phil Twyford for putting forward this amendment, which we will be supporting wholeheartedly. There is a lot more that we could be doing to give families and hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders the ability to have shelter\u2014that basic human right. This is the amendment that will deliver it, and I think we should be supporting it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a4de76a66f284743804af97327d397a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a4de76a66f284743804af97327d397a7\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your ruling under Standing Order 302(2) about the admissibility of proposed Part 8 in Mr Twyford\u2019s name. Before the dinner adjournment I raised this point on amendments amending the Income Tax Act, the Overseas Investment Act, and the Resource Management Act, and it was declined on the basis that, however oblique, those amendments did relate to the issue of housing affordability. However, having read this amendment, the amendment itself, however noble, does not relate to that and the purposes of the bill we are debating\u2014it relates to income-related rent, the issues of homelessness, and the issues of emergency housing. Nothing in there has anything to do with the primary purpose of the bill, which is related to affordable housing, and I seek your ruling that it is out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00222ce6a5395b01423d897b0af5058764d2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ce6a5395b01423d897b0af5058764d2\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I think it is not enough for a bill to just say \u201CThis bill seeks an increase in the supply of affordable housing.\u201D; I think it is reasonable that we should apply some critical faculties to this. I would argue that it is almost self-evident that the provision of affordable rental housing through an organised programme like State or social housing is about supplying a significant part of our community with just that\u2014affordable housing. It is so close to the declared aim of Parts 1 and 2 of the main bill that I would have thought it stands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022 data-id=\u00225b2cfc2e9a68457bb76d4a185f595569\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b2cfc2e9a68457bb76d4a185f595569\u0022\u003EHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking to that, and accepting the point Mr Twyford makes, the Standing Orders are very clear that where there is a single bill being amended, the scope to introduce new amendments\u2014even by the Minister or the Government\u2014is extremely narrow. The reason we are able to have debates of this nature is that this is an omnibus bill, and, as a consequence, a much broader discussion about the issue at hand. But in this case, the issue at hand is not about income-related rents or homelessness; it is about housing affordability. It is on that point that I seek the matter to be ruled out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00227ae13ca578104c5ab74dd46dcc6a6142\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ae13ca578104c5ab74dd46dcc6a6142\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E Indeed, the scope for considering additional parts to this bill is confined to the subject of affordable housing, and I would just reiterate that providing affordable housing in the form of State or social housing or emergency housing for people who are most acutely in need is directly synonymous with the supply of affordable housing. There is nothing in the description of the earlier parts that says it is exclusively about affordable housing for homeownership. It is about affordable housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0024234f9df4954bc926d49ef02ddcd\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a William Sio\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00224b833843cb464d45b1bc50786ca3a2ad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b833843cb464d45b1bc50786ca3a2ad\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Su\u2019a William Sio\u2014is it a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022815b2abfe2e34d78ab0fd7eeee68883c\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a William Sio\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am going to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248f10fd118524c0da4b462cd346d9eae\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, give us a chance to have a think about it, will you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d770581a725a4a04b857ca8ca36b7623\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a81ed8724abd40d8a0fb77229277aa4e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Is it a point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3aa4bad14e648d98938ecc0093d5c0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3aa4bad14e648d98938ecc0093d5c0e\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E It is just speaking to the point of order. I would like to make very strongly the point that the term \u201Caffordable housing\u201D does include rental housing and does include social housing, and the two things are actually directly interrelated\u2014people who cannot afford to buy houses do actually have to rent houses, and the problem is that some of them cannot even do that. So this matter has to be looked at considerably wider than the Minister has indicated. It is not as narrow as he tried to persuade you, Mr Chairman. Affordability is a very broad subject, and we were assured, when I raised a point of order at the very beginning of this debate, that this would be a wide-ranging debate. It would not have to be very wide if you were to include affordability of housing, whether it be rental or house purchases, as part of the consideration of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022dd3d8b3ede70458781aa1df1d948d47b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dd3d8b3ede70458781aa1df1d948d47b\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Speaking to that, I may be able to be of some assistance in that these issues were, in fact, canvassed, and the Speaker did give a ruling indicating the breadth of the debate. One of the issues that this bill deals with is the disposal of State housing land, so, therefore, it does actually open up the scope of debate around affordable rental housing and State housing\u2014or what the Government now calls social housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022c58cab7639f342458242a6dac5f85530\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c58cab7639f342458242a6dac5f85530\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: I am prepared to rule on this matter now. There are a number of matters within the amendment. There are some matters in it that I do not think fit within the scope\u2014for instance, the plan to end homelessness. But I do note that in the explanatory note, on page 2, it says that \u201CThe purpose of the bill is to support the wider Government programme of work to increase the supply and affordability of housing,\u201D\u2014not referring to homeownership\u2014\u201Cand to maintain the momentum of strong growth in new home construction.\u201D New home construction, in the view of the Chair, includes rental accommodation. I do not believe\u2014and I want to restate this for the purpose of Minister Woodhouse, who has taken this point of order\u2014that anything that relates to a house or a rent or a condition such as homelessness or a situation that people find themselves in will fall within the scope of this bill, but I am convinced that the current amendment is narrowly within scope.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8ae7eaadf7f486f8db2d0120a115da4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8ae7eaadf7f486f8db2d0120a115da4\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First will be very pleased, indeed, to support this new Part 8. In fact, when you think about it, it is surprising that the Government itself has not done something about this, because it is actually fundamental if the Government is genuine about improving the ability of people in this country to find a home if they cannot actually afford to buy one. If you cannot afford to buy one, you still have to afford to rent one. So this part is extremely important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI note, also, that quite recently, in the last few weeks, Minister Bill English was asked a question in Parliament, in answer to which he stated that the Housing New Zealand Corporation would add an additional 1,700 State house places this year. That was what he said the corporation would be doing. But not long before that, during the Budget debate, he actually said that the Government would be selling 2,000 State houses. So at the same time that the Government is going to provide 1,700 new State houses, it is going to be selling 2,000. If you were to believe those figures\u2014and they came from Government Ministers\u2014then there would be a deficit of 300 houses in the current year. That is very strange, when you consider the magnitude of the waiting list that already occurs in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI have just been reading an article in Hawke\u2019s Bay Today that talks about the number of people\u2014I think it refers to 1,400\u2014in Hawke\u2019s Bay who are homeless, and, more than that, a huge proportion of them are children. There is actually a photograph, as part of that, showing two children sitting on the footpath with a notice saying \u201CPlease help.\u201D What they are saying is that they do not have a home\u2014two children, no home, nowhere to go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhat kind of a country are we turning into where children cannot find a home\u2014not just a few, but by the dozens, by the hundreds? What kind of a country are we turning into when that happens? I am very grateful to the news media for bringing all of these examples to light. They are doing a great job on that. Now it is our job\u2014most particularly, it is the Government\u2019s job\u2014to do something about it, and yet it is opposing this very sensible new addition to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThat is why I began my speech by saying that I am surprised that the Government is not doing this itself, because the most important part of this new Part 8, that I can see, is actually on the first page. The addition of new section 72A would require the Government to do exactly what I am talking about. Once it finds that there are more people who require housing than is available through Housing New Zealand, it would then be required to provide the funding necessary so that the corporation could increase its supply by 1,000 per year. What on earth is wrong with that? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EMr English in particular tried to persuade this House only a couple of weeks ago that the Housing New Zealand Corporation\u2019s programme would be sufficient to meet demand. That was the nature of the questions put to him during question time, and that was when he said that there would be 1,700 more places available in the current year\u2014at the same time, of course, as selling 2,000. That does not make sense, but, nevertheless, that is what he said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIf he is serious about meeting demand, then the National Government will be voting for clause 12, which inserts new section 72A. But, of course, very few of us on this side of the Chamber actually credit the Government with a genuine desire to use Housing New Zealand Corporation in any way whatsoever to actually solve the awful housing crisis in this country, where children have to sit on footpaths with notices saying \u201CPlease help me.\u201D Ignored by this Government, and fought for by the parties on this side of the Chamber. It is not good enough. Government: you need to improve.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u0022226e0aff19214e0785fc929b82afc735\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022226e0aff19214e0785fc929b82afc735\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou e Te Whare. This is not just a housing crisis; this is a moral crisis. This country is actually in moral crisis as I speak. This amendment to insert new Part 8 is important, like all of the amendments, because what they do is articulate to the country\u2014and people are watching us here tonight\u2014that some people recognise the crisis, and some people recognise that practical, affordable, and reasonable steps need to be taken to work our way out of this crisis. As the previous speaker, Denis O\u2019Rourke, said about this part, it is disturbing to think about our kids right now outside in the cold. As yet another wintery blast hits the country, there are kids outside in the cold. There are parents trying to get them out of the cold. Meanwhile, in Parliament there is a bill before the House that will not help that situation at all, because it has missed the point. It would be easy to say deliberately; it would be kind to say that the Government just, kind of, made a mistake\u2014it meant to produce a wonderful housing bill that was going to work it all out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EBut this part is important because it actually spells out the issue around income-related rents. You cannot separate the word \u201Crent\u201D from the word \u201Cincome\u201D\u2014well, if you do, you are obviously living in fool\u2019s paradise or you are really rich. But the main thing is, we were here about a week ago arguing about the minimum wage. We were arguing that there should be a minimum wage for contractors, and the Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e88c0a10066048c697d18bdef3cc7905\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e0ad3e60f9d4979bd3ab4f81376b835\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: I am about to link it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d92eaabde8f94d988a482fe08fa6d529\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it would be very good if the member did so quite quickly, because I think you heard the previous ruling. I think it is fair to say that this part was marginal as to its scope, and the member is getting a fair way outside speaking directly to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df8f9eb302c649dda70e246e847812a3\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get directly to the relationship between income-related rent and the minimum wage\u2014i.e., if you are not getting the minimum wage, you cannot even pay the rent. I think that is within scope. Proposed new section 72A says: \u201CThe joint Ministers must ensure sufficient funding is available for income-related rent places\u201D in Housing New Zealand houses. The good thing about this amendment is that it attributes responsibility to these joint Ministers, not only in clause 12, inserting new section 72A, but also in new section 98B, \u201CJoint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing\u201D. So what it does is it actually names the Ministers of the Crown as responsible. This is appropriate because the State has a responsibility to look after housing, and this is what this bill is about. It is about the role of the State. The joint Ministers must ensure \u201Call people who are homeless have the ability to access accommodation and the services they need.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EAt risk of deviating, we have to look at Te Puea Marae. They acted like the joint Ministers; that is what they did. They acted like\u2014maybe we should write into new section 98B: \u201CThe joint Ministers, as a reflection of the leadership provided by Te Puea Marae, will act to provide sufficient places for emergency housing.\u201D The leadership came from the people, and new section 98B(2) is all about \u201CThe joint Ministers must ensure the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000.\u201D I am sure that we would need all of those places. I am sure that what we saw at the marae was about the need for ongoing emergency housing. I, personally, am aware, having visited Whangarei\u2014which is not Auckland\u2014that there is a crisis in emergency housing in Whangarei. There is a crisis in emergency housing\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223563d46fc57c4fe1a88c14047b2e888a\u0022\u003EClare Curran\u003C/span\u003E: Dunedin.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022099a0d4a066143afb030a0d18e6523c0\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014in Dunedin. There is a crisis in my own town in Thames. There is always a crisis in emergency housing funding because no one is taking responsibility for the overall picture. The Government is just leaving it to agencies that are desperate, and then it has cut the community funding for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003ESo those joint Ministers\u2014I am not sure who they are, but the joint ones\u2014can get together and do something about it and make sure that emergency housing is warm, dry, and safe. So it is not just that the joint Ministers must ensure that these places exist, but that they cannot just say any old dirty boarding house will do. What they have to say is \u201Cpremises which are warm, dry, and safe.\u201D I think \u201Csafe\u201D is a critical word in this new section. It is very good that it is mentioned, because if our kids are not safe, we are not safe. No one is safe while our kids are not safe. We need to do this. This amendment needs to go ahead.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u00225609f0333c97498d805b488f228e81f9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225609f0333c97498d805b488f228e81f9\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairman, I appreciate getting the call\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271757e5504204d529fab024679b62c20\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: And I might say that winking at me does not help, to the two people who did it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e29ef38de014aa3b8a2db60d37d3397\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO\u003C/span\u003E: Can I remind members that this Committee has not had the benefit of having a select committee scrutinise this bill, and therefore we have been denied the opportunity of receiving the experience and advice from that particular committee. So I am going to go through a clause by clause analysis of this amendment to add a new Part 8, and I will be asking questions of the Government, whether it has any comments to explain what it is that it is doing to address the housing crisis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EFirst, I draw members\u2019 attention to the explanatory note. I do so because the Minister challenged the validity of this amendment. In the explanatory note, we find that this amendment has two purposes. The first purpose is to require the Government to increase its State housing stock by \u201C1,000 units per year in any year that demand for State housing is not met.\u201D, and that it be income-related rent. Secondly, it requires the Government to \u201Cmake sufficient funding available to house those who are homeless and develop a plan to end homelessness.\u201D That is what this amendment is about, and I believe it meets the primary purpose of this bill as it was introduced by the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EWe look to new clause 11, which is common sense, and it refers to the principal Act that we are amending, the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act. We look to new clause 12 and the introduction of new section 72A, \u201CIncome-related rent places\u201D, and there it talks about enabling the Housing New Zealand Corporation to \u201Cincrease its supply of [Housing New Zealand] housing by 1,000 per year.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThere is a real need for that. My own experience is that when we see people sleeping in cars, in overcrowded housing conditions, and in garages, it requires the Government to build more social housing. The term \u201Cincome-related rent\u201D in new section 72A is important, because in our engagement with budgeting services and with community organisations at the coalface, they tell us that, once upon a time, people renting from Housing New Zealand used to spend 25 percent or 30 percent of their income on paying rent to Housing New Zealand, but today it is 65 percent. This was revealed to me by budgeting services in Auckland, in Nelson, and in Gisborne. I am not saying that this does not exist. This does exist. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EWe go to new clause 13, which inserts new Part 8A, \u201CEmergency Housing and Homelessness\u201D, and we see there, in new section 98A, the interpretation of terms used in this part. We look at \u201Chomeless\u201D, which means \u201Ca situation where a person meets the definition of \u2018homelessness\u2019 set out in Statistics New Zealand\u2019s New Zealand Definition of Homelessness.