Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, Riccarton Racecourse Bill

I move, That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be now read a third time. These two bills are part of the Government’s post-earthquake contribution to rebuilding the city of Christchurch, as well as supporting the Government’s broader programme of increasing the supply of housing around New Zealand. Together, these two bills will enable some 40 hectares of Riccarton Racecourse land in Christchurch to be developed into more than 600 homes. They are bills that are going to enable $300 million of development, and they are bills that are going to enable the Government to require that 180, or at least 30 percent of these homes, are in the bracket to complement the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme.

The Government and the Christchurch City Council made a joint commitment to increase the supply of homes in Christchurch. We entered into the Christchurch Housing Accord in April 2004 with the aim of both increasing the immediate and the long-term supply and affordability of homes in Christchurch. In the debate around Auckland housing it is noteworthy that the Government’s programme with Christchurch has been successful, and the same approach will work with the city of Auckland. I recently attended the opening of the first homes that were completed from part of the accord programme at Awatea, and I was hugely impressed with both the quality and the affordability of these houses that are coming on stream, and, in the context of the broader debate around housing, I would bring those initiatives to the House’s attention, because they do paint the picture of where the solution lies.

Back in 2014 the trustees who govern the racecourse reserve approached me, seeking to convert part of the very large Riccarton Racecourse into housing. The trustees were seeking opportunities to make better use of the underutilised land at the racecourse, to ensure that the rest of the racecourse would be able to continue functioning. These bills break the barrier that the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act 1878 and the Reserves Act 1977 were creating for the utilisation of that Riccarton Racecourse land for housing development. This is robust legislation that ensures the land will be developed with a quality residential development. Once the bills receive the Royal assent, the board of trustees has a period of 1 year to submit a development plan to me and to receive approval.

The Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill sets out the requirements for the development scheme, including meeting that minimum of 180 affordable houses on the developed land, and to have the code of compliance certificate for those homes issued within 5 years of that development scheme being approved. Before recommending the development scheme to the Governor-General for approval, I am appropriately required to consult with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Christchurch City Council.

These bills have been carefully crafted to ensure that they respect both the intent and the deed of the Ngāi Tahu settlement in Canterbury, with more than 180 homes to be at the affordable price point. These bills will also contribute to the need to replace the affordable homes that were destroyed through the Christchurch earthquakes. I think there is an acknowledgment that the area of Christchurch most affected by the earthquakes, in the east, tended to provide that city with a greater range of its affordable homes and that there is a need, not just for more homes but for more homes than are in that affordable range.

The Government has deliberately linked the bill and the development plan with the Government’s KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. This is the most generous support that the Government has provided in a generation for first-home buyers. It enables grants of up to $20,000 to be provided for purchasing a home, in the Christchurch scenario, below $450,000, and for the scheme to work we want to both support the homebuyers but also make sure that there are new homes coming on stream within that price range. The legislation ensures that if I am not satisfied that the development scheme will meet those requirements and will not result in the quality residential development within 1 year of the passage of this legislation, then the legal basis for converting that racecourse land no longer becomes available.

I have to note this bill in the context of the broader debate on housing. I keep hearing from the Opposition that the Government is not doing anything around housing, and then every time we bring a bill to the House, pragmatic bills like these ones, Opposition parties vote for it. This legislation is just further evidence of this Government’s pragmatic and comprehensive approach around the challenge that New Zealand has around housing. The public understands that there is not some single silver bullet or that there is an instant solution. It is about taking every opportunity to grow the supply of housing.

The housing development at Riccarton is one on four sites in Christchurch—including in Colombo Street, in Awatea, and in Welles Street—that in total will provide over 1,000 additional homes for Christchurch. It sits alongside a very identical programme that we have initiated in Auckland. It sits alongside initiatives like the special housing areas, the housing accords, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the HomeStart scheme, and the large bill before Parliament to reform the Resource Management Act. I note the GDP data out today, showing that the New Zealand construction industry is at an all-time boom, with the fastest rate of both residential and commercial construction ever in our history. We have seen, since we signed the housing accords with councils like the Christchurch City Council, the rate of house build in New Zealand more than doubling, from 13,000 homes a year. The latest statistics are now showing that over 28,000 homes are being built.

I would like to conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse, Ngāi Tahu Property and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Christchurch City Council, which have all worked hard to ensure the progress of these bills opening the door for this development. The Riccarton Racecourse is an ideal site for new housing. It is a neighbourhood with lovely surroundings, and good access to community schools, to public transport, and to community facilities. The development of these 600 homes that are in this attractive part of Christchurch is an important part of the rebuild plan for that city, but also of the wider challenge across New Zealand of ensuring that our housing supply keeps progress with our population growth. I look forward to seeing the first homes built on this site, as we bring the development plan together. I commend both bills to the House and move they be read a third time.

It is a pleasure for me to take a call in these third readings of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. As was made obvious during the early stages of the debate, Labour supports these bills. But I have to say, it is a bit rich, actually, even for the Minister for Building and Housing—even for that Minister—to have him claim credit for the development of 600 houses in Canterbury, which were entirely instigated by the board of the Riccarton Racecourse. I do not think that Minister is a member of the board. That Minister was asked to shepherd this legislation, or part of this legislation, through the House, and good on him for doing that. Good on him for getting the support of so many members of this House. But for him to claim credit for the development as if it were a State housing or social housing proposal just beggars belief.

But they have got to be desperate for any glimpse of light, any silver lining, on the dark cloud of the few weeks that they have had. Usually, after a Budget the Government sort of bounces around the place. Well, the only place this Government has been bouncing since the Budget is down. It has been showing its true colours—increasingly arrogant and out of touch with the wishes of everyday New Zealanders. It has been totally ignoring the big issues. The big issues that people are concerned about do not seem to be anywhere near this Government’s agenda. It has totally ignored the housing crisis—arguing about whether or not it is a crisis does not help a single person move into a warm, dry, affordable home. It totally ignores the jobs issue, it totally ignores the wages issue, and now it is ignoring the increasing cost that families in New Zealand have to face when sending their children to their local school. Education costs, jobs, housing, and health underfunding are all issues that are totally ignored by this Government.

