Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

I move, That the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This amendment bill will get more houses built. This bill will get houses built more quickly, and it should be getting the full support of this Parliament. It will do so by ensuring a smooth transition to the Auckland Unitary Plan. It will do so by allowing more land to be available for housing more quickly in other parts of New Zealand, and it will do so by providing certainty over the Crown land housing development programme. The parties opposing this bill have actually shown that they are far more interested in wallowing in the stories of hardship over housing than actually getting more roofs built over the heads of Kiwi families. The greatest irony is that Labour has called for a state of emergency across New Zealand, over housing, but it opposed urgency in this House for the very bill that will make a difference.

Let us be clear about three things in respect of housing. The first is on the demand side. It is at record levels because New Zealand is doing well. Our economy is growing strongly, unemployment is low and falling, we are a safe and well-governed country, and interest rates are at the lowest level in 60 years, so housing demand is at record levels.

The second is that construction is booming. Statistics New Zealand has just reported the highest level of building activity ever in New Zealand, topping $18 billion in the last year. Residential building has grown nationally by 20 percent per annum for every one of the last 5 years. I have checked the records all the way back to 1922, and there has never been such a period of long, sustained growth. Independent reports show we are on track for this boom to continue until 2021. In Auckland we are on schedule to build the equivalent of a Whangarei in Auckland in this term of Parliament, and another Whangarei in the next term of Parliament.

My third point is that land-use policy is the single most important public policy issue affecting housing supply and affordability. The Productivity Commission says so, Treasury says so, and the OECD says so. We also know it from our own experience in Christchurch, where we are using the special earthquake provision powers and freeing up land. We have a well-functioning market. Thousands of good, new homes with three bedrooms are available on the market at $450,000. We have got house price inflation in Christchurch of only 2 or 3 percent, and we have had rents in that market drop by 8 percent over the last year.

Let me turn to the detail of this bill. It will allow eight greenfield special housing areas, totalling 762 hectares in Auckland, which are well advanced in the planning and design processes, to enable 7,900 homes to be built. This is significant. It amounts to $4 billion of additional housing investment that will be able to be facilitated to ensure it progresses. The simple question for Parliament is this: do we want to send those eight developments, $4 billion of housing, back to square one? Members on this side of the House say that no, we do not. Members opposite, who have voted against this bill, are voting to block those housing developments.

The bill also allows the extension for 3 years of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act in other parts of New Zealand. The original Act was very focused on Auckland, but the growth pressures are now being felt more widely. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development will take time for councils to free up land. That national policy statement requires that to be done over 3 years, and so it makes sense for the special housing areas to be able to be used in the interim, to be able to free up more land. These measures are supported by Local Government New Zealand. I have received letters from a number of councils that want access to this flexible tool.

The second part of this bill is the part that Labour has got in a lather about. The amendment makes plain what is already in the 1955 Housing Act: that the Government can approve housing development schemes and sell the houses. It is what Government has been doing for years. It is what we are doing in Hobsonville, where over 1,000 houses have now been completed. Ironically, it is what we have done in Weymouth, where Mr Little visited and said that we should be doing more of those types of schemes. Labour has caused this huge commotion in the House, saying that these are very significant changes that affect people’s property rights.

Let me read exactly what Treasury’s independent regulatory impact unit said on these changes, long before this controversy, in an email dated 3 October. I will quote word for word: “The minor avoidance of doubt provision in the Housing Act doesn’t need a regulatory impact statement. It is minor, and it doesn’t change any rights. It is simply a clarification of existing legislative intent.” Let me quote it again: “It is minor, and it doesn’t change any rights.” So there it is, without political spin, straight from a Government official. It is why the Government is wanting to make the change. It is to provide certainty for business.

We are wanting to get on and sign contracts for significant developments of land, and, understandably, if we are going to get the best deal for the taxpayer and the most houses, we need to get certainty in the law. If there is something that members on this side of the House understand, it is that certainty is everything for businesses, particularly when they are going to be investing tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in building the houses that this country needs.

People who are wanting to delay this minor clarification of the law are actually wanting to make it harder for the Government to get on and build houses on vacant public land. Remember, it is on these vacant blocks of public land that the Government is able to put quite tough requirements to ensure the houses that are being built are in the medium price range, and also to deliver at least 20 percent of social housing. The greatest irony is this: for all the debate over the last 2 days, I have not heard a single cogent argument against any of the three provisions. Here is the irony: Labour members are out there saying that Labour is going to build tens of thousands of houses, under its KiwiBuild policy, on vacant Crown land. Are they saying that when they have built those houses, they are going to offer them to the former landowners and not to ordinary New Zealanders? If Labour really believes its opposition to this bill, it will promise to repeal it. It will not, because its members know in their heart of hearts that it is the practical measures that are required to ensure this country gets on and builds as many houses as is practicably possible.

This bill is a sensible measure. It sits alongside our Resource Management Act reforms, the work to develop an urban development authority, changes to the Building Act, and changes to the Unit Titles Act, because there is not a single magic bullet to this housing challenge. We need to do a whole lot of things well, and this bill is part of what will make the difference and ensure that we maintain that record growth of housing construction in New Zealand.

It is almost all over, Nick. It is almost over. This debate has been, I think, a microcosm of the housing debate that New Zealand has been having for the last couple of years. At the centre is an incompetent Minister for Building and Housing, who has, for the last 17 hours, embarrassed and infuriated his colleagues. He has subjected them to a humiliation in this House, as what the Minister promised would be a small, inconsequential clarification has turned into a marathon 17-hour debate that has shown National’s housing policy to be limited, inadequate, narrow in focus, and inconsequential. It has been put up against—quite unfairly, really—a bold, comprehensive housing reform agenda backed by the Opposition parties in this House, and even some of the Government support partners from time to time, which have a vision to transform the housing crisis that this National Government has got us into.

The bill in question is also a bit of a microcosm of this Government’s housing policy—

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s chaos.

