Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

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.

This 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’s 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.

There 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’s 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.

We 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.

That 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—

💬 Grant Robertson: When did you find out? Why has it taken you this long?

—those 8,000 homes would not be able to progress. Mr Robertson interjects—when 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.

What 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—for 8,000 homes—back to the beginning of the process?

When we brought the special housing areas process to Parliament it was very controversial—there was concern in local government. What is interesting is that I have had a number of letters from councils around the country, like Queenstown—and my meetings last week in the Bay of Plenty, and meetings in Christchurch—and 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’s additional programmes of work—the Resource Management Act reforms, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, the urban development authority—they want to make progress now and they want the tools of the special housing area Act extended.

That 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.

The 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—it was the first special housing area—it 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—on Labour’s side of the House; on this side of the House—whenever 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.

Every member of this House knows that there is pressure on housing. The truth is that New Zealand’s population is growing faster than at any time in our history. That is because people are voting with their feet—there is confidence in New Zealand and confidence in this Government—but, 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.

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—this is how vital and essential this piece of legislation is. The reality is that the Minister cannot bring himself, even now—10 days out from the expiry of the special housing area legislation and having to rush through this piece of legislation—to 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—he has got to do something about it.

I 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—only 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.

You look at the special housing areas and you look at the number now that are being offered for sale on TradeMe for land banking—they 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—this 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—they have gone to land bankers.

The 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—nearly 13,000—consented in 2004. That was at a time when Auckland’s population was much, much smaller. So on a per capita basis, the building programme right now is way behind—absolutely way behind. If you have a look at what Statistics New Zealand says, and its analysis of the number per thousand people—sure, 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—number of houses per thousand people—and this Government is way behind.

It is a comparative issue, and it is about New Zealanders’ 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—plenty of those. It is that those on modest incomes are working hard, sometimes at more than one job—couples with several jobs between them—saving 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—five—out 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—there is no serious programme—to accelerate affordable house building under this Government in New Zealand today.

We could support this first part of this legislation, because at this stage anything—the smallest thing, the smallest skerrick of anything—that 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—even assuming that, the Public Works Act provisions are not needed.

The reality is—and 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—whether 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.

The 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, Taupō—as I discovered the other day—even up the Kāpiti Coast, parts of Wellington, Nelson, and Queenstown. New Zealanders are looking for an answer. They are looking for leadership on the issue of housing—genuinely affordable housing—because 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.

This 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.

There 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: “You 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’t need.” If that happens, we could support the legislation but not in its current form—cobbled 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.

This 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.

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.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

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—it was at the conference where the Labour spokesperson on housing turned around and said “We support this. This is a good idea. We should do this.”, 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 “No, this is not a great idea. We shouldn’t attack this.”, 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.

This 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.

The 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.

Also, although the little mumbling and ground-grinding over there—[Interruption] Yes, maybe he needs to listen. If he has read the Productivity Commission’s 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.

The 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—at least 140 of those are in the Auckland area—and that is making a difference. This will allow for the capacity of nearly 70,000 homes—almost 65,000 of those are in the Auckland area. This becomes critical.

When 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.

This 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.

We can look at some of the numbers—the 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.

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?

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.

This is obviously not a bill that Government members are very proud of—when 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: “We’re going to build houses here, folks.” That Minister is outstanding in his field. He is outstanding in his field.

One 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’s 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—look, 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.

This 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’ 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—at a pinch. The special housing areas are a flawed, inadequate, underwhelming policy—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You voted against it.

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’s 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’s policy of special housing areas can deliver is 1,300 houses over 3 years.

This bill is the last whimper of Nick Smith’s special housing areas policy. But it is something at least. It is better than nothing—which is why we would vote for it—but 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’s failure to properly think through the transition issues as the special housing areas legislation died and the Auckland Unitary Plan came on stream.

On 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—which deals with offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act in relation to Government land being used for housing purposes—is 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—a long, honourable line—of fiascos.

Nick Smith said that he is just trying to clarify—and no doubt he has got advice from Crown Law, and I would ask the Minister to table the advice from Crown Law on this—the 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—all 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’s property rights.

We 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’s property rights, then, for goodness’ 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’s 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 “Minister of Housing Fiascos”. This is the next fiasco that is coming down the pipeline, and, no doubt, in a year’s time we will be back in the House to clean up this mess.

The 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 Tāmaki-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 Ngāti Whātua and other members of the Tāmaki Collective, who took him to court and forced him to do a—it 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.