Under these two bills, 600 houses will be built on what is currently Riccarton Racecourse land, and 30 percent of those houses are going to be sold for less than $450,000. That figure has been described as affordable. I certainly hope it is, because we know that unlike when we were young, when we grew up and knew that if we worked hard and saved hard that we would be able to put a deposit on a home and call it our own—many members in this House have had the opportunity to do that, to buy a home. Sadly, for many New Zealanders now, even $450,000 in Christchurch is well out of their range of affordability. I hope that a lot of people who currently cannot afford to buy a home are able to buy one of those affordable homes. But I am sure that despite that we are still seeing the Kiwi dream of owning your own home being totally off the agenda for many New Zealand families, and particularly for young people.

So 40 hectares of the current entire Riccarton Racecourse area is going to be turned over for housing. As I said earlier, this is a move that was entirely instigated by the board of trustees of Riccarton Racecourse, and I want to pay tribute not just to the current trustees but to former trustees as well. They have had a huge responsibility since the instigation of the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878 to provide this public racecourse for the benefit not just of Cantabrians but of all New Zealanders, and, more recently, from the Reserves Act of 1977. So those two pieces of legislation are what is being changed by these two bills—the Reserves Act and the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act of 1878. We had a Government bill and a local bill, initially. I queried during the Committee stage about whether it was the first time that we had had a Government bill and a local bill being heard in tandem, and I want to return to the answer to that question. I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to answer it during the Committee stage. I hoped even more that he would have been able to address it in his third reading speech, but he did not.

I guess, for many in the National Government, and particularly the Ministers of the National Government, they will be hoping that the passing of these bills—and I certainly support their passing—will quieten down the noise around housing issues. But what it will actually do in reality is put an even stronger spotlight on who is doing what to address the housing crisis in New Zealand. We know one of the organisations that really put its hand up and said: “We can see our people in trouble with nowhere decent to sleep at night—including children sleeping in cars and garages, for heaven’s sake—in New Zealand in 2016.” Te Puea Marae put their hand up and said: “We will help.” I want to pay a special tribute to them. I think that was a courageous thing that they did. They did it for the right reasons. They did it with the help of hundreds of other community organisations and individuals who donated goods and services to Te Puea Marae.

What we saw this week was a blight on the integrity of our Parliament. We saw private information—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not in the bill—that is not in the bill.

—about an individual from Te Puea Marae, who are providing housing in the same way as is being provided under these two Riccarton Racecourse pieces of legislation that we are debating. We saw the chairman of that marae being undermined and slighted—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—because he had put his hand up to address the housing situation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look, I have allowed quite a wide range on the overall housing stuff, but you are getting into specifics in Auckland, and I asked you to come back to this bill.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Ruth Dyson.

As I—Mr Bridges. As I noted earlier in my contribution, during the Committee stage I did talk about whether or not somebody who followed Parliament closely would be able to advise us in the House about whether this was the first time that both a private local bill and a Government bill had been heard together at the Committee stage. As I said, I was disappointed that the Minister did not answer me and no other member of the House was able to provide that information. But I am now able to advise the House that the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill, which was a Government bill, and the Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill, which was a private bill, were cognate throughout their passage through the House, but that neither of those bills had a Committee stage. So we have set a new precedent. We have set a precedent—of course it is new—in this House with the debating of these two bills, one a private local bill and one a Government bill, being held at the same time during the Committee stage. Of course it was sensible to do that, because both bills are needed in order to change those two pieces of legislation that control the ability of the Riccarton Racecourse board of trustees to alter its legislative mandate and enable it to turn those 40 hectares into a housing development.

I want to make some concluding comments, not in any criticism of the legislation, because we are supportive of it, but just to raise the concerns that were raised right at the original first reading—actually, that were raised by my colleague Dr Megan Woods following her discussion with surrounding residents of this area. This was not concern about the housing development in itself, but concern about the increased traffic pressure. We know how bad the traffic is around that part of Christchurch. It is not Auckland—it does move—but it is pretty congested. It is one of the peak traffic points. There was no engagement with either the city council or the regional council in terms of what additional transport opportunities might be opened up as a result of this significant increase in housing. I would like to see the Minister for Building and Housing now take an additional step and work with the city council and the regional council to see how we can ensure that during the development of the site we do not end up with unpleasant road congestion as a result of these additional homes.

The surrounding area, as the Minister pointed out, is magnificent. It is close to the university, it is close to schools, and it is close to parks. There is lots of activity in this area. They have an excellent member of Parliament. Dr Megan Woods is the member of Parliament for Wigram. Riccarton is actually divided between two electorates, and the people who live on this side of Riccarton are very grateful they are in the Wigram electorate—Dr Megan Wood’s electorate—rather than the others.

Can I just say, in conclusion, that a lot of people who contributed to this deserve to be thanked, particularly the board of trustees and the city council, and, of course, the Local Government and Environment Committee and its officials. Thank you.

It is a real privilege to stand to support these two bills in their third reading. The select committee that I chair, the Local Government and Environment Committee, paid a lot of attention to these two bills. In fact, we had an opportunity to visit the actual racecourse and have a tour around the site of the proposed development. For those of us who are not Cantabrians, it was a real eye-opener and an opportunity to see just what a great development this is going to be. The original legislation that created the racecourse and its trustees dates back to 1878, and, as somebody mentioned in an earlier debate at one of the earlier readings of these two bills, that actually pre-dated the invention of the motor car. So it gives some idea about what was in the minds of the people who set this up back in 1878 and the foresight they had to set aside 112 hectares of Canterbury land that in those days was actually a long way out from the centre of Christchurch.

These days, of course, the Riccarton Racecourse is right and central in the city of Christchurch. As part of the Government’s plan to help the regeneration of Christchurch, it has been a real pleasure to work with the trustees, to work with Ngāi Tahu, and to work with the city council in developing this practical, sensible plan to create a really high-quality property development that will help ease the housing requirements of Christchurch and at the same time go a long way to supporting the regeneration of Christchurch. A significant proportion of the land, of these 40 hectares, is going to be designated for affordable housing. The Minister for Building and Housing in his speech made it clear that that has been designed specifically to meet the HomeStart cap of $450,000. A minimum of 180 of the 600 homes that will be developed on this site will meet that criteria, and I think that is a very, very good step. Christchurch is expected to grow by about 80,000 residents between 2013 and 2043, and so there does need to be further opportunity for residential growth and residential development in a city that not only is growing generically, but also is in a regrowth and a regeneration phase.