—and the way, the chaotic way, that Nick Smith discharges his responsibilities as housing Minister. One of the two parts epitomises the sort of microscopic tinkering that has come to be the hallmark of this Government’s housing policy. It is the extension, by 3 years, of the special housing areas policy that Nick Smith described 3 years ago as an interim measure while the Government’s long-term affordable housing strategies bedded in. Well, we have spent much of the last 17 hours debating the extension of this so-called interim measure—the special housing areas—which have demonstrably had marginal positive effect in the last 3 years in our country’s biggest city, where the 42,000 shortfall of dwellings that has accumulated under this National Government is getting worse by 4,000 every year. What has Nick Smith’s centrepiece policy achieved? An additional 1,300 dwellings over 3 years, with no evidence that those houses would not have been built if the special housing areas policy had not been in place. All it has done is bring forward some houses that the market would otherwise have built of its own accord.

The second part of the bill epitomises the shonky, incompetent discharge of ministerial duties by Nick Smith. He failed to think through the transition issues around the cessation of the special housing areas legislation, and what happened? Eight developers in Auckland faced the prospect of being left flapping in the breeze when the special housing areas legislation came to an end, so we have had to pass this bill in order to allow those developments to carry on. We do not mind doing that. We think it is a rather fruitless thing to do. We do not think the special housing areas are having much effect. But, actually, when you stack them up against all of this Government’s other housing policies, they are probably the best the Government has got. But that is a very, very low benchmark.

So we are willing to vote for it, and we have made it very clear from the beginning of the debate that we would vote for Part 1. We did vote for Part 1 in the Committee stage, and we asked repeatedly that the bill be split in two so that the second part, which we think is completely untenable—to be confiscating people’s property rights under the Public Works Act—could be sent to a select committee. We have asked repeatedly that it be sent off to a select committee. My Supplementary Order Paper 212, which the Government—ACT and National—voted against would have split the bill in two, allowed the first part on the special housing areas to be passed tonight, and given those eight developers in Auckland the breathing space that they need. But we would have sent off National’s and ACT’s confiscation of private property rights. We would have sent that off to a select committee.

💬 David Seymour: Oh, come on, Phil.

David Seymour—the self-styled protector of property rights, of classical liberal political thinking; the man who today voted to take away the private property rights of New Zealand citizens in a shabby, shonky little bill that Nick Smith has shepherded through the House. What a disgrace. How can the ACT member in this House hold his head up with any kind of self-respect? No one will be able to believe a thing he says in future about his belief in the sanctity of private property rights. If the bill had been split, we would have happily voted for the first part in order to give eight property developers in Auckland the breathing space that they need.

Housing policy under this National Government has been an unmitigated disaster. There is hardly a commentator, a reporter, anybody in New Zealand who does not believe that it has totally stuffed up the handling of the housing crisis in New Zealand. Hardly a few days go by without some new international report that says that New Zealand has the most unaffordable housing in the Western World, and we saw one come out just in the last 48 hours. International media are now covering New Zealand not through the lens of The Hobbit or what a great tourist destination we are. The issue du jour for the international media is the housing crisis and the fact that under John Key’s Government, which is so ambitious for New Zealand, we have an epidemic of children growing up in cars and garages and pensioners living out their days in suburban campgrounds, paying hundreds of dollars to rent single-room cabins. What a disgrace. That is New Zealand under John Key.

What has been the response to this meltdown in the housing market? We have a Government that refuses to even acknowledge that there is a housing crisis. We see one panicked, poll-driven, piecemeal housing announcement after another. Probably the low point in the last few months has been Paula Bennett making up stories about Government officials going out with the Salvation Army, knocking on the car doors of homeless people in South Auckland. What a disgrace. Actually, you know what was worse than that? Paying people $5,000 to get out of town and presenting that as some kind of social welfare or housing policy. Actually, no, the worst thing—the low point—was definitely when Paula Bennett’s office leaked confidential, personal information to the media about Hurimoana Dennis, who has been a national hero for the work that he has done at Te Puea Marae. That speaks volumes about this National Government and what it does. The housing crisis has been getting worse every year—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. We do not want this barracking across there on something that is not related to the bill.

The housing crisis has been getting worse every day, every week, every month, every year of the 8 long years that National has been in Government. It is so out of touch, no matter what the issue—whether it is arguing against its own Government definition of homelessness and severe housing deprivation, which it does not accept, even though it was devised by Statistics New Zealand, Housing New Zealand, and the Ministry of Social Development. It is so out of touch that it has, on two occasions now, deliberately manipulated and selectively presented the data on foreign buyers in the housing market that has been collated by Land Information New Zealand and tried to suggest that foreign buyers account for only 3 percent of property transactions when it is patently obvious to everybody that the real figure is more than three times that.

The Government members are so out of touch. They refuse to do anything about either banning foreign buyers or taxing speculators in any meaningful way. They cling to this outdated mantra that the housing crisis is only a supply issue. They talk supply, supply, supply, but what do they do? They make the special housing areas their flagship policy. It has been a spectacular failure. The shortage of dwellings in Auckland is getting worse by the day. The Government has no answers. It is so out of touch, it does not bear thinking about. The only prospect for fixing this housing crisis and restoring affordable homeownership and decent housing for the people of New Zealand is to change the Government in 2017, and the policies that we have presented to the House this afternoon are the housing policies that we will take to the next election. Under our Government, they will be the biggest overhaul of housing this country has seen in 80 years.

Thank you, thank you! I rise to take a call on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. What we have heard from that member, Phil Twyford, is that that member is a gambling man—he is a gambling man. The reason why I say that is that he realises—and he has led the Labour Party members to believe—that he has got to have one each way. When you go to the bets, you are not quite sure whether you are going to win or you are going to lose, so what do you do? You take one each way. He has turned around and said, on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, “We vote for the special housing areas, and the extension of that time period to 3 years. Yes, it may not be great, but you know what? We have got to make sure we have got there. Why? Because just last week we said there was a national crisis in housing, and we believe it needed to be there. We’ve got to be seen to be acting in a way to make a difference.”—yes, the member may yawn, but I tell you what, this is good news. This is good news, and here is the reason why—because he has turned around and he wants a bet each way.

