Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill

Mr Chairman, I do just want to take this opportunity to thank all members of this committee that have taken the opportunity to look at this bill to suggest some improvements at select committee, for us to be able to bring this bill back to the House for this important committee stage as we go there. I also do want to take the opportunity to thank the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT) board, with its chair, Darren Evans, and also with Cate Kearney, the chief executive of ŌCHT, for the remarkable work they do in providing affordable social housing in Christchurch City—and, of course, with the passage of this bill, they will be able to extend wider.

We all, in this Chamber, know how important community and social housing is. We, to varying degrees, support it, but I think everybody can agree that it is an important aspect for us. It is with pride as a Cantabrian that I stand here with this bill that means we can expand what has been happening in Christchurch further beyond our city limits and that we can see Greater Christchurch and the Waimakariri and Selwyn and beyond benefit from some of the innovative approaches that ŌCHT has taken over time.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to ask the member in charge of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill some questions at third reading, and I want to commend the member for shepherding this bill through the House. Often, private bills are a key part of what it means to be a local MP, and I know the member herself has taken her role as a local MP in this Parliament and Parliaments before very seriously and has delivered for the people of Wigram and Christchurch. This bill is another example of the hard work she’s done in this area.

I note the preamble includes an extensive history on the nature of the variation and the background to how this bill came before the House, but I just wanted to ask the member—as we are in the preamble, which does set out somewhat of a wider context for the debate—if she would mind expanding on some of the work that has already been done in relation to community housing and on how this particular housing trust fits with the other work that has been undertaken in Christchurch to address these important needs.

I additionally note, due to the extensive notes reported in the preamble, that there is some reference to legal advice, and I wanted to know if she wanted to expand at all on the type of legal advice that had been received that has led her to bring this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Well, it’s fair to say that the local councils and the trust itself desperately didn’t want me to be sitting here in this chair having to do this by virtue of a local bill. They did receive advice to see if there were alternative ways in which they could update their trust deed that would allow them to go beyond the city limits of Christchurch. The trust, when it was established in 2016 to take over some of the public housing assets of the Christchurch City Council, was established by an Act of Parliament, and the advice they received was that, like many of these trusts, they needed to come back to this Parliament to amend such a fundamental provision, such as where they operate, what their rohe is. So they did receive advice on that; they were looking for alternative methods. When the Mayor of Christchurch first raised it with me back in 2022, I think it was, he was like, “Why won’t you let us build beyond Christchurch City?”, and it’s like, “Because you need to apply and have a local bill, Mr Mayor, and change the law in order to do this.”

One of the other questions that the member Camilla Belich asked was around how the preamble sets out a history of how the trust came to be. As I said, in 2016, it was established to take over part of the Christchurch City Council’s public housing units. This is at a time when the then National Government was moving all social housing to compete for the income-related rent subsidy, and around the country we saw a number of entities like this established. So the trust started life as a receiver of the city’s affordable rental housing, but over time it has evolved. One of the reasons I’m so excited about why Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) will be able to do stuff beyond the limits of Christchurch City is not only is it a provider of rental housing but when we brought in funding, for example, for there to be affordable rentals that were not subject to income-related rent subsidy, OCHT were one of the first community housing providers to jump at this opportunity to fill this gap that really had been left by all our councils having to go down the route, in 2016, of having to start to compete for the income-related rent subsidy.

Something that OCHT has also been a bit of a pioneer in, taking advantage of funds that the Labour Government set up, was around shared equity and how they could get involved in shared equity schemes and offer people pathways into homeownership who wouldn’t otherwise have achieved this. So, from their beginnings in 2016, they’ve been set up because of a change of policy in this place to make sure that they could survive. In terms of Christchurch’s proud history, I think they’re the first council in the country to offer rental accommodation in the 1930s, so they wanted to continue that very proud history of providing affordable rentals for Christchurch’s citizens.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I just start by acknowledging the member Megan Woods for bringing this bill before the House, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. I have had a cold over the last few days, so forgive me if I have moments where I have to cough sideways as we work through some of my questioning for the member. Not infectious, of course; just a little bit of a hangover of a flu that many people in New Zealand have.