These bills could not have come to the House and be at their third reading today if it had not been for the cooperation and support of a really good collaboration of stakeholders that have been working very hard to ensure that we are at the point we are at today. I particularly want to thank the board of trustees at the Riccarton Racecourse for its help and assistance in nurturing this through, for working its way through it, and for its hospitality on the day when the trustees showed us around. But we should not underestimate the input of the Christchurch City Council for its role in helping bring this about, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu Property, which will be the developer of the site.

I want to also mention, as I have done in previous contributions in the House, the submitters who came to us and gave us the benefit of their insight and their wisdom on this development. Naturally, some of them were a little bit concerned about some of the impacts in the neighbourhood. This is an area of Christchurch that has great social facilities and great community facilities, and this development will add to that. But they wanted to express their views, and the committee, I think, listened carefully and respectfully to them. I also want to thank the officials who were working on the bills.

Just in terms of the contribution of the Hon Ruth Dyson, I absolutely think it is a bit rich for that member to stand in the House and complain, as the Labour Opposition so frequently does, that the Government is not doing anything about housing when in fact, in relation to Christchurch, both the AMP and the Massey index research show that housing in Christchurch is actually 40 percent more affordable than it was when Labour was in power. Those are facts that Labour members conveniently forget. They also forget that interest rates are now at about 4.5 percent—very low indeed—but when they were in power interest rates were about 10 percent. Rents have dropped 5 percent last year in Christchurch, and in Christchurch housing values increased only 2 percent in the last year. All those indicators point to the fact that the Government’s approach is working.

These are pragmatic, sensible pieces of legislation. These two bills go a long way to helping reinforce a need for a growing Christchurch, a regenerating Christchurch, and it is a good, practical, sensible step that the Government is very happy to support. I commend the bills to the House.

That was a far more generous speech from Scott Simpson than that from the Minister for Building and Housing. In fact, I suppose if we were to use a racing parlance, after the Minister’s speech we could say he well and truly scratched himself. You would think that this proposition, as Ruth Dyson said, had all been the work and the idea of the Government. I went on to punters.com.au to look up a couple of definitions. I thought: “What would fit the Minister’s contribution?”. I thought for a while, and then I found it, and it is a quintessential Australian punting term. Mr Smith, I think, could be described as a “coat-tugger”. The definition of a coat tugger is “someone who offers a punter a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings”. And after that speech, he fits the description and the definition of a coat-tugger absolutely clearly—absolutely. This is a Minister who got up—I counted how many times he said “the Government” and I think it was about 22: “The Government did this. The Government’s responsible for this. They’ve got to come to me to consult.”

💬 Hon Member: All his own work.

All his own work, of course, when we actually know that this idea had nothing to do with the coat-tugging Minister—it had nothing to do with him. The genesis of this idea was the Riccarton racing club. People like Rodger Finlay, an eminent business person, and his fellow board members and trustees of the Riccarton racing club thought long and hard about how they could utilise their asset, and they engendered this idea. They planned it, they thought it through, and they went to the Government and said: “We’ve got an idea that could help us as a club but also help a lot of people in Christchurch who have lost their homes via the earthquake.” And they came up with the 600-house plan. Yes, this Parliament—and this is a Government bill, a local bill—is responsible for facilitating that through the legislative process, as is normal. But you have to say—and I return to Scott Simpson, who I think made a far more measured and generous speech than the Minister did—that this was the archetypal definition of coat tugging by that Minister. A guy who gives you a tip and demands a percentage of the winnings—that sums him up.

But we should celebrate the passage of this legislation.

💬 Nuk Korako: Hey, good. Now you’re talking—now you’re talking.

We should celebrate it, and credit to that member back there—credit should go where credit is due. Yes—to the racing club, to the city council, to Ngāi Tahu, and to the other stakeholders who assisted in this; credit should go where credit is due. Six hundred houses, 30 percent of which will be affordable homes—the ceiling is, what, $450,000? That will still be a struggle for many in the Canterbury and Christchurch community, but it is an excellent initiative. If I were Dr Nick Smith, I would actually look at that and say “Well, the way to deal with a housing crisis”—even though he will not admit there is one—“is to do what the Riccarton racing club has proposed, and that is build more houses.” It is actually a pretty simple proposition; pretty basic, even for some of the less sharp tools in the box in this Chamber. It is a pretty simple concept.

Actually, what will happen—what is starting to happen, and what will ultimately happen—in Christchurch, according to projections, is that we will end up in that region of Canterbury with a surplus of housing. You can see in some of the figures that house prices have plateaued a little in certain places as the construction has come on stream, as those houses have been built, and as people have gone out of their old, munted properties into viable new homes. It is a pretty simple proposition: “supply and demand”, when I did fifth form economics. It adds up, and it could be replicated around the entire country, and especially Auckland, if the Government had a mind to become involved in that proposition.

The Ministers want to get up and talk about consents and lovely little bits of paper like that, but, as others have said in this Chamber, you cannot live in a consent: a consent is permission to build on a piece of land.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Consent-warming party.

Well, that is a very interesting point, actually. Maybe Dr Smith could have, as my colleague said, a consent-warming party.

💬 Grant Robertson: A party of one.

A party of one, yes—and a bit of a punt at the same time.

The Riccarton racing club, its facilities, and the Riccarton Market—and we have said these things before as Canterbury colleagues, and we cannot say it enough—are iconic parts of our city. Not only have many people in our region gained much pleasure in participating in the racing club activities—often they have lost a bit dough—but many community organisations and private sector organisations have utilised those facilities for many, many events, and many of them charitable. Many of the members of Parliament have been invited. The Riccarton Market is a staple in the weekend calendar of most Cantabrians when they want to go and participate, and we are pleased that that will be preserved. The club itself will be far stronger financially, and far more secure in its future thanks to its own good idea, its own initiative, and its own innovation. It would be nice if the Government could actually show a similar set of skills in respect of innovative ideas, and if it could give credit where credit is due.