But, you see, Mr Twyford—he has blamed it on the Chinese. Chinese-sounding names are the reason to blame for the housing crisis, as he has called it. Then he has turned around and blamed it on speculators—he has turned around and said it is the fault of speculators. Next thing you know, he will blame it on the boogie—he will find something in his arsenal to say that that is the reason why it has all gone wrong; but that is not the reason why.

We believe this legislation is making a difference, and it is part of a comprehensive plan around housing. We know that it is not the silver bullet, but it is making a difference. It is doing these things: it is extending the period of time, which that party agrees with; it is also making sure there are time limits on lodging applications for consents for housing. We know that if you are lodging an application for consent, it makes a difference—because you are about to build a house. We know it is making a difference. When it talks about Part 2 in the bill—there was some concern about that, but we know that there is a legislative impediment. Treasury has spoken about that. All we are doing is avoiding doubt inside the legislation. We think that is important.

We have spent 17 hours—we could have done this in a shorter period of time. We know that this legislation is important; it is making a difference. We do not need to talk much longer, because we know this will go through. It is a bill that is important—again, along with our actions, which we think are making a difference. Actions speak louder than words, and we know that our record speaks for itself—85,000 houses in 3 years, not 10 years. Making a difference in construction—40,000 more in the construction industry. All of these things are part of a comprehensive plan to ensure that one thing that will make the difference—it is about more supply and more houses being built. That is what this legislation is achieving. I commend this legislation to the House.

I call Su’a William Sio—[Interruption] Order! I have called one of your colleagues.

Normally at the third reading speech, we are generally wanting to express our gratitude to people who have considered the legislation and to thank members of the select committee. I do not feel any sense of gratitude tonight. In fact, if anything, I feel more animosity and anger towards the Minister for Building and Housing and that Government of his.

I should be grateful to Mr Alfred Ngaro for acknowledging that there is a housing crisis, but I know the way he behaves now. Once upon a time, he was a caring person, but he now reflects everything bad about this Government—the arrogance, the uncaring, the fact that he says to the Pacific community that there is a national housing crisis but then comes to this Committee and votes down every amendment that we have put up to grow the housing stock, to crack down on speculators, and to restore and enable Housing New Zealand to look after those who are needy. He will be voting down every single one of those amendments. You see how he has changed, in only two terms? You see how he has changed? He reflects the total arrogance of that particular Government.

This is a Government that has been in power for the last 8 years, and, as a Government, it has been privileged with the powers, the authority, and the resources to do something about this housing crisis. But for 8 years we have simply been told that this is what it is doing, and the fact remains—the fact remains—that in that 8 years we have seen inequality increase. The number of people in homeless situations has gone up by 20 percent—that is right. People living in cars has become normalised. People living in garages has become normalised. In fact, the Government’s own department now refers people into garages, as if that was an acceptable mode of accommodation. That is wrong. That is totally wrong. If the Government was genuine, if it was sincere about addressing this housing crisis—which all of New Zealand now recognises and all of New Zealand now talks about—it would have voted along with all of the Opposition parties in support of each of the amendments that were put forward to address this housing crisis.

I do not understand how people on that side of the House can accept that the average price of a house in Auckland is now over a million dollars. I do not understand how they can say that that is affordable housing for people in Auckland when working-class communities such as mine, in Māngere, and many others, on an average income of $60,000, will not be able to service a mortgage close to a million dollars. They will not be able to access mortgages, because they will not have the 20 percent that is required to buy a house at that particular price. But it is not just Auckland—the housing unaffordability crisis has spread out to the regions. It has spread out to the South Island. So it is not just Auckland that we are talking about.

The Minister came down earlier and presented some graphs. I do not know whether he made those graphs up—we will never know, because this bill was never forwarded to a select committee. This House was denied the benefit of receiving a select committee’s advice and denied the benefit of receiving public submissions from the general public. I suspect that if that had been done, many, many more Opposition members on this side would have been a little bit more confident about what we are passing tonight. I do not feel any confidence whatsoever.

You see, Part 1—although we would agree about the transition period of extending those housing accords and the special housing authority to give time for those to be implemented, the reality remains that the new powers in Part 1 enable the Minister to override local authority, to override the Auckland Unitary Plan, which has been worked upon by elected councillors and local board members. The Minister does not have that right—he does not have that right—but in the regulatory impact statement I note that there are five special housing areas, five special housing areas that are established on land that is not zoned residential. This Government gave the Minister the power to override the Auckland Unitary Plan authority for the sake of those five special housing areas.

Part 2 concerns me—I draw your attention to what Metiria Turei said earlier. I am now suspicious, more so than ever, about what mess this Government has created that we will end up paying for—what mess this Government has created because of the disgraceful way that this Minister has behaved. It is, as Andrew Little said, a constitutional disgrace that this Minister is removing property rights from those who, once upon a time, were the original owners of land that was forcibly taken under the Public Works Act for the sole purpose of creating affordable State accommodation. If that is no longer the purpose, it is the original owners, including iwi, to whom we should be returning those lands.

This Government has made fun of the KiwiBuild commitment that we have made. We have presented that as proposed Part 3 of this bill, asked the Minister to examine it, and we have debated it. But as I have said, it is shameful that some members on that side of the House will go out to the community and say “Yes, we understand there’s a housing crisis. We feel sorry for you.”, but then come back and turn up in this House and vote down the legislation that would improve the lot of people in need.

Next Saturday Te Puea Marae will recognise the Māori wardens who have worked alongside it to provide temporary accommodation for people sleeping in cars. It is its hope and wish that we do not return to having to supply this temporary accommodation next year, but, based on what we have heard from this Minister and the way that this Government has voted against the various amendments that were put forward to address the national housing crisis, I believe that we will be back again next year, in the cold of winter, with Te Puea Marae and many other maraes offering, again, temporary accommodation for people who are sleeping in cars and overcrowded situations.

It is appalling for a country such as New Zealand, which prides itself as one of the wealthiest of the developed nations, as a country that rubs shoulders with Obama, as a country that rubs shoulders with some of the greater economic powers of this world, to then come back to this country and accept the fact that we have a growing number of young people who will never ever be able to afford to buy their home at increasing prices, unless mum and dad provide some gift of equity or a family house. That is the situation that this Government has created, and it is solely because of its policies. It has the power and the resources to address this crisis, but it just will not. It will not address it.