However, it’s great to see the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill before the House this afternoon. I think anything that enables housing across the motu, across Aotearoa New Zealand, really is desperately needed, as we find many families and people in such dire situations. I just wanted to go back to the preamble part, and apologies for being the Aucklander in the room, but I wanted to ask if the member could elaborate that point (4) there for the context; “The trust deed was amended in 2017 to include a reference to Banks Peninsula in the description of the charitable purpose of the trust. This was to make it clear … that Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch.” I wondered if the member could just backtrack a little bit for me to just help me understand why that’s needed to be included in this.

The second point there is around point (5), that “The trust agreed with the Greater Christchurch Partnership, which includes local authorities, mana whenua, and government agencies”. How does the member see the relationship with mana whenua here? Are there currently good practices in place—from an enabling perspective, is there actually work that could be done more in this area in partnership with mana whenua? I’m very keen to understand what the opportunity is there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy—always—to educate an Aucklander about the mainland. It is always a great pleasure to do so. The reference to the 2017 inclusion of Banks Peninsula was, of course, the year that there was an amalgamation of the Banks Peninsula District Council with that of Christchurch City Council and they became one, so the trust deed needed to be amended to take into account that there had been that council reorganisation and amalgamation, because, up until then, it had been quite separate.

In terms of the Greater Christchurch Partnership that the member Shanan Halbert asks about, that is a relationship between Ngāi Tahu but particularly between the particular rūnanga that sit within the area of Greater Christchurch. That is a really important relationship, as well as Crown entities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency, such as KiwiRail—all of the things that kind of bring us together outside of the limits of Christchurch City, which includes parts of Waimakariri and also parts of Selwyn, as well, and Rolleston and Lincoln. But the relationship with mana whenua and with rūnanga is vitally important. Indeed, some of the examples that I talked about in terms of the shared equity schemes that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) is doing are actually in partnership and looking to do more in partnership with local rūnanga. I think there is more scope, and I know that’s something that OCHT is very keen to do more on in this area. I think the role of Ngāi Tahu’s Canterbury rūnanga in housing is something that they are very keen to expand on.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There’s still questions.

I just had a few more questions on the preamble for the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I just wanted to know—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: These Aucklanders.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Aucklanders are interested.

CAMILLA BELICH: Obviously, we’ve got the background set out here, and I thank the member for going through some of the history. Also, I think most people who bring local bills or private bills to the House will be in a similar position, where they’re unable to achieve their objective without bringing legislation to the House. I think, when we look at legislation moving forward, that’s often something we consider—that is, trying to avoid situations where this is the only way that things can be changed. But the objective, obviously, to move the scope of where the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust can work appears to be an admirable aim and worthy of this House’s time. I wanted to ask: has the member received or seen any plans relating to the future work of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust once this preamble is achieved through the enactment of this Act? Does she know the type of work that they endeavour to undertake, and what difference that will make for Christchurch?

Thank you to the member for answering my question around the legal advice and the issues that were looked into in relation to the High Court potentially ruling on this, and that being no longer sought as a result of this Act. I just wanted to confirm: is it correct that, through passing this legislation, there will no longer be a need for the trust to enter into any other kind of legal challenges or involve the High Court in looking at any of its activities from now on?

I just wanted to confirm: is it correct that, through passing this legislation, there will no longer be a need for the trust to enter into any other kind of legal challenges or involve the High Court in looking at any of its activities from now on? Will this, therefore, be an alternative pathway, if you like, that they could go through? Two questions, really: just a clarification on the reference to the High Court advice, and an expansion on what the Ōtautahi Community Trust intends to do with its, hopefully, newfound jurisdiction at the end of today.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The impetus for this change came from the Canterbury mayors—that being down from Timaru right up to Kaikōura—wanting to look at what the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust could do within their areas. I guess it’s scale, really. These are smaller councils, and putting together a community housing provider and having them operate in their area was really beyond what they could do. It makes a great deal of sense that you could have that scale that could spread beyond the boundaries of Canterbury.

There was some discussion at the Social Services and Community Committee around whether there needed to be some geographic parameters put around this, and the discussion was not to. The last thing we wanted to see was the trust having to come back and look at doing another amendment through this mechanism because it needed to expand one more town over or needed to do something like that. To not put those geographic guardrails on it was a decision that was made, but I think the member, in her questions, raises a very important point. A lot of the House’s time is spent on these local and private bills which are around amending trust deeds and what we need to do to allow changes, which, like this bill, has support right across the House. It is a sensible change. It’s one that makes good sense for the local area, and it’s one that local members, no matter their political party, can get behind and bring their caucuses along with them.