I think that this is a shining example of what can be achieved with collaboration—smart people in Canterbury getting together, doing a deal, coming to the Government with a sound proposition that will meet a whole series of needs, and none more important than housing people who are in great need. Equally, this is an example of where political cooperation—putting aside the lack of generosity of some speeches—can lead to a very viable outcome.

But there are other issues, as Ruth Dyson and others have raised. I know the area very well. As I have said in other speeches, in the early years of my life I grew up about a block away, across the road—across Yaldhurst Road. I know it well, and, as I said in other speeches, in those days it was a pretty sleepy area, you did not have traffic jams.

💬 Kris Faafoi: What, in 1878?

You did not have—thank you for that. You did not have—

💬 Hon Member: Did you have traffic? Were there cars?

You can pick your enemies, but not your friends.

As I say, it was a pretty subdued area. It is a nice area. It will change with 600 houses there. There will be infrastructure difficulties; traffic will be a huge one. I think what the Riccarton racing club, the city council, and the other stakeholders will look to is for some Government leadership—not Government telling them what to do—some Government involvement and partnership to deal with some of those infrastructure problems, the most stressful being the traffic. Look at what is happening down Johns Road by the airport—the widening, the four-laning—that is a good thing. Access from Hornby into that Yaldhurst area is huge now, the traffic volumes are immense; they will only get worse. If planning and infrastructure and resources do not follow, then what is a fantastic project for that part of town and for our city could, and will, experience some difficulties. And, of course, those people who are already resident in that area of Avonhead—Nortons Road, and the racecourse area around there—and Hornby, they can be impacted as well. So what we look forward to is, hopefully, some indications from the Government that it will be a participant and partner in this in respect of the infrastructure requirements.

The Labour Party, as other colleagues have said, has much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Again, congratulations to the Riccarton racing club. Credit where credit is due: to it, and its board, its trustees, and the other stakeholders. It would be great if, off the back of this—once we have passed this legislation—the Government could use this as an excellent example of what can be achieved to deal with housing difficulties. There should be no reason, where there is political will, that these sorts of schemes and arrangements could not be replicated, say, in Auckland or other parts of New Zealand, if the land is available. So I would say, in closing, congratulations to the select committee, and the chairman, who, I am told, did an excellent job in respect of this legislation. We look forward to those houses being built, and especially, we look forward to people moving into the 30 percent of affordable homes, and getting on with their lives.

Just before I get into my contribution, I just want to make it very clear that the Riccarton racing club came to the Minister for Building and Housing to discuss the lands that we are discussing today in the House. It came, and it actually proposed that property be leasehold property. After some discussions with the Minister, and to-ing and fro-ing, it was the Minister who discussed with the Riccarton racing club the idea of turning that land not into leasehold but into a housing area. And that is what the true story is. That is how the Riccarton racing club ended up with the 40 hectares of land to build these 600 homes on. It is true.

The racecourse will continue to operate; the Riccarton Market will continue to operate. There were a lot of community groups in Christchurch watching on with interest as to what would happen to the Riccarton Market, and all of them were very happy that, even though there is all this development happening, they will get to keep their Riccarton Market.

I just want to quote from a submission from the New Zealand Racing Board about these bills. It said: “These Bills are an excellent example of where racing is able to develop both its own industry as well as making a meaningful and substantial contribution to the local community.” That is why it fully supports this bill. Ngāi Tahu Property said that “The passing of these bills into law will mark a great milestone for both the Trustees and NTP, enabling the realisation of a vision” that has been around for several years. Ngāi Tahu Property also commented that it was a real privilege for it to be part and parcel of the whole process of the development of the Riccarton Racecourse land.

This Government is committed to the 13,000 brand new homes that are being built in Christchurch. We will continue to strive to do that. This is one of many projects that are happening within Christchurch. As a new Cantabrian in Christchurch East, I believe that a lot of great things will actually come from this. Yes, Christchurch East has lost a lot of its houses through the earthquake, but this is a step towards making sure that those homes, even though they are being built somewhere else—some may even come back to Christchurch East—are actually going to be made affordable for couples. Some may say that $450,000 is very expensive. It may be, but it is what the market price is. It is what affordable homes are being sold for in Christchurch. These people will also be able to access their KiwiSaver to be able to put forward towards a deposit or to help pay for these homes.

As my colleagues have said, this is a pragmatic bill. It is a good bill, and I have no problems in commending it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. These bills have proceeded through Parliament relatively quickly. They were introduced in October last year. They attracted only a few submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we are pleased that the bills are going through their final reading today.

But we have a little concern about the Minister for Building and Housing’s comments that this is really part of the Government’s strategy to help with the Christchurch rebuild, and to help provide affordable housing. The 180-odd affordable homes are to be provided as part of the quid pro quo for a quarter of the racecourse having its reserve status uplifted and the trust board for the racecourse being able to sell that land and develop it, or have it developed with Ngāi Tahu Property—the quid pro quo is the provision of these affordable homes.

But that is not going to be able to tackle the crisis. It is not nearly enough, because we have hundreds of people tonight sleeping in their cars in Māngere. So many ordinary Kiwis recognise that we have a homelessness crisis, we have a housing crisis, and this Government is not doing enough to address that. We have seen that over and over again in the House when questions have been asked of Ministers and we have not seen them acknowledge that there is a crisis. Instead, they talk about there being a supply challenge. The first step towards solving the problem is recognising that it exists, and the Government has actually failed to do that in terms of the housing crisis. Instead, we are seeing denial, excuses, distractions, and now talk that this legislation is a contribution to dealing with that crisis.

These homes that will be built in Champions Mile, even though some of them will be affordable homes—i.e., they have got a sale price of less than $450,000—are not going to be affordable to the people in Christchurch who are sleeping on the streets, in their cars, in garages, or are dossing down on the floor of a family member or friend. We need more emergency accommodation for people like that, who are struggling even to provide themselves with basic accommodation, and these bills are a solution to that. The Green Party says we need the Government to invest much more in building emergency accommodation and in building more State homes, instead of having the Government sell off State houses and allow the waiting lists for them to get longer and longer. I want to live in a country where the Government cares that people are sleeping on the streets, and does not just stand by and watch and deny that there is a problem.