\u201D. We find that that definition says that that is when somebody has \u201Cno other options to acquire safe and secure housing\u201D. It makes reference to people living in conditions without shelter. I suspect that these are people, like with the situation in Auckland, who are living under bridges or next to gravesides, where there is no shelter\u2014under trees. It makes reference to people living in temporary accommodation that is not their own. It makes reference to sharing accommodation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELet me go back to temporary accommodation. I suspect that people living in garages consider that temporary accommodation. The definition from Statistics New Zealand says that that is classed as being homeless, yet we have had Work and Income refer people to live in a garage and it says that that would be appropriate accommodation. Yet in the definition of the statistics department, it says no. We have people sharing accommodation. We have people living in uninhabitable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThis is people living in debilitated situations. I cannot imagine that here, in New Zealand, this Government would allow people to live in these conditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI refer again to the definition of homelessness given by Statistics New Zealand, which says it is where people have \u201Cno other options to acquire safe and secure housing\u201D. I refer to new section 98B, \u201CJoint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing\u201D. That makes sense. This Government has three Ministers all with housing portfolios\u2014three Ministers. Every other Government has had only one housing Minister, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022 data-id=\u0022c053fbd9ac5b44cd8f2ddcddfeff8e09\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c053fbd9ac5b44cd8f2ddcddfeff8e09\u0022\u003EKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022e382eaa5905946f285134f265a96b936\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e382eaa5905946f285134f265a96b936\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I wonder whether I could make a somewhat technical contribution pointing out the structure of proposed new section 98B(2), which specifies that joint Ministers must ensure that the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000. I would also like to draw the Committee\u2019s attention to proposed new section 72A on income-related rents, in clause 12. Again, the proposed amendment to the principal Act inserts a quantitative target of a further thousand houses a year. I would like to draw the distinction between that approach of inserting the number in the primary legislation versus inserting an enabling power to allow those numbers to be dealt with by ministerial action through an Order in Council, i.e., a regulation-making power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI think this is an important point because, frankly, New Zealanders have given up trusting this Government. They would not want to see, in an amendment to this, a power delegated to a Minister\u2014or indeed to Cabinet through the Order in Council process\u2014that was not brought back to this House. Because the track record of the current Government, in failing to meet the needs of everyday New Zealanders, has been appalling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI would like to concur with recent speakers who have said that this is not only a very practical crisis of children living in cars, enduring the cold of winter, or living in, at best, substandard, wet, damp accommodation, but a moral crisis. It is a very practical crisis. If a child is homeless, the child cannot learn. It will have lifetime proclivity to disease. It will not develop its learning abilities. Its employment opportunities will be constrained. It is much more likely to end up in the prison system or the mental health system, which in turn will be a burden on society.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe irony of the current Government, which has utterly failed to address the housing crisis but speaks in this year\u2019s Budget of the social investment approach\u2014is it not about time we had\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c5deaead25e474198d063bd7dab4254\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. As I have indicated previously, this was a marginal call as to scope and therefore will be strictly enforced as to relevance. Members cannot wander all over the park on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254f8c4d2d24142a5854c872b535af4c9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair, and, Mr Chair, I take your point, which is why my comments were embedded within the quantification of proposed new sections 98B and 72A and related that, as you recall, to the question of the reliability of the policy around homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELet me touch on another section, which is proposed new section 98C, in which subsection (1) quite specifically refers to the need for a plan to end homelessness. I think the wording here is really important, because it does not talk about a plan to mitigate homelessness or a plan to reduce homelessness; it talks about a plan to end homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWhen combined with those rigid, quantitative requirements in the proposed amendment, as the proposed part inserts, I think the Committee can infer that this is a matter where the cost benefit of the intervention is so obvious over the lifetime of the child concerned that there is no excuse for homelessness. There is no non-zero amount of homelessness that should be acceptable or, in the language of social investment, where it is not worth investing to rid the country of it. That is why subsection (1) in proposed new section 98C talks about ending\u2014ending, not just mitigating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIn proposed new section 98C(2)(a), we are required to \u201CConsider whether the official definition of homelessness needs updating, and recommend accordingly.\u201D This is the one subsection where I am not sure I am comfortable with the drafting, and that is because this Government has had a tendency to use data and the updating of methodologies to political effect\u2014but I take it you do not want examples of that in this debate, Mr Chair. I think we all know many of them. In the following paragraph (b): \u201CAssess [the] evidence on the current scale of homelessness, whether it is changing \u2026\u201D. I think the wording could also have said by how much it is changing, because it is clear to all New Zealanders that the homelessness problem is getting worse\u2014exponentially worse\u2014all over the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022 data-id=\u002219a67b2232cd4909a02cb0bdb4c33f48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219a67b2232cd4909a02cb0bdb4c33f48\u0022\u003EDAVID BENNETT (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022fb77e0f378e043c8a1fcfbf18472d579\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fb77e0f378e043c8a1fcfbf18472d579\u0022\u003ECLARE CURRAN (Labour\u2014Dunedin South):\u003C/span\u003E I speak in support of Part 8, tabled in the Chamber by my colleague Phil Twyford, who has done a sterling job with his amendments to this bill. I also want to make reference to the good points that were made by Denis O\u2019Rourke about the relevance of this part, given that there has been a challenge as to the scope of this part of this bill. He made the very good point that if people cannot afford to buy a home, then they must rent, and if they cannot afford to rent, then what are their options? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EIt is our contention that it is a fundamental responsibility of the State to ensure that if there are people in our society who cannot afford to rent a home, then there should be provision made for them. I want to ask the Minister in the chair tonight, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, whether or not he agrees with that concept; and if not, why not? If he does, then why was he objecting to this part of the bill, which is ensuring\u2014new section 72A inserted by clause 12 has a provision that joint Ministers must ensure that there is sufficient funding available for income-related rent places in Housing New Zealand in any year. If there is not, then what are the options for people if they cannot afford to rent? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EWe have had a lot of discussion about different parts of the country. I want to take the discussion that is relevant to this part to the part that I represent, which is Dunedin\u2014which also happens to be the part where the Minister in the chair lives\u2014to talk about the impact on people who are not able to afford to rent, are in State housing, and currently have their rents in State housing under review, even though their income has not changed. What is happening is that those people are being rung and threatened with being moved out of their State housing, and no new State housing is being made available. In fact, quite the contrary\u2014State housing is being sold in Dunedin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThe people who are in State housing, who still have the same low incomes, are being told that they may have to move out of State housing into a private rental market where much of it is not safe and they will meet the definition of homelessness, as put forward by Statistics New Zealand, and is mentioned in this part of the bill, because the housing is uninhabitable\u2014in other words, slum housing, unsafe housing, housing where there are children who are getting sick and ending up in hospital with respiratory issues. The Minister knows this well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EIt has been said that 40 percent of Dunedin\u2019s housing is not warm, not dry, and needs work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab5c6cf045e84b1796e533d78531b59e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The same as before\u2014please keep the debate narrow on this amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7adeaf90ec44c668b924b7857ffdd05\u0022\u003ECLARE CURRAN\u003C/span\u003E: The relevance of this to this part of the bill is that if people cannot afford to live in housing that is habitable, they are then forced into unsafe, uninhabitable housing that meets the definition of homelessness. In places like Dunedin where it is cold and damp and children are ending up in hospital and adults are ending up in hospital, what are the options? That is why this part is so important and is so critical to ensure that there is that income-related rent as the back stop in State housing, which enables more people who should not be in the private rental market in this kind of housing but should be staying in State housing to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EToday I received a phone call from one of my constituents begging me to intervene with Housing New Zealand because her roof leaks, there is mould, there is toxic mould in the walls, and her heating does not work because the water has run down and has affected her heating. What will Housing New Zealand do about it? Nothing. It has lost its soul, but it lost its soul because this Government has no soul. That Minister should get up\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u00225b46196ddf5347f292414300c98cf8e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b46196ddf5347f292414300c98cf8e4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I just want to remind the Committee that the Chair is the sole judge of time. Actually, I decide, when there is a point of order taken or if I make a ruling, how much time is added on, if any. To have members rudely interrupt other members\u2014both sides\u2014while they are speaking is just not going to be accepted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002241146229-4d11-415b-a4ac-f4e2b923e95d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e83738984be54f2fa2780052ea698893\u0022\u003EHon Christopher Finlayson\u003C/span\u003E: It wasn\u2019t me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022107d7b76c2ea4a95b0c9bf3bec46990b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I know it was not. But the member was looking at me down his nose in such an outrageous manner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u002297641691508242ff8b5bbf48299eb614\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297641691508242ff8b5bbf48299eb614\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E First, I would like to apologise to all the members whom I have interrupted while jumping in to try to get my bit. I am really passionate about this\u2014that is all\u2014that is all it is. But I genuinely apologise for interrupting other members\u2019 speeches. I do not think that is fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EHere is a tool, a really good part, a really good change to the bill that we are debating, which will take head-on some of the most brutal impacts that are happening to New Zealanders at the moment. I am going to go through each of its parts. I have got a slight change to one of the parts of this amendment, but here is a tool that offers several different solutions that will address the immediate problem of the housing crisis and that we often talk about. We often talk about using all the tools that focus on addressing the housing crisis, but I want to say that what this amendment focuses on are the tools particularly for the group of New Zealanders who are disproportionately bearing the cruel, cruel brunt of this Government\u2019s failure to protect them. Those are the priority tools that are outlined in this Part 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003ESo it is actually not just about using all the tools; it is actually about prioritising the tools at the bottom end\u2014that is what this part is about. The income-related rent places provision is important because at the moment people are choosing between rent, food, power, and anything else is a bonus. So this is vital to helping improve our communities. There is a part here, new section 98B set out in clause 13 in new Part 8A, \u201CJoint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing\u201D. If we really want to be serious, as I keep saying, we have to look at the bottom end, at the groups who are bearing the most negative and the most harmful impacts of this Government\u2019s failure. So I really emphasise that ensuring that the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000 is actually vital at the moment. We have heard that the provisions at the moment for emergency housing are woefully insufficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI come to new section 98C, set out in clause 13, \u201CPlan to end homelessness\u201D. I would actually just propose a slight addition before subsection (1) of section 98C. I would put something in before there. I commend the stunning work of my colleague Phil Twyford on this, but my amendment would be, firstly, to ask whether the Government members can even say the words \u201Cend homelessness\u201D. Has anyone heard them? Has anyone actually heard them say that? I am looking around. Have we actually heard this Government vocalise or write the words \u201Cend homelessness\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c410481dfe848c3a4c912d1e49bf46f\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019ve got it all under control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022816fd9f3e83f4d1c8ad30bc760ae4ed4\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Have they? No. so I would even propose that in this part of this bill that we are debating\u2014new section 98C, \u201CPlan to end homeless\u201D\u2014that we stick a bit in just to make sure we know that they understand what we are asking: end homelessness. So it was not a long contribution that I felt I needed to make; just a clear one. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022 data-id=\u0022984f3f2a72e34def9181c2b2703e4363\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022984f3f2a72e34def9181c2b2703e4363\u0022\u003EMELISSA LEE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e7a392889f184f1598606618c0904e9b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question now be put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001064\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to insert new Part 8 be agreed to. \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001065\u0022\u003EPart 8\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001066\u0022\u003EAmendment to Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001067\u0022\u003E11 \tPrincipal Act\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001068\u0022\u003EThis part amends the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy matters Act 1992.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001069\u0022\u003E12 \tNew Section 72A\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001070\u0022\u003EAfter section 72 insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001071\u0022\u003E72A\tIncome-related rent places\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001072\u0022\u003EThe joint Ministers must ensure sufficient funding is available for income-related rent places in HNZ housing that, in any year where the amount of social housing stock is insufficient to meet the demand for social housing, would enable the Corporation to increase its supply of HNZ housing by 1,000 per year.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001073\u0022\u003E13 \tNew Part 8A\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001074\u0022\u003EAfter section 98 insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001075\u0022\u003EPart 8A\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001076\u0022\u003EEmergency Housing and Homelessness\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001077\u0022\u003E98A \tInterpretation of terms used in this part\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001078\u0022\u003EIn this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001079\u0022\u003Ehomeless means a situation where a person meets the definition of homelessness set out in Statistics New Zealand\u2019s New Zealand Definition of Homelessness.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001080\u0022\u003Eemergency housing means any premises that are let for occupation by any person as a place of residence for persons who are homeless (whether or not the premises are owned by the provider or by any other person).\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001081\u0022\u003E98B \tJoint Ministers must ensure sufficient places for emergency housing\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001082\u0022\u003EThe joint Ministers have responsibility for ensuring that all people who are homeless have the ability to access accommodation and the services they need.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001083\u0022\u003EThe joint Ministers must ensure the number of funded places available in emergency housing each year is not less than 8,000.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001084\u0022\u003EThe joint Ministers must ensure any places funded for emergency housing are for places which are warm, dry, and safe.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001085\u0022\u003E98C \tPlan to end homelessness\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001086\u0022\u003EThe joint Ministers must within 12 months of the commencement of this section table before the House of Representatives a plan to end homelessness.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001087\u0022\u003EIn the development of the plan under subsection (1) the Minister must:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001088\u0022\u003EConsider whether the official definition of homelessness needs updating, and recommend accordingly.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001089\u0022\u003EAssess the evidence on the current scale of homelessness, whether it is changing and how, and what the causes of that change might be.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001090\u0022\u003EEvaluate possible policy responses to homelessness, including international best practice, and recommend accordingly.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001091\u0022\u003EConsider how homelessness is experienced by different groups in society and evaluate policy responses that respond to that experience. For example, M\u0101ori experience of homelessness and M\u0101ori-led initiatives to respond.