In 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.

It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill—and 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—an 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—now 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.

This 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—which he has—instead 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.

Andrew Little’s 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—20, 30, or 40 years ago—can put up his hand and say “I might quite like that piece of land.” 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.

One million dollars—the average house price in Auckland today reached $1 million; $1 million to buy a house in Auckland. This Government has driven New Zealand’s 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.

And 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—

💬 Phil Twyford: The police.

—and 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?

Well, 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—these people who serve our communities in Auckland—were 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.

Instead, 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’s housing crisis—a crisis that has seen homelessness increase beyond all measure over the last few decades—and it is seeing young families and elderly people locked out of securing their future.

The 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.

It is a continuation of Government’s 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 “fiasco” is the right word for this Government’s response in this legislation. We are in the middle of a homelessness crisis, the nature of which we have not seen for decades—for 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.

Why is that? It is because the Government’s 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.

What 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—so 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—as 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.

If 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.

The 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.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s rubbish! Just rubbish!

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.

And of course we have the offer-back provisions, which provide real concern. Nick Smith says that there are no Māori 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—and 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.

We cannot support this bill in its current form. We do expect there to be some changes over the course of today and tonight—perhaps 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.

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’s actions that have actually caused the housing crisis, and it is this Government’s 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—which actually does create significant demand, despite denials by the Government—it 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.

The 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.

Look 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: “The challenge for a lot of people is they’re not able to get the same kinds of jobs or job security in other parts of New Zealand.” That is probably why it is only a third of the people saying that they have actually considered it.

It 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’s economy. As Alan Johnson of the Salvation Army said: “There’s people leaving Auckland in bigger numbers than ever because of the house prices. It will undermine the city’s competitiveness. People doing lower-paid jobs, particularly in the service and construction sectors, need to be able to afford to live in the city.” 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.

The failure to deal with that is all based on this Government’s 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—three of them, in fact—who 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.

In the context of such comprehensive policy failure—and that is what it is—New 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—and 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—because it does not go far enough, it does not do enough—how could New Zealand First possibly agree to such measures to extend it?

After 3 years of failure, and because of the Government’s 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—cannot—provide what is needed in New Zealand. And that is no surprise—that 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.

The 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’s housing policy is much better than this—and I can see the Minister grinning.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m laughing.

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.

Secondly, 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.

The second and unrelated part of the bill is to change the law—not to confirm it or clarify it, as is being claimed—to 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’s rights are worth more than that. We will not support that provision for that reason alone.

In 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’s rights.

I want to point out some of the words that the Government claims justify this. On the end of the justification are the words “where the disposal is necessary to achieve the Crown’s housing objectives.” Well, what are those objectives? The Government claims they are to build more houses—but 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.

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’Rourke: 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—below 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—they are coming to New Zealand.

It 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.

National does not have a blame policy like the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party. Talking about the median house price—like the Green member Metiria Turei, who spoke before, did—this 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.

This 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.

I am standing to oppose the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is being rushed through this House.

It is very clear—it has been clear for quite some time, actually—that 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.

I 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’s mop-up bits—its band-aid legislation—are 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.

This is why, in question time today, John Key could not commit to ending homelessness—it 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 Kaitāia just last week said to us, which was: “This should be the last generation of this country to be impacted by homelessness.” That is a goal—that is a goal. This should be the last generation in this country to experience homelessness—any 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—that 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.

That 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—oh, it went so wrong. The developers asked why they would want to bother ensuring that even 10 percent of housing was affordable—that 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.

Now let us look at this word “affordable”. 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—New Zealanders do, I tell you. This is why real solutions are needed—for 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—it 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.

Mālō e lelei. Mālō e ’fakakoloa ’a Aotearoa ’aki ’e lea faka-Tonga. Happy Tongan Language Week, Mr Assistant Speaker. The theme for this year, 2016, is enriching Aotearoa with the Tongan spirit.

Thank 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.

Having 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.

I 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: “I don’t have a car, but I’d like a house to live in. Can you please come and help?”. 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.

Just in the weekend I got a call from one of my teachers in Ōtara. 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.

It 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—well-known internationally for being an egalitarian society; for looking after our own, especially our vulnerable families—but we live in a day and age when this is no longer the case.

Just 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 Ōtara last year—in my electorate of Manukau East—were sold to investors. When we know that Ōtara 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—the families who can least afford to pay these rents. Six years ago rent was only about $230 for a three-bedroom house in Ōtara. Today, 6 years on, it has doubled.