One of the other things that the Minister said in the second reading was that these bills are unlocking land that is not being well-used at the moment, and that is a concern if that is going to be part of the Government’s strategy of providing more homes through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which was released recently. That policy statement has some objectives of enabling people to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, but it fails to mention environmental well-being, and we heard from the few submitters on this legislation that they really valued the open space that the racecourse provides as a place to recreate, as a place to practise their golf skills, and as a place to walk the dog.

We cannot see the housing crisis being tackled simply by using reserve land in centres around New Zealand to increase subdivision and residential development. We want healthy cities, and those are cities that have got adequate green spaces in them. So it is very disappointing that in this new National Policy Statement on Urban Development there is a reference only to social, economic, and cultural well-being and not to environmental well-being, because we will not have healthy cities and we will not have a healthy economy unless we sustain the environment, which is the basis of that. Nevertheless, because this legislation does provide for an extra 180 “affordable” homes, and because the land is actually situated in what is now part of the centre of Christchurch—it is not on the outskirts, as it once was; it is close to schools, shopping facilities, and the industrial area further to the south in Riccarton—it is a good place for development to occur because it is not promoting urban sprawl.

But we think that the Riccarton Racecourse trust board will get a substantial financial benefit from these bills. It is well aware of the amenity values of the racecourse. It has said that the revenue that the bills will allow it to generate will be used to promote racing and to enhance the amenity of the racecourse, and that is all well and good. It also needs to be cognisant when it is working with Ngāi Tahu to actually ensure that we do not get some of the rabbit hutch developments that we have seen elsewhere in Christchurch, where houses are placed cheek by jowl with no consideration of passive solar design, limited consideration of energy efficiency, and little consideration of how the homes interact with public transport links.

One of the problems here is that although there are criteria in the bill that the subdivision has to meet, they are quite limited, and that is a problem because the district plan in Christchurch is currently being reviewed. The final form of that is not yet known and it is that plan that will determine what conditions the Christchurch City Council can put on the development to ensure that the subdivision does provide for good interaction and links with public transport infrastructure, good walking and cycling links, and good protection of reserve areas, open space, and smaller places for children to play and for people to walk. So there is still quite a lot of uncertainty about the actual form that this development will take and quite a lot of responsibility on Christchurch City Council to actually get that right.

So we are pleased that the bills are going through, but we have some qualifiers on the type of urban development that this Government looks to be promoting if it is keen on using reserve land in other areas for subdivision, given that its national policy statement does not recognise the importance of environmental well-being.

I was very surprised that the Minister for Building and Housing, when he spoke, took so much of his speech to pat himself on the back because of this particular proposal, this particular development. [Interruption] He did. He spent a good part of his speech patting himself on the back as though he was entitled to take credit for it, and nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, I was quite offended by his comments, because this proposal has never formed any part of the Government’s housing plans in any respect whatsoever. In fact, what actually happened was that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated the discussions—and no doubt had discussions with various parties, including the Minister—and yet Joanne Hayes gets up to say to us: “Well, because of that, it was Nick Smith’s idea.” That is simply not true. It is not true. It was not Nick Smith’s idea. He had to be involved simply because legislation was necessary. The truth is that the Riccarton Racecourse board initiated this and then went to the Christchurch City Council to develop a local bill.

To prove that, I was written to—as other MPs would have been—by the city council. The letter was dated 9 September 2015, and it said this: “I write formally to notify you under clause 4(1) of Appendix C of the Standing Orders of Parliament of the intention of the Christchurch City Council to promote a local bill into Parliament called the Riccarton Racecourse Bill (the Bill). (2) The objectives of this Bill are to (a) identify part of Riccarton Racecourse to be available for housing development …”. That is the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that it was not the Minister’s idea at all; it was the idea that came from the Riccarton Racecourse itself. It had discussions with various parties, but it was actually the Christchurch City Council that proposed and has put this piece of legislation forward. Yes, the Minister had to get involved because the legislation was necessary, and that is why we are now looking at these two bills.

The point I do want to make is that while he was inaccurately claiming credit for this particular piece of legislation and this particular proposal for the development of that racecourse, at the same time his Government has failed to actually provide anything like an adequate plan for housing in New Zealand; nor has it done anything about immigration, which has greatly exacerbated that situation. It has built only half of the houses required, especially in Auckland, and we are, therefore, finding people living in cars and garages and being provided with motels at great expense to the taxpayer.

As far as Christchurch is concerned, the reality there for most of the new housing that has gone up in Christchurch in recent times is that the spending has come from two places. One is from insurance, which is the lion’s share of the funding and the projects for housing in Christchurch, and the other is the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which is a Government fund for disaster relief and replacement of infrastructure, and so on—nothing to do with this Minister or the Government’s housing plans.

Now that I have got that off my chest, I can move on to the bills themselves. I did want to say this in particular: New Zealand First is particularly pleased with these bills, and we want to thank the Riccarton Racecourse board and also the Christchurch City Council for promoting the bills. They will make a valuable—small, but valuable—contribution to housing in Christchurch. Riccarton Racecourse is a very important piece of land. In fact, it is an institution in Christchurch and in Canterbury, but the land that is required for racing will still be there, and people will still be able to enjoy that. There are over 120 hectares, and only 40 hectares of that will actually be developed for housing—as I have said, a very welcome, relatively small, but very important contribution to the need for housing in Christchurch, where new homes are certainly in demand. There will also be a significant area of the land set aside for green, open space, and that is also very important. So you get three advantages: retention of the racecourse, new housing, and some open space. Given that, it is a pretty positive proposal, and a very positive development.

The key purpose of these bills is to provide for both affordable and market housing in Christchurch. For those houses that are to be set aside for affordable housing, the price is to be a base of $450,000. That is affordable in today’s markets, and that is going to be very welcome indeed. Of those 600 homes, 30 percent will be targeted to be in the affordable home category. As I have said in previous speeches on this, New Zealand First would have liked to see that at 50 percent, as a minimum, but, having said that, 30 percent is still a valuable contribution, and is entirely supportable as far as we are concerned. The methodology is that the Riccarton Racecourse board will provide a development scheme meeting all of the minimum specified requirements in the bills, and that will be submitted to the Minister for final approval. It will mean at least 180 affordable homes, and they will be very, very welcome in Christchurch city.