As I have said repeatedly now to members of our own community, and as I said it to Mr Alfred Ngaro a month ago, the only way, the only way, that a Labour Government would be able to build 10,000 houses a year—100,000 houses for the next year, mind you. In Auckland we need 44,000 houses today to meet the ongoing population growth, and nothing provided in this piece of legislation is ever, ever going to address that. It will not address it today, it will not address it tomorrow, and it will not address it next week, so next year, again, I fear that not only will Te Puea Marae have to open its doors for the homeless but we will see a growing number of people living in those homeless situations. All of that is because of this Government’s policy. As I have said, again, to the young people—and I will continue to say it—the only way that we can improve and address this housing crisis is if we get rid of this lot. We have got to get rid of this Government here, because that is the way that you can bring about change.

It is tragic to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

As tempting as it is to talk about the all the things that have been moved and have not passed over the last 17 hours, I just want to bring the focus back to talking about what is in the bill that is now before us at its third reading, and what it set out to achieve. What this bill will do is it will actually bring into alignment the special housing areas with the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is about to come into force; it will ensure that more houses will be able to be built in parts of New Zealand that need more houses; and it will tidy up some language to remove some ambiguity around the language to do with the Public Works Act.

It has actually been a pretty simple bill. It has been made a little bit more complicated along the way by some of the conversations that have gone on here over the last couple of days. But I am looking forward to seeing more houses built, I am looking forward to seeing the alignment with the Auckland Unitary Plan, and I am looking forward to seeing this bill finally pass this evening. Thank you.

So the Opposition has taken control of the House over the last 2 days, and what have we done with the time? We have made housing our No. 1 priority as an Opposition. Why is that? Because when we are in Government, it will also be one of our main priorities. Why is that? Because it is the priority of New Zealanders.

We have thousands of New Zealanders who are sleeping rough in garages and cars, on their friends’ couches, in tents, and in hotel rooms because they are desperate for housing. We have thousands of young New Zealanders who are working hour after hour and have no chance of ever getting into their own home, because they are locked out by speculators supported by the National Government. They need houses too. We have young families, families with children, who are trying to find secure, decent, warm, dry, and safe affordable housing to raise their children, so that their children have the best opportunities for the best health, for the best education, and for the best future. Those families need housing. We have elderly people who are heading into retirement who were not able to buy a home and secure their housing, who are worried about what their retirement will be like if they have to spend their superannuation not only on what they need daily but on their rent as well, because it was never designed to deal with renting in the same way. Those elderly people—they need houses.

Who was here over the last 2 days, standing in this House hour after hour, with our caucuses lined up along here on the Opposition benches? We were the ones putting forward the solutions, trying to figure out what the different options were, and thinking about negotiating with the Government to find solutions to work through the housing provisions and housing solutions that were on the Table. Why is that? Because it is the Opposition that puts housing as a priority. Where were the Government members over these last 17 hours? Did you hear a peep out of these people? No, they were sitting there, hopeless, their mouths open—gobsmacked. They were gobsmacked, just sitting there doing nothing and saying nothing while it was the Opposition members—Labour, Greens, New Zealand First—who were here, standing up minute after minute, hour after hour, putting forward the solutions to deal with the housing crisis that our people are facing every day.

I think Phil Twyford has got it absolutely right. It was the Opposition that represented New Zealand over the last 2 days while the Government members were sitting around trying to figure out how to get rid of Nick Smith—because he has made such a terrible fiasco of this entire process. That guy—honestly. Ha, ha! I mean, really, he could not have made more of a mess of this legislation or the process. From start to finish, it has been an absolute disaster. He will be in such trouble, having humiliated the Government over the last 2 days. But Nick Smith handed to us, the next Government of New Zealand—Labour and the Greens, and New Zealand First if that is what it wants—2 full days to debate the single most important issue that is facing New Zealand families today. So I do thank him. Thank you, Nick Smith.

Do you not think we just need to say thank you, Nick Smith, for being so terrible at your job, and being such a great representative of National. You are such an excellent example of what National Ministers are—their incompetence, their fallacies, and the secrecy that they promote in the process of their legislation. Let us not forget that one of—[Interruption] Oh, now the insults from the Minister who walks past me and makes nasty little insults as she goes past because she cannot bring herself to engage in the debate. Minister, where have you been over the last 2 days? You could have come here and debated the issues, but no. She just walks past me and makes a little nasty insult in my ear. That is the kind of Minister whom John Key puts up in his Government. You are either incompetent or you are nasty—that is what they promote over there.

💬 Hon Member: Or both!

Or both. Come and debate the issues with us over here, Minister. You could have been here for the last 17 hours talking about the most important issue facing New Zealanders, which is warm, decent, affordable housing. Where was this Minister? I did not see her here during those 17 hours. Where was she? Where was she in the debate? Where was her passionate conversation—her passionate solutions for dealing with the housing crisis? No—just nasty little things.

But she diverted me from the point, which was reminding us that one of the core provisions in the piece of legislation that was put forward by Nick Smith was an attempt—and, unfortunately, a successful one thanks to the ACT Party—to take away from New Zealanders their property rights in order to disguise a mess that he has made over the legal status of State housing land. As to the nature of that mess, we have tried to ask him questions about the mess that he has made, we have offered options for him to talk to us about that mess, to find a better way to clean it up, but Nick Smith is keeping the details of the mess he has created secret, so we do not actually know what is really going on. What we do know, though, is that ACT and National have joined together and are complicit, under this legislation, in taking from New Zealanders their property rights, and they are disguising it as not really being anything—yet again, another example of the kind of behaviour we can expect from National Party Ministers.

In this debate, the Opposition has put forward a large number of solutions. We offered a percentage of affordable homes and a definition of affordable housing; “No.”, said National. We gave National members the option to help build 10,000 homes a year. “No.”, said National. We offered to improve the brightline test to reduce the effect of speculators in the market. “No.”, said National. We tried to stop foreign ownership in our housing market, so that New Zealand families can have a genuine go, and what do we get from National? “No.”, said National. We offered to improve urban and infrastructure planning to make it easier for cities like Auckland to grow like they ought to; what did National members say? They said no.