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001092\u0022\u003EHear public submissions and expert evidence, particularly from those directly affected by homelessness and their advocates.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022333e041844d0427f8f5754553ec94c14\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001093\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b599224231994ff1a372aba4001da3a9\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00220160c345819e4e9d82a463d3831674f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220160c345819e4e9d82a463d3831674f7\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to take the first call on this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e38f18eaeab74d9c8f16bbe6e5bee8db\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: As long as the member puts his collar down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe42dea33c6944fea0fa7cfae9d5c371\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Happy to dress myself properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225976b6a10ed5416596bb46956dc4adaf\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: The jacket collar.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af01ac6db1394c50922383c1bfdf7334\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, the jacket collar. Thank you for your sartorial advice, Mr Chairperson. I am very happy to take this, the first call in the summing-up debate on what has been a significant discussion on issues related to housing, and we thank the Government for the opportunity to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIn the summing-up debate, of course, we debate the title and the commencement of this bill. I actually think that there is a different title for this bill. Perhaps we should call it the \u201CHasher Bill\u201D or, in Nick Smith\u2019s case, the \u201CHash-up Bill\u201D, because just about everything that the Government does around housing is a hash-up. We have seen that today and yesterday and the day before\u2014in fact, it has been ongoing for some time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBut what is interesting about this particular debate on this particular series of amendments that the Labour Party members have put forward is that although the Government members have no ideas of their own on how to deal with the housing crisis that New Zealand faces, they have voted against every single amendment and every single proposal put forward by the Opposition that would actually deal with the substantial housing issues that New Zealand faces. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBut I want to turn in particular to the debate that we had on Part 2 of this bill, because, if anything, that demonstrates why this should be called the \u201CHash-up Bill\u201D or the \u201CHasher Bill\u201D. The Government told us all the way through that debate\u2014all the way through, right to the bitter end of that debate on the changes to property rights\u2014that it was not, in fact, changing anything. But let us be really clear. I want to know, because we have been researching this\u2014and this is something that we would have raised during that part of the debate had it not been under urgency and had we actually had the time to consider it properly\u2014about some advice provided to the previous Labour Government when it was preparing a national policy statement. The advice was very clear on offer-back provisions, in which it said that \u201CThe existing legislation does not provide an exception where the disposal [of the land] itself is part of the public work.\u201D\u2014i.e., a housing development. \u201CThis has significant implications for sustainable urban development projects which aim to create well-serviced parcels of land to sell to an end-user (e.g. a developer, an owner-occupier, or an institutional investor in affordable rental housing).\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIn other words, the advice that the Government gave this House all the way through the Committee stage on Part 2 of this bill was wrong because it was inconsistent with the advice that previous Governments had been given, and yet there has been no change to that part of the law. So how is it that a previous Government could have been advised that the existing legislation did not provide exceptions when it came to the disposal of land as part of a public work\u2014i.e., a housing development\u2014and was provided with clear advice that that had implications for urban development and that the law would probably need to be changed, and yet the Government today said that that was not the case?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo I would like the Minister to take this opportunity, in the closing stages of the debate, to clarify exactly why the advice seems to be different now to what it was previously, although the law has not changed. I am looking forward to the Minister\u2019s contribution to that because if the position previously\u2014and I want to go through it again, where it says: \u201CThis has significant implications for sustainable urban development projects which aim to create well-serviced parcels of land to sell to an end-user (e.g. a developer, an owner-occupier, or an institutional investor in affordable rental housing).\u201D If that was the case then, why is that not the case now? I would like the Minister to answer that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe Government, basically, has pulled the wool over the House\u2019s eyes by trying to say that \u201CThis bill does not actually change anything, and yet it is essential.\u201D Those two things are actually contradictory. Either it is essential and it changes something, or it does not change anything and, therefore, it is not essential. So which is it? It cannot be both. It cannot be so urgent that the Government must push it through to avoid the potential that there will be litigation as a result of this loophole being identified, and yet it says that, actually, there is no loophole. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe Government is trying to run both arguments simultaneously and it did that all the way through the Part 2 debate, and yet we have now got clear evidence that the advice that it was giving the House is not true. Why did this bill not go to a select committee, where that could have been properly teased out? The Government could not answer that and it did not make any attempt to answer that. I am asking for the Government to now provide the explanations that it should have provided earlier on, because it has not done so, so far. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EPerhaps in the Government\u2019s summing-up in this debate and in the Minister\u2019s contributions, he might like to also explain why those members voted against eight proposals\u2014eight concrete proposals\u2014that would have dealt with many of the issues that New Zealanders face when it comes to housing. Government members and the Government party chose to vote against all of them, and I would very much like to hear more of that contribution. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EBut the offer-back provisions\u2014and I want to talk about this. This was not an issue that we had the opportunity to canvass, because the information was not available at the time. So I want to quote again from the advice that the previous Government received: \u201CAny land acquired for an urban development project or existing council or government-owned land within that project is likely to be sold. So even if it could be argued that a particular site should be compulsorily acquired for an urban renewal project, the offer-back obligation may still complicate matters when it comes time to sell the land.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo, again, I put that to the Minister: if that was the position under the previous Government and the law in this area has not changed since then, why is the advice the Minister is giving the House now so different to the advice that the Government of the day back then received? This is what the whole issue, and the whole, I guess, length of this debate, has been driven by. It is a concern that Parliament, under urgency, without any consultation with the public, is changing people\u2019s property rights and they are not getting a chance to have a say on it. That is actually a very significant thing for any Parliament to do under urgency\u2014to change people\u2019s property rights\u2014but not only to change them for now and for the future but to change them retrospectively, which is what this legislation has done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give us a detailed explanation as to why a position that was long standing, where the law had not changed, somehow has miraculously changed and the advice is now different. I look forward to that contribution from the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022522b61c66361458da6456d10dcfbbe45\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022522b61c66361458da6456d10dcfbbe45\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I understand we are debating the title and the commencement, but as a matter of courtesy to the member Chris Hipkins, I want to make two crisp points in respect of his question. His question was: has the law changed? The answer is yes, it did. In the Housing Amendment Act that was passed by this Parliament in February of this year, the very same provisions that are affected in this bill were in the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill, which went to the Social Services Committee. I would draw his attention to the minority view from his own colleagues, who chose to make absolutely no mention of the change or of any concern about it. So it is ironic for members to be giving all this bluster and concern about a provision in respect of the Housing Act and its interaction with the Public Works Act when it was of absolutely no concern to Labour members earlier in the year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second point I would like to make is that I would like to table a very specific email that was provided in respect of the development of this bill, and I will quote it word for word from Treasury\u2019s regulatory impact statement unit, which is required to report on all bills. It says this: \u201CThe minor avoidance of doubt provision in the Housing Act\u201D\u2014the one that the member has just claimed is so significant and is of such moment; let us hear what it says\u2014\u201Cdoes not need a RIS. It is minor and does not change any rights.\u201D Let me say that again. This is the independent Treasury unit, and it simply goes on and says: \u201CIt is simply a clarification of existing legislative intent.\u201D I am going to read the words again: \u201CIt is minor and does not change any rights.\u201D [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe members ask a fair question: \u201CWell, why is it important that there is clarity in the law?\u201D. I will tell you why that is important. Right now, the Government is negotiating significant contracts for tens of millions of dollars to develop housing on blocks of Crown land across Auckland. I think there is broad agreement that that is actually a good thing to do. And in the negotiation of those contracts involving tens of millions of dollars of private investment\u2014and, remember, these are blocks of land the Government owns, and so we are able to put definitive requirements about both social housing and affordable housing. Because we own them, we can say that you must do these things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is absolutely important for those investors that they have the certainty, without any uncertainty at all, over someone potentially challenging them. I actually think that if members reflect on that\u2014if you were a major housing company, you would want absolute certainty in that area. That is the sole reason that those provisions are in this bill, and it is why, actually, if this Parliament is committed to getting more houses built in Auckland at pace, that certainty is required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u00224e47d3a7c33f4f6fb60b68d7e21d8b54\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e47d3a7c33f4f6fb60b68d7e21d8b54\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I think we have had the clarification now from the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, where he has just now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f23a02b6886e44c0978776ce9cb45430\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise to the member. I seek leave to table the email dated 3 August from the Treasury regulatory impact statement that makes that very clear statement that it is minor\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002281d9591871024238b9dc6035cf38fe7b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, that is all you need. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c6944f897f7415a99be830d2df37fde\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: So I just want to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f42aa795321433ebfebfcf9b8284bb1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Sorry, we will start the whole speech again in a second. I am going to ask the member to reconsider. Members of the House have asked for that evidence to be tabled on repeated occasions. I think it ill behoves the Committee to refuse to have something tabled that is not anywhere otherwise available and has been asked for by a number of members from at least two parties. I am going to ask the member to reconsider his objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221209443b087f4feb96f52bc8ca7c8759\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to that, Mr Chair, the reason that I have objected is that on numerous occasions exactly the same situation has occurred when New Zealand First has sought to table material that would be just as valuable to the House as a whole and has been requested by members of New Zealand First and sometimes by others, and for no reason at all a member on the other side of the House\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cc3bca468b444acaa1c8791845c7dc0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: OK. It is all right. The member has a right to object. There is no reasonableness test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4e59f0f615249f2951e72d0e0636326\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister has, as I understand it, just confirmed to the Committee and the public that in his initial negotiations over Crown land that he, in his wisdom, decided ought to be used by developers for the purposes of building housing, he failed, at that point, to ensure the legal certainty of the use of that land. That was his failure. I do not know what he said to those developers about the legal certainty of the use of that land or the status of that land in terms of the offer back. But what is clear from what he just said is that when he provided access to that land for building, signed the deals for the use of that land, watched as developers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars developing that land, he could not give them any legal certainty about whether they could continue to use and on-sell it. So what he is asking from us now is to clean up that mess he created in his failed negotiations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI wonder then whether the supposed legal risk is actually coming not from original owners of the offer-back provisions that he is taking away but from the developers themselves, because the developers themselves, as he has just confirmed, do not have legal certainty over the land on which they have now invested possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in building, infrastructure, resource consents, and all of those things. So is that, Minister, the reason why Part 2 is included in this bill\u2014not because of a risk from the original owners who would otherwise be entitled to an offer-back provision under that land, but from the developers themselves, whom he has done deals with knowing he could not give them legal certainty? That is what it sounds like to me, especially given this Minister will not go into any further detail about the nature of that legal risk. In the Cabinet papers it is the detailed description of that legal risk that is redacted, and it is the only part of the Cabinet paper that is redacted\u2014where it looks like it goes into describing the legal risk in some detail. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI think that if he has a particular legal problem to deal with as a result of his failure to provide legal certainty to developers from the first instance, then that may be a legitimate concern to bring to this House under urgency. It may well be. There may be a circumstance where he would talk to us about this in some detail so we understood the full story. Things do go wrong. Ministers make mistakes. This is the sort of thing that happens. The provision that we would expect him to build in the law would be specific to that particular legal problem, not as broad-brushed as this current provision is, which will remove for every possible original owner and their descendants their right to an offer back for any land that was given for State housing across the country\u2014it does not matter whether it is in Auckland or for special housing areas. This provision is so broad that there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of original owners whose rights are being taken away. That is what he has created here when he could have more clearly identified the legal risk, come and spoken to the Opposition MPs about the nature of it, and we could have found a more effective and targeted way of dealing with that risk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI have been here a long time\u2014and others have been here a long time too. We know there are times when you engage in very specific detailed conversations\u2014highly confidential conversations\u2014with Ministers about some of these kinds of legal and financial issues. All of us who have been here for a while have been involved in something like that to some extent, at some point. There is an ability for Ministers to work with Opposition MPs to find credible and sensible ways through tricky legal problems and\u2014often\u2014tricky financial problems that are created through a genuine mistake. In those circumstances I, as co-leader of the Green Party, am more than happy to work with Ministers to find effective, logical, rational, careful means through those problems. But that is not what happened here. What happened here was that a bill was put forward under urgency. A very short briefing was provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbbe6756e11e43aabb41fbcf08904b85\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbbe6756e11e43aabb41fbcf08904b85\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E I am going to start on clause 2, which is the commencement date, and the line in the bill as it states now says: \u201CThis Act comes into force on 15 September 2016.\u201D To those people who may be listening on the radio or watching on Parliament TV that is 8 days away, but in the twilight zone that Nick Smith has thrust us into that is 9 days away. I can understand that the Minister will want this piece of legislation to come into force on 15 September when it comes to Part 1 and extending the housing accords and special housing areas, because if we do not do that, there is some risk for developers who have got plans already in train. But what I do not understand is why we have to have this Part 2 come into force in 8 days\u2019 time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EWe were told during the debate around Part 2 by Jono Naylor\u2014I think he was the only National Party MP to stand up and take a call during Part 2\u2014that this \u201Cis not a significant change\u201D. So if it is not a significant change and we are passing this bill through to make sure that Part 1 gets through in time, why are we making sure that we are rushing through with Part 2? Why are we not having a select committee process where people who may have had rights affected by Part 2 can have their say? None of that makes sense to me. I will give to the Minister that Part 1 makes sense, because time was running out on that, but why Part 2? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EAs co-leader of the Greens Metiria Turei has just pointed out, we have got some suspicions around that. We have waited for some time; I think we were definitely debating Part 1 or Part 2 of this bill at this time last night, and we were wondering why this had to go through under urgency. We may have thought it was de-risking the Government from any liability, or de-risking somebody who may have bought a State house from any liability, too, but the Minister has come to the Committee now and said: \u201CWell, it\u2019s not de-risking those two classes of people; it\u2019s de-risking the developers who are interested in getting their hands on the land that could be sold to them to develop.\u201D That was not necessarily the story that we got 24 hours ago. It really does open up exactly why this is not getting the select committee scrutiny that it deserves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003ETo give that some local context from my area, we have got an empty patch of land in the Castor Loop that the Minister\u2019s Government has done nothing with over the last 4 years. It has sat vacant\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227dfb247eeee74daf8a0707715500f9ba\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard)\u003C/span\u003E: Right. I am going to remind the member that although the debate was slightly extended\u2014and while the member was replying to the honourable Minister\u2019s comments he was OK\u2014the title debate is a relatively narrow debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f2389bfe9bd46b984f96a71bad63d80\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. As to why we are passing Part 2 under urgency for 15 September 2016, I would like to know why, in the context of all of this, a Government that has sat on a piece of land for 4 years passes this piece of legislation under urgency. Essentially, what Part 2 of this bill would allow it to do is to not care about who may have sold that piece of land to it under the Public Works Act. It could sell it to anyone it likes. That is not what that community wants. I would like to acknowledge my other colleague from Mana, Jan Logie, who knows what that community wants. It does not want an empty piece of land. It wants the houses that it was promised were going to be built for it when the other ones were demolished. That is a commitment that was made by this Government but was not followed through on. The reality of what Part 2 does here is that that land now can be sold\u2014de-risked for the developers, so there will be no issues for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e28ff9369a7247dc805e8712d2cd6ef1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e28ff9369a7247dc805e8712d2cd6ef1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am going to call\u2014how about Jan Logie?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022 data-id=\u0022dbf6c5993f7943be9184ab43cc33c39e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dbf6c5993f7943be9184ab43cc33c39e\u0022\u003EJAN LOGIE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Honestly, Mr Chair, I have been trying so many times tonight, and I have prepared so many speeches, that I really hope you allow me a little bit of leniency to give my six speeches that I have written on this title and commencement debate. This is a relief. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EThe misnamed Housing Legislation Amendment Bill\u2014thank God, I have got a chance to speak. It is a misnamed bill because a Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, in the context that we are living in, in these days, in a generally acknowledged housing crisis\u2014you would expect a Housing Legislation Amendment Bill to deliver more housing. Despite what this Minister says this bill is going to do, we really have no evidence that it is going to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EWe have been told that this is about supply and that it is about affordability, but when the first tranche of this legislation was introduced 3 years ago\u2014again, under urgency\u2014the average house price in Auckland was about $730,000. We were told this bill was going through under urgency. We were pushing through these proposals that would override council decision-making and control of land use in their communities because we had to prevent the possibility that the average house price in Auckland might get to $1 million within 3 or 4 years. Ha, ha! Well, it turns out that this proposal and this method that we are extending around the country sped that process up to the quickest tranche that we thought was possible back then. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EThis is absolutely a failed initiative, for which this Government is again using urgency to roll-out in an extended way around the country. I think it has delivered maybe\u2014if I address now the supply aspect\u20141,300 houses, I understand, over 3 years. Actually, you have got to think that maybe the market could have delivered that by itself. I am no fan of the market, so I really wonder whether this is the Government\u2019s concept of intervention, of taking control and delivering for the people, because if it is, it is half-arsed. I would propose that as a better name for this bill than the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EI would like to say that it is particularly important to note that 1,300 houses have been delivered, while the Government has sold off 2,500 Housing New Zealand houses since 2011. So maybe this bill should be renamed the \u201CLet\u2019s Go Backwards Bill\u201D. The Government\u2019s housing agenda maybe is to put everyone on the streets. Maybe it is not enough that just 1 percent of the population, or over 1 percent of the population now, is homeless. Maybe the Government wants it to be more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EOr maybe, judging how this Government has voted on all of the brilliant, I might say, proposals that have been put forward by the members on this side of the Chamber, this could be called the \u201CWe Don\u2019t Really Care Bill\u201D. Actually, the Government wants to put up this tinkering thing, to pretend that it is doing something, but when it is given something substantive\u2014like building more houses, like putting a plan in place, like ensuring emergency housing is available, like intervening to address inequality and the absolute rort of investment that is happening in our housing market, which is locking people out of the market\u2014then it is \u201CWell, we really don\u2019t care. We don\u2019t want to do any of those things.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EThe Government says: \u201CDon\u2019t give us the regulatory impact statements because there is no detail.\u201D This is apparent; I think I understand that the legislation has been developed in 6 weeks, whereas the proposals that have been put forward from this side of the Chamber\u2014some of them have been considered through a select committee process that, of course, National did not want to participate in. Some of them have actually been through a select committee process. Some of them have actually been properly worked out and the details are very public. But the Government says no, and that we are being hypocritical in challenging it on not providing us with the information. But it is OK. The Government will ignore all of our information and all New Zealanders\u2019 comments on this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002269dfdffa-4227-42b6-875a-fc8033bc25cc\u0022\u003EI do want to speak just a little bit to the Housing New Zealand decision to not return the dividend to Housing New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022b34e75d2dae74e80abdd125b632175a0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b34e75d2dae74e80abdd125b632175a0\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I want to thank the Minister for allowing us to have this debate. It is the best debate on housing that I can remember in 8 years in this House. I think it has been very illuminating, actually, because in this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill debate there are two contrasting approaches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe first is one very narrow policy approach based on the idea of drawing some lines on a map and declaring these to be fast-tracked consenting zones. That, in essence, is the Minister\u2019s special housing areas policy. That has been the main solution that he has offered up to a housing crisis that now grips the country and has given us the most unaffordable housing in the world. It is based on the idea that the problem, the cause of the housing crisis, is slow consenting by councils, and I think that if it is not clear to you by now that that is not in fact the root cause of the housing crisis, then you\u2014and I do not mean you, Mr Chairman\u2014have not been paying attention. If the slow rate of council consenting was the cause of the housing crisis, then the special housing areas would have made a much bigger difference in the 3 years since the Minister unveiled that policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIn the debate we have had this afternoon, Nick Smith\u2019s special housing areas have been contrasted with a broad and deep reform agenda backed by the Opposition parties in this House, who will form the next Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWe proposed to this Committee the building of 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers, and National voted against that. National and ACT voted against that. We proposed taxing speculators, and National voted against that. We proposed banning non-resident foreign buyers from buying existing houses. National voted against that. We proposed a bold and radical new approach to managing urban growth to reduce the cost of urban land and produce more competitive urban land markets that would lower the cost of housing, and National voted against that. We proposed to change the law to stop the Government from using our public housing organisation as a cash cow in the way that is has\u2014withdrawing half a billion dollars out of Housing New Zealand in the middle of a housing crisis\u2014and National voted against that. We proposed to this Committee a comprehensive approach to strengthening the system of emergency housing, because on this side of the Chamber we believe it is totally unacceptable for kids in this country to be growing up in cars and caravan parks, but National and its subsidiary brand Act have voted against every single one of those proposals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EBut the reason that Nick Smith brought us here in the last 36 hours to debate this bill is that he wants to roll over his special housing areas. A measure that he described 3 years ago as an interim measure\u2014he has asked us to roll that over for another 3 years. We agreed to that because we did not want to inconvenience the eight developers who otherwise would suffer because of Nick Smith\u2019s incompetence, because he failed to anticipate the transition issues associated with the demise of the special housing areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo there are two very contrasting approaches to dealing with this housing crisis. I want to argue that the broad, systemic approach that is embodied in the range of housing reform proposals that we have debated here this afternoon is appropriate. It is appropriate because the housing market is a system. It is an economic system that involves the Government, councils, landowners, developers, builders, homeowners, and renters. It is a complex system that lies at the heart of the well-being of our people, our families, our communities, and our economic prosperity as a nation, but it is broken. It requires a deep, systemic approach to fix it, and it is only the policies of the parties on this side of the Chamber that offer that. People have a deep, basic need for shelter\u2014for good-quality, affordable, and accessible housing. They are not getting that under this Minister for Building and Housing and this National Government. It is time for a change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a960e0c2f6c54f278f58bc5118c5910a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a960e0c2f6c54f278f58bc5118c5910a\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I want to begin by commenting on the Minister\u2019s speech given just a few minutes ago, concerning his belief that this is just a clarification of the law and not a law change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is this: clause 10 does use the words \u201CTo avoid doubt\u201D, but that does not make it true. In fact, that term is superfluous and inappropriate, because the clause does not just clarify, it actually makes a substantial addition, and it does so retrospectively. I can prove this, because the current section 15 says only this: \u201CSubject as hereafter provided in this Act, any State housing land and any buildings and chattels held for State housing purposes may be disposed of by way of sale, lease, or tenancy by the Corporation.\u201D Only the first few words of clause 10 are repeated in section 15 as it now is, but the words added are: \u201Cif the land is disposed of as 1\u201D of four specified categories of land, which are listed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe term \u201CState housing land\u201D means, in section 2 of the Housing Act: \u201Cland that is for the time being held or set apart for State housing purposes; and includes land that at any material date was held or set apart for the purposes of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1919\u201D. The term \u201CState housing purposes\u201D has a very long definition in section 2 of that Act\u2014too long for me to quote here, but it has three land categories that are quite different from those that are stated in this bill. Look at them for yourself and you will see that I am right. Yet, strangely, it is section 15 that is being amended, not the definition in section 2 of the Housing Act. What does that mean? It means that that definition still remains. So how will that sit with the new section 15(2)? I say that it creates uncertainty. I say that it needs to go to a select committee because the select committee would sort out these sorts of things, and that is exactly what is not happening as a result of this process. So I say to the Minister: you may feel that this is just a clarification, but if you look carefully at what the bill actually does, you can see without any possible doubt that it is a substantial law change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to go on to say this about the title\u2014because that is really what we should be talking about here, and we should not be sidetracked by misinformation from the Minister. The short title that I would suggest is one that would be far more descriptive than the one that is there. It cannot be short, because this bill covers two completely different things, in my opinion, so I would suggest the title should be: \u201CEnsuring continuation of failed Government policies in the hope it can find a way to make them work, and ensuring that Government panic measures relating to the fast-track sale of State housing land prevail over the rights of people who have rights to offer back.\u201D That would actually describe what the bill is about. So why not have something like that? It may be very long, but it has to be long if it is actually going to inform people what this bill is about. Of course, the Government, I think, does not really want to inform people what it is about\u2014it should. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ELet us take that name that I have suggested bit by bit: continuation of special housing areas\u2014they were originally 3 years, now to be 6. Have they failed? Yes, they have\u20141,300 houses over 3 years, and the other statistics that are available show the same thing. So that is the evidence that they have failed, and the reason they have failed is that the Government refuses to directly invest in housing land adequately for the purposes of those special housing areas. That is New Zealand First policy, and that is what should be done by this Government, but it is not doing so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe second part of the suggested title\u2014it is a panic measure, because here we are under urgency, with no select committee scrutiny, and the Government ought to have a good reason to change the law but what we have got is a very loud silence. And in the process, what we have is people\u2019s rights being trodden on\u2014rights that they should have for offer-back. That is a tragedy for law and order in this country. The Government should actually be protecting people\u2019s rights, not removing them without any adequate reason being given.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022 data-id=\u002259e66837091744ed81b78f46f124e798\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002259e66837091744ed81b78f46f124e798\u0022\u003EMELISSA LEE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0aadaed1dd94eaf93f4946cc3b3fe8a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0aadaed1dd94eaf93f4946cc3b3fe8a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am going to hear from Iain Lees-Galloway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022 data-id=\u0022e3ea676836f84c2a8f7223b487db116e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e3ea676836f84c2a8f7223b487db116e\u0022\u003EIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E Wonders never cease, Mr Chairman. Thank you very much for the call. I would like to speak to the title of this bill. I tried to find the direct quote\u2014I could not find it, but Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said something along the lines of \u201CTitles of bills should be succinct and, as clearly as possible, articulate what the bill does.\u201D So when looking at the purpose of this bill, I wondered why the title of this bill is not the \u201CHousing Supply and Affordability Bill\u201D, because that is what this bill purports to do. It purports to improve both the supply and the affordability of housing. So let us look through the bill and see whether or not it meets its purpose, and whether or not that title would have been a more appropriate title for the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EDoes this bill improve the supply of housing? Well, maybe a little bit\u2014not a lot, but a little bit. By extending the provision of special housing areas and having the fast track provisions that go with special housing areas, perhaps there will be some improvement in the supply of housing. Not all of that housing will be affordable. In fact, there is very little provision to make sure that the housing is affordable. There is nothing to stop houses in special housing areas being flicked on by the purchasers of those houses after 2 years for untaxed capital gain, so that makes no difference to the affordability of housing. But nevertheless, the period in which special housing areas can be created is extended by this legislation. There may be some insignificant but nevertheless noticeable change to the supply of housing\u2014not nearly enough to actually deal with the housing crisis, but, nevertheless, a change to supply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThe next question is: does the legislation deal with the affordability of housing? There is nothing in the legislation as it is now. Having gone through all the various parts and the debate that we have had, there is nothing in Parts 1 and 2, which remain intact in the legislation, that actually changes the affordability of housing. The minuscule changes to supply that are allowed for in Part 1 of the legislation will have no impact on affordability at all, and Part 2 has nothing to do with the affordability of housing whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EWhat would have had an impact on the affordability of housing were the various other parts that we have debated over the last day and a half. New Part 3, which was proposed, would have introduced, essentially, Labour\u2019s KiwiBuild policy to build 10,000 homes a year\u201410,000 affordable homes\u2014and put some parameters around what affordable homes look like. That would have had a significant impact on affordability. The parts to do with foreign investment in our property market, and the various other parts that were proposed by members on this side of the Chamber, would all have had a real impact on the affordability of housing, not just in Auckland but in other parts of the country as well. I recall, actually, an amendment that Metiria Turei offered to Part 1 of this legislation. It also would have added a definition of what an affordable house was and would have required special housing areas to have a particular proportion of affordable houses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EAll of those changes were offered by Opposition parties and Opposition members. All the things that would actually have made this bill a housing supply and affordability bill were offered by members of