I also wanted to say this about that situation in Christchurch. Immediately after the initial earthquakes in 2010 and, especially, 2011 there was an exodus of people away from Christchurch. In fact, 16,600 people left in those years immediately after the worst of the earthquakes occurred, simply because their houses had been damaged or were red-zoned or uninhabitable, and there were not enough houses for all of the people in Christchurch to live in. So it is no surprise that that number of people left. That situation in more recent years has been reversed, and we are still seeing an increase of about 5,000 people per year in the Christchurch population. That is because, as I said, of the effect of the investment from insurance moneys and from EQC in building homes.

Very little, if any, of that was actually due to any Government policy as far as housing development is concerned, so it is most inappropriate that the Government should use these bills to say it has done such a wonderful job. The opposite is the case. The Government has done next to nothing. In fact, after the earthquakes it even refused to put a cap on rents, so they skyrocketed. They skyrocketed, and yet Scott Simpson had the temerity to tell us in this House a few minutes ago that in recent years there has been a 5 percent reduction in rents. Well, big deal. Before that there had been years and years of huge increases in rents because the Government did not do anything about it. That is the truth of that situation, Mr Simpson.

Finally, I would like to say this. The influx of people now beginning to occur in Christchurch, and, actually, in other places, is driven not only by the history that I have just outlined but also as a result of Government inaction about housing across the country—especially, of course, in Auckland, because of the chronic housing crisis that has now developed there because of the utter mess this Government has made of housing policy in New Zealand. These houses spoken of in these bills are needed, but many, many more will be needed as well because of the flight from Auckland, because of house prices there, because of the whole situation concerning the deficit of houses in New Zealand, and especially because of the gross neglect by this Government, not only of housing development but also of social housing in New Zealand.

With those facts specifically in mind, it is very important that somebody does something about housing in this country, and this small but important project will make a contribution that is valued. It will be valued by Christchurch people, and is certainly valued by New Zealand First. For that reason we will have no hesitation in supporting these bills.

Before I call a member, I would just like to make a quick ruling. Early in Mr O’Rourke’s speech, members on both sides looked to me when he indicated that he felt that members—one member in particular, and possibly one earlier—were not telling the truth. Members looked to me to intervene at that stage.

I do want to make it clear that if a member thought that someone was deliberately not telling the truth, it would be a contempt of Parliament and a breach of privilege under Standing Order 410(b). The member Denis O’Rourke did not use the word “deliberately”. I will say this carefully: he did not indicate that the members knew what they were saying was actually untrue, or that the action was deliberate. If it was not deliberate, and someone was mistakenly indicating something and the member was pointing out that what they were saying is not true, that is not a breach of privilege and it is not something that should be interrupted. It is a debating matter.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.

As someone who is quite new in this House, it is really interesting to watch the dynamics on both sides. You have got an agreement here, it seems, that we are all agreeing to pass these bills. On the Opposition side, it is all about that, but the interesting dynamic there is that it is not actually acknowledging a lot of the really good things about these bills and the journey that the bills have taken to get to this particular point. I know everyone has a job to do, in Opposition and also in Government, but here on this side of the House, I would say, compared with the other side—the other side is where, after all was said and done, there was more said than done, whereas on this side of the House there are, indeed, a lot of things that have actually happened, particularly around the Christchurch rebuild. When we look at the emergency, the recovery, the rebuild, and then what we are in now, which is the regeneration phase, and when we look at the incredible amount of money that has been dedicated to the Christchurch rebuild—we are talking $17 billion. In thinking about that, it is indeed this type of legislation that has been the catalyst to actually address so much around the rebuild of Christchurch.

When we come to this legislation, the interesting thing, the important thing, about it is that it really does pave the way—it really does pave the way—for a really exciting and a really dynamic housing development. The dynamics within this one were actually about the fact that we had collaboration here and we had goodwill. That collaboration was between the Government, it was between the Christchurch City Council, it was between Ngāi Tahu as well, and it was also between the Riccarton Racecourse. When we look at the goodwill factor, it is about Ngāi Tahu in a lot of ways, because it was their goodwill in the fact of the right of first refusal (RFR). When we look at the right of first refusal, they waive it in this particular case, and the reason for that is that they could see the immense opportunity that this would bring.

In these bills we talk about land trapped in ancient history—actually not so ancient, I suppose; in 1878. This was an opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to look at this and say: “Look, here’s a great opportunity.” When you look at our land, Māori freehold land—Māori land—that is ancient history, but when Ngāi Tahu saw the opportunity for this incredible development to happen, well then, they took it. I can remember the Hon Nick Smith coming to Ngāi Tahu back in 2009, and there was talk then of how we could actually use our RFR to be able to instigate some better use of our land through the laws that were available. This legislation actually really does it, and the thing about it is that it is unique in the fact that it is probably one of the first developments that we have had the opportunity to have really true partnership in, but it is also legislation where it is unique because we can actually include in this, as the legislation is saying, affordable housing. This is the beginning of affordable housing—the use of land that was tied up in legislation. It releases all of that so that everyone can actually utilise this type of land for the benefit of the people. When we look at this, it is about the benefit of the people of Christchurch, it is about the benefit of the iwi, and it is about the benefit of racegoers, and all of that.

Just to conclude, these bills here are very principled. They are pragmatic and they are progressive, but the bills reflect the great work that the National Government is doing in the regeneration of Christchurch. There is going to be a lot more of this, particularly when we look at the template, because iwi who are actually getting towards or already have settled in Treaty settlements are looking at this and thinking: “Good old Ngāi Tahu again—look, they are actually leading the way, because we have another opportunity here to use our RFR.” On that note, kia ora, and I commend these bills to the House.

I am pleased to take a short—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I am going to start the member again. I think that comment was probably directed at the previous speaker, but it was pretty rude to the current speaker, who was just starting. So we will restart the clock.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill.