💬 Phil Twyford: Even David Seymour voted against that one.

Even David Seymour voted against that one. We offered an opportunity to build 250 more State houses a year, and what did National say?

💬 Hon Members: No.

National said no—that is right.

Finally, at the end of an incredible piece of work with the homelessness inquiry—which was a joint effort on homelessness amongst Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party—after hearing all of those tales of woe that were real stories about the real lives of New Zealanders who are affected by homelessness, the Opposition offered to the National Government an opportunity to deal with that homelessness crisis in a practical way, and what did National members say? They said no. They said no to helping the homeless, they said no to helping young families, they said no to helping young people, they said no to helping the elderly to get the kind of decent, warm, safe, and affordable housing that all of those people need. How could National members stand there—or sit there, because they did not really go anywhere, did they—and say no to those thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who want these solutions put in place?

I want to thank National members for giving us the opportunity to expose their failures, to expose their fallacies, to expose their secrecy to the country, and to offer to New Zealanders the genuine alternative at the election in 2017—the alternative of a new Government that will put the issues that New Zealanders consider the most important for them at the centre of the work that it does. Housing is that, but that is because housing represents the right of New Zealand families to live a decent life in this beautiful, rich country that we have; for them and their children to live a well life; to have access to a beautiful environment, to a great education, and to a good and bright future for those kids. That is why we will change the Government in 2017. Thank you.

I also wish to begin by thanking the Minister for Building and Housing for the opportunity of a 17-hour debate to show the superb alternatives that are available to the failed Government policies that the other side has failed to turn up and defend tonight. Each of the three Opposition parties has been able to demonstrate the quality of its various proposals in the alternative to the Government’s policies, and I have a lot of respect for each and every one of the parties’ proposals. I hope the public has now understood that there really are alternatives to housing failure and the National Government.

I want to thank the Labour Party for its excellent suggestions, most of which New Zealand First supported. I want to thank the Greens for doing the same. I want to thank the Māori Party members for changing their minds. I want to thank them for changing their minds after supporting urgency and then voting against the Government by voting for all of the Opposition parties’ amendments. It seems a little bit strange, but I think they deserve some congratulation on their willingness to change their minds in that way.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Don’t overdo it.

No, I am not, because I am a little bit disappointed that they did not actually show up to debate. Not once—17 hours, not a word. That is a bit of a disappointment. Is it because they are simply not keeping up with the situation? Surely it cannot be that they do not really care about policies such as offer-back and the impact it would have on the people they claim to represent.

But I am not going to spend too much time on that, because it really does not matter. What I do want to say is: is this about the “Minister for Homelessness”? He did not mention in his last speech the fact that this week Auckland house prices for an ordinary two-bedroom house have now reached the magic but tragic $1 million. Most New Zealanders are still in disbelief over that, and you can understand why. That, if anything, is absolute evidence of the failure of Government policy—right there.

The Minister also did not mention the failure of the special housing areas (SHAs) that are the subject of this bill. The truth is that over the last 3 years only 1,300 houses have been built as a result of that policy, and the need, as I have previously said in my speeches, is actually something like 20,000 houses per year over the next 7 years in Auckland alone. Yet this is the pathetic result that we get from this Government. That is also evidence of total failure of Government policy.

What the Minister did say showed a total lack of empathy for people who cannot afford that $1 million for an ordinary home and who cannot afford the rent increases, which are now skyrocketing out of reach of most people. A lot of them have to move continually, chasing lower and lower rentals so that they can just find a place to live. I think it is simply because the National Government really does not care. It does not care about that, and what it does care about is that its supporters will be happy about the increase in value of their homes. What it does care about is that the private developers, who no doubt give donations to the National Party, will be able to make greater profits, but it does not really care about the people who are affected.

This bill is mostly about extending the SHAs by another 3 years, so we are entitled to ask whether that will work. In that context, let us have a look, first of all, at what the Minister has said just this week. Firstly, he said: “Auckland house prices are out of control.” That is the only thing he has been right about this week—the only thing. He also said this week: “I won’t rest until that house price inflation rate gets down to single figures.” Let us just think about that. With the average house price in Auckland now $1 million and with single-figure inflation, that would still mean another $100,000 at least per year on the price of a home. Worse than that, an extra $20,000 would need to be found for a deposit. That actually shows how out of touch the Minister is about this.

I want to also quote Shamubeel Eaqub, who said this: “Based on my calculations, the typical Auckland house now would take 71 years to buy—20 years of savings for the deposit and 51 years of repayment to clear the debt.” So you would actually have to live 71 years just to get rid of—well, you would actually have to live longer than that because you would not be able to start getting a loan until you were about 20. So there you go—91 years before you would have a mortgage-free home. But it is worse than that. It is worse than that, because what the message is to first-home seekers is this: the Kiwi dream of getting your own house is now just a dream of getting a house deposit, nothing more, or renting for the rest of your life. Nick Smith wants to bring house prices back to four times household incomes without reducing house prices. Household incomes would therefore need to increase to at least $250,000 per year in order to do that. How many people are going to fall into that category? Well, we know that most people by far will get nowhere near that kind of income.

So in answer to my question as to whether it will work, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Government’s housing policy is an abject failure. The SHAs will have absolutely no hope of delivering the outcome that is claimed for them, and the reason for that is that the Government refuses to actually invest directly as well as doing these SHAs, and it actually thinks that just relying on private investment will be enough. Well, it never will be. Without direct Government investment it never will be.

Finally, all this is exacerbated by other things. The truth is that with open-door immigration and a net 70,000 people a year coming into New Zealand, especially to Auckland, there is no hope that any Government policy, however bad or good it may be, will be able to succeed. New Zealand First is the only party that has constantly said that without controlling immigration a solution to the housing crisis will never be found. It is not the only thing that needs to be done, but that also needs to be done, and we are the only party that has been saying it and will continue to do so.