the Opposition, and all of them were voted down by the Government. It is a bit rich to hear the Minister for Building and Housing and members of the Government say that members of the Opposition have come to the Committee and played games with this legislation, or that members of the Opposition have come to this Committee and voted against provisions that would have improved the affordability of housing. Actually, we voted in favour of the provision that would have improved supply and we offered all of the things that would have improved affordability, and it was the Government that voted them all down. So I am going to speak in favour of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill title, because it tells us absolutely nothing and this bill does nothing. Indeed, it amends housing legislation, but it does sweet bugger all else. So let us stick with the title of Housing Legislation Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u0022d47df95280d94ffbb2ecae96c8c3c8e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d47df95280d94ffbb2ecae96c8c3c8e5\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to take a particularly short call on the title, following on from my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway\u2019s dissertation. I have just got some better options for the title, OK. They are the \u201CEspecially Complicated and Notably Useless Housing Bill\u201D, the \u201CElephant is Still in the Room (But At Least the Elephant Has Got a Room) Bill\u201D, the \u201CAffordable Housing for Affordable People (Everyone Else Get a Cardboard Box) Bill\u201D, the \u201CNail in the National Government Coffin Bill\u201D, the \u201CHalfway House to Nowhere Very Much Bill\u201D, and the \u201CWe Have Abandoned You (Love Doesn\u2019t Live Here Any More) Bill\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e9eeb9678a94b309552b7be9f7fa575\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: I like that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022323945a4a3c14a519dbd674e82b76533\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY\u003C/span\u003E: I like that one, too, because it is slightly melodramatic but it is deeply true. As the Guardian said, the whole world is watching. The National Government has abandoned the people that it is supposed to represent. Love does not live here any more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI would also like, just before I finish this, to refer to the moral tale in our P\u0101keh\u0101 history of the three little pigs. Remember the pig that built its house out of straw, and then the wolf came along? Well, that is what the Government is offering in this. It is offering a straw man, or a straw house, or a straw whatever. The big bad wolf of the collapse of the market will come along. The big bad wolf has already blown away the life of many people in terms of having a home. They already got no straw, no bricks, no whatever else\u2014no timber. This bill does not provide anything except straw. It is not good enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThe title needs to be changed. Pick whichever title you would like, but I just have to say to the people out there who are watching that although the National Government has abandoned you, love does live here on one side of this House. We will keep working for affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThank you very much. This might be a frivolous contribution, but my heart has been in this process, along with everyone else\u2019s. Thank you to everyone who put up a constructive solution to actually make this piece of legislation worth having. The fact that the Government members voted it all down\u2014let that be on their own consciences. \u201CThe whole world is watching\u201D notes the Guardian. Good night.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b391f2b6a3d140cea338f5666292d246\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b391f2b6a3d140cea338f5666292d246\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022dfd87b3f98db4cbd985f85f92cf17ac1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001166\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001167\u0022\u003Ereplace this clause with the following new clause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001168\u0022\u003E2 \tCommencement\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001169\u0022\u003E(1) \tPart 1 comes into force on 15 September 2016.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001170\u0022\u003E(2) \tPart 2 comes into force on 15 December 2016.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c4934af185284479b45a20bab7ebb0de\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002203d196ea7928491788e7c0a0ed3fa6d3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00221bdd51d2aac349b7a0203d324d88e925\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221bdd51d2aac349b7a0203d324d88e925\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wanted to move Supplementary Order Paper 212 dividing the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022defd1769a93e4aa49ee93ec431e973b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022defd1769a93e4aa49ee93ec431e973b3\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it is too late.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022956cacc295fd45c18b1065ba5e194279\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Is it? OK. I missed my moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f1f7b6c8e8c4481854decdd9309e42c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: You missed your moment, yes. And I did wait.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00223786c87abc6b4631a54901983e9ac53b\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00221c719d8df81440cc8be7897c88a756bb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c719d8df81440cc8be7897c88a756bb\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This amendment bill will get more houses built. This bill will get houses built more quickly, and it should be getting the full support of this Parliament. It will do so by ensuring a smooth transition to the Auckland Unitary Plan. It will do so by allowing more land to be available for housing more quickly in other parts of New Zealand, and it will do so by providing certainty over the Crown land housing development programme. The parties opposing this bill have actually shown that they are far more interested in wallowing in the stories of hardship over housing than actually getting more roofs built over the heads of Kiwi families. The greatest irony is that Labour has called for a state of emergency across New Zealand, over housing, but it opposed urgency in this House for the very bill that will make a difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us be clear about three things in respect of housing. The first is on the demand side. It is at record levels because New Zealand is doing well. Our economy is growing strongly, unemployment is low and falling, we are a safe and well-governed country, and interest rates are at the lowest level in 60 years, so housing demand is at record levels. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second is that construction is booming. Statistics New Zealand has just reported the highest level of building activity ever in New Zealand, topping $18 billion in the last year. Residential building has grown nationally by 20 percent per annum for every one of the last 5 years. I have checked the records all the way back to 1922, and there has never been such a period of long, sustained growth. Independent reports show we are on track for this boom to continue until 2021. In Auckland we are on schedule to build the equivalent of a Whangarei in Auckland in this term of Parliament, and another Whangarei in the next term of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMy third point is that land-use policy is the single most important public policy issue affecting housing supply and affordability. The Productivity Commission says so, Treasury says so, and the OECD says so. We also know it from our own experience in Christchurch, where we are using the special earthquake provision powers and freeing up land. We have a well-functioning market. Thousands of good, new homes with three bedrooms are available on the market at $450,000. We have got house price inflation in Christchurch of only 2 or 3 percent, and we have had rents in that market drop by 8 percent over the last year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me turn to the detail of this bill. It will allow eight greenfield special housing areas, totalling 762 hectares in Auckland, which are well advanced in the planning and design processes, to enable 7,900 homes to be built. This is significant. It amounts to $4 billion of additional housing investment that will be able to be facilitated to ensure it progresses. The simple question for Parliament is this: do we want to send those eight developments, $4 billion of housing, back to square one? Members on this side of the House say that no, we do not. Members opposite, who have voted against this bill, are voting to block those housing developments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill also allows the extension for 3 years of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act in other parts of New Zealand. The original Act was very focused on Auckland, but the growth pressures are now being felt more widely. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development will take time for councils to free up land. That national policy statement requires that to be done over 3 years, and so it makes sense for the special housing areas to be able to be used in the interim, to be able to free up more land. These measures are supported by Local Government New Zealand. I have received letters from a number of councils that want access to this flexible tool. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second part of this bill is the part that Labour has got in a lather about. The amendment makes plain what is already in the 1955 Housing Act: that the Government can approve housing development schemes and sell the houses. It is what Government has been doing for years. It is what we are doing in Hobsonville, where over 1,000 houses have now been completed. Ironically, it is what we have done in Weymouth, where Mr Little visited and said that we should be doing more of those types of schemes. Labour has caused this huge commotion in the House, saying that these are very significant changes that affect people\u2019s property rights. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me read exactly what Treasury\u2019s independent regulatory impact unit said on these changes, long before this controversy, in an email dated 3 October. I will quote word for word: \u201CThe minor avoidance of doubt provision in the Housing Act doesn\u2019t need a regulatory impact statement. It is minor, and it doesn\u2019t change any rights. It is simply a clarification of existing legislative intent.\u201D Let me quote it again: \u201CIt is minor, and it doesn\u2019t change any rights.\u201D So there it is, without political spin, straight from a Government official. It is why the Government is wanting to make the change. It is to provide certainty for business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWe are wanting to get on and sign contracts for significant developments of land, and, understandably, if we are going to get the best deal for the taxpayer and the most houses, we need to get certainty in the law. If there is something that members on this side of the House understand, it is that certainty is everything for businesses, particularly when they are going to be investing tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in building the houses that this country needs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EPeople who are wanting to delay this minor clarification of the law are actually wanting to make it harder for the Government to get on and build houses on vacant public land. Remember, it is on these vacant blocks of public land that the Government is able to put quite tough requirements to ensure the houses that are being built are in the medium price range, and also to deliver at least 20 percent of social housing. The greatest irony is this: for all the debate over the last 2 days, I have not heard a single cogent argument against any of the three provisions. Here is the irony: Labour members are out there saying that Labour is going to build tens of thousands of houses, under its KiwiBuild policy, on vacant Crown land. Are they saying that when they have built those houses, they are going to offer them to the former landowners and not to ordinary New Zealanders? If Labour really believes its opposition to this bill, it will promise to repeal it. It will not, because its members know in their heart of hearts that it is the practical measures that are required to ensure this country gets on and builds as many houses as is practicably possible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill is a sensible measure. It sits alongside our Resource Management Act reforms, the work to develop an urban development authority, changes to the Building Act, and changes to the Unit Titles Act, because there is not a single magic bullet to this housing challenge. We need to do a whole lot of things well, and this bill is part of what will make the difference and ensure that we maintain that record growth of housing construction in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00228b580f8d14e14a0884a51bd9af885a00\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b580f8d14e14a0884a51bd9af885a00\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E It is almost all over, Nick. It is almost over. This debate has been, I think, a microcosm of the housing debate that New Zealand has been having for the last couple of years. At the centre is an incompetent Minister for Building and Housing, who has, for the last 17 hours, embarrassed and infuriated his colleagues. He has subjected them to a humiliation in this House, as what the Minister promised would be a small, inconsequential clarification has turned into a marathon 17-hour debate that has shown National\u2019s housing policy to be limited, inadequate, narrow in focus, and inconsequential. It has been put up against\u2014quite unfairly, really\u2014a bold, comprehensive housing reform agenda backed by the Opposition parties in this House, and even some of the Government support partners from time to time, which have a vision to transform the housing crisis that this National Government has got us into.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe bill in question is also a bit of a microcosm of this Government\u2019s housing policy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e4100263e654aa9920e678c68374598\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s chaos.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213fd63b359444a94bba7e8801247ac7d\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and the way, the chaotic way, that Nick Smith discharges his responsibilities as housing Minister. One of the two parts epitomises the sort of microscopic tinkering that has come to be the hallmark of this Government\u2019s housing policy. It is the extension, by 3 years, of the special housing areas policy that Nick Smith described 3 years ago as an interim measure while the Government\u2019s long-term affordable housing strategies bedded in. Well, we have spent much of the last 17 hours debating the extension of this so-called interim measure\u2014the special housing areas\u2014which have demonstrably had marginal positive effect in the last 3 years in our country\u2019s biggest city, where the 42,000 shortfall of dwellings that has accumulated under this National Government is getting worse by 4,000 every year. What has Nick Smith\u2019s centrepiece policy achieved? An additional 1,300 dwellings over 3 years, with no evidence that those houses would not have been built if the special housing areas policy had not been in place. All it has done is bring forward some houses that the market would otherwise have built of its own accord.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe second part of the bill epitomises the shonky, incompetent discharge of ministerial duties by Nick Smith. He failed to think through the transition issues around the cessation of the special housing areas legislation, and what happened? Eight developers in Auckland faced the prospect of being left flapping in the breeze when the special housing areas legislation came to an end, so we have had to pass this bill in order to allow those developments to carry on. We do not mind doing that. We think it is a rather fruitless thing to do. We do not think the special housing areas are having much effect. But, actually, when you stack them up against all of this Government\u2019s other housing policies, they are probably the best the Government has got. But that is a very, very low benchmark. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ESo we are willing to vote for it, and we have made it very clear from the beginning of the debate that we would vote for Part 1. We did vote for Part 1 in the Committee stage, and we asked repeatedly that the bill be split in two so that the second part, which we think is completely untenable\u2014to be confiscating people\u2019s property rights under the Public Works Act\u2014could be sent to a select committee. We have asked repeatedly that it be sent off to a select committee. My Supplementary Order Paper 212, which the Government\u2014ACT and National\u2014voted against would have split the bill in two, allowed the first part on the special housing areas to be passed tonight, and given those eight developers in Auckland the breathing space that they need. But we would have sent off National\u2019s and ACT\u2019s confiscation of private property rights. We would have sent that off to a select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de9690c327554f0db0dabf44746dc688\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, come on, Phil.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ea17c15eb3d144b4a36aad8667ae2e99\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: David Seymour\u2014the self-styled protector of property rights, of classical liberal political thinking; the man who today voted to take away the private property rights of New Zealand citizens in a shabby, shonky little bill that Nick Smith has shepherded through the House. What a disgrace. How can the ACT member in this House hold his head up with any kind of self-respect? No one will be able to believe a thing he says in future about his belief in the sanctity of private property rights. If the bill had been split, we would have happily voted for the first part in order to give eight property developers in Auckland the breathing space that they need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EHousing policy under this National Government has been an unmitigated disaster. There is hardly a commentator, a reporter, anybody in New Zealand who does not believe that it has totally stuffed up the handling of the housing crisis in New Zealand. Hardly a few days go by without some new international report that says that New Zealand has the most unaffordable housing in the Western World, and we saw one come out just in the last 48 hours. International media are now covering New Zealand not through the lens of The Hobbit or what a great tourist destination we are. The issue du jour for the international media is the housing crisis and the fact that under John Key\u2019s Government, which is so ambitious for New Zealand, we have an epidemic of children growing up in cars and garages and pensioners living out their days in suburban campgrounds, paying hundreds of dollars to rent single-room cabins. What a disgrace. That is New Zealand under John Key.