For the Green Party it is critical, in terms of its policy, to recognise that the design of our towns and cities affects how we live, work, and play. We believe that warm, dry, affordable homes set in some smart urban planning can improve the livability of our communities for all New Zealanders. Building location, design processes, and materials have a major impact on the environment, on our transport options, on our health, and on our quality of life, and housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of individuals, whānau, families, and communities. We see this, sadly, in a negative sense in deaths as a result of poor housing every week, and in the hospital admissions in this country. But if we get it right, we can support well-being and health.

The Green Party believes that all people are entitled to secure tenure of sustainable and affordable housing, so it is happy to support this legislation because, in so far as it goes, it is going to provide land within the city limits of Christchurch to enable the building of 600 homes, 180 of which have been designated “affordable”. We do have a bit of a quibble with the definition of “affordable” being set at $450,000, which, sadly, for many New Zealanders, is still well out of the range of affordability—and it is, particularly when you think that the average price of housing in Christchurch is $490,000. To be setting the level of affordability at only $40,000 below that average is, I think, doing a disservice to the real need of communities and families within Christchurch. But, that said, it is a start, and we certainly know that there is real need.

I have heard some of the debate around whether there is still an affordability issue in Christchurch. The member on that side, Scott Simpson, was saying that affordability has actually improved under this Government in recent years, forgetting how massively out of control things got after the earthquake because the Government chose not to intervene and put some controls around rental prices, in particular, as well as building prices. We definitely know and will acknowledge that there have been a lot of new building consents happening in Christchurch and that some new houses have been built, but, as we are seeing in Auckland and other parts of country, most of those builds are targeted at the higher end of the market, and the market is not delivering for most New Zealanders. The market is delivering for speculators and those who want to make a profit off housing, and it is leaving families and the vulnerable behind—on the streets, in people’s garages, or sleeping on the floor in family members’ houses. There is a clear, clear call for the Government to be more interventionist to make the market work.

Back to this bill, Mr Assistant Speaker, as you have so nicely prompted me, one of the points that I would like to acknowledge we do have some concern about is from Minister Smith’s initial speech on this bill, when he spoke about the land, in effect, as wasted space. There were submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee from residents living in the area, who talked about how much they used the space for recreation. Part of our vision for those sustainable, healthy developments is for there to be a good balance between green space, transport, and homes, and that the homes are sustainably built. We are disappointed to see that there is not very much guidance within this bill to ensure that that is the end result for the community of Christchurch. It is a missed opportunity, particularly when we know that the Christchurch district plan is still under review. There are a lot of questions about what is going to result. But, all in all, we are happy to support this small measure in support of the people of Christchurch.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak on both the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. Can I first open with some comment, and I think other members have made it during this debate, around some of the comments from the Minister for Building and Housing in his speech in this third reading. I have a brother. I love him very much, so I will not name him, but Jason’s worst trait as a youngster was turning up when the dishes were almost done and then taking credit for it, and taking undue credit for the work that had been done. That is, essentially, what the Minister did today in his third reading speech. You would have thought that the Minister had come up with this idea himself, will actually go out and build the homes himself—everything about his speech was taking credit for something that has actually got very little to do with a Minister at all.

Credit where credit is due: the Canterbury Jockey Club has seen a need for housing in Christchurch post the earthquake and has taken steps to look to change the legislation that binds it to keep hold of the land that we are talking about here. But you would not have thought that it was a Canterbury Jockey Club issue or maybe Ngāi Tahu’s issue that they had brought to this House to get the caveat around that land changed; it sounded like it was the idea of Nick Smith.

I want to also comment on some of what Jan Logie said and what the Minister said—this land was wasted space—and just take a moment to reflect on the fact that Nick Smith, our building and housing Minister, said the words “wasted space”, because I think there is a certain irony in there at the moment. At a time when we have a housing crisis that the doctor says does not exist, and when we have got banks taking action because of what is happening with foreign-based buyers but he says there is diddly-squat there, our “wasted space” Minister says that there is nothing to do here. And he has the audacity to take credit for this piece of legislation when it is the people of Christchurch who have seen a need for housing and some affordable housing and have brought this piece of legislation to the House.

So let us give credit where the credit is actually due: to Ngāi Tahu, and to the Canterbury Jockey Club, which has said that we need these 40 hectares of land in order to have a housing development of around 600 homes. But, importantly, it has said that 30 percent of that must be affordable. The benchmark for that has been set at $450,000, and a number of my colleagues have already questioned whether or not that is, in fact, affordable, given the housing situation in Christchurch. Regardless of that, we think that the fact it has have decided to put 30 percent of that towards affordable housing is a good thing.

This piece of legislation is necessary because there is a piece of legislation that I believe was passed in 1878, which landlocks this land with the racing club and gives first right of refusal to the Crown and also to Ngāi Tahu, and this allows this piece of land to be developed. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Clayton Cosgrove who harked back to 1878, when he lived close to the Riccarton Racecourse, I believe. He said that it is very different from 1878, now. Back then, in 1878, the Riccarton Racecourse was well beyond the fringes of what the Christchurch City was—

💬 Hon David Parker: Connected by rail.

Connected by rail, I hear from the Hon David Parker, and Clayton Cosgrove can remember this. The land itself was rural, and protected for the purpose of the racecourse itself. But now we find ourselves in different times. The land is needed for housing development, some of it affordable. This brings two issues that I—as our racing spokesperson—hold dear, housing and racing, and brings them closer together.

This Government has been useless on housing, and I think this week the Minister for Social Housing has found herself in serious danger of being scratched—taken out of the equation, no longer useful to the Government in terms—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and ask him now to stop the analogies and get back to the bill. It is a pretty specific bill.

Back to those 600 homes. The fact that the Government has taken little or no action on social housing or on building affordable housing is why we are here. It is why Christchurch needs more housing, and we have got three housing Ministers who have failed to take any desk action to ensure that there is affordable housing for New Zealanders. Whether you are living in a car, or you are looking to buy your first home, this Government has been hopeless. But credit where credit is due. It is not with Nick Smith, our Minister for Building and Housing, not with Paula Bennett, our Minister for Social Housing, not with Bill English, our Minister responsible for HNZC—responsible for something else—none of them have been able to do that job. But hats off to the Canterbury Jockey Club and to Ngāi Tahu for actually doing something to build some houses—something that this Government has been completely incompetent at.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. In following on from that rather mean-spirited contribution on this third reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, I just want to say that this is a very pragmatic and sensible measure. I do agree with one part of what the member Kris Faafoi said, which is that this is necessary. It is necessary because there were 13,000 homes lost during the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. It is very necessary to ensure that there is both a mix of higher-end but also, most importantly, affordable housing available to the residents of Christchurch. It represents—“wasted” is a strong term, and the member who has just resumed his seat is somewhat wasted on this debate, I feel.