In addition, the situation is exacerbated by the failure of the Government to provide any controls on overseas buyers. Again, New Zealand First has been pushing for that for years. Other parties have caught up a bit with us, but New Zealand First is the party that has been pushing for that for years. The truth is that those buyers have the cash to outbid Kiwis for homes, in Auckland especially, and they have the intent to engage in capital gains farming, speculation, and land banking, and all of those things are causes of the housing crisis that this Government simply will not address.

This Government has been sitting on its hands and fiddling with failed policies while other parties have been coming up with genuine and effective alternatives, which this Government refuses to consider. Government members blame local government. They do nothing to stop land banking. They do not care about first-home seekers. They ride roughshod over people’s offer-back rights. They are an utterly hopeless failure, and the sooner they go, the better.

It is a pleasure to take this call to support the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. On this side we know that housing affordability and availability can be addressed by increasing the supply. We do not want special housing areas (SHAs) that are already listed to lapse, because that would create a big lag and we do not want to create a big lag in the housing supply. As the National list MP based in Mt Roskill, my interest is in Auckland, and just in Auckland 154 SHAs have been established.

Denis O’Rourke, the member who spoke before me, counted the number of houses that have been built in the last 3 years, but it is not just about the number of houses that are completed. We have to look at the full picture. It is about the creation of sections, it is about planning and resource consents, and it is about the infrastructure that goes with building houses. So we need to look at the full picture, and I would like to give some numbers here. Yes, on 30 June, 1,342 homes had been completed. There were 2,208 building consents approved and 6,731 resource consents for sections approved. So we need to look at the full picture.

Since we started this legislation, I have heard about affordability from the Opposition, so I would like to actually give some examples to clarify affordability. Let us go to the 1980s. Let us go to the late 1980s and pick a house that was $300,000. The interest rate in the late 1980s was 19 to 20 percent, and if one person borrowed for 30 years, the weekly payment for that person came to $1,100. Yes, the weekly payment came to $1,100. If I bring you back to this time—2016—interest rates are around 4.1 to 4.2 percent. If we pick a house that is $1 million—yes, we pick a house that is $1 million; we have heard this value a lot in this discussion—and if one borrows for 30 years, the weekly payment comes to $1,121. So for a $300,000 value house it was $1,100, and now, for a $1 million house, it is $1,121. On that house of $300,000, people were paying $1.4 million in interest—$1.4 million. On this house of $1 million, people are paying $750,000 on interest. So you can see where the savings are.

It is because of the great policies of this National Government that interest rates are low. Affordability takes into account lots of factors—lots of factors. It is not just the income and not just the house price, but interest rates too. On this side, we are committed to ensuring that there is a supply of houses and that houses are affordable. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Marama Davidson.

Gosh, it has been a long couple of days and we are coming now to the third reading of this tragic bill. It is a long, tragic story, actually, the whole thing. It has been quite historic, this debate. So I do actually quickly want to acknowledge the Clerk’s Office and the staff and all of their incredible work that they have done to allow us to debate in this democratic system. To allow us to debate, they have had to—you know, we have been throwing bills and amendments up there, and they have had to do all of the things so that we can smoothly debate such an incredibly important issue for our country. So from all of us I would like to thank the Clerk and the Clerk’s staff. Thank you all very much. This has been a bit of a historic debate. The Minister put up a bill to rush through urgency and it totally got away from him. It totally got away from the Government—a little bit like the housing crisis. They lost control—they got no handle on it. Ae, right?

Ōrite tonu ngā raruraru. [The problems are really very similar.] They just lost it. It just got away from them. They thought: “Oh let’s do this. Oh, whoops! It got away.” So it has been important. It has been important though because New Zealanders have been watching, I tell you. Oh boy, they have been watching the Opposition. So let us start with a vision. How about this for our country? How about this: that nobody here has to go to sleep at night in their bed and worry about money. Do you know where that came from? It was John Key in 2008. That is where that came from, in his definition of “What do you define as rich?” in a debate between him and the Rt Hon Helen Clark. He gave a fantastic definition. Everyone acknowledged it was the best. Do you know what was fantastic about it? He did not put up statistics and numbers like the Government is doing right now. He put up something real. He put up something real that New Zealanders understand. [Interruption] Shh! I am not talking to you; I am talking about you. He put up something real. He did not put up a graph, he did not put up numbers, he did not talk about housing consents or interest rates; he put up something human.

OK, so let us expand on the honourable Prime Minister’s own vision. How about one that I heard in Kaitāia last week, like: “This will be the last generation to experience any insecure, unsafe accommodation.” How about that? You know, when I said that the wealth of this country is our people, I really meant it because they said this. They asked for this. They really are our thinkers. They have the solutions and the ideas. They have the vision, they have the plan, and they have the smarts. It is our job to listen and to make that happen. They are our wealth. I am talking to them. I have been talking to them this whole past couple of days.

This bill, alongside all of the other ad hoc pieces of legislation that the Government has been embarrassed into, will not protect our future generations. And our Government knows this, so it cannot then commit to it. It cannot say it. It cannot even concede and say that there is a housing crisis. It cannot say it will end homelessness, because it knows that nothing it comes up with is about that. Do we hear this? New Zealand, do we hear this? Nothing that those members will come up with is about ending homelessness.

That is really all our New Zealanders need to know, and our Opposition has spent the past couple of days outlining the things that will end homelessness—a whole list of things. Oh, they have been put out: ban non-resident buyers so we prioritise all our New Zealand residents to buy; ban tax speculators so that our first-home buyers can have a fair go; build thousands more State homes; build thousands more affordable—truly affordable—homes, and more safe and warm homes; improve the urban design rules; and, mostly, mostly, mostly, have an actual plan. Commit to actually seeing the end of homelessness. So we threw all of this up—oh boy, did we throw it up. We fought hard for all of it. We fought hard for all of it, and I am proud of what we did. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the ACT Party—David Seymour.

As tends to be customary, I follow Marama Davidson, and I can observe that the best I got from her speech is that she has a vision of humanity where humans are not bothered by such things as statistics, numbers, and graphs. That is why she can have as much emotion and goodwill as she likes, but no actual solutions to the practical problems facing New Zealand.