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat has been the response to this meltdown in the housing market? We have a Government that refuses to even acknowledge that there is a housing crisis. We see one panicked, poll-driven, piecemeal housing announcement after another. Probably the low point in the last few months has been Paula Bennett making up stories about Government officials going out with the Salvation Army, knocking on the car doors of homeless people in South Auckland. What a disgrace. Actually, you know what was worse than that? Paying people $5,000 to get out of town and presenting that as some kind of social welfare or housing policy. Actually, no, the worst thing\u2014the low point\u2014was definitely when Paula Bennett\u2019s office leaked confidential, personal information to the media about Hurimoana Dennis, who has been a national hero for the work that he has done at Te Puea Marae. That speaks volumes about this National Government and what it does. The housing crisis has been getting worse every year\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dea59aec7754ab18317f95598e8efeb\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. We do not want this barracking across there on something that is not related to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d2576e9c2454ff8b4e19cb9314f0470\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: The housing crisis has been getting worse every day, every week, every month, every year of the 8 long years that National has been in Government. It is so out of touch, no matter what the issue\u2014whether it is arguing against its own Government definition of homelessness and severe housing deprivation, which it does not accept, even though it was devised by Statistics New Zealand, Housing New Zealand, and the Ministry of Social Development. It is so out of touch that it has, on two occasions now, deliberately manipulated and selectively presented the data on foreign buyers in the housing market that has been collated by Land Information New Zealand and tried to suggest that foreign buyers account for only 3 percent of property transactions when it is patently obvious to everybody that the real figure is more than three times that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Government members are so out of touch. They refuse to do anything about either banning foreign buyers or taxing speculators in any meaningful way. They cling to this outdated mantra that the housing crisis is only a supply issue. They talk supply, supply, supply, but what do they do? They make the special housing areas their flagship policy. It has been a spectacular failure. The shortage of dwellings in Auckland is getting worse by the day. The Government has no answers. It is so out of touch, it does not bear thinking about. The only prospect for fixing this housing crisis and restoring affordable homeownership and decent housing for the people of New Zealand is to change the Government in 2017, and the policies that we have presented to the House this afternoon are the housing policies that we will take to the next election. Under our Government, they will be the biggest overhaul of housing this country has seen in 80 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u0022b740ac1efeff461c8a13fc1c6f4da7ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b740ac1efeff461c8a13fc1c6f4da7ce\u0022\u003EALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, thank you! I rise to take a call on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. What we have heard from that member, Phil Twyford, is that that member is a gambling man\u2014he is a gambling man. The reason why I say that is that he realises\u2014and he has led the Labour Party members to believe\u2014that he has got to have one each way. When you go to the bets, you are not quite sure whether you are going to win or you are going to lose, so what do you do? You take one each way. He has turned around and said, on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, \u201CWe vote for the special housing areas, and the extension of that time period to 3 years. Yes, it may not be great, but you know what? We have got to make sure we have got there. Why? Because just last week we said there was a national crisis in housing, and we believe it needed to be there. We\u2019ve got to be seen to be acting in a way to make a difference.\u201D\u2014yes, the member may yawn, but I tell you what, this is good news. This is good news, and here is the reason why\u2014because he has turned around and he wants a bet each way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EBut, you see, Mr Twyford\u2014he has blamed it on the Chinese. Chinese-sounding names are the reason to blame for the housing crisis, as he has called it. Then he has turned around and blamed it on speculators\u2014he has turned around and said it is the fault of speculators. Next thing you know, he will blame it on the boogie\u2014he will find something in his arsenal to say that that is the reason why it has all gone wrong; but that is not the reason why. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWe believe this legislation is making a difference, and it is part of a comprehensive plan around housing. We know that it is not the silver bullet, but it is making a difference. It is doing these things: it is extending the period of time, which that party agrees with; it is also making sure there are time limits on lodging applications for consents for housing. We know that if you are lodging an application for consent, it makes a difference\u2014because you are about to build a house. We know it is making a difference. When it talks about Part 2 in the bill\u2014there was some concern about that, but we know that there is a legislative impediment. Treasury has spoken about that. All we are doing is avoiding doubt inside the legislation. We think that is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWe have spent 17 hours\u2014we could have done this in a shorter period of time. We know that this legislation is important; it is making a difference. We do not need to talk much longer, because we know this will go through. It is a bill that is important\u2014again, along with our actions, which we think are making a difference. Actions speak louder than words, and we know that our record speaks for itself\u201485,000 houses in 3 years, not 10 years. Making a difference in construction\u201440,000 more in the construction industry. All of these things are part of a comprehensive plan to ensure that one thing that will make the difference\u2014it is about more supply and more houses being built. That is what this legislation is achieving. I commend this legislation to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff5136796c1b4eca888688ec5693054e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff5136796c1b4eca888688ec5693054e\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I call Su\u2019a William Sio\u2014[Interruption] Order! I have called one of your colleagues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u00223cede9d894344288aacc94b9a986482e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223cede9d894344288aacc94b9a986482e\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E Normally at the third reading speech, we are generally wanting to express our gratitude to people who have considered the legislation and to thank members of the select committee. I do not feel any sense of gratitude tonight. In fact, if anything, I feel more animosity and anger towards the Minister for Building and Housing and that Government of his.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI should be grateful to Mr Alfred Ngaro for acknowledging that there is a housing crisis, but I know the way he behaves now. Once upon a time, he was a caring person, but he now reflects everything bad about this Government\u2014the arrogance, the uncaring, the fact that he says to the Pacific community that there is a national housing crisis but then comes to this Committee and votes down every amendment that we have put up to grow the housing stock, to crack down on speculators, and to restore and enable Housing New Zealand to look after those who are needy. He will be voting down every single one of those amendments. You see how he has changed, in only two terms? You see how he has changed? He reflects the total arrogance of that particular Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThis is a Government that has been in power for the last 8 years, and, as a Government, it has been privileged with the powers, the authority, and the resources to do something about this housing crisis. But for 8 years we have simply been told that this is what it is doing, and the fact remains\u2014the fact remains\u2014that in that 8 years we have seen inequality increase. The number of people in homeless situations has gone up by 20 percent\u2014that is right. People living in cars has become normalised. People living in garages has become normalised. In fact, the Government\u2019s own department now refers people into garages, as if that was an acceptable mode of accommodation. That is wrong. That is totally wrong. If the Government was genuine, if it was sincere about addressing this housing crisis\u2014which all of New Zealand now recognises and all of New Zealand now talks about\u2014it would have voted along with all of the Opposition parties in support of each of the amendments that were put forward to address this housing crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI do not understand how people on that side of the House can accept that the average price of a house in Auckland is now over a million dollars. I do not understand how they can say that that is affordable housing for people in Auckland when working-class communities such as mine, in M\u0101ngere, and many others, on an average income of $60,000, will not be able to service a mortgage close to a million dollars. They will not be able to access mortgages, because they will not have the 20 percent that is required to buy a house at that particular price. But it is not just Auckland\u2014the housing unaffordability crisis has spread out to the regions. It has spread out to the South Island. So it is not just Auckland that we are talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe Minister came down earlier and presented some graphs. I do not know whether he made those graphs up\u2014we will never know, because this bill was never forwarded to a select committee. This House was denied the benefit of receiving a select committee\u2019s advice and denied the benefit of receiving public submissions from the general public. I suspect that if that had been done, many, many more Opposition members on this side would have been a little bit more confident about what we are passing tonight. I do not feel any confidence whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EYou see, Part 1\u2014although we would agree about the transition period of extending those housing accords and the special housing authority to give time for those to be implemented, the reality remains that the new powers in Part 1 enable the Minister to override local authority, to override the Auckland Unitary Plan, which has been worked upon by elected councillors and local board members. The Minister does not have that right\u2014he does not have that right\u2014but in the regulatory impact statement I note that there are five special housing areas, five special housing areas that are established on land that is not zoned residential. This Government gave the Minister the power to override the Auckland Unitary Plan authority for the sake of those five special housing areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EPart 2 concerns me\u2014I draw your attention to what Metiria Turei said earlier. I am now suspicious, more so than ever, about what mess this Government has created that we will end up paying for\u2014what mess this Government has created because of the disgraceful way that this Minister has behaved. It is, as Andrew Little said, a constitutional disgrace that this Minister is removing property rights from those who, once upon a time, were the original owners of land that was forcibly taken under the Public Works Act for the sole purpose of creating affordable State accommodation. If that is no longer the purpose, it is the original owners, including iwi, to whom we should be returning those lands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThis Government has made fun of the KiwiBuild commitment that we have made. We have presented that as proposed Part 3 of this bill, asked the Minister to examine it, and we have debated it. But as I have said, it is shameful that some members on that side of the House will go out to the community and say \u201CYes, we understand there\u2019s a housing crisis. We feel sorry for you.\u201D, but then come back and turn up in this House and vote down the legislation that would improve the lot of people in need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ENext Saturday Te Puea Marae will recognise the M\u0101ori wardens who have worked alongside it to provide temporary accommodation for people sleeping in cars. It is its hope and wish that we do not return to having to supply this temporary accommodation next year, but, based on what we have heard from this Minister and the way that this Government has voted against the various amendments that were put forward to address the national housing crisis, I believe that we will be back again next year, in the cold of winter, with Te Puea Marae and many other maraes offering, again, temporary accommodation for people who are sleeping in cars and overcrowded situations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EIt is appalling for a country such as New Zealand, which prides itself as one of the wealthiest of the developed nations, as a country that rubs shoulders with Obama, as a country that rubs shoulders with some of the greater economic powers of this world, to then come back to this country and accept the fact that we have a growing number of young people who will never ever be able to afford to buy their home at increasing prices, unless mum and dad provide some gift of equity or a family house. That is the situation that this Government has created, and it is solely because of its policies. It has the power and the resources to address this crisis, but it just will not. It will not address it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EAs I have said repeatedly now to members of our own community, and as I said it to Mr Alfred Ngaro a month ago, the only way, the only way, that a Labour Government would be able to build 10,000 houses a year\u2014100,000 houses for the next year, mind you. In Auckland we need 44,000 houses today to meet the ongoing population growth, and nothing provided in this piece of legislation is ever, ever going to address that. It will not address it today, it will not address it tomorrow, and it will not address it next week, so next year, again, I fear that not only will Te Puea Marae have to open its doors for the homeless but we will see a growing number of people living in those homeless situations. All of that is because of this Government\u2019s policy. As I have said, again, to the young people\u2014and I will continue to say it\u2014the only way that we can improve and address this housing crisis is if we get rid of this lot. We have got to get rid of this Government here, because that is the way that you can bring about change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022b662e8b9a4aa4220b8755b60eca7d6a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b662e8b9a4aa4220b8755b60eca7d6a3\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It is tragic to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9756ede60ae415fa6e9d9c18dc31a1a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9756ede60ae415fa6e9d9c18dc31a1a\u0022\u003EJONO NAYLOR (National):\u003C/span\u003E As tempting as it is to talk about the all the things that have been moved and have not passed over the last 17 hours, I just want to bring the focus back to talking about what is in the bill that is now before us at its third reading, and what it set out to achieve. What this bill will do is it will actually bring into alignment the special housing areas with the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is about to come into force; it will ensure that more houses will be able to be built in parts of New Zealand that need more houses; and it will tidy up some language to remove some ambiguity around the language to do with the Public Works Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225634618f-04f4-4f2c-a4bb-6ec0edeb2bf5\u0022\u003EIt has actually been a pretty simple bill. It has been made a little bit more complicated along the way by some of the conversations that have gone on here over the last couple of days. But I am looking forward to seeing more houses built, I am looking forward to seeing the alignment with the Auckland Unitary Plan, and I am looking forward to seeing this bill finally pass this evening. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022021a5e77dadd4b099d776442c00fd781\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022021a5e77dadd4b099d776442c00fd781\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E So the Opposition has taken control of the House over the last 2 days, and what have we done with the time? We have made housing our No. 1 priority as an Opposition. Why is that? Because when we are in Government, it will also be one of our main priorities. Why is that? Because it is the priority of New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWe have thousands of New Zealanders who are sleeping rough in garages and cars, on their friends\u2019 couches, in tents, and in hotel rooms because they are desperate for housing. We have thousands of young New Zealanders who are working hour after hour and have no chance of ever getting into their own home, because they are locked out by speculators supported by the National Government. They need houses too. We have young families, families with children, who are trying to find secure, decent, warm, dry, and safe affordable housing to raise their children, so that their children have the best opportunities for the best health, for the best education, and for the best future. Those families need housing. We have elderly people who are heading into retirement who were not able to buy a home and secure their housing, who are worried about what their retirement will be like if they have to spend their superannuation not only on what they need daily but on their rent as well, because it was never designed to deal with renting in the same way. Those elderly people\u2014they need houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EWho was here over the last 2 days, standing in this House hour after hour, with our caucuses lined up along here on the Opposition benches? We were the ones putting forward the solutions, trying to figure out what the different options were, and thinking about negotiating with the Government to find solutions to work through the housing provisions and housing solutions that were on the Table. Why is that? Because it is the Opposition that puts housing as a priority. Where were the Government members over these last 17 hours? Did you hear a peep out of these people? No, they were sitting there, hopeless, their mouths open\u2014gobsmacked. They were gobsmacked, just sitting there doing nothing and saying nothing while it was the Opposition members\u2014Labour, Greens, New Zealand First\u2014who were here, standing up minute after minute, hour after hour, putting forward the solutions to deal with the housing crisis that our people are facing every day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI think Phil Twyford has got it absolutely right. It was the Opposition that represented New Zealand over the last 2 days while the Government members were sitting around trying to figure out how to get rid of Nick Smith\u2014because he has made such a terrible fiasco of this entire process. That guy\u2014honestly. Ha, ha! I mean, really, he could not have made more of a mess of this legislation or the process. From start to finish, it has been an absolute disaster. He will be in such trouble, having humiliated the Government over the last 2 days. But Nick Smith handed to us, the next Government of New Zealand\u2014Labour and the Greens, and New Zealand First if that is what it wants\u20142 full days to debate the single most important issue that is facing New Zealand families today. So I do thank him. Thank you, Nick Smith. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EDo you not think we just need to say thank you, Nick Smith, for being so terrible at your job, and being such a great representative of National. You are such an excellent example of what National Ministers are\u2014their incompetence, their fallacies, and the secrecy that they promote in the process of their legislation. Let us not forget that one of\u2014[Interruption] Oh, now the insults from the Minister who walks past me and makes nasty little insults as she goes past because she cannot bring herself to engage in the debate. Minister, where have you been over the last 2 days? You could have come here and debated the issues, but no. She just walks past me and makes a little nasty insult in my ear. That is the kind of Minister whom John Key puts up in his Government. You are either incompetent or you are nasty\u2014that is what they promote over there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022379f12d8ebfd479dba2be7fd99620008\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Or both!