I had the benefit of going down and having a look at the Riccarton Racecourse as part of the committee hearing process. There was land there that was not best used. There was considerable land dedicated to what can only be described as a Third World - style, ramshackle flea market. It is quite popular among people on one day of the week when they go in to these tents and marquees, and so forth, to buy and sell, and deal in products, but it could be much, much better used in housing. Having that partnership with Ngāi Tahu, and having the city council, as it does, backing the use of one third of the Riccarton Racecourse reserves—that is only 40 out of the 122 hectares that will be dedicated towards this housing development—I think is a very sensible measure.

It is a fine bill. It has been put to the House by the very competent and capable Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Nick Smith, and for those reasons I commend it fully to the House.

I just want to correct the previous speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, on a couple of points. The first point is that, in all those many, many years when people were struggling to find affordable housing in the city, which was hugely damaged by earthquakes, when 11,000 to 13,000 homes were damaged by the earthquakes, the Government did not step in. There were calls for the Government to regulate rents, which sky-rocketed. There were rents in parts of New Brighton where $1,200 a week was not unusual. That member who spoke previously has the audacity to say that the Government stepped in. Well, it did not. I can assure you it did not.

The other thing I want to say is that the Riccarton Market is not ramshackle; it is actually a well-supported, well-loved institution. The people who attend that market will be hugely offended to know that the member on that side of the House thinks that it is ramshackle. When this bill was first proposed there were many people, many markets, and many community organisations that said: “We would love the Riccarton Market to come to our site.” That is how much it is loved in Christchurch. So it is not ramshackle.

I want to also correct one of the statements about how involved the Government is in promoting this bill. When the Riccarton racing club was promoting the idea of having 40 hectares developed into housing, some of the Christchurch city councillors were questioning the rationale about why that should happen. Their fears and concerns were allayed to the point that they actually became the formal promoters of the bill. For the members on that side of the House to say that the Government has been the key driver and the key institution, particularly in supporting the development of housing in this area, is blatantly not correct—it is not correct. I do want to say that I do commend the Riccarton racing club members for their foresight and their forward-thinking in wanting to do this.

Some of the reasons that they have gone down this path have been traversed, but one of them has not been expressed in this House tonight, and that is the fact that the Riccarton racing club really wants to preserve its racing club—the facilities, the track, the buildings that make up the Riccarton racing club—for perpetuity, for the people of Christchurch. In order to do that, this development will help them to achieve certain things, and one of the most important things is actually the ongoing maintenance of some of those buildings at the club, which are old. They need maintenance, and ongoing maintenance, and, because of their age, they need specialist care. So that is one of the reasons that this is happening.

The other reason is they saw an opportunity to support the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to actually be able to have some housing. For such a long time the redevelopment and the rebuild of our homes has taken a significant period of time, and adding 600 homes to the mix actually really does alleviate a lot of that pressure. So we are really looking forward to the development going ahead.

I do want to commend and acknowledge the hard work of Dr Megan Woods, the local MP. When the local residents were concerned about what would happen to their much-loved park area, she made sure that there was lots of good information. She had public meetings. She got members of the racing club to attend these meetings and really talk through some of the big issues that they were concerned about. I think that a lot of the work that she did up front has allowed for a really succinct and really well-crafted process. This is because of a lot of the work that she did to ensure that the voice of her community was heard. Some of the issues that the community raised were around the significant increase in traffic that would happen. Yaldhurst Road is a significant thoroughfare. It leads from the southern part of the city, right through to the airport and beyond. It also leads on to the main highway that heads out west and on to the West Coast. So it is quite a significant arterial route and it will be impacted by 600 new homes in the area—all those people, at rush hour, wanting to get out to work and school, and then coming home at the end of the day.

This development was originally going to be an exemplar. An exemplar project has to have certain criteria within it—affordability, a percentage of affordability, which this development assures us it will have; it has to have particular amenities; good urban design; and infrastructure and transport planning. Well, in that regard I think that perhaps there may be some problems. But this development is not an exemplar. Clause 9, in Part 2 of the bill, talks about the requirements, which include relevant regional and district planning, that the interests of Ngāi Tahu are fully considered, and that—and this is an interesting provision—fibre-optic broadband connections are provided to all premises. I thought that was really interesting. What it does not include, which I think is really short-sighted, is the ability to have good design that means that the homes are accessible, whether you are 3 years old or 100 years old, or whether you have a disability or not. They have missed an opportunity to build accessibility options into the requirements, which I think is really short-sighted.

So we are looking at 600 homes—a third of which will be priced at $450,000 or below. It is in the legislation that affordability is $450,000. I have said in previous readings of this legislation that I think Aucklanders would love to have a bill that determined what affordability was. However, I suspect that in the Auckland market we would be coming back to the House, week after week after week, to change the level of affordability. There is one thing that is for sure—affordability and the Auckland housing market do not go together. They are not synonymous at all. But in this piece of legislation we have got a definition of affordability at $450,000. Some of my colleagues have questioned whether that is actually affordable, when the average price of a home in Canterbury sits at around $490,000. I too would question that definition of affordability. It may be that we, at some point, have to come back and redefine what affordable is, in terms of the Christchurch housing market.

To end my contribution I just want to say that housing is a major concern across our country. I want to just acknowledge what is going to happen tonight at Park Up For Homes Māngere, where 1,200 people have indicated that they are going to sleep in cars, in solidarity with all the New Zealanders who are forced to sleep in cars. Twelve-hundred people are going to volunteer to sleep in cars tonight, including Labour MPs. I just want to acknowledge that they are making a stand for those people who cannot afford housing in this country.

I support these bills and commend these bills to the House. Thank you.

Bills read a third time.