This has been an extraordinary debate. At one point Grant Robertson told the children of New Zealand that there is no free market and there is no Santa Claus, and I want to conclude this debate by telling the children of New Zealand that he is wrong on both counts. We found that Marama Davidson cannot hear. We saw Newshub smash the Labour Party and the Opposition tonight. That is something that should be watched by the Opposition, because no matter how clever the Opposition members think that they have been, the way that the press have reviewed what they have done to their viewers is that, basically, the Opposition has wasted a huge amount of time and taxpayer money achieving nothing. That will be the net result in the eyes of the New Zealand public.

The Labour Party does not know its own history—that is another thing that we got out of this debate. We discovered that the Labour Party does not really understand what the role of the State has been in building housing throughout New Zealand history. It was never more than a very small fraction of homes built, even at peak home-building times in New Zealand history. But we also had more serious issues that we needed to consider, because I cannot think of many problems in New Zealand today that would not be resolved if we had a more functional housing market.

The fact of the matter is that Auckland has built 20 percent fewer houses in the past decade than were built in the 1990s. That is the reason why we have financial instability, it is the reason why we have social problems, and it is the reason why, for instance, you can visit a school where they feel they are almost teaching a different group of kids each term because of transience in the student population related directly to the shortage of stable housing and accommodation. So we were addressing what is a very serious issue.

It is regrettable that Phil Twyford’s amendment that would have effectively outlawed urban growth boundaries—which have caused so much damage to housing markets in New Zealand—was not able to pass, but the member has got no one to blame but himself. He gave 1 hour’s notice of one amendment amongst seven that actually had some merit. So I would say to the member, next time he wants to make a proposal that is actually useful, do not hide it amongst all of the other banal, asinine policy initiatives that the Labour Party usually gives out. It is impossible to keep track of Labour’s good policy initiatives because they are hidden amongst so many bad ones. Having a grab bag of failed policies such as a capital gains tax has not worked. Foreign buyer restrictions have not worked. Government building programmes have never been a big part of New Zealand’s housing agenda. What about inclusionary zoning, from Metiria Turei? It never worked. When there are so many bad policies from the Opposition, how are we supposed to know that it actually proposed a good one? The fact of the matter is Phil Twyford could have had a big success, but he could not even pick up the phone and give me a call. Next time, Phil, call me.

Let me just conclude by saying that this bill was necessary to continue the existing special housing areas. It is not ideal, but, none the less, the special housing areas are one of the best things that the Government has going right now. They are an island of fantasy attempting to suspend the reality of the housing market, which is a sea of dysfunction. I can reiterate that Part 2 of this bill has not seriously changed property rights. It has clarified what was already legal, and it has simply protected the Government from legal challenge.

I am very proud that the ACT Party has made the only successful amendment to this bill, which is more than your Phil Twyford can ever say. By having a review of that clause, we will substantially improve public policy in New Zealand in good time. We are actually improving public policy for all New Zealanders because we are going to review Part 2 of this bill within 10 years, and with the cycle of development being 10 years, that means it will be reviewed very soon. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the little bit of extra time. I proudly support this bill in this House.

It is with great pleasure that I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, which is finally in its third reading. I would like to give credit to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has recognised what is needed to ensure that we maintain momentum for building houses for the thousands and thousands of Kiwis to realise their dream of owning their own home. He understands the whole picture, he analysed all of the issues, and he found practical and workable solutions. We are now building three times as many houses in Auckland and twice as many nationally compared with when National first came into office. This bill is another tool for National’s comprehensive housing plan and it will deliver even more houses for New Zealanders. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Louisa Wall.

Malo ‘aupito, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. We are now in the 18th hour of debating this bill under urgency, and I think it is really important that I clarify our position on the bill, particularly in relation to the two parts of the bill that were presented before the House before the commencement of debate, because, in fact, we have debated eight parts of this piece of legislation.

Part 1, which we support—and I want to reiterate that—is to extend the smooth transition to the Auckland Unitary Plan, which commences on 16 September 2016. It was done to ensure that eight specific developments could continue—that those developers would not have to submit new resource consents. The relevance, actually, to the whole discussion about affordability is 591 affordable houses, because those eight specific developments are going to provide 7,880 houses. We support that part of the bill.

In terms of Part 2, we are very clear that we do not support that part of the bill. The reason that we do not support that part of the bill—actually, I am going to quote from section 16 of the Public Works Act, where the Minister is “empowered to acquire under this Act any land required for a Government work.”, and any local authority is empowered to acquire any land for local work. But there is an explicit contract in our Public Works Act that land not needed be offered back to the person from whom it was acquired. That is, essentially, our primary opposition to Part 2: we think that we have circumvented that explicit contract between the Crown and New Zealand citizens who have handed over parts of their property to public works for the greater good. That, essentially, is our opposition to that part of the legislation.

There were three other parts to this piece of legislation that I specifically want to mention, the first of which was new Part 3, introduced by my colleague Phil Twyford. Really, it was about providing 10,000 affordable houses per year for first-home buyers. Our rationale for those 10,000 affordable houses for first-home buyers is actually about the number of houses that we sell in New Zealand every year. There are 90,790-odd homes sold in New Zealand every year, and approximately 21 percent of those purchasers are first-home buyers, based on 2015 statistics provided by CoreLogic. That is 19,066 first-home buyers in the last financial year. This particular amendment was incredibly relevant to that practice.

The second part that I want to highlight for the House is new Part 7, which amended the Housing Corporation Act. It was about the distribution of profits. Again, I want to acknowledge Metiria Turei, because, essentially, the proposition was for surplus profits. In 2014-15 it was a $226 million profit that should be reinvested back to provide rental housing for those most in need. That is an incredibly important principle, and I think it needs to be highlighted.

New Part 8, which was amending the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992, was about increasing the supply of Housing New Zealand properties by 1,000 every year. It is relevant when we look back at the number of people waiting on housing lists. If I read the numbers out, in March 2012 there 4,637 people on the waiting list; in March 2013, 4,495 people; in June 2014, 5,840 people; in September 2015, 4,467; and as of July 2016 we have 5,012 New Zealanders waiting on the Housing New Zealand waiting list. Actually increasing the housing stock every year by 1,000 would help meet this chronic need, which has now been displayed for the last 5 years.