So 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.

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 “million-dollar Minister”. That is Nick Smith’s lasting legacy to the people of New Zealand—that 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.

💬 Marama Davidson: Is that all?

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—the 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—a denial that there is a problem; an excuse; a person to blame; an organisation to blame—anyone other than this National Government stepping up and taking responsibility. Today Nick Smith can say “I’m the silver medal winner for New Zealand.”, 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.

The National Government comes to the House today with the second of the emblems of Nick Smith’s time: yet another piecemeal, tinkering, small measure that the Government brings forward and then says: “You’ve got to do this under urgency.” 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.

I want to state right now that the Government should accept a Supplementary Order Paper from Phil Twyford to split these bills in two—to split up Part 1 of the bill, which says that these special housing area provisions need to be extended. This is because—and I will return to this in a minute—there is at least a small amount of value in that proposal, albeit it very small. But Part 2 of the bill—which actually has nothing to do with Part 1 of the bill, and they should not even be together at this point—should go to a select committee. What is the urgency, Dr Smith? What is the urgency for Part 2 of the bill?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Getting houses built.

“Getting houses built.”, 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.

I went looking for the regulatory impact statement on this matter—on Part 2 of the bill—and 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—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it doesn’t.

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.

What is worse is that in the departmental disclosure statement the Government is required to answer a series of questions—all departmental disclosure statements have to answer these questions. It says: “Part 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?”. Answer: “No”. That is what the Minister and his department are telling his officials—he says: “No.” Is that not precisely what you, Dr Smith, are trying to achieve with the bill—to say to people who may have had a right of offer back that they no longer do?

Well, if you do not like that one, we will go further down the page in the departmental disclosure statement to where it says: “Significant decision-making powers. 4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?”. The answer from the Minister: “No”. He says: “No.” That is categorically untrue, Minister. You have misled your Cabinet colleagues, because that is precisely what this provision in Part 2 does—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It doesn’t.

—and if it does not, why is it here? Why have you put it in the law?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read it.

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—despite being warned by Phil Goff in May that there were going to be problems with the special housing areas and the Auckland Unitary Plan—Dr 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.

So, 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—and everyone in this House will have had some interaction with it during their time as a politician or beforehand—has 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—which, 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—that deserves proper scrutiny. That is a major change. That is about people’s 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.

The special housing areas promised so much from Dr Smith. They promised that they were going to be the panacea for Auckland’s housing crisis, in particular, and yet we have seen such little action from them—around 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—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.

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—and 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, “fundamentally averse to building … state houses.” 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.

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’s 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.

Worthy 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.

This 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.

Before I call a member, I am just taking a little advice as to whether we alternate or whether we—because, of course, National—sorry, 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.

We are highly opposed—as 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—to 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—can I just mention—the 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 Māori 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—again—has made a shambles of the housing situation.

I just want to say—and I have been yelling it out from the backbenches over here—that, actually, I think Nick Smith will go down in history as the worst housing Minister New Zealand has ever had. What a legacy—what 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—every time those members stand up in the House—say that it has a comprehensive housing package. There is no comprehensive housing plan that the National Government has going on. The plan—the only plan—that 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.

Although 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—as we have said earlier—are included in this bill, then we cannot vote for this bill—and, 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—we could so easily support part of this; we just cannot support the second part—it 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—that is, basically, changes to the way in which the Public Works Act applies.

I 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—and also private houses—so 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—it should have—Housing New Zealand acted as if there was no need to recoup that housing, and then those houses ended up going up for private sale.

But 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—but 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.

Earlier, 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—155 days to actually house someone who is homeless—who is living in their car, living in a garage, living under a bush somewhere; it takes that Government 155 days to house them.

I 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—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s crap.

—that that figure is not correct. Oh, actually, I think I just heard Nick Smith say that that figure is crap. Well, actually—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I probably should have pulled the member up, but I do not want it repeated back and forth, thank you.

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—although we are concerned about those people who are homeless—but 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.

This bill, as I said earlier, is another step in this shambles that has been the Government’s housing accords. It demonstrates, yet again, the Government’s 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—and 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’s supposed comprehensive housing plan.

The 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—I think my colleague Marama Davidson was talking about this before—with 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’s KiwiBuild plan to build—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a joke—it’s a joke.

—100,000 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.