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec9e2f4be2144898a0bd321f835b2463\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Or both. Come and debate the issues with us over here, Minister. You could have been here for the last 17 hours talking about the most important issue facing New Zealanders, which is warm, decent, affordable housing. Where was this Minister? I did not see her here during those 17 hours. Where was she? Where was she in the debate? Where was her passionate conversation\u2014her passionate solutions for dealing with the housing crisis? No\u2014just nasty little things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EBut she diverted me from the point, which was reminding us that one of the core provisions in the piece of legislation that was put forward by Nick Smith was an attempt\u2014and, unfortunately, a successful one thanks to the ACT Party\u2014to take away from New Zealanders their property rights in order to disguise a mess that he has made over the legal status of State housing land. As to the nature of that mess, we have tried to ask him questions about the mess that he has made, we have offered options for him to talk to us about that mess, to find a better way to clean it up, but Nick Smith is keeping the details of the mess he has created secret, so we do not actually know what is really going on. What we do know, though, is that ACT and National have joined together and are complicit, under this legislation, in taking from New Zealanders their property rights, and they are disguising it as not really being anything\u2014yet again, another example of the kind of behaviour we can expect from National Party Ministers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EIn this debate, the Opposition has put forward a large number of solutions. We offered a percentage of affordable homes and a definition of affordable housing; \u201CNo.\u201D, said National. We gave National members the option to help build 10,000 homes a year. \u201CNo.\u201D, said National. We offered to improve the brightline test to reduce the effect of speculators in the market. \u201CNo.\u201D, said National. We tried to stop foreign ownership in our housing market, so that New Zealand families can have a genuine go, and what do we get from National? \u201CNo.\u201D, said National. We offered to improve urban and infrastructure planning to make it easier for cities like Auckland to grow like they ought to; what did National members say? They said no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a5c655cc7504201bd58881210756e02\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Even David Seymour voted against that one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb6bdbcfd3b543e6a39f8577f00f9d24\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: Even David Seymour voted against that one. We offered an opportunity to build 250 more State houses a year, and what did National say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a923c81df8cc43f7afad64a58ceccb04\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022798b825d506d42328aa3abae34724eea\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI\u003C/span\u003E: National said no\u2014that is right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EFinally, at the end of an incredible piece of work with the homelessness inquiry\u2014which was a joint effort on homelessness amongst Labour, the Greens, and the M\u0101ori Party\u2014after hearing all of those tales of woe that were real stories about the real lives of New Zealanders who are affected by homelessness, the Opposition offered to the National Government an opportunity to deal with that homelessness crisis in a practical way, and what did National members say? They said no. They said no to helping the homeless, they said no to helping young families, they said no to helping young people, they said no to helping the elderly to get the kind of decent, warm, safe, and affordable housing that all of those people need. How could National members stand there\u2014or sit there, because they did not really go anywhere, did they\u2014and say no to those thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who want these solutions put in place? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EI want to thank National members for giving us the opportunity to expose their failures, to expose their fallacies, to expose their secrecy to the country, and to offer to New Zealanders the genuine alternative at the election in 2017\u2014the alternative of a new Government that will put the issues that New Zealanders consider the most important for them at the centre of the work that it does. Housing is that, but that is because housing represents the right of New Zealand families to live a decent life in this beautiful, rich country that we have; for them and their children to live a well life; to have access to a beautiful environment, to a great education, and to a good and bright future for those kids. That is why we will change the Government in 2017. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022a611727b513242dd85a375db0762f2f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a611727b513242dd85a375db0762f2f3\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I also wish to begin by thanking the Minister for Building and Housing for the opportunity of a 17-hour debate to show the superb alternatives that are available to the failed Government policies that the other side has failed to turn up and defend tonight. Each of the three Opposition parties has been able to demonstrate the quality of its various proposals in the alternative to the Government\u2019s policies, and I have a lot of respect for each and every one of the parties\u2019 proposals. I hope the public has now understood that there really are alternatives to housing failure and the National Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to thank the Labour Party for its excellent suggestions, most of which New Zealand First supported. I want to thank the Greens for doing the same. I want to thank the M\u0101ori Party members for changing their minds. I want to thank them for changing their minds after supporting urgency and then voting against the Government by voting for all of the Opposition parties\u2019 amendments. It seems a little bit strange, but I think they deserve some congratulation on their willingness to change their minds in that way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f396566f6dce45f387215d26e1538979\u0022\u003ESu\u2019a William Sio\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t overdo it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b190965a592d4a26bd436bf72e5d741b\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not, because I am a little bit disappointed that they did not actually show up to debate. Not once\u201417 hours, not a word. That is a bit of a disappointment. Is it because they are simply not keeping up with the situation? Surely it cannot be that they do not really care about policies such as offer-back and the impact it would have on the people they claim to represent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EBut I am not going to spend too much time on that, because it really does not matter. What I do want to say is: is this about the \u201CMinister for Homelessness\u201D? He did not mention in his last speech the fact that this week Auckland house prices for an ordinary two-bedroom house have now reached the magic but tragic $1 million. Most New Zealanders are still in disbelief over that, and you can understand why. That, if anything, is absolute evidence of the failure of Government policy\u2014right there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe Minister also did not mention the failure of the special housing areas (SHAs) that are the subject of this bill. The truth is that over the last 3 years only 1,300 houses have been built as a result of that policy, and the need, as I have previously said in my speeches, is actually something like 20,000 houses per year over the next 7 years in Auckland alone. Yet this is the pathetic result that we get from this Government. That is also evidence of total failure of Government policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhat the Minister did say showed a total lack of empathy for people who cannot afford that $1 million for an ordinary home and who cannot afford the rent increases, which are now skyrocketing out of reach of most people. A lot of them have to move continually, chasing lower and lower rentals so that they can just find a place to live. I think it is simply because the National Government really does not care. It does not care about that, and what it does care about is that its supporters will be happy about the increase in value of their homes. What it does care about is that the private developers, who no doubt give donations to the National Party, will be able to make greater profits, but it does not really care about the people who are affected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThis bill is mostly about extending the SHAs by another 3 years, so we are entitled to ask whether that will work. In that context, let us have a look, first of all, at what the Minister has said just this week. Firstly, he said: \u201CAuckland house prices are out of control.\u201D That is the only thing he has been right about this week\u2014the only thing. He also said this week: \u201CI won\u2019t rest until that house price inflation rate gets down to single figures.\u201D Let us just think about that. With the average house price in Auckland now $1 million and with single-figure inflation, that would still mean another $100,000 at least per year on the price of a home. Worse than that, an extra $20,000 would need to be found for a deposit. That actually shows how out of touch the Minister is about this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI want to also quote Shamubeel Eaqub, who said this: \u201CBased on my calculations, the typical Auckland house now would take 71 years to buy\u201420 years of savings for the deposit and 51 years of repayment to clear the debt.\u201D So you would actually have to live 71 years just to get rid of\u2014well, you would actually have to live longer than that because you would not be able to start getting a loan until you were about 20. So there you go\u201491 years before you would have a mortgage-free home. But it is worse than that. It is worse than that, because what the message is to first-home seekers is this: the Kiwi dream of getting your own house is now just a dream of getting a house deposit, nothing more, or renting for the rest of your life. Nick Smith wants to bring house prices back to four times household incomes without reducing house prices. Household incomes would therefore need to increase to at least $250,000 per year in order to do that. How many people are going to fall into that category? Well, we know that most people by far will get nowhere near that kind of income. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ESo in answer to my question as to whether it will work, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Government\u2019s housing policy is an abject failure. The SHAs will have absolutely no hope of delivering the outcome that is claimed for them, and the reason for that is that the Government refuses to actually invest directly as well as doing these SHAs, and it actually thinks that just relying on private investment will be enough. Well, it never will be. Without direct Government investment it never will be. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EFinally, all this is exacerbated by other things. The truth is that with open-door immigration and a net 70,000 people a year coming into New Zealand, especially to Auckland, there is no hope that any Government policy, however bad or good it may be, will be able to succeed. New Zealand First is the only party that has constantly said that without controlling immigration a solution to the housing crisis will never be found. It is not the only thing that needs to be done, but that also needs to be done, and we are the only party that has been saying it and will continue to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EIn addition, the situation is exacerbated by the failure of the Government to provide any controls on overseas buyers. Again, New Zealand First has been pushing for that for years. Other parties have caught up a bit with us, but New Zealand First is the party that has been pushing for that for years. The truth is that those buyers have the cash to outbid Kiwis for homes, in Auckland especially, and they have the intent to engage in capital gains farming, speculation, and land banking, and all of those things are causes of the housing crisis that this Government simply will not address. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThis Government has been sitting on its hands and fiddling with failed policies while other parties have been coming up with genuine and effective alternatives, which this Government refuses to consider. Government members blame local government. They do nothing to stop land banking. They do not care about first-home seekers. They ride roughshod over people\u2019s offer-back rights. They are an utterly hopeless failure, and the sooner they go, the better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022 data-id=\u0022c7984e28a49f4b33976081f38cf5a5e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c7984e28a49f4b33976081f38cf5a5e0\u0022\u003EDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to take this call to support the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. On this side we know that housing affordability and availability can be addressed by increasing the supply. We do not want special housing areas (SHAs) that are already listed to lapse, because that would create a big lag and we do not want to create a big lag in the housing supply. As the National list MP based in Mt Roskill, my interest is in Auckland, and just in Auckland 154 SHAs have been established. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EDenis O\u2019Rourke, the member who spoke before me, counted the number of houses that have been built in the last 3 years, but it is not just about the number of houses that are completed. We have to look at the full picture. It is about the creation of sections, it is about planning and resource consents, and it is about the infrastructure that goes with building houses. So we need to look at the full picture, and I would like to give some numbers here. Yes, on 30 June, 1,342 homes had been completed. There were 2,208 building consents approved and 6,731 resource consents for sections approved. So we need to look at the full picture. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003ESince we started this legislation, I have heard about affordability from the Opposition, so I would like to actually give some examples to clarify affordability. Let us go to the 1980s. Let us go to the late 1980s and pick a house that was $300,000. The interest rate in the late 1980s was 19 to 20 percent, and if one person borrowed for 30 years, the weekly payment for that person came to $1,100. Yes, the weekly payment came to $1,100. If I bring you back to this time\u20142016\u2014interest rates are around 4.1 to 4.2 percent. If we pick a house that is $1 million\u2014yes, we pick a house that is $1 million; we have heard this value a lot in this discussion\u2014and if one borrows for 30 years, the weekly payment comes to $1,121. So for a $300,000 value house it was $1,100, and now, for a $1 million house, it is $1,121. On that house of $300,000, people were paying $1.4 million in interest\u2014$1.4 million. On this house of $1 million, people are paying $750,000 on interest. So you can see where the savings are. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258eae615-ef83-4df5-bace-6749bdd312a8\u0022\u003EIt is because of the great policies of this National Government that interest rates are low. Affordability takes into account lots of factors\u2014lots of factors. It is not just the income and not just the house price, but interest rates too. On this side, we are committed to ensuring that there is a supply of houses and that houses are affordable. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022f508c6e72acb420183c7530a2300a978\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f508c6e72acb420183c7530a2300a978\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party\u2014Marama Davidson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab798053e8bc46638df565c27f524e90\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab798053e8bc46638df565c27f524e90\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Gosh, it has been a long couple of days and we are coming now to the third reading of this tragic bill. It is a long, tragic story, actually, the whole thing. It has been quite historic, this debate. So I do actually quickly want to acknowledge the Clerk\u2019s Office and the staff and all of their incredible work that they have done to allow us to debate in this democratic system. To allow us to debate, they have had to\u2014you know, we have been throwing bills and amendments up there, and they have had to do all of the things so that we can smoothly debate such an incredibly important issue for our country. So from all of us I would like to thank the Clerk and the Clerk\u2019s staff. Thank you all very much. This has been a bit of a historic debate. The Minister put up a bill to rush through urgency and it totally got away from him. It totally got away from the Government\u2014a little bit like the housing crisis. They lost control\u2014they got no handle on it. Ae, right? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u014Crite tonu ng\u0101 raruraru. [The problems are really very similar.] They just lost it. It just got away from them. They thought: \u201COh let\u2019s do this. Oh, whoops! It got away.\u201D So it has been important. It has been important though because New Zealanders have been watching, I tell you. Oh boy, they have been watching the Opposition. So let us start with a vision. How about this for our country? How about this: that nobody here has to go to sleep at night in their bed and worry about money. Do you know where that came from? It was John Key in 2008. That is where that came from, in his definition of \u201CWhat do you define as rich?\u201D in a debate between him and the Rt Hon Helen Clark. He gave a fantastic definition. Everyone acknowledged it was the best. Do you know what was fantastic about it? He did not put up statistics and numbers like the Government is doing right now. He put up something real. He put up something real that New Zealanders understand. [Interruption] Shh! I am not talking to you; I am talking about you. He put up something real. He did not put up a graph, he did not put up numbers, he did not talk about housing consents or interest rates; he put up something human.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EOK, so let us expand on the honourable Prime Minister\u2019s own vision. How about one that I heard in Kait\u0101ia last week, like: \u201CThis will be the last generation to experience any insecure, unsafe accommodation.\u201D How about that? You know, when I said that the wealth of this country is our people, I really meant it because they said this. They asked for this. They really are our thinkers. They have the solutions and the ideas. They have the vision, they have the plan, and they have the smarts. It is our job to listen and to make that happen. They are our wealth. I am talking to them. I have been talking to them this whole past couple of days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThis bill, alongside all of the other ad hoc pieces of legislation that the Government has been embarrassed into, will not protect our future generations. And our Government knows this, so it cannot then commit to it. It cannot say it. It cannot even concede and say that there is a housing crisis. It cannot say it will end homelessness, because it knows that nothing it comes up with is about that. Do we hear this? New Zealand, do we hear this? Nothing that those members will come up with is about ending homelessness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThat is really all our New Zealanders need to know, and our Opposition has spent the past couple of days outlining the things that will end homelessness\u2014a whole list of things. Oh, they have been put out: ban non-resident buyers so we prioritise all our New Zealand residents to buy; ban tax speculators so that our first-home buyers can have a fair go; build thousands more State homes; build thousands more affordable\u2014truly affordable\u2014homes, and more safe and warm homes; improve the urban design rules; and, mostly, mostly, mostly, have an actual plan. Commit to actually seeing the end of homelessness. So we threw all of this up\u2014oh boy, did we throw it up. We fought hard for all of it. We fought hard for all of it, and I am proud of what we did. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022f73439f6804b4030800448ad3821bdae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f73439f6804b4030800448ad3821bdae\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: A 5-minute call on behalf of the ACT Party\u2014David Seymour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022 data-id=\u00221ddd6c1c0c304348b64c9999a3b3a5ed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ddd6c1c0c304348b64c9999a3b3a5ed\u0022\u003EDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E As tends to be customary, I follow Marama Davidson, and I can observe that the best I got from her speech is that she has a vision of humanity where humans are not bothered by such things as statistics, numbers, and graphs. That is why she can have as much emotion and goodwill as she likes, but no actual solutions to the practical problems facing New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThis has been an extraordinary debate. At one point Grant Robertson told the children of New Zealand that there is no free market and there is no Santa Claus, and I want to conclude this debate by telling the children of New Zealand that he is wrong on both counts. We found that Marama Davidson cannot hear. We saw Newshub smash the Labour Party and the Opposition tonight. That is something that should be watched by the Opposition, because no matter how clever the Opposition members think that they have been, the way that the press have reviewed what they have done to their viewers is that, basically, the Opposition has wasted a huge amount of time and taxpayer money achieving nothing. That will be the net result in the eyes of the New Zealand public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party does not know its own history\u2014that is another thing that we got out of this debate. We discovered that the Labour Party does not really understand what the role of the State has been in building housing throughout New Zealand history. It was never more than a very small fraction of homes built, even at peak home-building times in New Zealand history. But we also had more serious issues that we needed to consider, because I cannot think of many problems in New Zealand today that would not be resolved if we had a more functional housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EThe fact of the matter is that Auckland has built 20 percent fewer houses in the past decade than were built in the 1990s. That is the reason why we have financial instability, it is the reason why we have social problems, and it is the reason why, for instance, you can visit a school where they feel they are almost teaching a different group of kids each term because of transience in the student population related directly to the shortage of stable housing and accommodation. So we were addressing what is a very serious issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EIt is regrettable that Phil Twyford\u2019s amendment that would have effectively outlawed urban growth boundaries\u2014which have caused so much damage to housing markets in New Zealand\u2014was not able to pass, but the member has got no one to blame but himself. He gave 1 hour\u2019s notice of one amendment amongst seven that actually had some merit. So I would say to the member, next time he wants to make a proposal that is actually useful, do not hide it amongst all of the other banal, asinine policy initiatives that the Labour Party usually gives out. It is impossible to keep track of Labour\u2019s good policy initiatives because they are hidden amongst so many bad ones. Having a grab bag of failed policies such as a capital gains tax has not worked. Foreign buyer restrictions have not worked. Government building programmes have never been a big part of New Zealand\u2019s housing agenda. What about inclusionary zoning, from Metiria Turei? It never worked. When there are so many bad policies from the Opposition, how are we supposed to know that it actually proposed a good one? The fact of the matter is Phil Twyford could have had a big success, but he could not even pick up the phone and give me a call. Next time, Phil, call me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003ELet me just conclude by saying that this bill was necessary to continue the existing special housing areas. It is not ideal, but, none the less, the special housing areas are one of the best things that the Government has going right now. They are an island of fantasy attempting to suspend the reality of the housing market, which is a sea of dysfunction. I can reiterate that Part 2 of this bill has not seriously changed property rights. It has clarified what was already legal, and it has simply protected the Government from legal challenge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003EI am very proud that the ACT Party has made the only successful amendment to this bill, which is more than your Phil Twyford can ever say. By having a review of that clause, we will substantially improve public policy in New Zealand in good time. We are actually improving public policy for all New Zealanders because we are going to review Part 2 of this bill within 10 years, and with the cycle of development being 10 years, that means it will be reviewed very soon. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the little bit of extra time. I proudly support this bill in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3660bfaf8af4305a6e2040ae7060eed\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3660bfaf8af4305a6e2040ae7060eed\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is with great pleasure that I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is finally in its third reading. I would like to give credit to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has recognised what is needed to ensure that we maintain momentum for building houses for the thousands and thousands of Kiwis to realise their dream of owning their own home. He understands the whole picture, he analysed all of the issues, and he found practical and workable solutions. We are now building three times as many houses in Auckland and twice as many nationally compared with when National first came into office. This bill is another tool for National\u2019s comprehensive housing plan and it will deliver even more houses for New Zealanders. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00228c7ce9274e68450b8e76056ab0e40f0e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228c7ce9274e68450b8e76056ab0e40f0e\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party\u2014Louisa Wall.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0012bcf02c84099ae55d1ae3945a8b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0012bcf02c84099ae55d1ae3945a8b8\u0022\u003ELOUISA WALL (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E Malo \u2018aupito, e Te M\u0101ngai o Te Whare. We are now in the 18th hour of debating this bill under urgency, and I think it is really important that I clarify our position on the bill, particularly in relation to the two parts of the bill that were presented before the House before the commencement of debate, because, in fact, we have debated eight parts of this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EPart 1, which we support\u2014and I want to reiterate that\u2014is to extend the smooth transition to the Auckland Unitary Plan, which commences on 16 September 2016. It was done to ensure that eight specific developments could continue\u2014that those developers would not have to submit new resource consents. The relevance, actually, to the whole discussion about affordability is 591 affordable houses, because those eight specific developments are going to provide 7,880 houses. We support that part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EIn terms of Part 2, we are very clear that we do not support that part of the bill. The reason that we do not support that part of the bill\u2014actually, I am going to quote from section 16 of the Public Works Act, where the Minister is \u201Cempowered to acquire under this Act any land required for a Government work.\u201D, and any local authority is empowered to acquire any land for local work. But there is an explicit contract in our Public Works Act that land not needed be offered back to the person from whom it was acquired. That is, essentially, our primary opposition to Part 2: we think that we have circumvented that explicit contract between the Crown and New Zealand citizens who have handed over parts of their property to public works for the greater good. That, essentially, is our opposition to that part of the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThere were three other parts to this piece of legislation that I specifically want to mention, the first of which was new Part 3, introduced by my colleague Phil Twyford. Really, it was about providing 10,000 affordable houses per year for first-home buyers. Our rationale for those 10,000 affordable houses for first-home buyers is actually about the number of houses that we sell in New Zealand every year. There are 90,790-odd homes sold in New Zealand every year, and approximately 21 percent of those purchasers are first-home buyers, based on 2015 statistics provided by CoreLogic. That is 19,066 first-home buyers in the last financial year. This particular amendment was incredibly relevant to that practice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThe second part that I want to highlight for the House is new Part 7, which amended the Housing Corporation Act. It was about the distribution of profits. Again, I want to acknowledge Metiria Turei, because, essentially, the proposition was for surplus profits. In 2014-15 it was a $226 million profit that should be reinvested back to provide rental housing for those most in need. That is an incredibly important principle, and I think it needs to be highlighted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003ENew Part 8, which was amending the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, was about increasing the supply of Housing New Zealand properties by 1,000 every year. It is relevant when we look back at the number of people waiting on housing lists. If I read the numbers out, in March 2012 there 4,637 people on the waiting list; in March 2013, 4,495 people; in June 2014, 5,840 people; in September 2015, 4,467; and as of July 2016 we have 5,012 New Zealanders waiting on the Housing New Zealand waiting list. Actually increasing the housing stock every year by 1,000 would help meet this chronic need, which has now been displayed for the last 5 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI just want to end with some statistics from Manurewa Marae. Manurewa Marae has got 64 people who are currently residing at Manurewa Marae, and of those, essentially, 67 percent of the people at Manurewa Marae are children. The issues that we are dealing with are about how we are preparing the next generation for the opportunities that we want to provide them. Their being homeless is actually a shame on our country. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022 data-id=\u0022f6045240d4ca48c6b3b766e8bfc222c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f6045240d4ca48c6b3b766e8bfc222c1\u0022\u003EIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour\u2014Palmerston North):\u003C/span\u003E This bill and the 17-hour-long marathon debate that we have had around it are emblematic of the state of this Government: it is in a total shambles. Back in 2008 there was no way that the National Government members would have allowed the mess that this bill has become for them to occur. They are completely out of control. It is not just Nick Smith who is out of control, it is the whole National Government\u2014utterly shambolic. They are also completely out of touch, because they think they are doing a good job on housing. They have absolutely convinced themselves that they are doing a good job. They think that having 42,000 people homeless in New Zealand is doing a good job. They think that having an average house price in Auckland of $1 million is doing a good job. They are completely out of touch with reality. Of course, what we have known all along and what this bill has simply underlined is that the National Government is utterly incapable of dealing with homelessness and housing affordability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThe Government members do not have an answer to it, because they know what has to be done\u2014they know what has to be done. They know that we are not going to solve this issue without a massive effort from the Government, but it is simply not in the National Government\u2019s DNA to do that. They know it is the right thing to do, but they are religiously, ideologically stuck to the doctrine of free markets and they cannot bring themselves to do what is necessary. The Labour Party and the Green Party and New Zealand First all brought amendments that would make real differences to housing affordability. We brought an amendment to say: \u201CLet us introduce our KiwiBuild programme. Let us build 10,000 affordable homes a year.\u201D Then we said: \u201CLet us extend the brightline test. Let us discourage speculation in the housing market by actually taxing the capital gains that people make on speculation.\u201D Then we said: \u201CLet us tighten up foreign investment.\u201D Then we said: \u201CLet us have a national policy statement on urban development.\u201D Then the Greens said: \u201CLet us stop taking a profit from Housing New Zealand and invest that money back into building more social housing.\u201D Then we said: \u201CLet us make sure that we do not have any fewer than 8,000 places for emergency housing.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EOn every single one of those proposals the National Government members said no\u2014no to building affordable houses, no to taxing capital gains, no to tightening up foreign investment, no to a national policy statement, no to stopping the profit taking from Housing New Zealand, and no to making sure that we have adequate emergency housing\u2014because it is just not in their DNA. The Government members are simply not capable of doing it, because their mates are doing very nicely out of the current situation and they are beholden to those people\u2014the handful of people at the top, the ones who are doing well, the ones who are getting the wage increases, the ones who are benefiting from capital gains, the speculators, and the foreign investors. That is who supports the National Government, and that is whom the National Government works for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThat is why it has failed to do one thing in this piece of legislation that will actually address the issues of housing affordability. That is why, in New Zealand right now, we have the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s. That is the reality. This Government is so out of touch that it refuses to acknowledge it, but that is the reality for people. They cannot afford to buy their first home. Some people cannot even afford to rent a home, so they are living in cars, they are living in garages, or they squeeze their whole family into somebody else\u2019s living room. But the National Government does not want to know that because it does not fit its ideology to do something about it. It does not fit its doctrine to do something about it, because it is absolutely straight-jacketed by its adherence to free markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003EThere is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. There is a difference between Labour, the Greens, and\u2014sometimes with us\u2014New Zealand First, and the National Government. New Zealanders need to know that difference. I thank the National Government members for giving us this opportunity to demonstrate the clear difference between them and us. I say to New Zealand: if you want a solution to homelessness, then it is quite simple\u2014change the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022132aefe3b92446d986b7d5573304d4d0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022132aefe3b92446d986b7d5573304d4d0\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (National\u2014Botany):\u003C/span\u003E I feel a little sorry for the Opposition. I have not seen Opposition members this excited since David Cunliffe was delivering his speech on election night when Labour lost the election\u2014the lowest they have been in many, many years. The most excited they have been was when they were talking in this House and actually wasting taxpayer money for\u2014how many hours was it? Seventeen or 18 hours? They are proud of wasting taxpayer money, but only weeks ago they were hammering backbench MPs in the National Party for putting up members\u2019 bills. This side of the House gets excited when we do things like growing the economy. This side of the House gets excited when we do things like lifting real wages. This side of the House gets excited when we deliver more sections for people to build on, to deliver more housing for New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003EThat is what this bill is about. I have met the developers that this bill specifically works for, to ensure that they can continue with the projects that will deliver more housing for Aucklanders. More housing for Aucklanders is what we need; it is not 17 hours of the Labour Party and the Opposition and the Green Party playing games in Parliament. What Aucklanders need is actual houses to be built, and that is what this bill is all about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003EApparently, it is trendy to talk about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were put up during the Committee stage\u2014all of the wish-list proposals that they would have liked. I would have liked to see some SOPs that reflected reality, such as the fact that house prices doubled when Labour was in office. That is a reality. Those members should have put something like that up in an SOP. I would have liked to see an SOP around the fact that interest rates were up at about 10 or 11 percent when Labour was last in office. Where was the SOP on interest rates and how high they were when Labour was in office? I would have liked to see an SOP about the land strangulation policies that the Labour and Green parties actually supported when they were in office\u2014those policies that led to unaffordable housing through the strangulation of land and ensuring, under their watch, that supply was not enhanced to enable houses to be built. I would have liked to see an SOP from the Green Party talking about the fact that they want hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders to go bankrupt when they drop house prices by 50 percent. Opposition members go quiet when we talk about that, because they know that under the recent marriage between those two parties that is the reality they will be facing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003EWhatever the question is around housing, the answer is delivering more supply and delivering more sections. That is what we are focused on. Build rates are four times faster in Auckland now than what they were when Labour was in office. We are delivering the effective size of Whangarei to Auckland this term, and next term the unitary plan that this Government put in place and the process to see it delivered are going to lead to 400,000 additional homes being built in Auckland. Aucklanders and New Zealanders need more houses. Aucklanders and New Zealanders do not need the Opposition wasting 18 hours of taxpayers\u2019 time in this Parliament. We are delivering solutions; we are not just talking about them. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022166d716269b641cbbacbd5cc87edde97\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002262d654b5eb9d4cc6ac9cacdcff5a5998\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u2019s Statements\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220c4f4d24d4a74ee1a27f6bb7ff25ab6a\u0022\u003EUrgency\u2014Reflections\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00229972ffce28e24746a4bc4819ec4bb1b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229972ffce28e24746a4bc4819ec4bb1b5\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: As has become a recent tradition, it remains for the Speaker to bestow some awards. For the most articulate closure motion\u2014Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. For the most informative analytical speech\u2014the first speech by David Seymour last night. The most good-natured protagonist was Phil Twyford. The least offensive speaker taking the most flak was Parmjeet Parmar. And the bloke having the most fun was Denis O\u2019Rourke.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2016090668204577b6984e1f95bad9bf017d9639001290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"