I just want to end with some statistics from Manurewa Marae. Manurewa Marae has got 64 people who are currently residing at Manurewa Marae, and of those, essentially, 67 percent of the people at Manurewa Marae are children. The issues that we are dealing with are about how we are preparing the next generation for the opportunities that we want to provide them. Their being homeless is actually a shame on our country. Kia ora.

This bill and the 17-hour-long marathon debate that we have had around it are emblematic of the state of this Government: it is in a total shambles. Back in 2008 there was no way that the National Government members would have allowed the mess that this bill has become for them to occur. They are completely out of control. It is not just Nick Smith who is out of control, it is the whole National Government—utterly shambolic. They are also completely out of touch, because they think they are doing a good job on housing. They have absolutely convinced themselves that they are doing a good job. They think that having 42,000 people homeless in New Zealand is doing a good job. They think that having an average house price in Auckland of $1 million is doing a good job. They are completely out of touch with reality. Of course, what we have known all along and what this bill has simply underlined is that the National Government is utterly incapable of dealing with homelessness and housing affordability.

The Government members do not have an answer to it, because they know what has to be done—they know what has to be done. They know that we are not going to solve this issue without a massive effort from the Government, but it is simply not in the National Government’s DNA to do that. They know it is the right thing to do, but they are religiously, ideologically stuck to the doctrine of free markets and they cannot bring themselves to do what is necessary. The Labour Party and the Green Party and New Zealand First all brought amendments that would make real differences to housing affordability. We brought an amendment to say: “Let us introduce our KiwiBuild programme. Let us build 10,000 affordable homes a year.” Then we said: “Let us extend the brightline test. Let us discourage speculation in the housing market by actually taxing the capital gains that people make on speculation.” Then we said: “Let us tighten up foreign investment.” Then we said: “Let us have a national policy statement on urban development.” Then the Greens said: “Let us stop taking a profit from Housing New Zealand and invest that money back into building more social housing.” Then we said: “Let us make sure that we do not have any fewer than 8,000 places for emergency housing.”

On every single one of those proposals the National Government members said no—no to building affordable houses, no to taxing capital gains, no to tightening up foreign investment, no to a national policy statement, no to stopping the profit taking from Housing New Zealand, and no to making sure that we have adequate emergency housing—because it is just not in their DNA. The Government members are simply not capable of doing it, because their mates are doing very nicely out of the current situation and they are beholden to those people—the handful of people at the top, the ones who are doing well, the ones who are getting the wage increases, the ones who are benefiting from capital gains, the speculators, and the foreign investors. That is who supports the National Government, and that is whom the National Government works for.

That is why it has failed to do one thing in this piece of legislation that will actually address the issues of housing affordability. That is why, in New Zealand right now, we have the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s. That is the reality. This Government is so out of touch that it refuses to acknowledge it, but that is the reality for people. They cannot afford to buy their first home. Some people cannot even afford to rent a home, so they are living in cars, they are living in garages, or they squeeze their whole family into somebody else’s living room. But the National Government does not want to know that because it does not fit its ideology to do something about it. It does not fit its doctrine to do something about it, because it is absolutely straight-jacketed by its adherence to free markets.

There is a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. There is a difference between Labour, the Greens, and—sometimes with us—New Zealand First, and the National Government. New Zealanders need to know that difference. I thank the National Government members for giving us this opportunity to demonstrate the clear difference between them and us. I say to New Zealand: if you want a solution to homelessness, then it is quite simple—change the Government.

I feel a little sorry for the Opposition. I have not seen Opposition members this excited since David Cunliffe was delivering his speech on election night when Labour lost the election—the lowest they have been in many, many years. The most excited they have been was when they were talking in this House and actually wasting taxpayer money for—how many hours was it? Seventeen or 18 hours? They are proud of wasting taxpayer money, but only weeks ago they were hammering backbench MPs in the National Party for putting up members’ bills. This side of the House gets excited when we do things like growing the economy. This side of the House gets excited when we do things like lifting real wages. This side of the House gets excited when we deliver more sections for people to build on, to deliver more housing for New Zealanders.

That is what this bill is about. I have met the developers that this bill specifically works for, to ensure that they can continue with the projects that will deliver more housing for Aucklanders. More housing for Aucklanders is what we need; it is not 17 hours of the Labour Party and the Opposition and the Green Party playing games in Parliament. What Aucklanders need is actual houses to be built, and that is what this bill is all about.

Apparently, it is trendy to talk about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were put up during the Committee stage—all of the wish-list proposals that they would have liked. I would have liked to see some SOPs that reflected reality, such as the fact that house prices doubled when Labour was in office. That is a reality. Those members should have put something like that up in an SOP. I would have liked to see an SOP around the fact that interest rates were up at about 10 or 11 percent when Labour was last in office. Where was the SOP on interest rates and how high they were when Labour was in office? I would have liked to see an SOP about the land strangulation policies that the Labour and Green parties actually supported when they were in office—those policies that led to unaffordable housing through the strangulation of land and ensuring, under their watch, that supply was not enhanced to enable houses to be built. I would have liked to see an SOP from the Green Party talking about the fact that they want hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders to go bankrupt when they drop house prices by 50 percent. Opposition members go quiet when we talk about that, because they know that under the recent marriage between those two parties that is the reality they will be facing.

Whatever the question is around housing, the answer is delivering more supply and delivering more sections. That is what we are focused on. Build rates are four times faster in Auckland now than what they were when Labour was in office. We are delivering the effective size of Whangarei to Auckland this term, and next term the unitary plan that this Government put in place and the process to see it delivered are going to lead to 400,000 additional homes being built in Auckland. Aucklanders and New Zealanders need more houses. Aucklanders and New Zealanders do not need the Opposition wasting 18 hours of taxpayers’ time in this Parliament. We are delivering solutions; we are not just talking about them. I commend this bill to the House.