It does raise a question about whether we need to look at whether there are other mechanisms, I think, for making these changes in a more efficient way that doesn’t use as much of the House’s time, but also doesn’t put such a strain on the organisations that are having to bring these bills and get the legal advice to get private bills drafted, and to use this mechanism for changing the way they operate. I think that is something I’m sure the member would be keen to turn her legal mind to, and that this Parliament could consider for future parliaments whether there are other ways in which it can be done.

This bill does not do away with the trust deed, however. It makes specific amendments to where it can operate in terms of what it does. It makes specific amendments that flow on from that around winding up, for example, if the worst happened, how it is that you would allocate the resources, given that it’s now beyond the simple structure of just Christchurch City Council of how you would do that. There’s some flow-on amendments from that very simple change around the geographic boundaries, but it does not do away with the trust deed. If the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, for example, wanted to do something entirely different than housing, it would have to come back, and the trust deed would need to be changed in this way again, so it isn’t a carte blanche change that allows it to do anything.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just going back to the Preamble, and I just want to acknowledge the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. She looks great in the chair, can I just say. It’s also wonderful to have so many good Labour MPs in Christchurch advocating for outcomes for Ōtautahi, particularly in the Chamber today, but I’m just interested on the numbers side of things. If I remember correctly, at times when I’ve visited Christchurch, I understand the number of houses that might have been built in some of the partnership work in the past, and I wondered if the member could talk me through the outcomes that have been achieved over that period. I guess the modelling of what this enablement might achieve, whether that be through numbers or regional reach, what are the expectations as a result of this particular bill coming and passing through the House?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is fair to say that, over the last few years, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) has had a mammoth job to do, because, in 2016, when it was set up, of course, it inherited a lot of the post-earthquake rebuild work of much of our social housing, so that has been the organisation that has been able to bring that work together and to fruition. Some of it has been simple replacement, but, of course, as we all know, in order for any community housing provider to add to its stock and the number of houses that it holds, there needs to be continued extra funding given to the income-related rent subsidy from central government, because the thing that turns a simple dwelling into a social house is the availability of income-related rent subsidy, if that is the way that it’s going to go.

It’s fair to say, in the last couple of years, that growth has slowed down because there hasn’t been the growth that we had seen over the previous six years in the income-related rent subsidy. In terms of what the modelling looks like outside of the city of Christchurch, a lot of it will come down to what funding is available. When we were in Government, for example, we brought in things such as doing much longer-term contracts with OCHT, so central government are doing a 20- and 25-year contract, which would mean that they could then go and raise capital in order to build, so there was that surety over the life of the asset of what that would look like. But in terms of the ability in places like Kaiapoi, in places like Rolleston and Ashburton, these places where we will need more and more social housing, that growth will come down to what availability there is in terms of income-related rent subsidy funding from central government.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I might add, from what Shanan Halbert mentioned as well, you look very good in that chair.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Keep the compliments rolling.

DAN ROSEWARNE: Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to touch on, over the years, you’ve provided some fantastic support to the people of Waimakariri in the housing space. There have been a number of occasions where we’ve actually visited community groups out there—in particular, Karanga Mai Young Parents out at Kaiapoi High, and also Social Services Waimakariri, and we recently visited Satisfy Food Rescue. One of the things that keeps coming up when we talk to these community groups is housing and whether housing is appropriate, whether it’s in the right place, and whether it’s meeting the needs of the community members in Waimakariri. My question there, I was just wondering: how do you see the potential for this bill, once it becomes an Act, in benefiting the people of Waimakariri?

Thank you, and an excellent question. I think one of the impetuses behind this was the absurdity that, while we could have organisations like Kāinga Ora for the first time in decades building new social housing in Kaiapoi, for example, we couldn’t have Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust going beyond the boundaries of Christchurch City, so the Waimakariri is a district kind of split in two in terms of what could happen in terms of different areas of it. I think, in terms of the ability for “Waimak” to really put together its own kind of destiny plan around what it sees as the needs of its community, and to have an organisation that it can call on in terms of building that housing and developing that housing that best suits the needs of that community, this is the piece of legislation that will allow that. I would like to acknowledge that Dan Gordon was one of the mayors that did ask for this in this group of Canterbury mayors that came and asked for that, because I think all of the Canterbury mayors could really see how this could work beyond their particular boundaries and could benefit their regions but not have to reinvent wheels.

Preamble agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, “Preliminary provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.